User talk:65.70.239.153

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Welfare queen. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources. Thank you. Ariel♥Gold 17:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC).


I appreciate that, but if you don't consider the Associated Press a "verifiable source," then why does this "Welfare Queen" article even exist? Or if you don't consider LEXIS a "verifiable source," then how are you verifying the NY Times article from 1976?

Moreover, the AP articles aren't being used here to prove that these individuals did, in fact, commit welfare fraud. Even if those individuals were innocent, the AP articles are useful: 1) to demonstrate that the "welfare queen" idea had some currency in public debate in the 1970s, and 2) to demonstrate that Reagan didn't just wholesale invent the idea (as some people have accused him of doing).

Bottom line: If you don't think old news stories are verifiable, then delete the entire article. Indeed, if you don't like negative information about a living person, then you need to delete the entire article as well (the article as written already contains lots of accusations about living persons; my addition of AP articles only serves to add more details.)

Thanks for your attention!

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Welfare queen. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


Are you serious? Since when are mere quotations from AP articles from LEXIS deemed "vandalism"?

When you add material that is unsourced, uncited, and not in your own words, as well as not neutrally written. These policies are part of the core pillars of Wikipedia, and not taken lightly. Please review them, so you can understand how to add material you find elsewhere, giving attribution, wording it neutrally without copying it, and properly citing it per the manual of style. Another very important policy is that of the biographies of living persons policy, when you are adding material about people, it must be written within the guidelines of that policy. Take a look at them, and please review them carefully. AP and NEXIS are of course reliable sources, but they must be cited. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 17:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Please don't use HTML, Wikipedia uses its own code, called Wikicode, and so there is no need for things like line breaks, just double space for a line break :o) Ariel♥Gold 17:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


I did too source the AP articles. In a recent revision, I added footnotes properly that cite those AP articles as best as is possible from the information available on LEXIS.

But another user then reverted my edits on the bogus pretext that they were "vandalism." This makes no sense. Clearly you guys are allowing the article as written to contain 1) negative information from 2) 1970s news articles that are available only on LEXIS or microfilm somewhere. There is no good faith reason to object if someone adds similarly sourced information from AP articles from the 1970s.

P.S. I initially tried using double space for a line break, but on a preview, it all got blurred into a single paragraph. That's why I initially added the HTML line breaks. Thanks.

I realize you put a few sources in, but for information like this, sources have to be done for every passage, to verify each item you are stating, especially when speaking of criminal acts done by living people. And no, reverting doesn't mean we don't allow non-URL references at all, again, please read WP:RS and WP:BLP to understand. Offline sources can be used, but they must be cited properly and information has to be carefully added in this case. The information is potentially damaging to living people, and Wikipedia has a legal obligation to take extreme care in this type of thing, as I hope you can understand. And double-spacing (hitting enter twice at the end of a line) will make a new "Wikiparagraph", it could just be the browser displays it oddly. I'd be willing to help you expand this section within Wikipedia's manual of style and other guidelines and policies, if you like. I can't do it today (almost bedtime for Ariel! :o) ) but I could tackle it tomorrow if you want help? Ariel♥Gold 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sources have to be "done for every passage"?? What is that supposed to mean? If an Associated Press article from the 1970s says X, Y, and Z, there's no way that you're seriously making everyone go out and find independent substantiation for X, Y, and Z, apart from the news story itself. Just like, in the article as written, you're obviously not making anybody go out and find independent proof for the last paragraph (only source: a 1980 NY Times article).
As I said, for passages that are quotations, or for controversial passages, they must be cited. The citation can be one that was previously cited, but they still need to be cited. This is especially important with articles that deal with living people in a controversial way, discussing crimes, etc., per the WP:BLP policy. I'm not saying separate sources have to be used, but that the passage must be attributed to a source, whether it is one previously given, or not. Again, I would be willing to help re-write this using these techniques, should you wish. Ariel♥Gold 08:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So you're not saying that separate sources have to be used. OK, then everything I did sufficed, right? I used blockquotes. And a blockquote accompanied by a citation means that everything within the blockquote came from the citation.
As I said, and if you'll read the policies, there needs to be more citations for the kind of material you're adding. "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles" Your edit adds controversial statements alleging crimes of living persons, and the statements need to be cited. If that means using the same source, (see WP:FOOT for how to site a source more than once) then fine, but it still has to be done. You can't just use one source, and leave it to the reader to assume the entire article is attributing every statement to that source. This is the point of footnotes. See any featured article. Ariel♥Gold 12:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, that's what a blockquote means. If there's a blockquote and the blockquote itself is sourced, it's absurd to insert within the blockquote a bunch of identical footnotes to that same source. The whole point of a blockquote is that EVERYTHING in it is a quotation from the cited text. (And it's in block format, hence "blockquote"). I understand that Wikipedia is sensitive to libel issues, but if you're going to let people quote Associated Press stories at all, it's rather odd not to recognize what a blockquote is.
UPDATE: You say, "You can't just use one source, and leave it to the reader to assume the entire article is attributing every statement to that source." But again, that's the entire function of a blockquote. You might as well say that I can't assume Wikipedia readers will know what a footnote means, or quotation marks, or punctuation marks, etc.
I understand that you used quotes, and yes, references cover the quotes, but that's not how the edit was done initially, [1], so my statements are based upon the appearance of that initial edit, which was not sourced properly. The more recent edit, was done using a series of just quotations, and that is not how articles on Wikipedia are done. If you would like me to add the information in, using the manual of style, and following policy, feel free to let me know, but what I am saying is, the edit, as it was done, was not in line with the manual of style, and placed undue weight on one person. I am not arguing that your sources were bad, and looking at the more recent edit you did, it was sourced better, but still just basically a bunch of quotations, not prose. I would be happy to write it up in the style of Wikipedia, if you wish. :o) Ariel♥Gold 21:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. I created a user account and tried myself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vanauken/Sandbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanauken (talk • contribs) 15:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)