I think most of us have had enough of this. If a dispute remains, please use the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure.
Fred
From: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com Reply-To: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:51:15 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] primary and secondary sources
I strongly disagree. The only cites should be good cites. Bad ones are misleading and wasteful. A good cite is easy enough to make: one that accurately describes the cited material and relates it to the subjectmatter. This latest fuss was, at bottom, over attempts by some of us to transform a bad cite (a statement that a UN source said something that we didn't know it said) into a good one (a statement that a secondary source gave a figure and attributed it to a UN source).
Um, no. The cite said exactly that already. The latest fuss was, at the bottom, over attempts to exclude the cite altogether because one editor didn't like it. And even after it was confirmed as factually correct, he still made several attempts to exclude it on other grounds.
Actually, the attempts that this "one editor" did, was to tell the readers that the "cite" inserted did refer to something completely different from what all the other "cites" referred to. Those attempts were completely resisted (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refug... e_flight_of_1948&diff=9512567&oldid=9511977) for some reason.
-- mvh Björn _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l