Feb 25
You need to read wp:rs and wp:v and (possibly) wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you Slatersteven. I have read through the pages you suggested and would like to point out the following quotes from these pages which I think are relevant to the discussion.
- As per the wp:rs page:
- "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."
- and:
- "Definition of a source
- A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.
- When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:
- - The piece of work itself (the article, book)
- - The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
- - The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
- Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."
- The wp:rs goes on to emphasise the need for sources to be published, contextually appropriate and recent. The article that I have suggested for inclusion meets all these criteria. Further to this, again quoting from wp:rs :
- "Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."
- The article I suggested for inclusion is a peer-reviewed scientific article published in a reputable journal this year (2025). This places it well within the bounds of the PREFERRED sources for inclusion in Wikipedia and is certainly verifiable (as per wp:v).
- I'd also like to point out that I made no personal attack at all. All of my points were around the arguments posed. I took the responses of the administrator at face value and responded accordingly. Mangi89 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- You responded to an editor, not an administrator. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
As well as WP:ONUS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Again, thank you for pointing this out. I believe that my request for the mention of the article I submitted does not contravene the principles outlined in WP:ONUS. Mangi89 (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.