User talk:Rosbif73

Hello! I wanted to ask about your recent revert of my edit to the page on Canada's annexation. Why was it necessary? 212.211.217.4 (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:Primarily because it was unsourced (the reason stated I in the edit summary). Secondly because the lead is supposed to summarise the body, and this is not mentioned in the body. And thirdly because the legality of annexation is not black-and-white; the annexation article explains the nuances. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:So to clarify, you need a source that Canada is a sovereign nation? I think the fact that Canada is a sovereign nation is quite relevant throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.211.217.4 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::Your insertion stated {{tq|Canada remains a sovereign nation, and any attempts to annex it would be against international law.}} I don't think there's much doubt that Canada is a sovereign nation, and insisting on a source for that would be overkill, per WP:BLUE. For that matter, it is implicit to the vast majority of readers and, in my opinion, doesn't even need saying.

::I was more getting at the unsourced claim that annexation would be against international law. The sources in the annexation article make it clear that annexation is generally illegal, but not necessarily in all cases. So in my opinion it is best to leave the claim out and let interested readers consult the annexation article (already linked in the lead) for an explanation. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Musk_family&diff=prev&oldid=1277436407 For this change].

I hadn't known about the WP:RVDEADNAME policy. I had actually come to that page to see if Musk had given her a bizarre name similar to his youngest, "X". I hadn't realized it was not mentioned based on policy.

In all honesty, I was surprised this page even exists! Is that much detail really relevant? I would have expected the whole thing to be summarized in Musk's own page.

(Still, I do think that first sentence reads better when broken up into two. Couldn't you have just reverted my first edit? :-P~ ;-) ) Bertrc (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:I guess I could have done a partial revert, but it seemed to me that it read ok without your addition. Feel free to split it if you wish, I think it would be fine either way. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)