User talk:2604:2000:1342:482C:B0E4:E04A:9FBD:B4F9

September 2019
Hello, I'm Kb03. I noticed that you recently removed content from Nicholas Sacco without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kb03 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, blanking large amounts of text supported by citations of reliable sources from Wikipedia articles, as you did to the Nicholas Sacco article with your edits here and here, is not the appropriate way to address concerns you may have with the article.

Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of inline citations, and the material in question is indeed supported by citations of such sources. You claimed in your edit summaries that the material was written in a "tabloid style" and "with an air of defamation". In fact, the sources cited for that material include sources such as NJ.com, Politico, NBC News, and NorthJersey.com, none of which are "tabloids", but legitimate news outlets that easily pass Wikipedia's policies governing reliable sources. As for the "style" in which the material was written, none of the articles cited as sources were written in such a style (again, those outlets are not known for doing so), nor did the way in the which the material was worded in the Wikipedia article appear to exhibit such a tone.

Wikipedia does indeed have a number of guidelines related to the tone in which its articles are worded, such as WP:TONE, WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL, but even if you felt that the material was written in an inappropriate tone, the appropriate way to address this is by rewriting it it, much as I did here and here, and not wholesale blanking of entire sections of material.

Lastly, you mentioned that the material lacked a "counterbalanced argument". Wikipedia is required to exhibit a neutral point of view in its article content, but it is not required to provide an opposing argument to every claim found in its articles, since this is not possible, as such counterarguments do not exist for every single claim found in sources. When opposing views are popularized, those same sources tend to include them, and as a result, the editors who add the material in question also add opposing views. If Mayor Sacco had responded, or intends to respond to any or all of the criticisms documented in the article, then they can and will be added to the article. Ultimately, however, Wikipedia is limited by coverage in sources. If sources do not provide such opposing views, then it is not possible to expect Wikipedia to include them. There is also the question of weight. While Wikipedia does strive to accurately describe viewpoints in topics of controversy, this does not mean that any information that represents a prevailing view must be accompanied by an opposing one. For example, the article on the Creation–evolution controversy will accurately describe the positions both sides of that matter, but it does not mean that any article dealing with biology will include a creationist counterargument, or that every article dealing with geology must include a rebuttal from Flat Earth advocates. (Please see WP:WEIGHT for more on this.) Again, if you find what you feel is a passage of non-neutral wording in an article, then the solution is to fix it so that it accurately reflects the cited source, without exhibiting a viewpoint in Wikipedia's voice. And if you feel that there is an opposing viewpoint that can be found in reliable sources that isn't present in an article, the solution is to add it.

If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)