This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Brought here by talk page stalking, I see that an IP user is asserting exactly the same edits as a banned user and in the same way. That transparently looks like ban evasion and I have reverted the change. Moreover, if it is good faith, and this is a different editor pursuing this, I would point out that a reverted edit should not be simply re-asserted. Please use this page to gain a consensus for the edit. See WP:ONUS. Furthermore, looking at the 4 references for this (which is itself a bit of overkill), none specifically state what the edit is asserting. So the initial reversion was correct.
But... this reference [1] makes the exact point being made in the edit. But how reliable is that source? If we can find something better, or demonstrate that source is reliable (it does not state its own sources though) then this could go in. But not without sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Used a UChicago ref which I'm sure you'd agree is reliable, updated the SSCS official site link to direct to relevant information. I think it is the impetus of the editor who reverts and removes reliable sourcing to gain consensus, no? Any ways, I am not related to this other user. I interned for the SSCS in my youth and wanted to enter information relating to it.108.48.53.155 (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the policy is called WP:ONUS, which says The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You have added it back with a verifying source, so I won't revert it again - but you haven't gained a consensus yet, and someone else might revert it. The source is indeed the University of Chicago, which is likely to be reliable. Most people will accept that source. My concern is it is itself a tertiary source that does not state its own sources. But this is about a community centre, and not some important historical figure, and many editors will assume that is good enough, so let's leave it like that and see what others think. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Include. The interior design by those named architects in the New Bauhaus style is also one of the reasons for its historic preservation designation. [2] page 1, and "Criterion 5" page 26. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
