info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Tolkien Censorship at Wikipedia
104 views
Skip to first unread message
Louis Epstein
Feb 6, 2022, 3:08:18 AM2/6/22
to
[adding intended crosspost]
Louis Epstein <l...@top.put.com> wrote:
> At Wikipedia,a user known as "Chiswick Chap" has taken it upon
> itself to enforce that site's ludicrous rules on articles affecting
> Tolkien,claiming to have "scoured and renewed",with a link to their
> article on the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire",much of the
> Tolkien coverage.
>
> In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome"
> (obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather
> than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations
> of obvious differences between the Bakshi film and the books,such as
> Legolas being the Elf the hobbits meet en route to Rivendell rather
> than Glorfindel,or Saruman being intermittently called "Aruman" and
> robed in red,in a section ostensibly listing differences between the
> book and film...immediately deleting an edit as "unsourced" (the film
> and book themselves are the best sources possible) and deleting a
> remonstration on his talk page as "abuse of his talk page".
>
> Scouring of the Shire,indeed.
> "If I hear 'Not Allowed' much oftener..."
>
> Well,I'm now on a TEN YEAR ban from there,given my defiance of
> other biases and policies...and Tolkien-specific wikis have been
> intermittent on accepting my contributions...but I am considering
> creating a proper fork for sane editing.
>
> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein <l...@top.put.com> wrote:
> At Wikipedia,a user known as "Chiswick Chap" has taken it upon
> itself to enforce that site's ludicrous rules on articles affecting
> Tolkien,claiming to have "scoured and renewed",with a link to their
> article on the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire",much of the
> Tolkien coverage.
>
> In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome"
> (obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather
> than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations
> of obvious differences between the Bakshi film and the books,such as
> Legolas being the Elf the hobbits meet en route to Rivendell rather
> than Glorfindel,or Saruman being intermittently called "Aruman" and
> robed in red,in a section ostensibly listing differences between the
> book and film...immediately deleting an edit as "unsourced" (the film
> and book themselves are the best sources possible) and deleting a
> remonstration on his talk page as "abuse of his talk page".
>
> Scouring of the Shire,indeed.
> "If I hear 'Not Allowed' much oftener..."
>
> Well,I'm now on a TEN YEAR ban from there,given my defiance of
> other biases and policies...and Tolkien-specific wikis have been
> intermittent on accepting my contributions...but I am considering
> creating a proper fork for sane editing.
>
> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Julian Bradfield
Feb 6, 2022, 1:55:10 PM2/6/22
to
On 2022-02-06, Louis Epstein <l...@top.put.com> wrote:
>> In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome"
>> (obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather
>> than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations
If you don't understand why Wikipedia works as it does, perhaps you
>> In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome"
>> (obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather
>> than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations
should just not care about it.
The prohibition of primary research is of course irritating - I'm an
expert on quite a lot of (genuine technical) things, but I still can't
write on them other than by citing published work.
However, it does have an obvious purpose: if something is stated on
Wikipedia, you should be able to trace it to a reputable published
source, not some random loony on the Internet.
Those of who use Wikipidia professionally (I tell all my students that
it's a very valuable resource) appreciate that it doesn't allow
"primary research" - otherwise the articles on, say, NP-completeness
or Goedel incompleteness would be full of stuff by crackpots claiming
to have solved/refuted them.
Louis Epstein
Feb 6, 2022, 9:13:04 PM2/6/22
to
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 2022-02-06, Louis Epstein <l...@top.put.com> wrote:
>>> In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome"
>>> (obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather
>>> than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations
>
> If you don't understand why Wikipedia works as it does, perhaps you
> should just not care about it.
It is better to stay angry and create a superior alternative.
> On 2022-02-06, Louis Epstein <l...@top.put.com> wrote:
>>> In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome"
>>> (obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather
>>> than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations
>
> If you don't understand why Wikipedia works as it does, perhaps you
> should just not care about it.
(What justifications they offer are insufficient...it's not a
matter of not understanding,but of not forgiving).
> The prohibition of primary research is of course irritating - I'm an
> expert on quite a lot of (genuine technical) things, but I still can't
> write on them other than by citing published work.
The Tolkien book and the film adaptation are both "published works"
and that they differ in a particular way is a matter of evident fact
that should not be treated as needing any further verification.
> However, it does have an obvious purpose: if something is stated on
> Wikipedia, you should be able to trace it to a reputable published
> source, not some random loony on the Internet.
(I trust the CEO of a company with an article as to where its name
came from over the story his grandfather the founder told a prominent
newspaper they quote in the article).
Sometimes information is so widely distributed that the supposed
citation of a "source" is entirely an act of arbitrary bias.
If all you have is what other people have already said,
nobody needs what you have to say,just your bibliography.
> Those of who use Wikipidia professionally (I tell all my students that
> it's a very valuable resource) appreciate that it doesn't allow
> "primary research" - otherwise the articles on, say, NP-completeness
> or Goedel incompleteness would be full of stuff by crackpots claiming
> to have solved/refuted them.
(though others can PROPOSE edits for my review).I would be
putting back a lot of unjustly deleted articles and overturning
a lot of biased policies.
Jeff Urs
Feb 6, 2022, 10:04:02 PM2/6/22
to
Louis Epstein <l...@top.put.com> wrote:
> At Wikipedia,a user known as "Chiswick Chap" has taken it upon
> itself to enforce that site's ludicrous rules on articles affecting
> Tolkien,claiming to have "scoured and renewed",with a link to their
> article on the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire",much of the
> Tolkien coverage.
>
> At Wikipedia,a user known as "Chiswick Chap" has taken it upon
> itself to enforce that site's ludicrous rules on articles affecting
> Tolkien,claiming to have "scoured and renewed",with a link to their
> article on the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire",much of the
> Tolkien coverage.
>
> In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome"
> (obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather
> than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations
> (obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather
> than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations
> of obvious differences between the Bakshi film and the books,such as
> Legolas being the Elf the hobbits meet en route to Rivendell rather
> than Glorfindel,or Saruman being intermittently called "Aruman" and
> robed in red,in a section ostensibly listing differences between the
> book and film...immediately deleting an edit as "unsourced" (the film
> and book themselves are the best sources possible) and deleting a
> remonstration on his talk page as "abuse of his talk page".
Well, then, find a source. Here's one a 30-second search turned up:
> Legolas being the Elf the hobbits meet en route to Rivendell rather
> than Glorfindel,or Saruman being intermittently called "Aruman" and
> robed in red,in a section ostensibly listing differences between the
> book and film...immediately deleting an edit as "unsourced" (the film
> and book themselves are the best sources possible) and deleting a
> remonstration on his talk page as "abuse of his talk page".
https://www.tor.com/2020/01/31/ralph-bakshis-the-lord-of-the-rings-brought-tolkien-from-counterculture-to-the-mainstream/
--
Jeff
Paul S Person
Feb 7, 2022, 11:50:08 AM2/7/22
to
both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
crackpottery.
Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.
Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to
extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it
is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/.
Note that I am interpreting his points through my own filters. He is
free to disavow my examples.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Julian Bradfield
Feb 7, 2022, 1:35:11 PM2/7/22
to
On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
> both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
> works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
> crackpottery.
But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be
> That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
> both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
> works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
> crackpottery.
checked by re-doing the research oneself.
Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real
publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.
> Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
> published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.
> Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to
> extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it
> is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/.
grass.
There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all
reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by
Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research
editor can check the accuracy of the article.
Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission
original research?
Michael F. Stemper
Feb 7, 2022, 1:46:35 PM2/7/22
to
On 07/02/2022 12.31, Julian Bradfield wrote:
> On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
>> both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
>> works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
>> crackpottery.
>
> But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be
> checked by re-doing the research oneself.
> Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real
> publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.
>
>> Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
>> published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.
>
> If they have been published, there's a source.
One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
> On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
>> both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
>> works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
>> crackpottery.
>
> But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be
> checked by re-doing the research oneself.
> Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real
> publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.
>
>> Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
>> published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.
>
> If they have been published, there's a source.
in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
only".
So rejecting information about LotR because it has no citation is hardly
"Tolkien Censorship". What it is is consistent with their published policies.
--
Michael F. Stemper
The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder".
It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.
Louis Epstein
Feb 7, 2022, 8:32:08 PM2/7/22
to
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
>> both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
>> works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
>> crackpottery.
>
> But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be
> checked by re-doing the research oneself.
> Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real
> publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.
And when it is wrong,it needs to be regularly denounced.
>> That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
>> both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
>> works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
>> crackpottery.
>
> But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be
> checked by re-doing the research oneself.
> Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real
> publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.
>> Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
>> published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.
>
> If they have been published, there's a source.
>
>> Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to
>> extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it
>> is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/.
>
> It is not hard to find a published reference for the greenness of
> grass.
published reference as conferring validity on a ubiquituously
known fact.
> There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all
> reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by
> Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research
> editor can check the accuracy of the article.
>
> Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission
> original research?
that represent the writer's scholarship.
Louis Epstein
Feb 7, 2022, 8:32:49 PM2/7/22
to
best described as such.
Paul S Person
Feb 8, 2022, 11:56:51 AM2/8/22
to
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 18:31:00 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield
<j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
>> both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
>> works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
>> crackpottery.
>
>But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be
>checked by re-doing the research oneself.
>Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real
>publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.
>
>> Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
>> published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.
>
>If they have been published, there's a source.
>
>> Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to
>> extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it
>> is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/.
>
>It is not hard to find a published reference for the greenness of
>grass.
You are (deliberately?) missing the point.
<j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
>> both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
>> works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
>> crackpottery.
>
>But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be
>checked by re-doing the research oneself.
>Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real
>publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.
>
>> Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
>> published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.
>
>If they have been published, there's a source.
>
>> Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to
>> extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it
>> is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/.
>
>It is not hard to find a published reference for the greenness of
>grass.
>There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all
>reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by
>Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research
>editor can check the accuracy of the article.
>Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission
>original research?
you are responding to.
Consider the article
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games_(film)>
It starts with an overview and a plot summary -- neither of which have
/any notations at all/.
Thus, by the criterion given, they are both /original research/ and
/not allowed on Wikipedia/.
And yet, there they are.
The principle of requiring references is not, in and of itself, evil;
but when it is used to squelch unwelcome information, it becomes evil.
When the criterion is /really/ "do I like it?" with "original
research" as an excuse for rejecting it, it becomes, indeed,
censorship.
Julian Bradfield
Feb 9, 2022, 5:45:11 AM2/9/22
to
On 2022-02-08, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all
>>reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by
>>Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research
>>editor can check the accuracy of the article.
>
> If you say so.
You can read Britannica's article submission policy as well as I
>>There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all
>>reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by
>>Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research
>>editor can check the accuracy of the article.
>
> If you say so.
can. This isn't Wikiepedia.
>>Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission
>>original research?
>
> I never used that phrase. Please try to pay strict attention to what
> you are responding to.
attribute the quotation to you, I just quoted some words from the OP,
whose position you are (partly) supporting.
> Consider the article
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games_(film)>
>
> It starts with an overview and a plot summary -- neither of which have
> /any notations at all/.
>
> Thus, by the criterion given, they are both /original research/ and
> /not allowed on Wikipedia/.
it accordingly. I have no interest, so I'm not going to. You are free
to.
Paul S Person
Feb 9, 2022, 11:23:59 AM2/9/22
to
On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 10:44:23 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield
<j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 2022-02-08, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all
>>>reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by
>>>Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research
>>>editor can check the accuracy of the article.
>>
>> If you say so.
>
>You can read Britannica's article submission policy as well as I
>can. This isn't Wikiepedia.
>
>>>Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission
>>>original research?
>>
>> I never used that phrase. Please try to pay strict attention to what
>> you are responding to.
>
>Please try to pay strict attention to what is written. I didn't
>attribute the quotation to you, I just quoted some words from the OP,
>whose position you are (partly) supporting.
Precisely -- I am PARTIALLY Supporting it.
<j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 2022-02-08, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all
>>>reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by
>>>Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research
>>>editor can check the accuracy of the article.
>>
>> If you say so.
>
>You can read Britannica's article submission policy as well as I
>can. This isn't Wikiepedia.
>
>>>Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission
>>>original research?
>>
>> I never used that phrase. Please try to pay strict attention to what
>> you are responding to.
>
>Please try to pay strict attention to what is written. I didn't
>attribute the quotation to you, I just quoted some words from the OP,
>whose position you are (partly) supporting.
Quoting him as if I agreed with him any point I haven't mentioned is
clearly a form of bad behavior.
Believing it can be excused is a sign of dementia.
>> Consider the article
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games_(film)>
>>
>> It starts with an overview and a plot summary -- neither of which have
>> /any notations at all/.
>>
>> Thus, by the criterion given, they are both /original research/ and
>> /not allowed on Wikipedia/.
>
>Correct. If anybody had any interest in the article, they could flag
>it accordingly. I have no interest, so I'm not going to. You are free
>to.
submissions were as reasonable as the items cited.
BTW, such citation-free sections are quite common. The idea that
Wikipedia merely repeats what others have said is nonsense; and, even
it they did, simply gathering it together in one place constitutes
original research -- unless the compilation has a citation.
Julian Bradfield
Feb 9, 2022, 4:00:11 PM2/9/22
to
On 2022-02-09, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>[stuff]
You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
unfortunate.
>[stuff]
You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
unfortunate.
Louis Epstein
Feb 9, 2022, 9:53:10 PM2/9/22
to
Stan Brown
Feb 10, 2022, 11:24:25 AM2/10/22
to
On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 20:56:47 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield wrote:
> You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
> was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
> provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
> unfortunate.
And extremely common. Cancels are easily forged. Most Usenet
> You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
> was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
> provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
> unfortunate.
providers started ignoring them quite a few years ago, back when
Usenet was much more popular and forged cancels were a weapon in
flamewars.
The only way I know to make a cancel work is to cancel your article
before your provider sends it anywhere else. This does work with
news.individual.net, or at least it did last time I checked, but the
window is only a few minutes.
--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen)
Tolkien letters FAQ: https://preview.tinyurl.com/pr6sa7u
FAQ of the Rings: https://BrownMath.com/general/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
Paul S Person
Feb 10, 2022, 11:29:25 AM2/10/22
to
And I'm not sure it is the ISP that is to be blamed, as I am using
Eternal September since my prior ISP dropped Usenet and I haven't
bothered to see if my new ISP provides it.
But just keep blaming everyone else. It's working /so/ well for you.
O. Sharp
Feb 10, 2022, 2:22:14 PM2/10/22
to
>>You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
>>was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
>>provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
>>unfortunate.
>
> Ah, making excuses.
[snippp]
>>was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
>>provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
>>unfortunate.
>
> Ah, making excuses.
> But just keep blaming everyone else. It's working /so/ well for you.
Since this... discussion?... has clearly moved well away from its
original Tolkien source, I suggest further discussion be moved to a more
appropriate venue, perhaps alt.my.facts.are.better.than.your.facts or
somesuch.
------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@panix.com "An argument is a connected series of statements
intended to establish a definite proposition."
-either the OED, or Michael Palin
Paul S Person
Feb 11, 2022, 11:36:55 AM2/11/22
to
On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 08:24:23 -0800, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 20:56:47 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield wrote:
>> You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
>> was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
>> provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
>> unfortunate.
>
>And extremely common. Cancels are easily forged. Most Usenet
>providers started ignoring them quite a few years ago, back when
>Usenet was much more popular and forged cancels were a weapon in
>flamewars.
>
>The only way I know to make a cancel work is to cancel your article
>before your provider sends it anywhere else. This does work with
>news.individual.net, or at least it did last time I checked, but the
>window is only a few minutes.
Intriguingly, the posts I am getting from EternalSeptember have this
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 20:56:47 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield wrote:
>> You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
>> was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
>> provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
>> unfortunate.
>
>And extremely common. Cancels are easily forged. Most Usenet
>providers started ignoring them quite a few years ago, back when
>Usenet was much more popular and forged cancels were a weapon in
>flamewars.
>
>The only way I know to make a cancel work is to cancel your article
>before your provider sends it anywhere else. This does work with
>news.individual.net, or at least it did last time I checked, but the
>window is only a few minutes.
header:
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fQrZGV/sd8wZx6i7JHqgRzdJ4e4=
but whether that has anything to do with cancelling a post I have no
idea.
Paul S Person
Feb 11, 2022, 11:40:46 AM2/11/22
to
On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 19:22:12 -0000 (UTC), "O. Sharp" <o...@panix.com>
wrote:
>>>You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
>>>was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
>>>provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
>>>unfortunate.
>>
>> Ah, making excuses.
>[snippp]
>> But just keep blaming everyone else. It's working /so/ well for you.
>
>Since this... discussion?... has clearly moved well away from its
>original Tolkien source, I suggest further discussion be moved to a more
>appropriate venue, perhaps alt.my.facts.are.better.than.your.facts or
>somesuch.
Yes, that would be more appropriate.
OTOH, considering that this is the first actual discussion on either
of alt.fan.tolkien or rec.arts.books.tolkien, and that "alt" groups
tend to be be rather ... unrestricted ... in what can be discussed, it
might be better to keep it here and see if it recovers.
Nice try at diverting it to alt.timewasters, though. How did you
expect the participants to find it there?
wrote:
>>>You were replying to an article which was cancelled minutes after it
>>>was posted (and several hours before you replied). If your usenet
>>>provider doesn't honour authenticated cancellations, that's
>>>unfortunate.
>>
>> Ah, making excuses.
>[snippp]
>> But just keep blaming everyone else. It's working /so/ well for you.
>
>Since this... discussion?... has clearly moved well away from its
>original Tolkien source, I suggest further discussion be moved to a more
>appropriate venue, perhaps alt.my.facts.are.better.than.your.facts or
>somesuch.
OTOH, considering that this is the first actual discussion on either
of alt.fan.tolkien or rec.arts.books.tolkien, and that "alt" groups
tend to be be rather ... unrestricted ... in what can be discussed, it
might be better to keep it here and see if it recovers.
Nice try at diverting it to alt.timewasters, though. How did you
expect the participants to find it there?
Julian Bradfield
Feb 11, 2022, 12:55:10 PM2/11/22
to
On 2022-02-11, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> OTOH, considering that this is the first actual discussion on either
> of alt.fan.tolkien or rec.arts.books.tolkien, and that "alt" groups
> tend to be be rather ... unrestricted ... in what can be discussed, it
> might be better to keep it here and see if it recovers.
The reason I (tried to) cancel my reply to you was because it was
> OTOH, considering that this is the first actual discussion on either
> of alt.fan.tolkien or rec.arts.books.tolkien, and that "alt" groups
> tend to be be rather ... unrestricted ... in what can be discussed, it
> might be better to keep it here and see if it recovers.
wrong (as well as being snarky).
Having spent/wasted more time reading Wikipedia policies in detail, I
don't understand why the OP's edit was reverted, as it doesn't appear
to me to contradict either the citation or original research policies,
so I've asked about it on the talk page of the article. (The right
place - not the talk page of the user who reverted the change.)
Paul S Person
Feb 12, 2022, 12:02:01 PM2/12/22
to
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:51:11 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield
<j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 2022-02-11, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> OTOH, considering that this is the first actual discussion on either
>> of alt.fan.tolkien or rec.arts.books.tolkien, and that "alt" groups
>> tend to be be rather ... unrestricted ... in what can be discussed, it
>> might be better to keep it here and see if it recovers.
I omitted the phrase "for some time" after noting the lack of
<j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 2022-02-11, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> OTOH, considering that this is the first actual discussion on either
>> of alt.fan.tolkien or rec.arts.books.tolkien, and that "alt" groups
>> tend to be be rather ... unrestricted ... in what can be discussed, it
>> might be better to keep it here and see if it recovers.
discussion in these discussion groups. I apologize for any confusion
this may have caused.
>The reason I (tried to) cancel my reply to you was because it was
>wrong (as well as being snarky).
satisfying. And is pretty much guaranteed to work, at least in the
sense that the new post goes wherever the old one went.
>Having spent/wasted more time reading Wikipedia policies in detail, I
>don't understand why the OP's edit was reverted, as it doesn't appear
>to me to contradict either the citation or original research policies,
>so I've asked about it on the talk page of the article. (The right
>place - not the talk page of the user who reverted the change.)
given.
Julian Bradfield
Feb 19, 2022, 7:00:12 AM2/19/22
to
On 2022-02-11, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Having spent/wasted more time reading Wikipedia policies in detail, I
> don't understand why the OP's edit was reverted, as it doesn't appear
> to me to contradict either the citation or original research policies,
> so I've asked about it on the talk page of the article. (The right
> place - not the talk page of the user who reverted the change.)
Those interested can read a reply from an independent experienced
> Having spent/wasted more time reading Wikipedia policies in detail, I
> don't understand why the OP's edit was reverted, as it doesn't appear
> to me to contradict either the citation or original research policies,
> so I've asked about it on the talk page of the article. (The right
> place - not the talk page of the user who reverted the change.)
editor at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film)#c-Alyo-2022-02-13T17%3A52%3A00.000Z-JCBradfield-2022-02-11T17%3A22%3A00.000Z
(Also, of course, the OP had been banned from Wikipedia for persistent
refusal to play by the rules of the club he wanted to be in.)
Louis Epstein
Feb 21, 2022, 10:16:28 PM2/21/22
to
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 2022-02-11, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Having spent/wasted more time reading Wikipedia policies in detail, I
>> don't understand why the OP's edit was reverted, as it doesn't appear
>> to me to contradict either the citation or original research policies,
>> so I've asked about it on the talk page of the article. (The right
>> place - not the talk page of the user who reverted the change.)
>
> Those interested can read a reply from an independent experienced
> editor at
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film)#c-Alyo-2022-02-13T17%3A52%3A00.000Z-JCBradfield-2022-02-11T17%3A22%3A00.000Z
Alyo's definition of "higher quality",as you can imagine,
>> Having spent/wasted more time reading Wikipedia policies in detail, I
>> don't understand why the OP's edit was reverted, as it doesn't appear
>> to me to contradict either the citation or original research policies,
>> so I've asked about it on the talk page of the article. (The right
>> place - not the talk page of the user who reverted the change.)
>
> Those interested can read a reply from an independent experienced
> editor at
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film)#c-Alyo-2022-02-13T17%3A52%3A00.000Z-JCBradfield-2022-02-11T17%3A22%3A00.000Z
is quite different from mine.
> (Also, of course, the OP had been banned from Wikipedia for persistent
> refusal to play by the rules of the club he wanted to be in.)
Matěj Cepl
Aug 8, 2022, 4:25:52 PM8/8/22
to
On 2022-02-07, 18:46 GMT, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> If they have been published, there's a source.
>
> One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
> in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
> it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
> only".
I have similar problem. Although I fully support this policy (it
>> If they have been published, there's a source.
>
> One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
> in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
> it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
> only".
just makes sense) I can see its problematic part as well. I am a
grand-son of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Trnka
and I haven’t managed to fix his page because the only
source I could find to support my claim was “I have asked
my Mum, his daughter.” (The censorhship of his film
“Ruka” (The Hand) after 1970 was not only because of its
obvious content, but also because he was a signator of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Thousand_Words)). I would
have to write a scholarly paper on this topic just to make a
one-line change to the page.
Best,
Matěj
--
https://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, Jabber: mc...@ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 3C76 A027 CA45 AD70 98B5 BC1D 7920 5802 880B C9D8
Ty zlý dávaj’ ty hodný pryč. // Those evil ones put away those good ones.
-- Magda Ceplová
Louis Epstein
Sep 3, 2022, 8:53:31 PM9/3/22
to
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Mat?j Cepl <mc...@cepl.eu> wrote:
> On 2022-02-07, 18:46 GMT, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> If they have been published, there's a source.
>>
>> One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
>> in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
>> it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
>> only".
>
> I have similar problem. Although I fully support this policy (it
> just makes sense) I can see its problematic part as well. I am a
> grand-son of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Trnka
> and I haven?t managed to fix his page because the only
> On 2022-02-07, 18:46 GMT, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> If they have been published, there's a source.
>>
>> One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
>> in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
>> it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
>> only".
>
> I have similar problem. Although I fully support this policy (it
> just makes sense) I can see its problematic part as well. I am a
> grand-son of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Trnka
> source I could find to support my claim was ?I have asked
> my Mum, his daughter.? (The censorhship of his film
> ?Ruka? (The Hand) after 1970 was not only because of its
> obvious content, but also because he was a signator of
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Thousand_Words)). I would
> have to write a scholarly paper on this topic just to make a
> one-line change to the page.
>
> Best,
>
> Mat?j
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Thousand_Words)). I would
> have to write a scholarly paper on this topic just to make a
> one-line change to the page.
>
> Best,
>
...and they would much rather have someone else read your paper
and cite it,than have you say so yourself.
There's a company with an article about it that cites a newspaper
story quoting the founder as to where its name came from.
The company's president/chairman/CEO (that founder's grandson)
told me the real story was something else,and I trust him...not
their "reliable sources".
If I wrote an article somewhere saying he told me that,a
reader of that article would be respected but neither the
CEO nor I would be.
kyonshi
Dec 6, 2022, 8:55:51 AM12/6/22
to
On 08/08/2022 22:25, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> On 2022-02-07, 18:46 GMT, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> If they have been published, there's a source.
>>
>> One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
>> in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
>> it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
>> only".
>
> I have similar problem. Although I fully support this policy (it
> just makes sense) I can see its problematic part as well. I am a
> grand-son of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Trnka
> and I haven’t managed to fix his page because the only
> source I could find to support my claim was “I have asked
> my Mum, his daughter.” (The censorhship of his film
> “Ruka” (The Hand) after 1970 was not only because of its
> obvious content, but also because he was a signator of
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Thousand_Words)). I would
> have to write a scholarly paper on this topic just to make a
> one-line change to the page.
>
> Best,
>
> Matěj
I don't think it needs to be a scholarly article. It might easily be
> On 2022-02-07, 18:46 GMT, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> If they have been published, there's a source.
>>
>> One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
>> in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
>> it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
>> only".
>
> I have similar problem. Although I fully support this policy (it
> just makes sense) I can see its problematic part as well. I am a
> grand-son of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Trnka
> and I haven’t managed to fix his page because the only
> source I could find to support my claim was “I have asked
> my Mum, his daughter.” (The censorhship of his film
> “Ruka” (The Hand) after 1970 was not only because of its
> obvious content, but also because he was a signator of
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Thousand_Words)). I would
> have to write a scholarly paper on this topic just to make a
> one-line change to the page.
>
> Best,
>
> Matěj
just a newspaper article, as long as it establishes the facts.
I think even one in Czech might be possible, I remember quoting some
German articles without issue. Maybe an obituary? (if the obituary has
the right date of course)
Louis Epstein
Dec 28, 2022, 2:35:32 AM12/28/22
to
In rec.arts.books.tolkien kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> source I could find to support my claim was ?I have asked
>> my Mum, his daughter.? (The censorhship of his film
>> ?Ruka? (The Hand) after 1970 was not only because of its
recycling what's been said somewhere,anywhere else.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH MUST BE RESPECTED!!!
> On 08/08/2022 22:25, Mat?j Cepl wrote:
>> On 2022-02-07, 18:46 GMT, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>> If they have been published, there's a source.
>>>
>>> One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
>>> in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
>>> it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
>>> only".
>>
>> I have similar problem. Although I fully support this policy (it
>> just makes sense) I can see its problematic part as well. I am a
>> grand-son of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Trnka
>> and I haven?t managed to fix his page because the only
>> On 2022-02-07, 18:46 GMT, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>> If they have been published, there's a source.
>>>
>>> One of the regulars on rec.arts.sf.written corrected his date of birth
>>> in the wikipedia article about him. The correction was rejected because
>>> it was original research. Completely within the policy of "cited information
>>> only".
>>
>> I have similar problem. Although I fully support this policy (it
>> just makes sense) I can see its problematic part as well. I am a
>> grand-son of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Trnka
>> source I could find to support my claim was ?I have asked
>> my Mum, his daughter.? (The censorhship of his film
>> ?Ruka? (The Hand) after 1970 was not only because of its
>> obvious content, but also because he was a signator of
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Thousand_Words)). I would
>> have to write a scholarly paper on this topic just to make a
>> one-line change to the page.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Mat?j
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Thousand_Words)). I would
>> have to write a scholarly paper on this topic just to make a
>> one-line change to the page.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>
> I don't think it needs to be a scholarly article. It might easily be
> just a newspaper article, as long as it establishes the facts.
> I think even one in Czech might be possible, I remember quoting some
> German articles without issue. Maybe an obituary? (if the obituary has
> the right date of course)
Exactly,their number one problem is the obsession with only
> I don't think it needs to be a scholarly article. It might easily be
> just a newspaper article, as long as it establishes the facts.
> I think even one in Czech might be possible, I remember quoting some
> German articles without issue. Maybe an obituary? (if the obituary has
> the right date of course)
recycling what's been said somewhere,anywhere else.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH MUST BE RESPECTED!!!
Julian Bradfield
Dec 28, 2022, 8:50:02 AM12/28/22
to
That's what Wikipedia thinks.
Wikipedia does not have the resources to validate alleged "original
research" itself, so it requires OR to be validated by some socially
accepted process such as peer review or at a minimum publication by a
publisher with a reputation to lose.
Otherwise, any old crap becomes "original research", rather than only
respectable research.
Wikipedia does not have the resources to validate alleged "original
research" itself, so it requires OR to be validated by some socially
accepted process such as peer review or at a minimum publication by a
publisher with a reputation to lose.
Otherwise, any old crap becomes "original research", rather than only
respectable research.
0 new messages