Talk:Red-necked Falcon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Birds Portal Red-necked Falcon is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do: edit Major taxonomic overhaul (see here) Create Galloanserae

Look, Yamla, whomever you may be, you're REALLY starting to press my nerves. I AM the authoritative source on this bird, have spent more time with them in the wild than anyone else alive. YOUR edit is the inappropriate part, and we're about to get ugly.

Is this place about giving the world the information, or some egotist like you (who probably never had a falcon on his hand in his life) telling me about my specialty?

Please reread WP:CITE and WP:V. Also, WP:NOT. Original research from the accepted authoritative source on a subject is nevertheless inappropriate for the Wikipedia. --Yamla 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

IS this about KNOWLEDGE or some jeuvenile word game? No wonder Wikipedia has quickly lost all credibility with the academic world. It's not from the misinformation (which would quickly be caught and corrected) but from moronic, frustrating rules like this. You're not helping this be a fountain of knowledge, you're repressing the best sources, in favor of some very old and inaccurate garbage that has a bibliography cite. When I've published this, then some idiot who ALSO hever touched these birds can quote me, but I can't quote myself???

See also: oxymoron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falc (talk • contribs)

Yet again, I direct you to WP:NOR which covers this in great detail. If you believe that original research should be accepted into Wikipedia articles, you are welcome to try to change this, one of our core policies. However, this particular article is not the right venue. Once you have built consensus to change the policy, then you can add your original research here. --Yamla 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further info on the subject

I wonder if those who research this bird at some future date will be pleased or annoyed by your vigil. My guess is that they'll be frustrated by that they could have gotten first-hand info from a master falconer who trapped them and manned them and took close-up pictures, but they were denied that opportunity by a zealot and a policy that is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

This is in the Discussion page, so I'm assuming I can't be sanctioned for the expression. --JT 07:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Yamla was absolutely right in this case; if editors are allowed to put original research in articles, anybody could put in absolutely anything they like (including complete rubbish) without having to prove that what they say is correct. (And yes, I know this happens everyday on Wikipedia; that's my point.) This is certainly not to say that what Falc added was rubbish; he may indeed be a very authoritative source (anonymity means we can't know for sure). If so, he should publish some of that knowledge somewhere (other than Wikipedia) so the rest of us could have access to it, and could cite it here—thereby improving the article as he wanted to do! MeegsC | Talk 11:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:OWN is also a policy to be carefully read. A world authority has no more right to assert control of an article than a newbie. Publish if you want to assert verifiability. Jimfbleak 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)