Talk:Cyperus gilesii

Removing references

Can you explain why you keep removing the reference and text? Hughesdarren (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Same reason as the last time. It is inaccurate, untrue and misleading. Cyperus gilesii is not "native to inland Australia" Its range extends literally from the East Coast to the West Coast and from the north Coast of Queensland to the Spencer Gulf, being found within metres of salt water at all locations. That is the very antithesis of "Inland Australia".

As I pointed out to you last time you tried this, if you are saying that the plant is only native to inland Australia (or ,more commonly for you, Western Australia), you are factually incorrect. If your point is the pedantry that that a minority of the plant's range plant is within inland or Western Australia, then it is misleading and fails WP:DUE. While it may be pedantically true to say that, for example, River Red Gums are native to tropical rainforests, such a statement, standing alone, is so misleading as to become untrue by omission. It fails WP:DUE. If the vast majority of a plant's range falls outside an area or environment, then it is clearly undue weight to mention only that tiny, unrepresentative area. Same is true of your claim that a plant found in salt marshes coast to coast is a native to inland Australia. Pedantically true, but standing alone, is so misleading as to become untrue by omission and grossly misleading and clearly fails WP:DUE since it omits 90% of the plant's range.

Simple exercise: read the following statement: "Skipio africanus is a shrub native to Arctic tundra where it flowers only in July", Now answering honestly, where would the average reader expect to find S. africanus? Would a typical reader be surprised to find that all but three plants of S. africanus are found in the Amazon rainforest? Would the average reader be surprised to find that S. africanus is typically a 90 meter tall tree, and only a relict population in Siberia grows as a shrub? Would they think it strange to find that 99% of S. africanus plants flower in November? Yet this is exactly what you are doing to all these plant articles. By only mentioning them being native to a tiny portion of their actual native range, and only referring to their (often atypical) growth habits in that tiny range you are misleading readers and violating at least 6 Wikipedia policies.

I suggest you start with WP:NOTFALSE. The placement of text in an article should present a true impression of the subject, not just in details, but in the top summary or overall structure of the article. An article's structure should not mislead readers into thinking that known falsehoods are somehow reflecting the majority concerns about a topic. In other words, just because something is pedantically "verifiable" does not mean it isn't false and inappropriate for inclusion.

Also consider WP:PCR. Make omissions explicit when creating or editing an article. When writing an article, always aim for completeness. If for some reason you cannot cover a point that should be explained, make that omission explicit. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully. Do not write material that is false.

Hopefully this time you read and understand, instead of just edit warring and accusing me of being drunk. Mark Marathon (talk)

I can see where you are coming from but your edits are removing references and according to WP:VERIFY and surely these must be left in. This is not being pedantic it is in accordance with WP:RS. Can you at least agree that the source must be left in the article?

It us true I'm writing from a WA perspective and using Florabase as a primary source, but nothing is preventing you from adding further material or rewording instead of deleting everything I'm putting in. Nothing I've added is false, and I've tried to make everything explicit as possible. You have also been involved in edit warring.

Hopefully you will take what I've written on board and maybe we can modify the article and come to some sort of consensus. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

No, references do not need to be left in if they don't refer to anything. If the material they refer to is removed because it is inaccurate (per WP:NOTFALSE) then the reference likewise needs to be removed. Orphaned references are pointless and messy. I don't need to add further material and frankly don't have the time to do so for all your numerous misleading and false additions. As you may have guessed, I have some small degree of expertise and experience in Australian arid lands botany, but I also have a real job in that field that precludes spending large amounts of time researching and copy-editing Wikipedia errors. My main (Wiki) interest these days in photography of these species, though I will remove errors when I find them. If your statements are false, they will be removed. Saying that other editors need to do the work to correct your false edits, rather than simply challenging and removing them, runs contrary to the core principles of Wikipedia. You need to make sure that your edits are correct, clear and well sourced for the subject as whole, not just for one tiny subsection. I would suggest that perhaps your should start writing articles titled "Species X in WA" if you can't make edits that accurately reflect the scientific consensus on the species a whole. Mark Marathon (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess we will have agree to disagree on the necessity of references and what compromises as false. You may have expertise but you appear to be reluctant to help us amateurs along in writing and improving articles. I'm not saying that other editors have to correct my work, but they could give me a hand it telling me what is wrong rather than just reverting with a belligerent message. I'm not claiming to be perfect or an expert but I am trying to build and improve the project.Hughesdarren (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I just told you what was wrong, at length, with examples, just as i did nearly 12 months ago: if you are saying that the plant is only native to inland Australia (or ,more commonly for you, Western Australia), you are factually incorrect. If your point is the pedantry that that a minority of the plant's range plant is within inland or Western Australia, then it is misleading and fails WP:DUE. If you want to make edits that are only true of the plant within a narrow habitat or geographic range then either:

1)Follow WP:PCR, make omissions explicit and always aim for completeness. If for some reason you cannot cover a point that should be explained, make that omission explicit. Since something as basic as Atlas of Living Australia contains accurate maps, I can't imagine why completeness of range would be an issue.

2) Start writing articles titled "Species X in WA" if you can't make edits that accurately reflect the scientific consensus on the species a whole. Mark Marathon (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Geez, have you been blocked again Mark? Can't imagine why.....Hughesdarren (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)