Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 October 1

= October 1 =

WP:BURDEN, Can burden/onus shift?
I am going to refer to the following, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

To simplify asking my question, I'm referring to the editor who wants to add/restore material as PRO and the editor who wants to remove it as ANTI.

In the instance where PRO has provided verifiable sources, can ANTI reply solely with assertions and no sources (of any kind)?

What I'm also trying to ask is whether the onus has shifted from PRO to ANTI to substantiate position?

Bubbecraft (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If PRO has provided a relevant reliable source, and started a discussion on the talk page, ANTI either has to claim the source doesn't support the claim or challenge it for other reasons on the talk page. ANTI can't just keep removing material without collaboration, or they will eventually find themselves blocked for WP:3RR. This is not actually a ref desk question, so you might want to try the help desk, teahouse, or look for a mentor if needed. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * However, nothing on Wikipedia is quite that simple. PRO's material, even with sources, may be a BLP violation. In that case ANTI is not going to be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why I said "other reasons". There are many.  But if PRO has given a reasonable source for a reasonable claim, ANTI still has to go to talk and present her ANTI-case.  If she doesn't she's subject to WP:3RR at best. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You also asked this question at the Teahouse. Asking the same question in multiple places in Wikipedia is considered forum shopping and is discouraged.  As I commented after reading the actual discussion, there is already an RFC in progress.  Trying to get an "advisory opinion" here, and at the Teahouse, is not helpful.  It is true that the RFC is not well formulated, but I am trying to deal with that, and forum shopping doesn't help.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)