User:Andrewa/Verifiable facts about non notable topics

In that all pages belong to the whole project, any user may edit this one. But it's generally more helpful (and polite) to discuss the proposed change on its talk page first.

Background

I was recently asked to help in a content dispute.

A long-standing and highly respected editor had twice reverted a good-faith but unsourced addition to an article by a relative newbie. Both times, they had given as the edit summary Not notable. They then attempted discussion by creating a section on the newbie's user talk page, this time headed Non notable.

(I can give diffs if you like, but they aren't going to be added to this page. There is no point, and this is not an attack page, and we all make mistakes.)

I was rather disappointed with this. But I can see how the confusion arises. Reliable secondary sources are required both to establish notability and to establish verifiability.

But they are different things

The problem is, the bar is set a lot higher for notability than for verifiability. (Exactly how much higher is controversial, but I think it's agreed that the difference is very significant.)

And it's very tempting to confuse them because of this. If someone is annoying you by adding unsourced material, it's a lot easier to establish that the topic is non-notable than it is to establish that the material is not verifiable. Because, the bar for notability is significantly higher. And the same if there are issues of COI or undue weight or any other blunder that a newbie is likely to make. Notability is a high hurdle.

Or to put it another way, if you insist that they need to prove that the topic is notable for it even to be mentioned in an article (on a different topic), there's a good chance they'll believe you and go away.

But please don't. The learning curve for newbies is steep enough without confusing them in this way, and there's the risk that we're losing both a valuable contributor and valuable (verifiable) material. Every contributor's time is valuable. Not just yours.

But isn't this obvious?

Obviously not. But perhaps it should be.

An example I gave in the discussion that started all this is the children of notable people. Some or all of them may be notable, or not. But the fact that some of them are not notable in their own right doesn't prevent their names (and even possibly other details such as birthdates) from appearing in the article about their notable parent.

That would be ridiculous, and nobody is (I hope) suggesting it.

A concrete example

George Skakel#Personal life currently lists his wife and seven children by name, but only one of these eight persons currently has a Wikipedia article. In fact in the article on George, some of them don't even have inline references to verify that they even existed.

Inline references should be added. It would be quite justified by the letter of the law, but probably unhelpful in practice, to tag all those without references with the citation needed template, or even by the letter of the law to boldly remove them on the grounds that the material is likely to be challenged (a subjective assessment... but the editor removing the material is presumably challenging it, so isn't it ipso facto likely to be challenged?). But removing them would be even less helpful.

The point is, it would be just plain ridiculous to remove them and justify this removal on the grounds that they are non notable. Even assuming that the wife and six of the children are all non notable, their names still belong in the article on George, who is notable.

It's unhelpful to remove them, as the facts are easily verifiable even without any references at all. The (subjective) assessment that the material is likely to be challenged is itself dubious. To remove them would be at the very least lazy to the point of being disruptive, and more likely pointy and again disruptive.

Many other examples could be given.

Further reading for the brave

We're here to build an encyclopedia, not a rulebook or a debating club. And it's just as well.

Because in this case the rules aren't a lot of help. And maybe that's predictable. They will never be a substitute for a constructive attitude.

But just in case you want to try them anyway, here are some for a start... (my emphasis)

• Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source [1]
• Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source for... Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with citation needed, or any similar tag...). [2]

That seems clear enough. A big hammer with which to crush any attempt at adding unsourced material.

Except the second of those continues:

• Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material... Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material, then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references. For all other types of material, the policies require only that it be possible for a motivated, educated person to find published, reliable sources that support the material, e.g., by searching for sources online or at a library. [3] (emphasis added)

That sounds sensible, doesn't it? And it is.

Except... one of those four types of material that do require inline citations is

• Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with {{citation needed}}, or any similar tag). [4] (as already noted above)

So the hammer is intact. The names of George Skalkel's wife and six of his children do not currently require any reference at all. But if I were to remove them, for whatever reason, they couldn't then be restored without an inline citation. Ridiculous.

But our practice isn't a bad as our theory. For one thing, I'm not going to do it, and there'd be a case for de-sysoping me if I did. And for another, if anyone else did, I'd successfully plead wp:IAR and just put them back.