In a message dated 9/20/2010 12:41:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
I can read a
book on the History of the Fourth Crusade, and adds quotes
our articles on the persons and events, just as
well as an expert in
is anything to go by, the answer is, no you can't. Sorry :(
What's the point of this sort of sniping?
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.