Draft talk:Collective (organisation)

Grammar and dating

WhoIsCentreLeft please follow British English grammar and use dmy dates, as indicated at the top of the editing page. You keep using mdy dates and non-British English. Helper201 (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

ONUS

WhoIsCentreLeft please read WP:ONUS - "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Helper201 (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I dont think i need to achieve consensus to revert invalid removals of content. There is no Wikipedia guideline that says all sources without WP:RSP entry are unreliable and cannot be used. Your edits are just wrong, please stop reverting. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I dont think i need to achieve consensus to revert invalid removals of content.

Yes, you do. Read WP:ONUS as has already been linked for your benefit. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Also read our policy on self-published sources, in particular the subsection WP:ABOUTSELF. Using random websites and blogs is not acceptable. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, i already read WP:ONUS a dozen times. My point is that you cant remove content for non-existent reasons and request a consensus, this is just ridiculous. As i said, there is no guideline that says sources of unknown reliablity cannot be used. His deletions are wrong and he should stop what he is doing immediately. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

No, you must stop.

If you have read the policy "a dozen times" then you are admitting you know that the policy reads "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

That means you must gain consensus for re-inclusion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not required to revert unconstructive edits. Do Bella Caledonia, The London Economic, Dawn (newspaper) and The Guardian look like unreliable sources to you? He can't just delete stuff like that. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Something having a Wikipedia article doesn't make it "reliable". By that standard InfoWars would be reliable.

Frankly multiple of those publications do not look necessarily reliable, or you are certainly breaking WP:RSOPINION by representing them as news reporting and not opinion pieces.

Also looking at the content more closely also shows that you are quite simply inventing your own meaning with at least one of them.

You wrote "The Morning Star reported that Collective has merged itself with smaller political groups in 2025 and plans to become a major leftist party with Jeremy Corbyn becoming its intermin leader." but this is nowhere in the source as far as I can see. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

This guideline says that we can attribute opinions from authors of mainstream newspapers. The Guardian is obviously a mainstream newspaper, it shouldn't have been removed... WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You didn't attribute it as an opinion but instead cited it multiple times with no mention of being an opinion piece. The guidelines expressly say you have to do this:

"when using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion" Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, you cold have attributed this source instead of deleting it. Removing it is unnecessary. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If it had been a useful and appropriate utilisation of an opinion piece, quite possibly. But given what you were using it for I am in agreement with the removal.

On a wider note it is unfair to expect other editors to have to correct your repeated mistakes when you fail to follow guidelines and policies that you claim to have read, and to then edit war by reverting their changes rather than seek consensus simply because you deem their removals to be "invalid". Such an attitude is unlikely to see you getting far if you wish to make useful contributions to the project. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, its also unfair for me to see people delete 3K bytes of content for non-existent reasons. You can't just delete content because you think the sources are unreliable while having no evidence at all. Would you agree with me if i deleted half of the Labor Party article because some sources here are not listed in RSP and reverted users who tried to add them back? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

"Well, its also unfair for me to see people delete 3K bytes of content for non-existent reasons"

The reasons have been outlined, you just repeatedly refuse to interact in a consensual manner.

You can't just delete content because you think the sources are unreliable while having no evidence at all.

It's for you to establish why the content is reliable and worth inclusion.

Would you agree with me if i deleted half of the Labor Party article because some sources here are not listed in RSP and reverted users who tried to add them back?

Deleting half an article out of spite isn't a good look and says something about your attitude. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Your reasons are invalid, no evidence was provided that these sources are unreliable and no reasonable argument was provided as to why i can't use them. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, you're just going to refuse to edit collaboratively, and refuse to take advice. Good to know. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

No, i would be happy to be proven wrong... I just dont agree with your arguments. I think these sources can be used. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

This information is in the source, its not my fault you cant see it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Quote it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

"As i said, there is no guideline that says sources of unknown reliablity cannot be used."

The core policy Verifiability quite specifically says such sources are to be avoided:

"Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

This is explained further in the associated guidelines, under WP:QUESTIONABLE. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it says that they are to be avoided, not DELETED. 90% of articles on Wikipedia use sources of unknown reliablity which are not listed in RSP. Are we going to delete them too using this logic? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it says that they are to be avoided, not DELETED.

That's what avoid using them means, don't use them unless you can justify them. So far all you have done is attacked the reversions and failed to demonstrate any actual justification for your edits, which if anything just makes me support the removal of the material as you're actively refusing to justify said inclusion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I did justify them, there is no evidence that these sources are unreliable. All of these sources have editorial teams and editorial guidelines, two of them are considered newspapers of records. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I did justify them, there is no evidence that these sources are unreliable.

Once again, per ONUS it is for you to justify why you believe those sources to be suitable or reliable which is something you have still failed to do. Views on Dawns reliability appear mixed from discussions at RSP, so it is likely a good idea to avoid it when discussing British politics to begin with. The London Economic, which I can't even link here because it threw up a spam blacklist alert, doesn't look to be a high-quality publication but instead a blog-adjacent site reliant on "volunteers". Bella Caledonia doesn't look to set out any editorial policy whatsoever and seems to be a largely opinion-oriented online publication. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

These are only available sources about Collective, so i cant avoid them. Having questionable reliability does not mean they should always be removed. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

These are only available sources about Collective, so i cant avoid them. Having questionable reliability does not mean they should always be removed.

The guidelines linked above set out the extremely limited circumstances they can be used. Just randomly googling something, dumping in any result that comes up as "that'll do" and saying "well they're the only things I could find" is not helpful. If anything it's disruptive to the project and is very unhelpful. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Sources written by volunteers or of mixed reliability can still provide reliable/real info, so i have no reason not to include them. They are not marked as unreliable. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Alright, you are now scanning my edit history reverting my edits over a disagreement. Great! WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I looked at other recent edits of yours given how belligerently you're refusing to apply policy/guidelines and found some quite immediate instances of low-quality sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok lol WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I hope you know what WP:HOUND is and what happens to users who violate this policy. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Towards The Full Article?

Given that there is enough information about this brand new group, might not the term Draft be deleted and some more text added to make a full article? Also, considering the attempts at making something new and positive, could people try to add Talk comments that are a little less negative? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:B17A:3990:2CCD:FEE1 (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

This article was drafted two days ago due to a lack of notability. It is unlikely to change so quickly given the lack of change in status at this time (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collective (organisation) (2nd nomination)) Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. But if useful information is made public, is it possible that the draft text could be made into an article? Also, has not Wikipedia rules about Talk comments going on (and on) about relatively minor issues? 95.146.163.245 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Failing to provide reliable sources and also committing what later was revealed to be copyright infringement are not "minor issues". Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)