Talk:Bateren Edict

I am the primary author of the Bateren Edict article, having written most of its content based on my research and reliable sources. On October 10, 2025, the AI-generated tag was added by User:Gnomingstuff with the edit summary "may be llm translation" diff. I believe this tag may have been applied inappropriately, as the edit summary provides no specific evidence, and no explanation was provided on this Talk page, contrary to the template’s guideline.

According to the documentation for the AI-generated template Template:AI-generated, the tag is intended for pages that are "entirely LLM-generated with no plausible human review," which should either be fixed by editors or nominated for deletion using Db-llm. The documentation also advises editors to "consider being bold and fixing" correctable issues rather than applying the tag and leaving cleanup to others. Crucially, it instructs editors to "explain your reasons on the page's talk page" after adding the tag. The absence of such an explanation from User:Gnomingstuff does not comply with this requirement.

WP:G15 specifies three clear-cut criteria for identifying LLM-generated pages: (1) communication intended for the user (e.g., "as a large language model"), (2) implausible non-existent references (e.g., invalid ISBNs or DOIs), and (3) nonsensical citations (e.g., citations with incorrect temporality or unrelated content). WP:G15 explicitly states that more subjective signs, such as suspected machine translation, should not serve as the sole basis for tagging or deletion unless accompanied by these clear-cut indicators.

The edit summary "may be llm translation" is vague and speculative, lacking reference to any specific text or references that align with the AI-generated template’s purpose or WP:G15's criteria. As the primary contributor, I can confirm that the article was crafted with human oversight and reliable sources, and I am unaware of any issues that suggest the article is either partly or entirely LLM-generated in violation of the three criteria of WP:G15. Per Wikipedia's policies on verifiability WP:V and assuming good faith WP:AGF, I kindly request that User:Gnomingstuff clarify the reasoning behind the tag.

In the absence of concrete evidence, I propose removing the AI-generated tag within the next few days to maintain the article’s integrity. I welcome community feedback to reach a consensus.

Thank you. 杜の街 (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. No, Bateren Edict, the part that I contributed, is based on reliable sources. As I stated before, I am unaware of any issues that suggest the article is either partly or entirely LLM-generated in violation of the three criteria of WP:G15.

I believe your addition of the AI-generated tag to Bateren Edict on October 10, 2025 diff, without specific evidence or Talk page discussion, is inappropriate, as is your pattern of similar actions, such as deleting 176,264 bytes from Kirishitan diff and tagging History of the Catholic Church in Japan diff. See Talk:Kirishitan#Request_to_restore_content_removed_from_Kirishitan_and_provide_evidence_for_AI_claims and Talk:History of the Catholic Church in Japan#Request_to_remove_AI-generated_tag_from_History_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Japan. I'd like to address these concerns per WP:AGF and WP:CON.

The AI-generated template Template:AI-generated serves as a preliminary step to flag potential LLM-generated content for review, potentially leading to processes like WP:G15 or WP:AFD. Its documentation requires editors to "explain your reasons on the page's talk page" with specific evidence, such as fabricated citations, even when used urgently. Your edit provided no edit summary or Talk page explanation, violating this requirement. Your claim that WP:G15 is irrelevant because you didn't tag this article for speedy deletion overlooks your deletion of Kirishitan content on October 9, 2025, citing "WP:TNT a long string of AI edits". WP:G15 states,

This applies to any page that exhibits one or more of the following signs which indicate that the page could only plausibly have been generated by large language models (LLM) and would have been removed by any reasonable human review:

—  LLM-generated pages without human review WP:G15

including (1) communication intended for the user, (2) implausible non-existent references, or (3) nonsensical citations.

In addition to the clear-cut signs listed above, there are other, more subjective signs of LLM writing that may also plausibly stem from human error or unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. While these indicators can be used in conjunction with more clear-cut indicators listed above, they should not, on their own, serve as the sole basis for applying this criterion.

—  LLM-generated pages without human review WP:G15

Your reference to a "pattern of contributions" without citing specific examples from this article fails to meet these standards, making the tag speculative. This pattern, seen in your Kirishitan deletion and tagging of History of the Catholic Church in Japan without evidence, raises concerns about potential future deletions. WP:TNT, an essay, warns that "deleting articles for the purpose of cleanup can be contentious" and should occur through WP:AFD, which your Kirishitan deletion circumvented.

Your "yes or no" request shifts the burden of proof inappropriately. Per WP:V, content is evaluated based on reliable sources, not assumptions about the editing process. Demanding such an answer risks bad-faith assumptions (WP:AGF) and bypasses the evidence requirement of Template:AI-generated and WP:G15, potentially constituting WP:GAME by avoiding substantive discussion. I have stated that my contributions are based on reliable sources, and I am unaware of any issues meeting WP:G15 criteria.

Please provide specific examples, e.g., sentences or references in this article, Kirishitan, or History of the Catholic Church in Japan, that justify the tag, as required by Template:AI-generated. In the absence of such evidence, I propose removing the tag immediately to maintain the article's integrity. I am open to addressing specific issues or collaborating on fixes. Community feedback is welcome, potentially via Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan or Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, to reach a consensus.杜の街 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)