Talk:World Mill
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Rsradford in topic How are we to deal with the quote-doctoring imported from the Rydberg article?
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
[Untitled]
editAdded references to Undersökningar i Germanisk Mythologi, so people can check out for themselves a prominent discussion of the World Mill.
How are we to deal with the quote-doctoring imported from the Rydberg article?
editI see one of the editors from the Victor Rydberg article who was misrepresenting the content of Clive Tolley's work there via a deceptively "doctored" quote has taken up the same falsification of her sources here. What procedures are available to deal with this sort of outright lying in the text of a Wikipedia article? Explaining what Tolley actually says, and presenting his full, undoctored quote obviously is not adequate, since the altered version and related misrepresentations will promptly be reinserted into this article. Any suggestions? Rsradford (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- reverting to and fro between two fixed versions is not fruitful. The problems with one version need to be raised, tagged and resolved by compromise solutions step by step. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely agreed on point one. Point two seems difficult, given that the two versions are polar opposites, and one of them can only be maintained by suppressing or altering what Tolley's article actually says. How do you recommend proceeding toward a compromise solution? Rsradford (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)