This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Lothar Franz von Schönborn is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Wikis are not generally considered reliable sources per WP:RS. Per WP:BURDEN, once material lacking reliable sources has been challenged, it cannot be restored without appropriate sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Nothing in the article is supported by inline citations (in an ideal world it should be), but I have difficulties seeing how your edit has improved the article (you have deleted lots of correct information; some years ago, this was still called "vandalism"). I have restored the content for the moment until any of it is challenged explicitly. —Kusma (t·c) 21:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, I am explicitly challenging all content taken from that unreliable source - if it's not reliable as a source of information for citation purposes, it certainly should not be considered reliable as a source of content. You are welcome to add material from more reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source" (WP:V). That means that yes, every sentence not supported by inline citations can be removed, and material so removed cannot be restored unless reliably sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I will disengage now, as reverting this page back and forth is a stupid waste of time, which could be used to write articles instead. I will just say that WP:V was more useful a couple of years ago, when actual challenging of the material was necessary (I don't have time right now to find out what happened there or why). Nevertheless, the long unsourced version is significantly better than your (also completely unsourced) stub. I suggest you remove all unsourced material and then use WP:AFD or WP:CSD to delete the rest, and hope you will feel better about having "improved" Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 05:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
On the contrary, the stub provides should provide sufficient information for interested editors to build on, as you may do if you wish; the longer version, while it may "look" better, is taken from an unreliable source and so is better abandoned. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
.svg)