steven l. rubenstein said:

...

...

"Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com

Quality of source is usually (but not always) POV. We're supposed to be writing NPOV articles. A caveat such as "warning: the article relies on population projections that were proven by events to be grossly in error" is fine and NPOV. A caveat such as "the claims at this site are patently incorrect" is POV and superfluous. Otherwise rely on the general site content disclaimer and the reader's commonsense.

I believe this misrepresents our policy.

Could you be more specific?

I'm afraid you will have to read my entire e-mail, and not just the first sentence. I do not see how I could possibly be more specific than I am in the three paragraphs that you didn't seem to read. If you read them and don't think I am being specific, I am sorry but I cannot help you. It's as specific as one can get.

But my advice to you is to read over the other policies that I mention carefully, and perhaps read through the entire histories of the various cases that others have mentioned as examples of prolonged conflict over content. I think if you know more about Wikipedia policies and practices, you will find it easier to follow this discussion.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701