Text removal guidelines

Guidelines ^†
Assume good faith Archival Be bold! Citation Disambiguation Talk pages Images	Find or fix a stub AMA assistance Subpages Wikiquette Text removal Fan fiction

This page is considered a guideline on BRWiki.

It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy.

Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the voting process and put the vote on the discussion page to propose any major changes.
See the Guidelines home page for an overview of BRWiki guidelines.
See Guidelines for a list of proposed and accepted guideline articles.

[hide][top]Good practice when removing text

Whether you decide to edit very boldly or to make inquiries on the talk page first, please bear in mind that [[BRWiki]] is not a discussion forum. BRWiki can be a very energetic place, and it's best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc.

Make sure the removal doesn't disrupt the flow of the article, so it isn't obvious something is missing after the removal.
Leave a clear and reasonable explanation in the discussion (talk) area for why you removed stuff.
Sign your explanation (some new information might supercede a removal that was correct at the time).

Even if you think that something is
patent nonsense
, some consideration of Etiquette doesn't hurt!

[hide][top]Good removal example

This is a good deletion. The person who removed the content stated his exact reasons for doing so at length, preserved the original content on the talk page, and linked sources proving the author wrong (this would be a case of inaccuracy removal). When you remove substantial amounts of information from an article, especially an entire section, it would be good to copy this editor's style!

discussion

[top]Deleted "Flawed Reasoning"

The article is biased. Whoever wrote it should be more objective. I have however made some changes and plan to return.
I deleted the "Flawed Reasoning" section. Let me explain why. It said the following:

"Proponents of affirmative action often contend that racial diversity is intrinsically in the interest of an academic environment and as such a university is justified in taking means to ensure a racially diverse campus. This notion is mere assertion. Japan is perhaps the most racially homogenous nation on the planet and yet manages to have the highest per capita GDP. Relatively homogenous nations such as Germany, Korea and China are also uninhibited by their lack of diversity. The notion that racial diversity is necessary to enhance the quality of a campus atmosphere can not be substantiated by quantitative evidence. It's probably a nice idea, but it has no real basis and is surely poor justification to discriminate against qualified applicants on the basis of their race."

There are many errors here because Japan does not have the highest per capita GDP in the world (Luxembourg does). In fact, Japan?s GDP per capita ($29,400) is lower than that of the US ($40,100). Evidence is at the CIA World Fact Book entry for GDP per capita. Recently, the US economy has been very dynamic compared to the sluggish economies of Japan and Europe. Germany?s unemployment is around 10 percent while the U.S.?s is at 5 percent. U.S. GDP growth rate is about 4 to 5 percent per annum while European growth rates are usually 1 or 2 percent. Furthermore, correlation does not imply causation and living standards have little to do with university selection. This is irrelevant evidence (and flawed reasoning itself, one might argue). Also, China is not homogenous. There are many ethnic groups in China, for example the issue of the dominance of Han Chinese.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2004rank.html

--~~~~

This user did a good job of showing what he did and why he did it.