Talk:Stephen Schwartz (journalist)/old talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Information added to this article should be very carefully sourced to reliable mainstream sources. Anything else will be removed. --Michael Snow 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to somewhat object to that, simply on a matter of semantics: what is a 'reliable' source? What is a 'mainstream' source? Also, one does not lead to the other. I could understand if people were not citing their sources, as there is a standing Wikipedia policy on citing sources, however, limiting what sources can and cannot be used seems unneccesary, at best, and while I wouldn't agree with it, I am sure someone will cry the c-word (that being censorship) over it. Wizardry Dragon 23:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

... what is a 'reliable' source? What is a 'mainstream' source? Boy, that's a toughie. It's not as if it's ever come up before.

Oh, wait, it has: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anyone hypothetical person crying "censorship" either has basic vocabulary problems or is being dishonest.

As for the extra insistence on careful sourcing, it might have something to do with a) it's about a living person, b) it's about a living person who complained about the article, and c) it's about a living person whose complaints about the article were entirely valid, since the previous incarnation of this article was (as I recall) a thinly disguised, rumor-filled, and badly written polemic against the subject. Michael Snow's warning is for any "new users" who insist on readding the same old nonsense, that's all. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, was there ever a bit of policy or recommendation as to handling articles on living people? As well, I'm not disagreeing, it was a pretty horrible article, as I said, my objection had more to do just with semantics. I for one would hardly see it as censorship, and anyone who does obviously has never worked in the media under a editor-in-chief before, how I'd love to see them deal with that ^_~ I still wonder about the wording at least - a lot of 'mainstream' sources can be just downright wrong about things (such as Wikipedia's previous article on this subject here) Wizardry Dragon 00:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

...my objection had more to do just with semantics Semantics which have already been dealt with generally (see the provided link -- here it is again) and are entirely content-free specifically. Also, if you've read the previous version as you say, given that it was nuked over a month ago, how did you manage to miss the discussion over sourcing, Jimbo's involvement, handling complaints, legal threats, etc.? And where did you get the idea that "mainstream" sources that were "wrong" were involved here?

I also have to wonder why you need to see the old Talk pages to "determine for ourselves" when, by your own account, you must already have seen them. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because I have seen them doesnt mean the rest of Wikipedia has, which is why I chipped in that I think it should be archived, since anyone that reads this page or the the article is going to wonder what happened. Wizardry Dragon 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea: why not speak for yourself, instead of some hypothetical person crying "censorship" or some hypothetical person dying to know exactly what trashy rumors were being floated -- and how did you get the notion that any of these hypothetical people, reading the article cold, would come up with these bizarre notions entirely unaided? --Calton | Talk 00:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Discussion Pages

Why were the old discussion pages removed? Can anyone restore them?

Because the article was written without reliance on anything in them, they're not relevant to it, and there's no value to having them. They're mostly a bunch of back-and-forth over trashy "sources" and arguing about legal threats. I'm not going to restore them. If you can remember some specific matter that was touched on that would be useful to the current article, I'd be happy to dig through and pull that out for you. --Michael Snow 22:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not make them available as archive links, as is the custom on Wikipedia? Griot 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably because the article was written without reliance on anything in them, they're not relevant to it, and there's no value to having them. They're mostly a bunch of back-and-forth over trashy "sources" and arguing about legal threats. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"Probably because"? I take it you didn't read them? I did read them. Some of the discussion was of value. I suspect past discussions were removed because of legal threats. If that's the case, just say so. Otherwise, I don't understand why they were removed. As far as I know, this is the only instance in Wikipedia when past Discussion pages and past editions of an article weren't archived. It's weird. Why was everything prior to this March wiped off the map? Griot 00:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I take it you didn't read them? I did read them. You, on the other hand, given your I suspect past discussions were removed because of legal threats, had trouble reading the simple declarative sentences by Michael Snow explaining why the archives weren't restored, sentences which were the ones I cut-and-pasted to re-emphasize the point that apparently escaped you. Here they are again:

Because the article was written without reliance on anything in them, they're not relevant to it, and there's no value to having them. They're mostly a bunch of back-and-forth over trashy "sources" and arguing about legal threats. I'm not going to restore them. If you can remember some specific matter that was touched on that would be useful to the current article, I'd be happy to dig through and pull that out for you.

Try reading the sentences this time, and all will be clear. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just read it again, as per your instructions, and again I'm baffled because I read past discussions (and contributed a little) and there was much more in there than "back and forth over trashy 'sources' and arguing about legal threats." Secondly, why was the original article expunged? Very fishy, this whole business. It sets a bad precedent when someone can threaten legal action to have an article removed. But hey, this is the Wikipedia. It's not a real encyclopedia, so I'm willing to drop it. Nuff said. I'm not going to read or contribute to this article anymore. Griot 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

...there was much more in there than "back and forth over trashy 'sources' and arguing about legal threats." Really? Not my recollection. But I dunno, if you can remember some specific matter that was touched on that would be useful to the current article, Michael Snow, I'm sure, would be happy to dig through and pull that out for you.

Secondly, why was the original article expunged? Because the previous, unstubbed versions were complete and unsalvagable trash. If you contributed to that, you ought to be glad your history has been expunged. If you want to reinsert the trash, you'll have to do it the hard way.

I'm not going to read or contribute to this article anymore. Thank God for small favors. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I mean, how are we supposed to determine for ourselves what we do or do not believe is relevant to the article without knowing the contents of these discussions? Wizardry Dragon 23:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, if you can remember some specific matter that was touched on that would be useful to the current article, Michael Snow, I'm sure, would be happy to dig through and pull that out for you. Or, you can trust that people who've read them have already made that judgment. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is ridiculous. We don't censor talk pages, and we have no need to hide what's on them. To say that one would have to petition Michael Snow with some memory of what might have been in an edit is absurd. I can see no problem with opening up the histories of this talk page. To have to have the archives of the Talk Page kept as records on the obnoxious 'WikiTruth' site is an embarrassment. Who cares if there was nothing valuable in the archives? Simply opening them up would have saved many paragraphs worth of pointless back-and-forth, unnecessary insults and patronizing. Accordingly, I've restored the history of this page. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)