-- Keith Old <keithold(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Apart from being massively POV, it would also > be
original research.
We should base our articles on verifiable material
published in other reliable
sources.
Ah, another convenient reference to WP:CITE and
WP:NOR. Its reporting on the nature of a document
which is both wikinewsworthy and wikipedic. Anyway,
the purpose was to generate some thinking on the
issue, and to establish in pixels that the general
consensus is to do whats right, and support doing
whats right. I suppose this goes without saying.
But calling it "massively POV" [sic] is hardly fitting
language for a document that (if verified by
credentialled and loyal government sources) would seem
destined to put the final nail in the coffin of a
false political ideology. I suppose this goes without
saying.
We should not be publishing original documents
ourselves.
At best, it would be a matter for Wikisource.
Well if thats your point, then we are only in
disagreement about your low value judgement of "at
best." AFAIK there is no wikisource mailing list, so
we are discussing this issue here --even though it
does fly into the territories of Wikipedia policy, as
well as foundation policy and rhetoric.
Stevertigo
The dagger-legend is, of course, a lie
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/