Twakjaco
Welcome!
Hello, Twakjaco, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, go take a look at WP:Reliable sources. You'll understand why a claim set forth in a court pleading is not sufficient to permit the assertion to be included in Wikipedia as a fact. (Your insistence that if it's "good enough for the court it's good enough for Wikipedia" misapprehends how both courts and Wikipedia work.) What you're looking for is a third party source, of the kind deemed generally "reliable" under the foregoing, that reports the 90% figure. I gave an example on the Talk page relating to the Truro vote. Otherwise, neither the claim in the pleading nor attestations by anonymous or other editors who claim to have been there are sufficient to that end. (As to the latter, please see WP:Original research.) As I explained on the Talk page, the edit is improper for at least those two reasons. Whether it's by me or someone else, the edit will keep being reverted until you can resolve these issues (phrasing and sourcing, the latter being the more important); and if you persist in reintroducing the edit as you seem to want it, you run the risk of being blocked. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- To illuminate these concerns a little bit more - go back to the Talk page and look at the first post by QJX. Link here. He explains how "90% of votes cast" is not "90% of the congregation" but more like "70% of eligible voters in the congregation" - or maybe 60%. I suppose "the congregation" can mean the same thing as "eligible voters in a congregation", but it's not abundantly clear to me and so "90% of votes cast" might be the best phrasing. You might also say, "the congregation voted, xxxx to yyy, to disaffiliate",l and leave the percentages out altogether. Those phrasings don't claim more than what appears to be true. Still then you're left with the sourcing problem - all we have, for Wikipedia purposes, is what *appears* to be true. There is *no* reliable source on hand for any of these numbers - not the 90%, the 70% or 60%, the number of eligible voters or votes cast - none of it. There is no dispute that the congregation voted to disaffiliate, and that's sourced, so it is properly there. The 90% figure is both unsourced, and, to be candid, rather beside the point. Why, finally, does it matter whether the majority was 51% or 99%? Again, then, please stop introducing that figure and that phrasing until there's a proper source. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- The Falls Church is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Unreliable sources are "..those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. " The Falls Church does not fall into this category on any account. There is no better authority on the results of the vote than The Falls Church itself. Until someone alleges with proof, that The Falls Church purposely misrepresented the voting results, then there is not good reason not to believe their report.
- You should also note that Wikipedia does allow for self-published sources and primary sources. Please reference WP:Reliable sources to better understand this.
- Your point about the vote not neccessarily representing the entire congregations is well taken. That is why I changed it to read that "by a 90% majority vote, the congregation decided..". The vote does represent the will of the congregation, although not all of the congregation may have voted.
- Oh, I disagree. A court pleading is not a neutral, reliable source. It is for the purpose - expressly - of advancing one point of view in a contested proceeding. It does not matter that The Falls Church is making the representation itself - it is making the representation *in its own interest*. That by its very nature renders the source incompetent. Rather than continue this back and forth I have undertaken the task that you could have undertaken yourself and found another, better source, one that also loops back to the church itself (apparently in the form of a press release) but which has the virtue of at least not being presented in an adversarial proceeding. I have to add, finally, that this entire episode smacks a bit of POV pushing - as I said above, it really doesn't matter whether the vote was 51% or 99% finally. If you think there's an element of truth in that concern, please try to temper the impulse in your future editing efforts. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- So because someone else believed the report, you'll accept it. Whatever. This is something that just requires common sense and good judgement which is clearly the spirit of the Wikipedia guidlines. The bottom line is not why to document exists, but rather if it's believable. The only way it is not believable is if you believe The Falls Church falsified their report to the court, which is ridiculous. I'm glad you found a source acceptable to you, but I feel strongly that common sense should have prevailed here. I think you violated the spirit of WP:Reliable sources which are not a lock step set of rules, but rather guidlines to help people determine if they can believe a source. Again, we just have to apply common sense. Do you really believe The Falls Church falsiffied their report to the court because it would be in their best interest? Why would you deny any fact from an article on such a shakey supposition?
- As far as POV pushing, are you kidding! That applies to you much more than to me.