Misplaced Pages

Talk:Michael Danby: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:38, 8 March 2006 editAdam Carr (talk | contribs)26,681 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 02:03, 17 April 2006 edit undoJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,659 edits Danby's preselection: espNext edit →
Line 9: Line 9:


That depends on what the "things" are. Most statements of fact in articles are not contentious and don't need to be sourced. If I write "Mark Latham was born in Sydney," that is not a contentious statement and doesn't need a source unless someone challenges it. If I write "Mark Latham is clinically insane," that is a contentious statement (although perfectly true in my opinion) and a reference must be provided. Personally I think source-fetishism is taken too far at Misplaced Pages. Other encyclopaedias don't provide sources at all, but that is because people trust the editorial processes at those encyclopaedias. Since Misplaced Pages has no editorial process at all in the sense that contributors can write whatever they like, more referencing is needed. The trick is to strike a balance between referencing all contentious statements and not cluttering the text with citations. ] 08:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC) That depends on what the "things" are. Most statements of fact in articles are not contentious and don't need to be sourced. If I write "Mark Latham was born in Sydney," that is not a contentious statement and doesn't need a source unless someone challenges it. If I write "Mark Latham is clinically insane," that is a contentious statement (although perfectly true in my opinion) and a reference must be provided. Personally I think source-fetishism is taken too far at Misplaced Pages. Other encyclopaedias don't provide sources at all, but that is because people trust the editorial processes at those encyclopaedias. Since Misplaced Pages has no editorial process at all in the sense that contributors can write whatever they like, more referencing is needed. The trick is to strike a balance between referencing all contentious statements and not cluttering the text with citations. ] 08:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In regard to this :
Please avoid using abusive ] as per ] and ]. Thanks and happy edits.<!-- Template:Edit summary personal -->. ] 02:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:03, 17 April 2006

Talk:Michael Danby/archive1

Danby's preselection

  • Strictly speaking Danby will not be preselected until the Public Office Selection Cttee votes, which I think will be on Thursday night. But his 75% local vote assures his endorsement.
  • I cannot provide a published source for the preselection voting, since it has not been reported in the press (not as newsworthy as Hotham, obviously). I conducted the count and I can tell you that Danby polled 277 votes to van Leeuwen's 89, with 2 informal. You can take my word for it or not as you please. Adam 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's OK to assert things without published sources? I'm struggling to keep up with the complexity of the rules here. DarrenRay 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what the "things" are. Most statements of fact in articles are not contentious and don't need to be sourced. If I write "Mark Latham was born in Sydney," that is not a contentious statement and doesn't need a source unless someone challenges it. If I write "Mark Latham is clinically insane," that is a contentious statement (although perfectly true in my opinion) and a reference must be provided. Personally I think source-fetishism is taken too far at Misplaced Pages. Other encyclopaedias don't provide sources at all, but that is because people trust the editorial processes at those encyclopaedias. Since Misplaced Pages has no editorial process at all in the sense that contributors can write whatever they like, more referencing is needed. The trick is to strike a balance between referencing all contentious statements and not cluttering the text with citations. Adam 08:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In regard to this dif: Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy edits.. JoshuaZ 02:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Danby: Difference between revisions Add topic