On Mar 23, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote: You can add a separate section, like "World War II", for those occurrences. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:20:46 +0100, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote: I would think just a couple of sentences followed by {{main|World War II}} or simmilar would be sufficient in such cases. -- [[User:Sherool]]

If reliable sources can't be cited, does that make the information original research? I mean, I can document periods of my life citing my website and other online sources, but those aren't reliable, are they? Therefore I'm creating original research, aren't I? Steve Block -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 24/03/06

Steve Bennett wrote: I mean there are no reliable sources, not that I can't personally access them. Well, I'm going by ''Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".'' So creating a narrative which doesn't exist elsewhere, for example citing blog entries to create a story, that's clearly original research, yes? Steve Block -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 24/03/06

Steve Bennett wrote: Okay, but imagine you have one blog, which describes said blogger doing a, b and c. Is that permissable? Because if it is, then it's permissable to game Wikipedia, to my mind, in that anything documented online is fair game. To my mind, a novel narrative is one that can not be verified independent of the events themselves. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 24/03/06

Steve Bennett wrote: See, to me if the narrative is unverifiable, then it's not allowable per [[WP:V]]. Novel, to me, indicates new. Steve Block -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/293 - Release Date: 26/03/06

On 3/24/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote: A blog is allowed to be used as a source in an article about the blogger (but not anywhere else), so long as the material used is only about that blogger and not about third parties; is notable; is not unduly self-aggrandizing; is not contradicted by third-party sources; and so long as there's no reasonable doubt about the blogger's identity. And of course, there must be reliable third-party source material available about that blogger before a Wikipedia entry would be justified in the first place. Those restrictions reduce the extent to which someone can game our policies by sticking material up on their personal website, then insisting it be used as a source in Wikipedia. Sarah

But if you are citing this idea from published material it is no longer a novel idea. Ec Fred Bauder wrote:

On 3/27/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote: Nope. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. They can be certainly be used as sources in articles about those specific blogs, and can be quoted if the authors themselves are famous individuals, but in general they should be avoided. And what then is a novel idea? I Yes. Jay.

On 3/24/06, Keith D. Tyler <keith(a)keithtyler.com> wrote: That's because if you cite a published source, readers can easily check that it says what you say it does. They can't easily check that the guy on the phone told you 500 planes fly in and out every day. Sarah

On 3/26/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote: No, of course personal communications are not valid to cite. You can cite reliable published sources. Jay.

Not if it can be verified by anyone. k On 3/26/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

Daniel Mayer wrote: According to [[WP:V]], absolutely. A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry. Why not? Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you? For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it might be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/293 - Release Date: 26/03/06

--- slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote: That is absurd since not all knowledge has been written. What matters is if you can trust the source and if it is verifiable. The method of communication is not that important. -- mav __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Keith D. Tyler wrote: Thanks, but no thanks. This has all kinds of verifiability problem - who answers the phone? Are they working from records, or BSing you from memory so as to get you to hang up and stop bothering them? What if I call them later, and get a different answer; do I delete your number as out of date, or start accumulating a long list of answers from random phone calls? There are millions of good print resources in the world; I'd be happy if people actually finished the job of representing their content in WP, rather than fool around with marginal cases. Stan

Yes but in written sources you have just that - a written record of what was said and who said it. That is the difference in credibility between an official press release by the airport and you phoning up some bozo in the airport's customer services department Cynical Keith D. Tyler wrote:

On 3/26/06, Keith D. Tyler <keith(a)keithtyler.com> wrote: Keith, for any source you use, you should leave a full citation in the References section. See [[WP:CITE]]. That way, if your source is on the Web and disappears, others may still be able to find it (if, say, it was a published article that was posted online). However, if you're using material that exists only on the Web, and the website disappears completely, then you've lost your source, and the material in the article goes back to being unsourced. For that reason, and also to do with the likely quality of the source, I'd say it's best to avoid relying on material that exists only on one or two websites. Sarah

Keith D. Tyler wrote: If you have properly recorded the time at which you accessed the website (are you using {{cite web}} ?) it is quite simple to construct an automatic link via the Wayback Machine. If memory serves, {{dlw}} and {{dlw-inline}} are related to this...yes, they are. If it proves sufficiently common, it should be possible to adapt the various {cite ...} templates which all "url" parameters to accommodate an option to provide a historical link if necessary. Actually, come to think of it, given that we encourage people to record the time when they viewed a given URL, it might not be a bad idea to channel *most* of them through the Wayback Machine so as to link to the state of said URL when it was used as a reference... HTH HAND -- Phil -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Year-articles---en%3A-versus-de%3A-t1331561.html#a360… Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 03:03:49 -0800 (PST), you wrote: To imbue that comment with a seriousness which was probably not meant: very low. There is substantial encyclopaedic content. What you *would* probably find is that every year since 199x would be dominated by "foo Pokemon deck released" with a three paragraph summary, "foo game released for bar console" with nine paragraphs, "foo webforum launched" with 28 paragraphs... and somewhere buried at the bottom in about eight words the fact that the Nobel Prize for Medicine was awarded to a man who discovered a cure for cancer and the common cold, over which there would be an edit war regarding the precise semantics of the words "cure", "common", "cold" and quite likely "who" ;-) Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG