Talk:Q40342105

The Wikidata Flashmob is hereby summoned!

India

I have just restored http://rtiodisha.in/pa/T1RILzM4LzUxODQvMjY= as a source that the college is in India. That's an official website of the government of the Indian state of Odisha. It says that the college is on the banks of the river Prachi, which is wholly within India. It gives the college's address as "Kakatpur, Dist-Puri", which is in India. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much --Aliva Sahoo (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You just assume things, that is not something that references are supposed to be used for. country (P17) is even listed as one of the options on Help:Sources/Items_not_needing_sources#When_a_value_is_common_human_knowledge. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you claim that I have assumed? That's yet another allegation with no evidence. Also, as explained to you previously by someone else: "Although it is reasonable to argue that we don't need a reference... that is certainly not equivalent to making the argument to remove a reference that is already supplied. Wikidata is poorly enough referenced as it is, without references being removed unnecessarily. Both casual readers and third party re-users benefit from having statements verified by citing the source... Valid sourcing improves Wikidata, and I find it difficult to understand the mentality of anyone who repeatedly removes valid sources, no matter how trivial the statement concerned." [emphasis in original]. The help page to which you link may say that certain statements "usually don't require a source", it does not say that a source "may not be provided", nor does it give you licence to remove one, on bogus grounds. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sjoerddebruin: even if English isn't your first language, you ought to be able to understand the difference between guidance on whether a source is needed and what a source should be. The Help topic you linked is concerned with whether we need a source for the claim that Mangala Mahavidyalaya is in India. We all agree that it does need a source, so your link is pure misunderstanding on your part. What you meant was Wikidata:Verifiability (which makes it clear that "Web pages clearly published by government agencies ... can often be considered reliable sources of information" - Wikidata:Verifiability #Authoritative sources), and the understanding that for a claim to be verifiable, it is sufficient for somebody to be able to verify it; there is no requirement that everybody needs to be able to verify it - for example not everyone has access to a particular edition of a book, but it is sufficient that the edition is available to somebody.

Now I hope that you can reconcile yourself to the fact that referencing statements in Wikidata is almost always an improvement. Having a sourced statement for the country is important for editors like me who are writing tools to import Wikidata into other Wikipedias, because I am continually under pressure to ensure that information drawn from Wikidata is sourced. If you think the website of the the government of Odisha is a weak source, then please feel free to provide a stronger one, but you'll find me totally opposed to your attempts to completely remove the sourcing of statements from Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: TBF, Sjoerddebruin may think this behaviour is acceptable, because the last time he pulled the same stunt, at Edward Murphy (Q35243900), in this edit, he got away with it. The citation in question is still missing from that item - indeed, the statement remains uncited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)