On Tuesday 11 March 2008 11:53, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 11/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"
Thoughts?
It's the rule we've always applied for disputed content in articles, if memory serves.
Sure, and that's spot-on--but what you (and everyone else who makes this argument) ignore is that *that is not the case here*.
As you can see by the diff I posted earlier, this discussion is not in the context of discussion of a statement within an article whose accuracy is challenged, but rather as part of a discussion over the appropriateness of the subject for coverage in the encyclopedia altogether.
It's one thing to say, "You have to back up your statement in the article on lawnmower racing that says that Peyton Manning is the world champion lawnmower racer." It's another thing entirely to say, "The onus is upon you to prove that we should even have an article on lawnmower racing in the first place."
The latter is, essentially, the situation here.