[WikiEN-l] Lauritsen talk page

([http://www.duesberg.com/subject/jlbib.html bibliography]) regardless, if you think he is not notable please use [[Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion]] - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion]] | [[User_talk:Cohesion|talk]] 06:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC) * Warning: The bibliographies of John Lauritsen on the internet are widely speculated to be false. I think this should be cleared up before an article is finalized and posted. [[User:Rabryan|Rabryan]] 06:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC) ::I really have no knowledge of this person, if you think it is a candidate for deletion though you should add it [[Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion]], it's not speedy deletable though under the [[WP:CSD]] rules. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion]] | [[User_talk:Cohesion|talk]] 06:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC) :::This just ''barely'' scrapes under the speedy deletion criterion "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance". OK, so he is an "activist and scholar" who "covered AIDS for the (publication which we do not have an article on)". Is that asserting importance or significance? Come on, if the guy has published books, at least mention that. --[[User:Stormie|Stormie]] 23:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC) ::How can a bibliography be false?? The existence of his articles and books are trivial to verify. I own several of them at home. What a moron (or troll). [[User:198.59.188.232|198.59.188.232]] 23:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) *If bibliographies are false, it doesn't mean they don't exist. It means they carry false information. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|^(talk)]] 23:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Now, let's examine what kind of "reasoning" is going on here: Almost nothing has been written on this article at the moment, (2 lines), yet someone is already taking pre-emptive measures to assert that this person's writings (none of whose claims have even been articulated in the article) are false before the article is "finalized or posted". Just the wording there tells me this is someone completely unfamiliar with wikipedia. On top of this, this nonsense about a "bibliography being false", confusing it with the claims in the elements of the bibliography. You could use this against anyone. You could say, "well, we shouldn't have articles on holocaust deniers, because their bibliographies (sic) are false". Their bibliographies are NOT FALSE -- holocaust deniers may be spouting incredibly false statements, but the existence of their publications is not "false". I am shocked at the lack of basic logic and reasoning used at this talk page and elsewhere. Note also the fact that the New York Native has no wikipedia is article is used as "evidence". This is even worse than googling and alexa rankings. As I've said before, ignorance knows no bounds, and nothing will stop people from pontificating about things which they're completely ignorant of. Of course, what do I care. Episodes like this have already driven me leaving wikipedia for now, creating a new wikicity and consulting wikipedia just to copy stuff to it. darin