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.
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
On 2022-02-06, Louis Epstein <le@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.
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.
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".
On 2022-02-06, Louis Epstein <le@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.
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.
On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person <psperson1@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.
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.
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/.
On 07/02/2022 12.31, Julian Bradfield wrote:
On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person <psperson1@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
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.
On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person <psperson1@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?
On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person <psperson1@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?
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.
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.
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/.
On 2022-02-08, Paul S Person <psperson1@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.
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.
[stuff]
On 2022-02-09, Paul S Person <psperson1@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.
On 2022-02-09, Paul S Person <psperson1@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.
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.
[snippp]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.
But just keep blaming everyone else. It's working /so/ well for you.
[snippp]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.
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.
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.
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.
On 2022-02-11, Paul S Person <psperson1@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
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.)
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.)
On 2022-02-11, Julian Bradfield <jcb@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
(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.)
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".
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,
Mat?j
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
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
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
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)
ORIGINAL RESEARCH MUST BE RESPECTED!!!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 57:26:16 |
| Calls: | 6,652 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,023 |