In a message dated 9/20/2010 12:41:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, peter.damian@btinternet.com writes:

...

I can read a book on the History of the Fourth Crusade, and adds quotes

to

...

our articles on the persons and events, just as well as an expert in

that

...

specific field.

If this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_of_Hungary& oldid=383882577 is anything to go by, the answer is, no you can't. Sorry :(

What's the point of this sort of sniping? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_of_Hungary&diff=prev&... oldid=383882577 I really don't see to what you're referring. This diff only shows the addition of her third marriage, and one short sentence about "Boetia". If you're claiming you want a source for the third marriage, than tag it! Otherwise I don't know what you're saying.

You can respond to me privately on this point, since I doubt the list cares about the intricate details of a rather obscure woman dead for 800 years.

Personally I think Nathan Salmon is wrong. Only in a single instance can I recall being frustrated at the insistence of citing every tiny fact in an article. Rather, in my experience, some rather outrageous claims stand, and it's I who have had to come along and tag those claims, and then later remove them. The problem, if we have a citation problem at all, is trying to teach general editors who sort of things are credible sources and what sort are not. In general I mean, not in particular.

Salmon makes the mistake of stating something like "known to those who know". Excuse me? That's the very problem. We are not here to provide extra details for experts to debate amongst themselves. We are a general work. We need to talk to the general population, in a language they understand, with citations that show the exact points we're making, at least when challenged. That is how we show we are experts. Not in our use of jargonized language and high-level sputterings, that few can get through. For Salmon to declare that certain things "known to experts" cannot be challenged, is frankly... outrageous. And highlights my point, that those sort of experts, the ones who can't be cajoled into citing sources, and explaining points, simply do not belong in this project.

Will Johnson