Talk:Modern Arnis/Archive 2

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Modern Arnis/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --Bob Hubbard 22:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please leave the following out of Wikipedia:
# Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Wikipedia:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals; but strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.
# Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.
# Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. See No 5 below. See also Writing guide: check your fiction.
# Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
# Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Also see Wikipedia is not a blog.
# Discussion forums (or Everything2 nodes). Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles.
From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
Based on that, this isn't the place to define it. Define it elsewhere, have it referenced and then cite it accordingly. The other side of this is, that all those places I mentioned exist for the discussion of the arts. This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. Yes, they are biased, as are we all. That doesn't negate their ability to function. If you don't like the ones I mentioned, maybe try Escrima Digest. It's better suited than Wiki for topic discussion, and if a consensus is reached there, may be a citeable source to use here. The Wiki policy seems pretty clear to me that this is not the place to define something.--Bob Hubbard 17:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought