Folks,
I tried to find the answer to this question in the policy sections of WP, but couldn't:
After you have placed a "citation needed" flag into an Article, is there a specific length of time you wait for either the citation to be added, or the statement in question to be removed by the person who wrote it, before deleting it yourself? The Article in question, BTW, is the one on [[Franz Kafka]].
Thanks,
Marc Riddell
On 27/03/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
After you have placed a "citation needed" flag into an Article, is there a specific length of time you wait for either the citation to be added, or the statement in question to be removed by the person who wrote it, before deleting it yourself? The Article in question, BTW, is the one on [[Franz Kafka]].
I tend to just leave them. I suppose you could note it on the talk page and leave it a week at most.
- d.
On 3/27/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I tried to find the answer to this question in the policy sections of WP, but couldn't:
After you have placed a "citation needed" flag into an Article, is there a specific length of time you wait for either the citation to be added, or the statement in question to be removed by the person who wrote it, before deleting it yourself? The Article in question, BTW, is the one on [[Franz Kafka]].
Thanks,
Marc Riddell
It all depends on the statement. If the statement is correct, but needs citation, then the tag merely says that it needs to be cited. If you have reason to doubt the information, then you can remove it after a reasonable amount of time - if you have reason to suspect that the original author didn't get a chance to see it, drop them a note.
Wikipedia is full of uncited information. All of it needs to be cited eventually, but the mere fact that something is uncited isn't enough of a reason to remove it.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 27/03/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is full of uncited information. All of it needs to be cited eventually, but the mere fact that something is uncited isn't enough of a reason to remove it.
I tend to remove only such statements as appear to be completely useless, POV or otherwise unencyclopedic. Note on talk page if in doubt, that should be enough.
- d.
on 3/27/07 8:14 AM, Guettarda at guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I tried to find the answer to this question in the policy sections of WP, but couldn't:
After you have placed a "citation needed" flag into an Article, is there a specific length of time you wait for either the citation to be added, or the statement in question to be removed by the person who wrote it, before deleting it yourself? The Article in question, BTW, is the one on [[Franz Kafka]].
Thanks,
Marc Riddell
It all depends on the statement. If the statement is correct, but needs citation, then the tag merely says that it needs to be cited. If you have reason to doubt the information, then you can remove it after a reasonable amount of time - if you have reason to suspect that the original author didn't get a chance to see it, drop them a note.
Wikipedia is full of uncited information. All of it needs to be cited eventually, but the mere fact that something is uncited isn't enough of a reason to remove it.]
Guettarda & David,
Thank you for you responses. This case is just one of many I have come across where the subject of the Article is reported to have been afflicted with "clinical depression". In Kafka's case, the statement I question is this: "It is generally agreed that Kafka suffered from clinical depression and social anxiety throughout his entire life."
Clinical Depression is a serious mental health condition that requires a formal, professional diagnosis. And the Kafka Article is just one of many, many I have come across in the encyclopedia where this statement is made without citation. This casual use of the term "clinical depression" is not fair to the subject, and can be misleading to the reader.
Marc Riddell
On 27/03/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Clinical Depression is a serious mental health condition that requires a formal, professional diagnosis. And the Kafka Article is just one of many, many I have come across in the encyclopedia where this statement is made without citation. This casual use of the term "clinical depression" is not fair to the subject, and can be misleading to the reader.
That'd be a {{fact}} tag, note on talk page and leave a week then in my casual editorial opinion.
- d.
--- Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Thank you for you responses. This case is just one of many I have come across where the subject of the Article is reported to have been afflicted with "clinical depression". In Kafka's case, the statement I question is this: "It is generally agreed that Kafka suffered from clinical depression and social anxiety throughout his entire life."
Clinical Depression is a serious mental health condition that requires a formal, professional diagnosis. And the Kafka Article is just one of many, many I have come across in the encyclopedia where this statement is made without citation. This casual use of the term "clinical depression" is not fair to the subject, and can be misleading to the reader.
If you believe the statement is untrue, why not just pull out the word "clinical"? This changes it from an unsourced medical diagnosis into the more general term "depression", which is often commonly used to mean any sort of unhappiness. Those who want the statement left in the article will probably be satisfied with this as a compromise, and perhaps you can be too.
____________________________________________________________________________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
on 3/27/07 9:10 AM, bobolozo at bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Thank you for you responses. This case is just one of many I have come across where the subject of the Article is reported to have been afflicted with "clinical depression". In Kafka's case, the statement I question is this: "It is generally agreed that Kafka suffered from clinical depression and social anxiety throughout his entire life."
Clinical Depression is a serious mental health condition that requires a formal, professional diagnosis. And the Kafka Article is just one of many, many I have come across in the encyclopedia where this statement is made without citation. This casual use of the term "clinical depression" is not fair to the subject, and can be misleading to the reader.
If you believe the statement is untrue, why not just pull out the word "clinical"? This changes it from an unsourced medical diagnosis into the more general term "depression", which is often commonly used to mean any sort of unhappiness. Those who want the statement left in the article will probably be satisfied with this as a compromise, and perhaps you can be too.
OK. Let's make you the subject of the Article. In your Article appears this statement: "It is generally agreed that bobolozo suffered from depression throughout his entire life."
In fact, as most of us do, you did have days when you were unhappy; but, for the most part you were pretty content with yourself and the world.
How would you feel about the statement then?
Marc
On 3/27/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/27/07 9:10 AM, bobolozo at bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Thank you for you responses. This case is just one of many I have come across where the subject of the Article is reported to have been afflicted with "clinical depression". In Kafka's case, the statement I question is this: "It is generally agreed that Kafka suffered from clinical depression and social anxiety throughout his entire life."
Clinical Depression is a serious mental health condition that requires a formal, professional diagnosis. And the Kafka Article is just one of many, many I have come across in the encyclopedia where this statement is made without citation. This casual use of the term "clinical depression" is not fair to the subject, and can be misleading to the reader.
If you believe the statement is untrue, why not just pull out the word "clinical"? This changes it from an unsourced medical diagnosis into the more general term "depression", which is often commonly used to mean any sort of unhappiness. Those who want the statement left in the article will probably be satisfied with this as a compromise, and perhaps you can be too.
OK. Let's make you the subject of the Article. In your Article appears this statement: "It is generally agreed that bobolozo suffered from depression throughout his entire life."
In fact, as most of us do, you did have days when you were unhappy; but, for the most part you were pretty content with yourself and the world.
How would you feel about the statement then?
Hey, it isn't an insult. Don't try to make it into one. "It's generally agreed that Churchill suffered from depression for much of his life" - not based on non-existent medical documents, but based on his own writing. But it's not an insult any more than is the conjecture that someone suffered from diabetes.
Of course, something that's "generally agreed" but for which one cannot find a source...that's iffy.
on 3/27/07 10:05 AM, Guettarda at guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Hey, it isn't an insult. Don't try to make it into one. "It's generally agreed that Churchill suffered from depression for much of his life" - not based on non-existent medical documents, but based on his own writing. But it's not an insult any more than is the conjecture that someone suffered from diabetes.
Guettarda,
I agree with you that it is not an insult. But statements about someone's mental and/or emotional condition are not dealt very kindly in the larger culture. And, it can be very tricky legally - if the subject of the statement wanted to pursue it.
Marc
On 3/27/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/27/07 10:05 AM, Guettarda at guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Hey, it isn't an insult. Don't try to make it into one. "It's
generally
agreed that Churchill suffered from depression for much of his life" -
not
based on non-existent medical documents, but based on his own
writing. But
it's not an insult any more than is the conjecture that someone suffered from diabetes.
Guettarda,
I agree with you that it is not an insult. But statements about someone's mental and/or emotional condition are not dealt very kindly in the larger culture. And, it can be very tricky legally - if the subject of the statement wanted to pursue it.
Marc
True, but weren't we talking about Kafka? He's been dead a while.
Anyway, your comment read like an insult, which it isn't and shouldn't be portrayed that way. Playing into that attitude strengthens it. And that's the kind of thing that stops people from getting help.
Ian
Marc Riddell wrote:
Thank you for you responses. This case is just one of many I have come across where the subject of the Article is reported to have been afflicted with "clinical depression". In Kafka's case, the statement I question is this: "It is generally agreed that Kafka suffered from clinical depression and social anxiety throughout his entire life."
Clinical Depression is a serious mental health condition that requires a formal, professional diagnosis. And the Kafka Article is just one of many, many I have come across in the encyclopedia where this statement is made without citation. This casual use of the term "clinical depression" is not fair to the subject, and can be misleading to the reader.
Clinical depression is indeed a serious condition among people.. When it comes to articles "generally agreed" can be just as serious a condition affecting the article. Sometimes it may be applicable as in, "It is generally agreed that Shakespeare is the greatest English writer of all times," but these situations are exceptional. The expression should be used with caution, and is subject to challenge.
Ec
--- Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I tried to find the answer to this question in the policy sections of WP, but couldn't:
After you have placed a "citation needed" flag into an Article, is there a specific length of time you wait for either the citation to be added, or the statement in question to be removed by the person who wrote it, before deleting it yourself? The Article in question, BTW, is the one on [[Franz Kafka]].
There is no specific answer on this, you do whatever you think is best in the situation. You don't have to put a citation needed flag up at all, you can remove anything you want from an article, particularly if it's unsourced.
It's more a matter of using common sense and communicating with whoever else is editing the article, if anyone is. The higher the traffic of the article and the more editors are involved, the more the need to discuss changes and form consensus and see what everyone else thinks. Little forgotten stub article no one ever looks at with no talk page, do whatever you want with it.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front