Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 13

message: If an artist posts information to an article concerning one of his pieces, is that considered original research and hence verboten? Expanding on the theme: even if the artist had not previously publish the information regarding his piece, but it is rather "in his head," so to speak, is that original research? Fantailfan 16:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A more preferable approach, by the artist, would be.  Create a web site, post your views on your work, post a helpful note to the Talk page of your work, stating that you have a website with views on your work.  Then wait for some editor to come along and quote you.  Wjhonson 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A self-published web site may be dubious as a reputable source (see WP:RS on self-published sources). —Steven G. Johnson 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except on themselves, where, we accept their claims as their claims. If there is a conflict, you cite it as "The author states that...."  since it's a fact that they do state that.  Your interpretation of RS on self-published articles by the source about themselves is overly restrictive. Wjhonson 06:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, let's twist it another way. Regardless of its origin, reliability or verifiability, the comments are invaluable regarding his frame of mind, sources of inspiration, etc. at the time he created the piece. (Note I am not saying what I mean by "piece" though a look at my contributions would make it obvious.) So, in a sense, he is doing original research on himself disintermediated by printed articles or books. Therefore it should be deleted as Original Research, Point of View, Unreliable Source and Not Verifiable. It's a shame, really. Fantailfan 17:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Update - I have confirmed the posting is by the artist. Fantailfan 17:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Rather than keep this in the realm of the vaguely hypothetical, it's better to come out and say explicitly what article we are talking about: Avenging Annie.   I'm afraid that this kind of first-person account is blatantly POV, OR, and unverifiable.  I'm sure it was done in good faith; the author didn't try to hide what he was doing.  We really need to stick with published sources, however, and the author can be of great help to us in identifying interviews etc. that we can go to for similar information.  The key thing to remember here is that just because something is good and true doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia.  —Steven G. Johnson 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused -- isn't the intent of NOR to prevent wrong interpretations about something from being inserted into the articles? If this is coming straight from the artist's mouth, then the interpretation cannot be wrong. However, instead of NOR, it sounds like it would be WP:V that would come into play, as we would have no way in the future to verify that it was indeed the artist who said that, as we cannot cite anything. So it sounds like a WP:V issue rather than a WP:NOR issue. Thoughts? --plange 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NOR policy has nothing to do with the information being "right" or "wrong".  (Although keeping out bad information is certainly part of its intent.)  It is merely that Wikipedia is the wrong venue in which to first publish information.  As the policy says, we would have to reject even Pulitzer-level journalism if it were published on Wikipedia first. —Steven G. Johnson 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because a journalist is writing about something other than themselves and so they are creating original research and attempting to publish it here which is verboten. The problem here seems to be a WP:V thing and can be rectified by having the artist put the information on their own website so it can be cited. --plange 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the policy, don't just interpret the title.  Any creation/publication of a new primary source violates WP:NOR.  Yes, it also violates WP:Verifiability (the two policies are closely related).  However, self-publishing it on a website is not generally a way around these policies, because we require Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Steven G. Johnson 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter since both of us agree the stuff doesn't belong here, right? That's why it's a holy trinity, one of the three is going to "stick" with somebody and the stuff goes. --plange 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: On the other point, wouldn't the artist's own website be a reliable source for the interpretation of his own artwork? It should of course be augmented with any critical interpretations from reliable critics (Using WP:V), etc., so that it's not POV --plange 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. —Steven G. Johnson 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The article in question is "Avenging Annie." There is no question that the article is written by Andy Pratt, the author of the song. Although Wikipedia is not supposed to be a first publisher (and I obviously agree to this policy), are we going to tell him to have his publicist (if he has one) post first on his site and then one of us will link to it? Fantailfan 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's been done, moved to the talk page by Steven G. Johnson. I know it's policy, but is still a bit irritating. Fantailfan 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding having him post the same account on his website: what do we do in five years if the website goes offline or is changed? How will anyone ever verify the information then?  I agree that we could use the website in  a pinch, but we strongly prefer traditional published sources for good reason, I think.  In this case, the artist is prominent enough that there should be plenty of articles on his work, without making an end-run around the policy like this.  —Steven G. Johnson 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why accessdate is strongly recommended when citing from any website (any website has just as much potential to go away as any other, yet we do allow websites to be used as sources) so that the WayBackMachine can be used to pull it up. For instance, if I'm writing an article about Firefly (TV series) and wanted to find out what Joss Whedon, the creator, used as his inspiration, I should be allowed to quote from Whedonesque.com so long as the post was from him. --plange 20:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I know. It's all for good and solid reasons, with which I agree. I remember in 1994, Michael Stipe posted "in progress reports" to the R.E.M. board on AOL while the band was doing their new album - and now Time-Warner owns it without even knowing it. Fantailfan 20:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, that's why I said the artist's interpretation should also be supplemented by an outsider's interpretation as well. I think to discount and not state an artists view of their own work is misleading. What an artist says of their own work, and what others might think it means, can be very telling. It provides a more well-rounded article. --plange 23:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What an artist says of their own work, and what others might think it means, can be very telling. Yes. But how do we (all of us - editors and readers) know what they said? That is where verifiability comes in. We can't just take someone's word for it. There has to be the ability of any reader (with adequate prerequisites for the material the article covers) to follow the sources and arrive at the same conclusions expressed in the article. WAS 4.250 00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yes, that's why I was saying the artist's opinion needs to be somewhere that is verifiable (their own website, for instance, or an interview, etc) --plange 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We know what they said because we convince the artist to start their *own* website, and then we cite to it.  Verifiability on what the artists thinks of their own work, is, in fact, their own statement.  There is no need to go any further than that.  And no the reader doesn't have to "arrive at the conclusions" they only need to be able to verify that the statements are as quoted, they don't have to *believe* those statements represent truth.  If the artist has taken a picture of his dog, and says "This is my cat", then the cat-statement is what the artist in fact said, which is verifiable, but no one else will agree with the statement. Wjhonson 06:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research question - artist-submitted information 

message: Think about it users... ok... so many articles and sources that we find on the internet were once original research, somebody wrote it, others agreed and became popular, these are golden words, original research, proven, is sometimes best there is especially in the light on a subject that is little known or information comes from one dubious and subjective source a source that has something against a particular topic or individual or even history as a whole, the golden rule are my words... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.224 (talk • contribs) 
:Suspect you'd like the quote, "History is a fable, and a poor one at that." or "The difference between a novelist and a historian is this: that the former tells lies deliberately and for the fun of it; the historian tells lies in his simplicity and imagines he is telling the truth." These quotes are from Kristnihald undir Jökli or Christianity under the Glacier (published in English as 'Under the Glacier) by Halldor Laxness as translated by Magnus Magnusson, Vintage 2004
:But there is a strong reason for not allowing original research here on Wikipedia. Go take a look at the article titled Riksmål to get an idea of the confused point of view pushing that can result because Wikiepdia allows anyone to edit. Unsourced personal opinions result in confusion, edit wars & unusable material. 
: Suggest you take a look at Uncle G's Primary Notability Criterion also. Might help you better understand the issues.  
: Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 00:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not agree with this site

message: What I continue to not understand is this: if the vanity guidelines are subjective and allow for abuse, then why not fix them, instead of just pretending they're not relevant and refusing to link to them.  Isn't that the wrong way to address a problem?  What line in the vanity guidelines gives trolls license to harass experts?  Pproctor could help us out a lot if he explains this. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of it.  "Vanity" is completely subjective (and thus a ready weapon), except at the limits,  which can be well handled by WK:NPOV and WK:NOR.  Pproctor 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could take GTBacchus up on his excellent idea that you help to fix the vanity guidelines? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, there clearly being "not a concensus",  we should restore the long-term guideline in its original form. Pproctor 13:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps.  Trouble is, there's no consensus to put it back either, and there does exist a problem that's been indicated by the dispute, and we haven't yet addressed it.  The problem I'm thinking of is the name and nature of the vanity guidelines.  So, to clarify, is it your position that the vanity guidelines should remain as they are, vague and subjective, and that we should dig our heels in and refuse to improve them?  I mean, once the vanity guidelines are either fixed, or else deemed unfixable and demoted from "guideline" status, then it'll be easy to get a consensus for whether or not to link to them from this policy, right?  Since WP:VAIN is the page that actually caused your problem, I'm a bit surprised you aren't more focused on it.  It's still sitting there, with the official guideline tag up at the top. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By definition,  there was a "concensus" on the rule you are trying to change.  Ergo,  lacking a concensus to change it,  it is the only legitimate one.   Stating that there must be a "concensus" to revert a totally-illegal change to a rule is BS.   It this is true,  all you need is a compliant admin to freeze a change and anybody can change any rule at any time. Simple really. Pproctor 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I'm not trying to change the rule.  I'm trying to help resolve this dispute in a way that results in a better Wikipedia.  Secondly, your energy is misplaced in pursuing the idea of whether some past action was "legal" or not.  The rules here are not to be taken legalistically, but in a more consequentialist spirit.  All we care about is results.  I and others are working towards improving the policies and guidelines, while you seem to want to pursue a technical rules-oriented approach that will frankly get you nowhere on this Wiki.  Thirdly, you seem to be working from a different definition of conSensus than the rest of us.  You say that there was a consensus on the previous version of the rule, but that is clearly not the case, because there are lots of people who think it's better with the link to a relevant guideline.  The status quo is not defined to be a consensus version, it's simply assumed to be until the moment someone objects to it or changes it.  From that moment there is no consensus version; there's a dispute.  The correct thing to do in a dispute is to leave the article or policy in the Wrong Version and pursue discussion.  Attempting to get it changed based on a legalistic interpretation of Wikipedia policy is pretty much guaranteed not to work.  Now, if you understand this, and if you actually care about what Wikipedia policies and guidelines say about expert editors citing themselves, then you'll get over to Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines, and contribute to the discussion that's already underway there.  Pursuing the strategy of trying to get it changed back because "that's what the rule says" will lead you to more frustration. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification 2

message: :::::Again.  I p!ssed off Duncharris and assorted true believers over on Raymond Damadian by trying to introduce a little NPOV.  Dunc, who had recently been reprimanded for bad behavior, retaliated by searching out my posts and deleating/reverting them under the excuse of "vanity" because I had cited some of my own research papers.  
:::::I pointed out that this was perfectly legitimate (at arms length, naturally) under the existing rule.  He then proceeded to attempt to change the rule, presumably so he could continue his vendetta or perhaps just to further intimidate.   He eventually enlisted the assistance of his little group over at Raymond Damadian and Talk:creationist.  Look at the "history" sections on those groups to see the familiar names, including yours.  Also note that the existing rule bothered nobody until Dunc tried to cover his butt by changing it.  
:::::Pardon me for assuming bad intent.  There are some people here you cross at your own hazard.  If you like,  we can take this issue to arbitration.  If they endorse this kind of behavior and blatant rule-breaking,  the world ought to know about it. Pproctor 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are still accusing me of being a sock-puppet, co-conspirator, or collaborator of Dunc Harris in stalking you because I am pissed off by an edit your made concerning Raymond Damadian or a comment you made on the talk page for creationism, you are certainly welcome to file a complaint against me at the ArbCom.  But be warned - they will expect you to provide evidence.  If you are no longer accusing me of any of this, then you should respond to my explanations for the edit and stop bringing up Raymond Damadian as an excuse for your pathetic and paranoid attempt to continue disrupting this discussion. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You apparently had no interest at all in this rule before Duncharris attempted to change it.   As SV has noted,  you have been here before.  Why the sudden interest now? Pproctor 23:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise Pproctor, to stop with the silly conspiracy theories. If you look at editor's behavior from that lack of good faith, your view will be obfuscated and you will "see" conspirators everywhere you look. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ill answe Pproctors question, stupid and delusional though it is.  I am always concerned wtih improving articles and policies relevant to my own interests and work.  Moreover, Wikipedia is a collaborative project so whenever I see someone make an edit to an article or policy on my watchlist, I check it out.  If i object to the edit I explain why.  If I like the edit or have no problem with it, I leave it be.  if I like the edit or at least see some value in it and see others object to it, I follow the discussion and participate as I feel appropriate.  Pproctor, this is called collaboration and this is what wikipedia is all about.  But I do not think you will ever understand this as your own paranoid delusions, and your vanity and monomaniacle desire for self-promotion, lead you to view any collaboration as a conspiracy.  I hope I habve answered your question satisfactorily.  If you continue to believe I am part of some conspiracy, as I said before, just try to prove it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-subheader

message: :WTF?  Trying to make sense of this is virtually impossible as Proctor cannot stop interrupting other editor's comments.  This fucking interposting needs to stop.  Maybe, assuming Proctor performs surgery, I should bust into the OR, grab the scalpel, forceps or other instuments out of hishands, make a random cut, snip or clip and run back out.  Enough. •Jim62sch• 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While Jim's comment lacks civility and is unecessarily graphic, he does have a point. Proctor, it would be appreciated if you didn't intersperese your comments within others. JoshuaZ 00:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding interspersing comments

message: Is this still protected for a reason? Its been 5 days. Fresheneesz 07:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above question for Proctor.  Unless and until that is resolved, I assume the page will stay protected, as the activities of Proctor were likely a significant partion of the reasoning behind protection of the article.  I do not wish to speak for SV here, but I'd imagine I'm pretty close to adequately explaining her reasoning. •Jim62sch• 13:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While Pproctor continues to spin his paranoid fantasies above, the question is> are there other sections of this policy that currently need work? Note that there is a separate discussion on the Primary and Secondary Sources section, on its own talk page.  Aside from that discussion on that section, are there any other outstanding issues? The page can remain protected as long as it doesnt need work.  Does someone want to propose an agenda of concerns, sections that need work?Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Groupthink and Wikimedia-Cabal,  exerpted below. Pproctor 14:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  protected? 

message: "It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that their position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities..."
It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus...."   
"Groupthink is a mode of thought whereby individuals intentionally conform to what they perceive to be the consensus of the group. Groupthink may cause the group (typically a committee or large organization) to make bad or irrational decisions which each member might individually consider to be unwise.
:Groupthink being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well. 
Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, defined it as:
:A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.  "
From Wikimedia-Cabal
"Why People think a "Cabal" runs Wikipedia
Sympathy voting. Most obvious at en:WP:RFA, where it is common for someone to say, "well if User:xyz supports this person, then I do too!" Also occurs at other votes.
 
Sympathy editing. Most Wikipedia editors routinely follow the actions of others who share similar interests and values. Upon observing a colleague in an edit war, some will support that colleague without first considering the merits of the individual edit.
 
Decision making focus on individual cases (articles, disputes) without much regard to consistency and to the broader issues of policy raised by the case in question.
 
Arguably, some users (including most of the prominent sysops) have befriended one another through IRC and other media; some know one another in person. 
 
Many users do have certain traits in common, and may act as a group or be quick to defend each other without being consciously organized into a "cabal" - for example, many are leftist nonreligious twentysomethings. 
Historically, charges that there is a cabal that "rules" Wikipedia also stemmed from these factors:
Lack of any sort of balance of power or adverserial system: decision-making entities (e.g. Wales, Administrators as a group, developers) have no outside check on their authority
 
Absence of any truly active (or inclusive) discussion forum for project-wide policy issues, lukewarm encouragement of community involvement in them, and low turnout in those discussions that do occur. " Pproctor 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:concensus]]

message: What do we think?  Please note that the vanity guidelines have been emended to include a clearer statement that self-citation does not imply vanity.  It should be clear from this page and that one that our long-standing common-sense policy is still what it's always been: self-citation is just fine, as long as it complies with NPOV and NOR.  WP:VAIN defines vanity edits and makes it clear that they're something different from legitimate self-citation by an expert.
Can we unprotect the page now? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think we can unprotect because I do not trust Pproctor not to start a revert war.  Currently, admins can edit.  I propose a cautious policy: if anyone wants to, propose a change here (as I have done on the separate primary/secondary sources page) and allow for discussion.  When, if ever, a consensus or strong majority emerges in support of a proposed edit, an admin. can make the edit.  This seems prudent and provides a way for us to constructively discuss specific problems and make changes that will not invite controversy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pproctor has just agreed at his talk page and at the the Village Pump that he's ok with the two pages in question, as they currently stand, as long as we can assure him that he and other expert editors won't be subject to any kind of sanction due to spurious charges of vanity editing, when they cite themselves appropriately.  I'm inclined to think that unprotection is worth a try.  Do you think the Primary/Secondary crowd can keep from edit warring? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the primary/secondary section stands now is perfectly acceptable.  I'm afraid however, that as soon as its unprotected the edit wars will start again. Wjhonson 07:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Why on earth would you say that?Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I will unprotect. If editwarring resumes, we can always protect again. I will mark this version as "consensus version" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  I have been assured that this is really a clarification and not a change.   I might put the word  "clear" in somewhere,  if it looks appropriate,  but again I am assured this is assumed in the present guideline.  So I probably will not.  If the new guideline gets blatantly misused,  then I'll revert.  But I doubt this will happen.  EOF.  Pproctor 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safe to unprotect? 

message: The body of the Lookkae Long Thang article is an editor's translation of an anonymous Thai language political webboard post.  Does this qualify as original research, and if so, what would be a suggested course of action?  
There are two references in the article, one in Thai and one in English.  The English language reference does not contain any text from the anonymous post, nor does it contain a translation.  Both the Thai reference and the English reference are owned by Sondhi Limthongkul, the subject of the article.  I'm not sure how to proceed and would appreciate any suggestions. Cheers, Patiwat 00:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A web site mentioned in the text, but not in the references or notes, is manager.co.th, which does not work on my computer. The reference to Asia Times Online shows that some letter was read on a television show and stirred up trouble. If Asia Times Online is a reliable source, in spite of being affiliated with a company that is being sued, then the letter would be notable and worth translating. There does not seem to be any evidence that the Thai text in the article is the same text that was read on the television show. So the article really should be deleted unless a verifiable copy of the letter can be found. Once a verifiable copy is found, a decision would have to be made on the article's talk page about whether Asia Times Online is reliable, or find another reliable source showing that the letter is notable. After all that is established, it would be fine for the editor to translate the letter himself or herself. --Gerry Ashton 01:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Thanks.  The creater of the article was very critical of suggestions to delete the article, so I let it slide.  I'll ask him again to find an authoritative Thai-language copy of the original posting. Patiwat 04:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it original research to translate an anonymous webboard posting? 

message: I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor.  When reading this article in good faith looking for information on how to mark up newspaper sources, I noticed some phrasing I perceived as unnecessarily NPOV.  I changed "For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper The Militant to publish a statement claiming that President Bush hates children", to "...claiming that a high government official hates children."   I flagged the edit "Using the President's name in an example of some possible bad act violates NPOV".  User Harald88 reverted my edit with "rv: in such a case the view would be published without hiding the already published name".  I was then tempted to change "Bush" to "Clinton" to see what would happen next, but that seemed both childish and NPOV. It seems unnecessary to use any specific name in such an example.  Opinions?  I won't be around much today, so any response from me will be delayed. --CliffC 14:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harald88 is right.  You misunderstand both this page and NPOV.  First, this is a policy, not an article.  It is not "about" Bush or anyone, it is about a policy.  That The Militant might criticize Bush is no surprise.  The point of this policy page is that the Militant is NOT an appropriate source on this topic.  That the quote of the Militant names Bush does not in any way violate NPOV, because we are correctly identifying it as 'the Militant´s point of view.  Changing it from Bush to something else is not complying with NPOV it is simply lying - misrepresenting what the Militant says.  Moreover, changing it from Bush to Clinton or a high government official not only misses the point, it destroys the point - the point is that the Militant is not an appropriate source on this kind of claim.  It is precisely because it is the Militant making the claim, and the claim being about Bush, that the example illustrates what is an inapprorpiate source.  Change the Militant to the New York Times, or change Bush to Clinton, entirely disrupts the point.  If this does not make sense, ask Harald88 on his talk page to tutor you on the policy step-by-step.  In any event he is right. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe characterizing it as "lying" is unnecessarily harsh.  A more neutral word might be "glossing".  If the quote is direct, it should be precise, but indirect quotes by their nature are paraphrases.  I agree that strident sources should not be in used in cases where neutral sources exist.  In cases where the only sources are extreme ones however, then they should both be posted, so the reader can see what the issue is.  For example in Ann Coulter, where some issues do not yet seem to have a neutral representation. Wjhonson 16:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If an example is needed, it would be better to find one which can be verified as an untrue statement (I presume this example is fictitious). Tyrenius 03:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions please: should this change have been reverted? 

message: An editor creates a new legal article but doesn't cite any references.  While trying to verify that the contents of that article wasn't plagiarized from an external website, I found that the exact same content was posted to several blogs and websites.  So I immediately put a  tag on it.  The tag was reverted with a link to the article creator's user page, which claims that this editor often writes original work and submits it to Wikipedia and other educational websites.
I'm not sure what to do with articles like this.  Do they need a  tag, or a  tag, or a  tag, or nothing at all? Patiwat 20:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends how bad it is, really. If there are no apparent immediate sources, AfD is actually a good call! WP:VERIFY allows the immediate removal of any unreferenced material, but people object to that happening to an entire article, hence AfD. If you think it would breach WP:NOR even with references, then consider  (and, seriously, AfD). If it's actually fairly good and it looks like it does have references, they're just not listed,  can work, as can (you may wish to look at the wikicode I used there, btw, for a useful template ;) ) individual statements. In cases like these it is prudent to remind the editor that WP:VERIFY is not optional, both on the article's talk page and on the editor's talk page. LinaMishima 21:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it original research if..... 

message: As Wikipedia draws more attention from external communities and independent media it will need to drop the usenet babytalk and nursery tale jargon that it has become all too fond of in the past.  I bring this up here because some people keep replacing that troll tag on this page, and I think that the people who keep doing that probably don't realize how silly such a thing makes WP look to normal human observers from the wider world outside.  I have the impression that the people who started WP were more aware of professional standards of journalism and scholarship than the current crew of activists seem to be, but it's clear that we are in a different regime now, where most of the wiser heads have been chased off by a Peculiar Activist Subcabal Of The Administrative Cabal (PASOTAC).  In the general view of the outside world at the present time, the internal machinations of this PASOTAC are on a par with the antics of fantasy-dressed Trekkies at a Star Trek convention.  If Wikipedians earnestly desire more respect for their efforts than that, then they will have to earn it the good-old-fangled way, through quality research and reporting.  Ruby Rubicon 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jon, is that you? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it would seem so, as are User:Charon Charalike and User:Nathaniel Riddley. List of Jon Awbrey's sockpuppets (so far) is here. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Included would be User:Melusina Morgan and User:Number Seven, who commented above on this Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding Nursery Jargon, Welcoming External Criticism