Talk:ESPN in the United Kingdom

Uncited original research

Hi,

I have noticed that you are reverting some of my edit regarding me stating that as a result of BT and ESPN's 2-15 agreement regarding ESPN programming, BT Sport aired the programmes I mentioned.

Your initial objection was that I included this information as part of the reference. I therefore moved this to after the reference. However you have still reverted this edit and I do not accept your mainspace justification for still doing this. I want to avoid an edit war by asking you to please explain why you have again removed it after I took measures to address your concern.

I have reinstated this sentence and I would please ask you not to remove it again and instead allow a discussion to take place here.

Thank you in advance for your help and co-operation and I look forward to us finding a solution. Rillington (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Rillington - I moved this to the article's talk page, which is the proper venue. Adding that sentence, without citation, amounts to original research, which is not allowed on WP. Yes, I know it happens all the time, but that does not make it right. Based on that, I removed the information. Then as per the same WP policy, I removed it the second time. Moving it outside of the citation, while solving the issue of it being misleading to pose it as being cited material, still did not alleviate the issue that it was uncited original research. I have nothing against the inclusion of the material, only the fact that it is unverified. As per WP:BURDEN, another part of WP policy, please do not re-add that material. I also thank you for your cordiality in reaching out. Hope this explains why. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your reply, and as I said, I agree with you transferring the discussion here but mentioning it on your talkpage meant that we could enter into a discussion as the last thing either of us wants is an edit war.
  • With hindsite, you were right to delete this information when it was included prior to the citation, and I note your acknowledgement that it removed the actual unintended inaccuracy. I feel that it is important to state how this deal benefitted the output of BT Sport ESPN as it allowed BT Sport to show the programmes I mentioned and I note that you do not object to the inclusion of the information. It is easy to provide a direct reference but this would be a link to TV schedules published in old newspapers and these tend to be behind paywalls. Rillington (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)