User talk:134.126.177.251

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Marian P. Opala

Could you please cite a source for your edits to the Marian P. Opala article. --TommyBoy 00:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tommyboy: I have personal knowledge of the judge's background in Poland and his World War II service. The information Wikipedia provided on his World War II history was originally based on the judge's interview with an Edmond OK newspaper that was in error on some points. I would provide sources form my corrections if any existed, but unfortnately the Edmond paper is the only published source, and it's wrong. If that's a problem, then feel free to revert the entry. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I assume that one benefit of a people's encyclopedia is that it can embrace personal knowledge that's correct over faulty information provided by a published source. Unfortunately not all knowledge is found in published sources.

Thanks for wanting to improve Wikipedia and to recognize the remarkable achievements of Marian P. Opala. However you are mistaken about how we work here. Personal knowledge is forbidden (WP:NOR). We must only use material that can be verified (WP:V) by other editors using reliable sources (WP:RS). If the Edmond interview is faulty in the view of editors such as yourself then we can still report what they say, perhaps omitting the disputed assertions. -Will Beback 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your polite response. I stand corrected. Now that I've reviewed Wikipedia's policies, I see that you are quite right -- every assertion must be verified by published sources. The problem I face here is that the Edmond, Oklahoma newspaper article is not so much making wrong assertions as it is just simply confused. The journalist obviously knew very little about Poland's World War II history, and so he failed to understand what Judge Opala told him. His article is not wrong; it's just mixed-up. I seem to find myself in a no man's land where the writings of an inexperienced reporter from a hick town newspaper doing an article on a subject he knows nothing about carries more weight than than someone who actually knows the subject because the reporter is the only one who has actually published on the topic. This makes the Edmond "Sun" something much more important than it really is!

I know it's frustrating, but verfiability is our core policy. If the only verifiable source for the info is unusably confused then our best alternative is to omit the information until a better source comes around. -Will Beback 20:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleting wrong information because even tho it is sourced it is wrong is sometimes ok. Without actually reviewing whatever the case in question is, we don't knowing keep wrong stuff just cause some newpaper somewhere reported it. Sources get stuff wrong all the time. That said, if someone else says it is accurate and don't delete it without a counter source, then just let it go. If you can't find a counter source then maybe you are wromg - or at the least it can't be too important. WAS 4.250 06:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cahokia

You have added a selection of references to this page. It would be better to link what lines in the text are based on the particular references. (See WP:Cite) If no material in the article uses the references, they should be called Further Reading. Rmhermen 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You have added some information that is not referenced in the cahokia page. For example, the statement that the burials in Mound 72 were mostly female virgins based on their pelvic bones. This is not stated in the Mound 72 report Appendix B shows that MOST were questionable based on the data available. Please advise if you have more accurate date and your sources?Marburg72 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments re: the U.S. "military industrial complex," motivations for alignment with 1960's counterculture

I understand your comments regarding the motivations of SOME young American men, because my reasons for aligning myself with the 1960's counterculture were similar. However, many others became counterculture participants for other reasons. I believe the general statement ("A counterculture movement gained momentum in which the younger generation began to define itself as a class that aimed to create a new kind of society.") is more inclusive and better fits the encyclopedic approach. Your correction of "its" for "their" in the general statement is probably better, although "class" can be interpreted as either singular or plural.

The impassioned explanation you wrote seemed too personal for this venue, which is why I changed it back. Founders4 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counterculture

I can understand your objections. But the "Counterculture" article as it stands places too much emphasis on the intellectual and literary foundations of the counterculure, and not enough on it being a culture, a community. Most participants in the counterculture were disaffected young people, especially college kids. For them it was more a way of life than an intellectual movement. I don't see that coming through in the article as it's presently written.