Talk:Kalamazoo Foundation for Excellence

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WP:SYNTH

I'm seeing a lot of what appears to be either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH here. If a source makes a comparison, you cannot extrapolate from that comparison that "many people" feel that comparison is so. All you can say is that source says that. John from Idegon (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon (talk · contribs), please quit removing content per Verifiability/Removal_of_Uncited_Material instead you can constructively contribute and add the sources your self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlassiter (talk • contribs) 07:05, October 10, 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. The onus is on the editor restoring material to provide proper sources for material that has been challenged. I have removed "Many in Kalamazoo feel the benefactors donating money may have different priorities than the city of Kalamazoo. " again. The cited sources do not support his. It may well be true, but Wikipedia does not make opinion statements like that. We report what reliable sources say. I agree that this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Meters (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The essay you reference is not policy. OR is. So is WP:CONSENSUS, which you do not have for the various comparisons you are attributing to "many". That is your conclusion and hence OR. Please paraphrase the sources in a neutral fashion. Also, you are not new, please sign your talk page posts. Thsnks. John from Idegon (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

then feel free to constructively edit instead of blanking materials. If you feel its not neutrally worded edit the wording instead of blanking it. Zlassiter (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That is exactly what I did. I removed your conclusions that the sources did not support to make it more neutral. All content on Wikipedia is subject to approval by consensus. You do not have consensus to keep those statements in and you are making a mountain out of a molehill. This is a collaborative project. Editorial oversight happens on all articles just the way I started it here. You are not collaborating. Just because you started this article does not make it yours and unless you dissuade yourself of that notion very quickly, you are going to have a less than satisfactory outcome. It's late and I am going to bed. I think the administrator at 3RR made it pretty clear that you had better stop warring in your OR. Any discussion will have to wait until a more decent hour. Goodnight. I hope we can discuss this in a more civil manner in the morning sometime. John from Idegon (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and the wording you keep blanking https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence&diff=prev&oldid=743570558 is clearly in the source cited http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/kalamazoo-asks-the-rich-for-donations-instead-of-hiking-taxes "The concern, Apps says, is that the foundation’s benefactors may have different priorities than many city residents." Zlassiter (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's what it said. That in no way supports what you wrote. Goodnight. John from Idegon (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]