User talk:2605:A601:A1AF:CF00:3D08:6D49:7947:D557

On the "Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz" page, we the readers are encouraged to contribute: "This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

However, I have encountered some difficulty attempting to do just that: I am a history enthusiast who has been happy to come across information recently on the topic of the genealogy and portraiture of Queen Charlotte.

I noticed there is no more than one quotation (in the above-named article) from contemporaries of Queen Charlotte providing a physical description of her, so I added two direct quotations: one, a more complete form of the quote from royal physician, Baron Christian Friedrich Stockmar; and the other, a quote from Sir Walter Scott, both with in-line citations. I also included a quote from Janice Hadlow's book, A Royal Experiment: The Private Life of King George III, about the King's reaction upon seeing his wife-to-be for the first time -- this is one of the approved source materials to cite from, on this page.

Also, I came across a line of research that is not addressed in the article: a theory by historian Mario de Valdes y Cocom, arguing that Queen Charlotte may have been the direct descendant of King Alfonso III and his concubine, Ouruana. This, I thought, should be included in the theories listed on the "Ancestry" section of this page. I referenced this theory along with an in-line citation to an article in the reputable online newspaper, the Independent, that cites the theory as well.

In order to provide more than one perspective on the matter, I also included a quote from a sceptic, David Williamson, co-editor of Debrett's Peerage, suggesting that Queen Charlotte may not have stood out from her peers in appearance that much.

To my surprise, just hours later, I returned to find all of these quotations (and their corresponding in-line citations to reputable sources), had been removed! Wikipedia clearly states that non-cited material can be removed by editors; but never that well-cited material (I made sure to include a reference at the end of each and every paragraph I contributed) can be deleted without providing an explanation.

This makes me concerned whether readers' contributions are screened for anything other than clearly stated references to sound source material.

And, ironically, there's a new email in my Inbox requesting a renewal of my donation to Wikipedia. Interesting!

A concerned contributor --2605:A601:A1AF:CF00:3D08:6D49:7947:D557 (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

---