MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
How did that happen without me knowing about it?
Anyway, the "key step of superceding WP:RS" as someone called it can only be
done if it's included in the page.
You don't want people to cite any random website.
Mgm
On 3/1/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>Rob Smith wrote:
>
>
>>On 2/28/07, Slim Virgin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The aim was
>>>to get rid of the word "verifiability." This was causing confusion
for
>>>new editors because they thought it meant they had to check that
>>>material was true, which is what "verify" usually means, rather
than
>>>simply checking that it had been published elsewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>Hmm. The Latin root of verify means "true"; amazing the policy read
>>"verifiable, not true". Like in the English language, just what the
hell
>>did that ever mean, anyway?
>>
>>
>What is verifiable is what was actually said; that implies nothing
>about the substantive truth of the statement. It allows us to maintain
>NPOV by including verifiable but contradictory statements on both sides
>of an issue. Only rarely are they both true.
>
I certainly didn't intend to suggest that we were talking about anyone
who making only random citations. In the case of an article about a
war. Each party sincerely makes the claim that the other side was
responsible for beginning the conflict, and believes it to be true. We
can verify what each side says, but we should not be trying to evaluate
who really did start it.
Ec