Content deleted Content added
Binksternet (talk | contribs) →Feminism article: tortuous |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 825: | Line 825: | ||
:"Tortured" might have been better expressed as "tortuous". No personal attack intended. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet#top|talk]]) 19:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |
:"Tortured" might have been better expressed as "tortuous". No personal attack intended. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet#top|talk]]) 19:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
::Binksternet, regarding the {{User|Spudst3r}} and {{User|BrentNewland}} accounts, I think that you and [[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]] should get a [[WP:CheckUser]] to look into that. I am certain that if it's not a [[WP:Sockpuppet]] matter, it is a [[WP:Meatpuppet]] matter. |
|||
::Furthermore, BrentNewland's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&diff=prev&oldid=646539891 edit] here and statement [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminism&diff=646538753&oldid=646537604#Removal_of_.22By_Whom.22.2C_.22Which.22.2C_and_.22Citation_Needed.22_tags here] are imprecise with regard to how to apply those templates. What I mean by that that is the following: |
|||
::[[Template:Who]] states: Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like ''some'' or ''most'' are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious [[wikt:laundry list|laundry list]] of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only "Some people..."—then Wikipedia must remain vague. |
|||
::[[Template:Whom]] states: Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire "According to whom?" in that circumstance. |
|||
::[[WP:Weasel words]] states: The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the [[WP:LEAD|lead section]] of an article or in a [[topic sentence]] of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] may use similar expressions if they '''''accurately represent the opinions of the source'''''. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be [[WP:OR|original research]] or would violate the [[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]]. Equally, editorial [[irony]] and [[damning with faint praise]] have no place in Wikipedia articles. |
|||
::And [[WP:CITELEAD]] states: Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |