291:: This kind of argument is often seen in reversed form, wherein an editor who wants to revert a revert, to restore something they did not properly source, argues that all examples of a type of source, or all content from a particular source, "must" be reliable and secondary for one thing because it is for others. This is a different kind of baby–bathwater situation: All objections, no matter how well-reasoned, are tossed out based on the editor's faith in the reputation of the publisher or writer.
50:
114:
558:
for the matter in question, should it be simply removed on the basis that the source is "not reliable enough" or "not secondary" (though it may need to be removed for some other policy-based reason). And "too much trouble to fish out of other edits" is never a reasonable revert rationale, unless the
225:
casualty numbers that were difficult to historically quantify because of the number of refugees in the city. Deleting
Knowledge (XXG) content based on the book's details about other topics, such as allied bombing operations (numbers of sortie aircraft, etc.) which were substantially researched by the
451:
An editor determines content has a citation to a source work that is out of print, not available to the public for free, in a foreign language, only exists offline, is in an obscure medium, requires registration to access, or is otherwise inconvenient to verify, and deletes the citation and/or the
282:
value. It does not in any way definite any particular author, publisher, genre of publication, or medium as categorically only one of these types at all times. A large number of individual sources are primary, secondary, and tertiary all at the same, for different claims in different context and
346:
uniformly reliable across all topics or with regard to all of their content. Entertainment, religious and political topics, for example, often are accused of having either reportorial biases or editorial biases, depending on the source and writer. Op-eds, advice columns, movie reviews, and other
390:
An editor concludes that a source does not meet
Knowledge (XXG)'s stringent policy regarding content about living people, but deletes content that is not about the living person but just happens to be in their article, or which is cited to some other, reliable source.
511:
for all quotations and for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, not for all content, and the citations do not otherwise have to be formatted a certain way or be any more detailed than is necessary to identify the source. All content must be
372:: Authorities on one thing are not authorities on everything, and they are not authoritative even in their sphere of influence when they are just offering their own personal opinion, organizational political stance, or new and unverified hypothesis.
399:: WP:BLP requires that any unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons may be removed immediately and without waiting for a consensus discussion, if it could be contentious in any way (negative, positive, or simply dubious).
359:
uniformly secondary sources. Most of them contain a great deal of, or may even specialize in, new and unverified research findings, which are primary sources for their data and conclusions, and cannot be secondary for anything other than
460:: These are never valid reasons for such a deletion (though a source that does not exist any longer, and cannot be recovered by any means at any expense, is not a valid source under policy, since it cannot be verified at all).
347:
material that expresses an individual's opinion are primary not secondary source material. An article by a sports journalist may be reliable for sport statistics but not for the scientific details of physics or biochemistry.
421:
to a source which does, but the editor's entire contribution(s) to the page, including unbiased information with credible citations, is/are deleted under the auspices of the NPOV policy.
184:: "Edit summary: A sentence had a grammatical error, and one claim lacks a cite, so I'm just reverting the whole lot. I don't have time to clean up those problems in your 30K addition."
319:: "It's absurd to say the World Health Organization isn't a reliable source in this article. It doesn't matter that it's an article about particle physics. Notable is notable."
209:
For a source that is unreliable regarding a particular topic, an editor deletes all content that is based on the source—including information for which the source is reliable.
178:
An editor determines a portion of another contributor's edit needs to be deleted, but removes the entire contribution instead of just the portion that needs to be deleted.
313:: "Of course this theoretical paper on a possible approach to cold fusion is a reliable secondary source. The author is one of the most respected physicists in the world."
244:
A revert-minded editor argues that any time a source contains an opinion or new idea that it is a primary source, always, for everything it contains, in every situation.
625:
587:
28:
542:
requirements – or any content based on such a source – should be summarily "thrown out" without examining its validity under in the context under applicable
122:
Good-faith editors can mistakenly delete content that is actually properly sourced, and citations which are valid, by misunderstanding our sourcing-related
136:" refers to edits which remove additional information beyond the scope of a valid deletion, as well as to rationales at discussion pages that extend a
551:
517:
380:
199:
598:
145:
433:"I'm reverting all these paragraphs by that IP editor; the phrasing, near the end, about the prosecution is clearly advancing a personal bias."
592:
73:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
543:
190:
123:
74:
418:
407:
137:
66:
555:
427:"That author was in favor of the conservatives' position on deregulating this industry; reverting everything sourced to his books."
234:
559:
other edits were also demonstrably problematic. An editor with an eye to reverting has a responsibility to make sure the baby is
547:
572:
149:
270:
is worthless, because it has a section speculating about ongoing research the results of which could affect its analysis."
620:
508:
62:
417:
Content from one editor is determined to have a portion that has a non-neutral point of view ("PoV") or which gives
217:
468:
441:
445:
322:
578:
168:
78:
582:
250:: "This news article concludes with an anecdote by the journalist, so we can't trust anything it says."
88:
36:
32:
164:
58:
546:, closely and carefully. If, and only if, the claim is clearly unsupportable by sources that are
330:
483:: "Reverting addition of the year in which this riot took place since there's no source cited."
361:
267:
496:
411:
238:
384:
301:
by the
Religious Foundation for Moral Reform isn't a reliable source? Are you calling the
539:
538:
Any questionable claim should be examined on its own merits, and no source found to meet
326:
203:
172:
604:
160:
475:) policy requires citations, much less particular citation formatting, for everything:
472:
189:
Some more specific cases are detailed below, involving misapprehensions of particular
27:"WP:BABY" redirects here. For the logical fallacy upon which this essay is based, see
614:
81:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
17:
222:
278:: WP:PSTS defines sources as primary, secondary, or tertiary with regard to their
141:
235:
Knowledge (XXG):No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
35:. For the advice to revert only the parts of an edit you disagree with, see
520:, but an uncontroversial statement is not actually required to be verifi
583:
section advising to revert only the parts of an edit you disagree with
257:
489:: "Undid addition to discography section; no inline citation."
108:
44:
524:
with a citation at all unless and until it is controverted.
175:) essay as meaning "undo anything that is not perfect":
155:
Types of baby/bathwater actions and positions include:
96:
364:material given as the background for the research.
283:depending on what material in them is being cited.
226:author, is a form of "baby and bathwater" editing.
256:: "This newspaper publishes all kinds of biased
495:: "I reverted your messy citations; please see
526:(But see the living persons exception above.)
442:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability § Accessibility
221:author was determined to have misrepresented
8:
381:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living people
321:(Extra demerits for confusing a publisher's
200:Knowledge (XXG):Identifying reliable sources
29:Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater
626:Knowledge (XXG) essays about verification
140:rationale beyond its scope of validity.
134:throwing the baby out with the bathwater
75:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
544:Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines
297:: "What do you mean this op-ed in the
260:, so all of its articles are suspect."
408:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
67:Knowledge (XXG):Core content policies
7:
588:WP:Restoring part of a reverted edit
159:A general misunderstanding of the
146:should be done only when necessary
79:thoroughly vetted by the community
25:
499:for how to format them properly."
112:
48:
42:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
63:Knowledge (XXG):Editing policy
1:
599:WP:Revert only when necessary
280:content- and context-specific
593:WP:Alternatives to reversion
215:: In a European court case,
148:, and as a matter of policy
525:
642:
233:Failure to understand the
218:The Destruction of Dresden
86:
26:
329:; even the world's worst
198:Misinterpretation of the
169:Knowledge (XXG):Reverting
452:material relying on it.
355:: Academic journals are
120:This page in a nutshell:
191:policies and guidelines
144:of other editors' work
124:policies and guidelines
621:Knowledge (XXG) essays
467:False belief that the
150:must be done sparingly
406:Incorrectly applying
138:core content policies
132:At Knowledge (XXG), "
77:, as it has not been
573:WP:Three-revert rule
33:Hasty generalization
18:Knowledge (XXG):BABY
581:(essay), including
534:The proper approach
342:: News sources are
333:are often notable.)
563:in the bathwater.
362:literature review
334:
268:systematic review
130:
129:
107:
106:
16:(Redirected from
633:
527:
518:reliable sources
509:inline citations
507:: WP:V requires
469:WP:Verifiability
320:
116:
115:
109:
99:
52:
51:
45:
21:
641:
640:
636:
635:
634:
632:
631:
630:
611:
610:
569:
536:
446:WP:SOURCEACCESS
440:Unawareness of
113:
103:
102:
95:
91:
83:
82:
49:
43:
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
639:
637:
629:
628:
623:
613:
612:
609:
608:
605:Help:Reversion
602:
596:
590:
585:
576:
568:
565:
562:
535:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
523:
515:
500:
490:
484:
476:
464:
463:
462:
461:
449:
437:
436:
435:
434:
428:
415:
403:
402:
401:
400:
388:
376:
375:
374:
373:
365:
358:
348:
345:
335:
314:
308:
304:New York Times
299:New York Times
290:
289:Often inverted
286:
285:
284:
281:
271:
261:
251:
242:
230:
229:
228:
227:
207:
195:
194:
187:
186:
185:
176:
167:) process and
161:Help:Reverting
128:
127:
117:
105:
104:
101:
100:
92:
87:
84:
72:
71:
55:
53:
41:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
638:
627:
624:
622:
619:
618:
616:
606:
603:
600:
597:
594:
591:
589:
586:
584:
580:
577:
574:
571:
570:
566:
564:
560:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
533:
521:
519:
513:
510:
506:
505:
501:
498:
494:
491:
488:
485:
482:
479:
478:
477:
474:
470:
466:
465:
459:
458:
454:
453:
450:
447:
443:
439:
438:
432:
429:
426:
423:
422:
420:
416:
413:
409:
405:
404:
398:
397:
393:
392:
389:
386:
382:
379:Overreaction
378:
377:
371:
370:
366:
363:
356:
354:
353:
349:
343:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
318:
315:
312:
309:
307:unreliable?!"
306:
305:
300:
296:
293:
292:
288:
287:
279:
277:
276:
272:
269:
265:
262:
259:
255:
252:
249:
246:
245:
243:
240:
236:
232:
231:
224:
220:
219:
214:
211:
210:
208:
205:
201:
197:
196:
192:
188:
183:
180:
179:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
157:
156:
153:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
125:
121:
118:
111:
110:
98:
94:
93:
90:
85:
80:
76:
70:
68:
64:
60:
54:
47:
46:
38:
34:
30:
19:
579:WP:Reverting
537:
503:
502:
492:
486:
480:
456:
455:
430:
424:
419:undue weight
395:
394:
368:
367:
351:
350:
338:
337:
327:reputability
316:
310:
303:
302:
298:
294:
274:
273:
263:
253:
247:
223:World War II
216:
212:
206:) guideline:
181:
154:
133:
131:
119:
56:
548:independent
57:This is an
37:WP:CAUGHTUP
615:Categories
323:notability
556:secondary
448:) policy:
414:) policy:
387:) policy:
325:with its
241:) policy:
165:WP:REVERT
142:Reversion
607:(how-to)
575:(policy)
567:See also
552:reliable
431:Example:
425:Example:
331:tabloids
266:: "This
89:Shortcut
65:and the
601:(essay)
595:(essay)
497:WP:CITE
493:Example
487:Example
481:Example
412:WP:NPOV
369:Reality
352:Reality
339:Reality
317:Example
311:Example
295:Example
264:Example
254:Example
248:Example
239:WP:PSTS
213:Example
182:Example
97:WP:BABY
554:, and
512:verifi
504:Policy
457:Policy
396:Policy
385:WP:BLP
275:Policy
258:op-eds
540:WP:RS
516:with
204:WP:RS
173:WP:RV
59:essay
514:able
473:WP:V
31:and
561:not
357:not
344:not
61:on
617::
550:,
522:ed
152:.
471:(
444:(
410:(
383:(
237:(
202:(
193:.
171:(
163:(
126:.
69:.
39:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.