text:
Wikipedia talk:Confirm queried sources

Opposition
In theory it sounds good. In practice, I'd fear that many valuable things would be lost because the people that added them are no longer around and others aren't willing to look for sources. --SPUI (talk) 02:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Since this comment was made the proposal was amended to make it clear that, where, if sourced, information would otherwise remain in the article, it should be removed to the talk page. This way, information would not be lost, just put on "hold", jguk 20:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I know. However, if those contributors aren't prepared to give sources then how do we know the material is correct? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * This is more or less an unoffical common practice already. I'm not opposed to the idea (I loves me my citations as much as any good Wikipedian), but I'm not sure we need to formalize it. Trying to enforce a policy like this could be a waste of perfectly good red tape. – ClockworkSoul 07:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah? Tell that to all the others who've given me grief when I question what their sources are in their articles. This formal policy would make things a lot easier, and would give a much greater incenitve for those who need a little... push... to cite their sources correctly. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In arguments such as you describe directly above there is no need for a new policy. See Cite sources, the standard interpretation of which is that in a dispute the side with sources (if the other is without) wins.
 * There is also no need for this policy because it is really easy to discredit information that is unsourced. Simply find a source which contradicts the unsourced info. That should be policy in my opinion. Hyacinth 17:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, I have seen cases where the side without the source sees that as no objection to the disputed information remaining. A codification of this principle works.

 * On the second point, I firmly disagree that the person wishing to remove information should have the burden of proof. The person adding it must have that burden. Also, the idea that there's always a source to discredit unsourced information assumes that every false thing can be disproved. I'm not sure I agree with this. Let me give an example, what if I added the statement "Life exists on Saturn's moon, Titan"?

 * I appreciate that some Wikipedians may see this proposed policy as unnecessary, but, unless you really do object to what it say, I would ask for your support. Those proposing and supporting the draft policy do see a need. Unfortunate, maybe - but we have the betterment of Wikipedia at heart, jguk 20:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I think sources stating that life in this solar system exists only on Earth are common (at least on cable TV where they do endless shows about the topic of alien life). At least I hope so, or that statement would be quickly removed from Wikipedia.
 * To get my support this policy would need to add and stress that the content is the only consideration appropriate for in a decision to remove text to talk, not the manner in which that content was added, it's form, by who it was added, or for what supposed reasons. Hyacinth 21:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disputing time period
Queried information not backed up by a source should be removed immediately. The idea that disruptive users can make something up, put it into an article, and say, "Hey, it's got to stay there for at least 2 weeks - it's policy" appals me. If it's thought that it may be useful information, and is not libellous, information can always be put on a talk page until a source becomes available.

Also, we need to define what constitutes an acceptable source. In this day and age anyone can start up their website and lob any information on it. A source needs to be reliable, and needs to be written by someone with standing on their subject. If it's an article on a subject that is of academic interest, you'd expect the source to be written by someone of academic standing, and to have been peer reviewed. Articles on other subjects are more difficult, but clearly sources have to have some standing in their particular field to become notable.

However, the idea of having a formal policy that disputed or queried information should be removed from an article until there is a reputable source supporting it does appeal to me. I hate it when I have to give in to persistent users inserting dubious information based on no sources or dodgy sources because there is no policy to point to and I don't want to risk getting into or continuing long edit wars to remove it. I'm sure I'm not the only one. For particularly disputable information, more than one source might be appropriate, jguk 14:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've reworded the proposal to bring it in line with my own thoughts. I now await universal acclamation/condemnation* (* delete as applicable), jguk 19:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you may have misread the proposal. The proposed policy only makes it explicit that things need to be verifiable (which is already policy) and proposes a standard way to put pressure on people to cite sources. Nowhere does it say that bogus claims must stay in articles for two weeks. That would of course be ridiculous, as you point out. This is clearly not an invitation for POV pushers and vandals – if someone were to add POV comments or blatant misinformation, of course those should be removed right away. The policy doesn't grant any rights regarding how long information must be kept; it merely clarifies what can be done by reasonable people to enhance the quality of articles. --MarkSweep 22:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It doesn't say that because I changed it. OK, to be fair, it did not explicitly say "keep bogus claims in for 2 weeks", but it did say to remove info that has been queried after 2 weeks. If we have a policy that says to remove something after 2 weeks, it will be interpreted by most as that it should stay in until those 2 weeks have elapsed. There should be no place in the main article namespace for disputed unsourced information. Full stop, jguk 23:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yep, it's not so much the two weeks in patrticular, as that a specific time limit is specified at all. This parallels the 3RR problem, where some editors interpret it as an invitation to revert up to 3 times a day, rather than a discouragement to revert if other means are possible. --iMb~Mw 03:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The irony here is that now that we have the word "reputable" in the policy, it is no longer specific enough to be enforcable. Where the power needed to be given to those who insist upon sources, now we have issues with sources being "reputable". What exactly does that mean? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, so maybe what's really needed is a better way of describing good sources. You're right, "reputable" is definitely one of those pesky weasel words. A better definition is hard too, given the ongoing arguments over what sources should be acceptable (a few people advocate only using paper sources, what makes for a good source varies by the subject matter, etc.). Ow, my head hurts. --iMb~Mw

I have taken on board what has been said here and made clarifications to the intended purpose and scope of what this policy covers. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Fact and Reference Check
WikiProject: Fact and Reference Check can help with this, by keeping track of all facts and referencing them with multiple sources each. Our current tasks on the project are: 1) try to get the developers of mediawiki to implement autonumbering 'smart' end/footnotes and 2) try to come up with a formatting style for articles we do.

"Reputable" sources
I have several problems with this being in this particular policy. Firstly, this is outside of the scope of what this policy is meant to try to combat. The problem that we have been having is that no sources are provided by many authors. This policy is an attempt to clearly break this problem and clearly provide editors with a guideline over what happens to material that cannot be backed up by a source. This policy is to formally explain to editors that we sanction and codone the removal of information that is deemed original research.

Whether that information is "reputable" or not is beside the point. If we include this word, then we leave a loophole for those who wish to disrupt Wikipedia. The point of this policy is not to determine whether sources are reputable or not. That is the job of another policy (if we actually have one). The problem of having it in this policy is that people could add their sources and then have someone, who is pushing their POV that the material should be suppressed, remove the material anyway by stating that the information is not "reputable".

The word "reputable", incidently, is very vague. What consistutes reputable information? I may find Christian theologians reputable, while an atheist may not. A more specific example is that information was added to Historicity of Jesus and the source for the information was Alexander Hislop and his work The Two Babylons. I do not consider this reputable. Those who have added the information do find it reputable. I should not be able to remove the information based on this policy! If I wish to remove the information, I would need to cite a policy that states what reputable sources are, and how to go about removing them from articles.

I do, however, encourage those who wish for us to only use reputable sources to draft up a policy on what exactly this nebulous term means. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, No original research is official policy, right? Could the wording in there somehow be refined to give editors something official to point at when these kinds of disputes come up? --iMb~Mw 07:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, it most definitely is. However, this policy has a very limited and narrow scope. It merely ackowledges and gives a mechanism by which an editor may remove unsourced information from an article. It does not:
 * deal with how good that source is
 * deal with how good the actually information is
 * mandate that editors must remove information. It only states how the information can be removed.
 * I hope that my recent modification of the policy makes this clear. Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is important to consider how reputable the source is, as long as it is listed. If there is some question a particular source might not be credible, the reader should be able to make that decision. I can see this being particularly useful in NPOV. "Sure, many believe   this probably not true thing, but the committee of liars and tall tale tellers says it is true." Perhaps that's going overboard, but if the source is famous or otherwise interesting, its lack credibility may or may not be a reason for removing what they claim, and the credibility judgement itself may be POV. --ssd 14:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have observed a few cases where editors remove large sections of an article that they disagree with and then claim any source that supports it is "not reputable". Then you go and find another source to back it up and the process starts over again. They keep asking for more and more sources until it's impossible to find a source. When they for instance claim sources like books by experts in the field and articles in peer-reviewed scientific magazines are "not reputable" it kind of gets impossible to prove anything. Let's say an editor don't like apples and in the article about apple pie removes that it contains apples. Another editor may question that and we get something like:
 * - I made an apple pie yesterday and I used apples.
 * - Well, that's original research. You have to find a reputable source that apple pie contains apples.
 * - Ok, what about this cookbook I have that have a recepie for apple pie with apples?
 * - It's not available online so it's not possible to use as a source.
 * - Ok, but here I have found a recepie online, just check this link.
 * - The one who wrote that recepie is not an expert on apple pies. Besides it's a personal site.
 * - But this link then. It's for a recepie published in a cooking magazine.
 * - Anyone could get a recepie published. The magazine isn't peer reviewed, it's not edited by cooking experts and the one who wrote the recepie is not a credible expert...

and so on... Used in this way you can remove anything either by ridiculus requirements or that the other editor simply gives up. // Liftarn

Status quo or rules of evidence?
I tend to follow a peer review sort of style. If I come across something which I believe to be false, I usually remove it from the article, post it to the talk page, and post my objections. Shaky claims are more of a gray area - if I have a strong suspicion that it's a bogus claim, I remove it to the talk page and ask for justification. In many cases, I find claims which are plausible but which aren't well documented and I think they should be. In these cases, I usually just ask for citation on the talk page.

I don't particularly feel there's any need to change policy to empower me to challenge shaky claims. Sometimes when I challenge a claim, people can justify it, usually with a citation. Sometimes they can't, and they admit this, and the questionable material is moved to the talk page until someone can check it out. Sometimes the provided justification is unconvincing, and the page gets tagged for accuracy dispute.

I do feel that Wikipedia needs more people to go around and ask, "How do you know that?", especially for shaky-sounding claims. If this policy simply documents (what I hope is) the common practice I described above, that's fine.

People can't really start going through the encyclopedia demanding that absolutely every sentence have a source, or else they are going to remove it. It's simply not practical to document everything that quickly, and some people may take offense if someone is claiming that an official policy justifies such a confrontational approach. There is also a huge difference between needing documentation for a specific claim, and needing documentation for a summary or an overview.

There are also many facts which aren't sole-source original research, per se, but which don't need to be citation-documented. Like, say, the list of albums that a particular band has published. It's not necessary, and it may be less reliable, to cite an external source for such a list, than it would be for the residents of Wikipedia to simply check their record collections to see if they have anything which is not listed or which they can find in the store. In this case, it might also be prudent to do a Google search or check a CD database to see if there are any albums which were missed. But it's only necessary to cite such a third-party source if no Wikipedian can personally verify the information that's there. There are plenty of facts which people acquire through personal experience, which many people don't know about. As long as these claims are supported by multiple people and there is little or no substantial doubt or substantive contrary evidence, I think they are a valuable addition to the encyclopedia.

Even sources we consider reliable, like published books, scientific journals, newspaper reports, carefully constructed databases, etc., have lots of mistakes in them, for all sorts of reasons. In these cases, being able to do direct verification is quite preferable to constructing a picture of the universe solely by reading about it.

I think the "No original research" policy is good to keep Wikipedia from turning into an unorganized academic journal (which would interfere with its encyclopedic mission), and a good way to keep enthusiastic but deeply misled people from keeping material in the encyclopedia because they can cite themselves as authorities. But collectively cross-checked summaries of direct experience without citation to third parties is perfectly fine, if you ask me. We just need to be aware of the limits of our direct experience.

Perhaps what we really need is a "no hearsay" policy. (And perhaps other elements similar to the rules of evidence that reputable courts of law use.) Like I said, I think corroborated personal experiences should be admissable. When things start to get problematic is when people put in things that they remember hearing or reading - then we start playing a game of telephone. That's when you ask, "How do you know?" and start going back up the chain until you find someone whose reason for knowing is as direct and reliable as possible. In the very long term, this means that the sources that Wikipedia cites should be mostly primary sources, with (hopefully trustworthy) secondary sources used only for overviews, "for further reading" bibliographies, or when no primary sources exist. -- Beland 07:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * These are interesting points, and here is my response:
 * Your first point on how you remove material is why I created this policy. Most revert wars happen because of this: the author adds controversial info that they know to be true, but sounds like something they are making up to others who edit the article. So someone takes it out, the original author puts it back in, and so on we go till someone hits their limit on the three revert rule and either can't keep the information out of the article without reverting again, or can't keep good information in the article for the same reason. Or, they revert the information out again due to a perfectly reasonable expectation that a source will be provided and then admins are forced to block them for 24 hours, even though they might be the party who is in the right! This policy prevents all this as there is now a set way of asking for sources and enforcing their citation: if after two weeks the information will be removed. It is then up to the original author to provide the source (doubtful as it may be): discussion on whether the source is reputable can be discussed from hereon. So you can see, there is actually a need to empower people to remove shaky information, and this policy attempts to make it as fair and reasonable as possible for both sides of article source disputes.
 * You say "There are also many facts which aren't sole-source original research, per se, but which don't need to be citation-documented." Yes, I agree. Hence I have clarified the policy to take into account self-evident material. The problem, however, with self-evident material is that it may not in fact be self-evident to someone else. In this case, they need a way of verifying that information, and a source must be provided. However, this policy now takes that into account as I have the text "anyone should be able to remove it from the article" and the subsequent text that makes it clear that this wording is deliberate and gives reasons why I have written it this way.
 * The issues with lists, etc, I have not taken into consideration. However, I can't see why this shouldn't apply to such things. If you make a list of something, you must have taken that list from some source of information. This policy allows for the list to exist without a source, but if a dispute does arise then sources will need to be provided (in exactly the same way that a normal article needs sources when material is added that is disputed). The policy does still allow for information to be self-evident.
 * You state "Even sources we consider reliable, like published books, scientific journals, newspaper reports, carefully constructed databases, etc., have lots of mistakes in them, for all sorts of reasons." This is not within the scope of this policy. Whether a source is dubious or not is not for this policy to decide. This policy deals with disputes over what sources have been used to add facts and opinions to the article. It gives a clear and fair mechanism for people to remove unsourced information. If the sources are inaccurate, then this should be cleared up in the article and on the talk page. If the source is disreputable, then another policy should cover this problem, not the one you are looking at here.
 * Your comments on the "No original research" policy are welcomed, however this policy is a supplement to that policy. It would be best to leave comments on the no original research on that policy's page, not on this one as this page is not form debating original research.
 * I hope this clarifies and answers any questions you have about this policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, if someone feels so strongly about keeping some questionable material in the article, then I mark it as disputed so readers are aware of the issue. Then we can take our time doing the back-and-forth of questioning and justifying.  The most problematic instances are when the person making a questionable claim actually does point to a source which others consider bogus.  In the cases where someone cannot even cite a bogus source, I'd rather say, "well, if this is disputed hearsay, it should be removed because it is not reliably accurate" than "well, if you can't footnote this, I have the right to remove it until you can provide one".

 * I think that users of this policy should be advised to flag any questionable material left in the article at any time as potentially inaccurate.

 * Two weeks is a long time. If no one responds to my request to attribute a questionable claim after, say, two days, I move it to the talk page.  Sometimes I just do so unilaterally because I find it unlikely that it can be substantiated (though I am sometimes surprised).  If someone says, yes, it's true, hold on while I look it up, then I'm perfectly happy to either leave it in the article (flagged) or let them put it back if it's already been removed.  Two weeks is long enough to completely forget that an article is having problems in the first place (which is part of the reason I leave a flag behind.) -- Beland 09:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Firstly: though the policy is for everyone, obvious editors like yourselves would not be affected, due to the fact that you are actually good and reasonable editors :-) The policy I've suggested has come about because there are editors out there who like to put in weasel words and unsourced claims. The policy has really come about because of them.
 * I can see (now that I've taken a short wikibreak) that the time period objections have some merit. Like jguk and yourself have stated, maybe I need to think this through. The reason I've put a time period in is because I think that material should stay in the article because: a) we need to give people time to respond and organise/add their references, and b) their have been some objections that there are self-evident facts that need to references. Really, the first point is not so much of a problem: I can live with removing information to the talk page until it can be sourced and making part of an official policy, but the second point is far trickier to deal with. Firstly, are there such things as self-evident facts? Secondly, doesn't this conflict directly with No original research? If we could clarify what this means, then I think we will be on our way to modifying my ideas on this policy. If that could be resolved then I would remove all mention of a time frame, and just state what jguk has said all along: remvoe all the material into the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, TBSDY's proposal would have the opposite effect to the one he wants. Those who want to keep the dispute information in the article will look for loopholes. And the loopholes in the policy are clear:

 * 1. they allow disputed information to remain in the article namespace for 2 weeks.
 * 2. if a source is cited, the information can remain, regardless of whether it is a proper source.
 * 3. not all sourced information should appear in any given one article. Some information may be irrelevant, and the inclusion of some information may disrupt the balance of the article. For instance, we don't need 50 quotes approving or disapproving of George Bush's policies.

 * Unfortunately there are too many loopholes - TBDSY, remember that people will read the policy the opposite to the way you want them to. Also I know that if I am browsing and see something I dispute I may remove it/leave a note on the talk page - and then within a fortnight I'll have forgotten all about it! I therefore strongly oppose the proposal as currently written.

 * I do, however, agree with TBSDY that there is a need to tighten up policy in this area. I am also coming to the view that a proposal along these lines needs to be merged with an updated Cite sources policy. Some features of a policy are clear, though coming up with tight definitions will be difficult:

 * 1. It must allow for immediate removal of material that is disputed (provided the user disputing the material is acting in good faith)
 * 2. Disputed material that, if adequately sourced, and if not libellous, should be removed to the talk page so that the information is not lost
 * 3. All material should be adequately sourced. However, this is an ideal - at present it is better to only demand that disputed or sensational material is sourced.
 * 4. Not all sources are equal. Some have little or no value. I agree the word "adequately" (or "reputable" or whatever) in 3 needs to be tightened up. But without some qualification to define what an acceptable source is, we would leave a policy loophole that those wishing to trot out the sort of thing that TBSDY is referring to vis-a-vis CD will exploit. Note that at present they can just argue "well, I've supplied you with a source" - if we're not careful they will argue "well, policy says it can stay as I've supplied you with a source - policy says nothing about what that source may be".
 * 5. Just because information had been adequately sourced does not mean that it should appear in any given article.

 * Thoughts? jguk 09:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I do agree that because the policy carves out a specific right to remove after 2 weeks, it implies that removal not following this procedure is not good. I would change it to say that unsourced material which an editor deems questionable can be removed to the talk page immediately, and that this may be immediately reverted if a dispute tag is added.  After this, I would say that 1.) the parties to the dispute should discuss the issue, and hopefully reach an agreement. 2.) If the dispute is inactive for two week or more, the questionable material may be moved to the talk page so that the  dispute tag can be removed. -- Beland 09:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Time frame removed
I can see that there is a lot of merit to removing the time frame from the policy, mainly due to the large potential loophole it gives POV pushers and disruptive editors (even though this clearly goes against the general spirit of my policy). As such, I have modified the procedure to allow editors to immediately move the material to the talk page, otherwise this will be unworkable. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quality of source
I agree with Ta bu shi da yu that this is not the place to address source quality or lack of quality. Maurreen 17:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Widely-believed but unreferenced facts
So, if a troll says "Please cite a source for the claim that 'A' is the first letter of the english alphabet", or "Please cite a source for the claim that Earth is the home planet for Humans", and nobody does so, then the troll may remove that claim from the article. I don't think this would be a desirable. I think the policy needs to allow "general knowledge" to be incorporated without having citable sources. —AlanBarrett 18:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * We are assuming that the user disputing the fact is doing so in good faith. I also think that removing information that is obvious to all is clear vandalism - and if it happens over a number of pages that is enough for a user to be blocked. Perhaps some words to that effect should be added, jguk 19:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You know, there is a major problem here. Please define "general knowledge", and how it relates to No original research and Cite sources! This is not the first time I've encountered this argument, and so far noone has given me a satisfactory answer. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * There's no need to define "general knowledge" - after all, it would be impossible: a fact about a British soap star may be general knowledge in the UK, with no-one in the rest of the world even knowing who the soap star is.  Users deliberately removing lots of generally accepted knowledge soon get banned for vandalism - and that's how it should stay. One or two one-off queries by users that ask them in good faith, will not get branded a vandal either - they remove info, asking for support, and receive it. We could add a note to this effect, but I wouldn't go further, jguk 21:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * So in other words, that is not general knowledge at all. No offence, but if someone from the U.S. said this, they'd get told they are elitist or an imperialist. It's really not acceptable to have such a nebulous term in the policy, as this is possibly the widest loophole I've seen for those who are determined to push their POV into an article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Define "general knowledge"? I don't have a good definition, but fortunately I don't need one.  The proposer of the policy needs to edit the policy to earn my vote (or not edit the policy, and have me vote against it), but there is no need for the edited policy to include the phrase "general knowledge".  For example, it could simply outlaw bad-faith requests for sources, and it could define a way of having a poll to decide whether facts were so obvious or well known that a request for sources would be classified as bad faith.  I suspect that sources could be found for almost all items of general knowledge, but I do not believe that it is a productive use of editors' time to track down sources for claims like "rain is composed chiefly of water", or "animals can die of starvation", or "the nose is an organ associated with the sense of smell", or "the round orange thing visible in the sky is called the sun", or any other item of undisputed general knowledge.  It's fine if some editors want to spend their time tracking down sources for general knowledge.  I do not want a policy that would allow trolls to hold editors to ransom: "If nobody tracks down sources for these items of general knowledge, then I will remove them from the article, and you can't punish me for it".  —AlanBarrett 16:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe it's just the examples, but those strike me as being really easy facts to back up with citations. In fact, Alphabet does have references, and linking to that article (which would be natural for another article that discussed it) would cover the references requirement. Likewise, existing refs for Human look like they cover the Earth angle. --iMb~Mw 05:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Those were examples of general knowledge, not examples of facts for which sources are hard to find. —AlanBarrett 16:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Direct overlap with Verifiability
So there is a suggested procedure for removing unverified material from articles at Verifiability. It contains lots of conditions, advice, and intermediate and alternative steps not explored here. These two pages have to be reconciled or else there will be inconsistent guidance. Anyone have any thoughts on how best to do that (content-wise)? -- Beland 23:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I think there should be a guide on how to identify reliable sources. In fact, I just started one. See Reliable sources. -- Beland 08:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
I think some people, including myself, would feel more comfortable with the proposed policy if it were put in more context about when it's actually a good idea to invoke one's Wiki-given right to remove statements to a talk page. It's not just a question of documentation; there are also some social considerations. A more comprehensive statement might also better fit into Verification. I would propose the following. -- Beland 03:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you've found what looks like a dubious statement in a Wikipedia article. What should you do?

1.) Check existing documentation.

 * Check the bottom of the article for references.
 * Check the talk page.
 * Check other articles that the statement links to.
 * It would be embarrassing if you could have confirmed the fact you are disputing with a quick Google search, a peek in the dictionary, or similar trivial research.

If the existing documentation or references aren't clear, improve the article for the benefit of future fact checkers and readers.

2.) Notify others.

You have several different choices. Before deciding what to do, consider the following:

 * Whether or not the article is controversial, and whether or not the change you are making is likely to stir up controversy. You might want to check the talk page and history to get a better idea.
 * Whether or not the majority of editors watching the article would agree with your input at first glance.
 * Whether or not the factual and personal motivation for the input is obvious.
 * Whether or not your input will cause the person(s) who put the statement there in the first place to disagree, or to be offended.
 * Whether or not you can cite a reliable source to justify your change.
 * Whether you want to make an incremental improvement (for example, making a dubious statement more accurate by making it more specific), have a specific claim that contradicts the existing text, or want to claim that a statement is false and should just be removed.
 * How certain you are that your claim is correct, or that the disputed claim is wrong. (Is it vaguely fishy, somewhat questionable, arguably wrong, or indisputably incorrect?)
 * Whether or not the original statement is documented, and whether or not the sources it references are reliable.
 * Whether or not you have any biases which may color your opinion.
 * Whether or not you can follow up in a few days.

2A.) Make a note on the talk page. 2B.) Change the article itself.

It's recommended that you leave a note on the talk page if the rationale for your edit doesn't fit in the edit summary, or if it's likely that others will reply. The answers to the "Before you decide, consider.." questions above are also good talk page fodder.

If no one answers, it may be that the page is neglected, that participants haven't logged on to Wikipedia recently, or that no one has a substantive reply to offer.

It's always a good idea to cite specific parts of the article in any criticism. Which facts are of dubious accuracy? If you think something is biased, explain how.

Some situations clearly call for being bold and just fixing the articles (e.g. non-controversial improvements that you can cite a reliable source for); others clearly would benefit from being proposed on the talk page at least a day or so before being implemented (e.g. removal of fishy-sounding statements that you aren't too certain are actually wrong). There is a lot of gray area in between.

From one end of the spectrum to the other, you might:
 * Copy a statement to the talk page to ask for sources or note possible bias or inaccuracy.
 * Copy a statement to the talk page to ask for sources or note possible bias or inaccuracy, and in the article itself, tag it as dubious or disputed (see below).
 * Move a statement to the talk page and criticize it there.
 * Remove a statement without a note on the talk page. (Not recommended unless it's clearly a redundant statement.)

2C.) Tag the statement or page as dubious or disputed.

If you are reasonably certain that an article is factually inaccurate, biased, or both, you should tag it so that readers are aware of the question. See Cleanup resources for help with tags. Obviously, there's no need to put in such a tag if you fix the article yourself, and it is preferable to do so unless the changes should be discussed first. If you don't change the article, it's best to propose specific language on the talk page if you can, rather than make a vague suggestion that something should be improved. This will help show you are willing to help out and not just criticize, and will hopefully help move toward consensus and implementation more quickly.

If you do add such a tag, you'll almost certainly want to post a note on the talk page giving specifics.

2D.) Write a personal note to the author of a specific edit or the primary author of the page (if any).

You might do this to draw attention to a question you've asked on a talk page, to ask a question you think only this person will know the answer to (for example, to clarify a statement they made, or to ask if they were drawing on a specific source), to ask for help, or to make a comment that's not for public consumption.

Keep in mind that not everyone logs on to Wikipedia as often or as infrequently as you do, so you might not get an immediate response.

2E.) List the edit on RC patrol.

Only for recent changes. See the page itself for inclusion criteria.

2F.) Tag the page for cleanup. 2G.) Tag the page for expert attention. 2H.) Tag the page for merger with another page. 2H.) Tag the page for deletion.

See Cleanup resources for help with tags.

Keep in mind that tagging for deletion is a strong statement. You will definitely want to check the article's talk page and history. Consider whether or not there should eventually be an article with this name, even if it needs to be re-written from scratch. Especially if you are new to Wikipedia, read Votes for deletion and related policies to get a feel for site conventions on deletion. Be extra careful to explain your reasoning.

3.) Cope with the aftermath.

If you've edited the article directly and your change is immediately reverted, then it's time to stop and discuss the situation. Instead of re-implementing the change, tag the statement or page as disputed (so readers aren't misled), make a polite post to the talk page, and wait a while to see what happens.

Whether you are making an article change, posting a note to the talk page, or adding a tag, someone may ask you a question in reply. If you care about getting your proposal implemented, you may need to participate in the ensuing discussion. To facilitate this, you might want to add the page(s) involved to your watchlist when you make changes, nominations, or comments. Then you can just check your watchlist on subsequent visits to see if anything has happened.

Comments

 * Strewth. I don't mind (1), but if I have to do any of the other stuff I'll just let false information stay - it just wouldn't be worth the effort to remove it. "Unverified" or "unsupported" means there are no sources quoted on the article or talk pages to support it - I don't mind clarifying that. But the onus must be on those adding information to support it, not on those removing information to disprove it, jguk 07:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is "strewth"? Maurreen 09:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I prefer Beland's proposal to the original. Beland's is more friendly, more of how to improve and still get along.
 * I'm not sure either is needed. If something is needed and the original is preferred, it could just be combined with Cite sources or somesuch. Maurreen 09:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Jguk has a point. Perhaps I should say:

 * If you are short on time, it's more important that you let others know that you have found a problem than it is to pick the optimal method for doing so; just pick one of the actions listed below and do it. But if you can take a few moments, or you would like to improve your chances of getting along with other Wikipedians and making constructive, productive criticism, you might want to consider the following.

Should I add this alternative to the project page, or would it be in the way? -- Beland 10:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Whilst what you seek to add is good advice, I am concerned that if it was added as part of a policy, trolls and other disruptive users would try to use the paragraph against a user who did not follow the stronger recommendations. So I'd rather it weren't there, jguk 20:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm proposing that this just be incorporated directly into Verifiability. See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. -- Beland 02:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Surely Beland's Alternate Proposal is the way any responsible Wikipedian with any manners at all would behave. I trust Wikipedians in general will be allowed to look at it as well as the appalling draft currently on the project page. --Wetman 18:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Other policies" on source quality
The page now says: "This policy takes no stance on the reputability of the sources given, and other policies should be used to determine whether any source quoted is good enough to support the use of information in an article."

This implies that there are other such policies. If so, I've missed them. Maurreen 10:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Mmmmm, fair point. There may be other such policies (through practice), but I haven't seen them written down. Maybe replace "policies" with "factors" or "principles"? jguk 10:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * How about this? "This policy takes no stance on the reputability of the sources given. Users should consider the credibility of sources." Maurreen 10:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd prefer it if the sentences were reversed (ie "Users should also consider the credibility of sources. This policy takes no stance on the reputability of the sources given."), and if the word "credible" or "reputable" were inserted before "source(s)" wherever it appears in the draft policy, jguk 10:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That works for me. We can split the changes: I will take that paragraph. Maurreen 11:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, there is (I only just found this myself!) See Reliable sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I wouldn't call that a policy. It's younger than this page. Maurreen 13:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that's because I started that page in response to the discussion here and the lack of any guidance on the issue. I'm adding it to WP:RFC so it can start to mature.  If guidance does exist, it should be pointed to by this policy, even if it's only to an unsettled discussion. -- Beland 01:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I read that and thought "wow, that's just what I was thinking about!" I wondered why I'd never seen it before... - Ta bu shi da yu 03:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Voting
Do people think this is now stable enough to send to a vote? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Policy does not have to be decided by a vote - just consensus. A vote would just polarise views - do you like how this is worded, or not? (when in practice, those supporting it would be happy with some tweaks to the wording) Or alternatively there may be "oppose" votes by people who do not see a need for this to be policy, but are, in fact, quite happy with the principles behind it. Maybe republicise it on the village pump and RfC with a proposal that - absent major objections, it will be reclassified as a policy in a fortnight's time (say)? jguk 20:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excluded

 * This policy refers to the questioning and removal of a source based only upon the accuracy of content of the removed text.
 * Reasons for removals which are not included in this policy include:
 * The form or quality of the text
 * The user who added the text
 * The supposed motivations of the user who added the text

This whole section needs to go. It's obvious, and Assume good faith already cover this. It also leaves a HUGE loophole for editors to get through. I'm going to remove it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Form and quality is not covered by Assume good faith and the last two are not explicit on that page. Hyacinth 16:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The proposed policy refers to "good faith" and does not (quite purposefully) refer to the Assume good faith page. "Good faith" should be interpreted as having its usual meaning in English.

 * Based on this, I do not see a need for Hyacinth's proposed amendment - which replaces the normal English definition of "good faith" with something else. I am conscious that where something is policy, trolls will latch on to loopholes in it. So, if someone adds dubious bits of info into 20 articles - I will consider carefully the first three or four before reverting. But if, looking at the user's contributions, it appears the user is adding doubtful material across a large number of articles in a short space of time, I would revert that user pretty much on sight. Unfortunately my action would then, under Hyacinth's wording, be taken as bad faith on my part, jguk 20:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that this section opens up loopholes. The movitations of editors often are taken into account in judging a source's value, and as Jguk points out, once an editor has made a number of dodgy edits, it's fair enough to start deleting their edits without careful consideration each time. When a user name "Adolf" makes a questionable edit based on a website that might be a Holocaust-denial site, I don't want to have to spend half an hour carefully reading the material before I can revert in good faith. SlimVirgin 20:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * This policy (Confirm queried sources) does not apply to reverts. It applies to the removal of text to a talk page with discussion. Any other problems? Hyacinth 21:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have removed "good faith"/"bad faith". Cripes.
 * Ta bu shi da yu, it appears to be less obvious than even I thought! Hyacinth 22:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what Hyacinth's concerns really are. Could you expand a little (or are you ok now with the present draft)? jguk 22:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I would strongly reject this policy unless "good faith" ("honesty or lawfulness of purpose"? ) as currently used in the policy is defined.
 * To explain (again?): I would not support a policy which says one may simply remove all unsourced text for any reason or for none.
 * One must consider the content of that unsourced text as including a blatant inaccuracy based on that text alone.
 * Any other considerations either warrant simple edits to improve the text and possibly content (format, spelling or grammar, slight inaccuracy), or are precluded by Assume good faith (an editor's assumed bias) where they are not covered by policies against vandalism (numerous edits which deny the holocaust by "User:I'm a Nazi"). Hyacinth 23:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * In the proposed policy, acting in good faith means acting honestly and with good intentions. (Lawfulness of purpose clearly isn't applicable here.) I'm not sure why you have any doubts about this. Perhaps if you could explain what problems you think there may be if we don't develop on what "good faith" is, it would help us to change the proposal to meet your concerns. Kind regards, jguk 21:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, what are honest and good intentions? Hyacinth 19:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what you're driving at - perhaps you could explain your concerns with an example. I'd have thought it's relatively easy to distinguish a reader who politely asks for information to be sourced once in a while and a troll who goes through lots of articles raising silly points, jguk 20:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Please state in policy how this is done. Hyacinth 01:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. A good faith user is only likely to question things from time to time, to do so politely, and will probably be proven right on occasion. A bad faith user will question loads and loads of things, mostly straightforward ones, and be a right pain in the neck when things are being resolved. I can't see a case where it would be difficult to distinguish between someone who is trolling and someone who is not. If you can foresee an instance to the contrary, please explain it - but, as I note above, I do not know what menace you have in mind, so I can't amend the proposal to deal with it. I should be grateful if you provide an example of how the current wording could cause problems, jguk 07:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Or an otherwise exemplary editor will occasionally, on issues near and dear to the heart, use the policy to remove POV they disagree with only because they do. What is the difference between the unsourced things that need removal, and all the many many other unsourced statements and assertions on Wikipedia? Hyacinth 08:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank for your example. My take would be that POV should be removed - and the request for a source is likely to help, rather than hinder. Suppose a statement such as "John Doe was an inspirational leader" or "Some say John Doe was an insprirational leader" is questioned - with one editor wanting it in, another disagreeing with it. Under the proposal, a source is required. To my mind this can only help. The warring parties will always disagree on whether Doe was or was not an inspirational leader, but could agree that "The Joe Bloggs Institute, in a report written in 2003, said that John Doe was an inspirational leader".

In short, I see no problem here - indeed it is healthy that contentious articles are put through an intellectual rigour mill, jguk 10:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Common knowledge
FYI, Common knowledge has just sprouted up. -- Beland 05:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * And is objected to because it contradicts No original research. SlimVirgin 05:30, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Are we ready to make this page policy?
I think the proposal looks good and watertight from trolls now. I also think it is necessary - as it is important that editors in good faith can point to a written policy when removing unsourced information; it gives them an upperhand in any source dispute.

Before I ask for formal support/oppose statements, are there any proposed tweaks? jguk 17:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incredulous
I must be reading the wrong text. Is Beland's Alternate Proposal being ignored? The text on the project page seems to suggest that the plan is that any editor, logged in or not, who considers that any statement is insufficiently sourced will be encouraged to simply erase it? That can't be the current plan. Or can it? There are some editors who do behave this way, but they are not among the better sort. I can't believe the ten or so contributors here think that this is socially acceptable behavior, and are ready to press it as policy. Add a query in brackets [?], perhaps. Or put the unsourced statement in double brackets, so that queried statements are in a warning red, like this. Or do what every sensible Wikipedian does: remove it to Discussion, to be edited up to standard. --Wetman 18:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you've misread the proposal, as it already states that information that is disputed but, if sourced, would be suitable for the article, should be put on the article's talk page, jguk 20:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * That's reassuring. I thought it said If there is a fact or an opinion in a Wikipedia article, and it has no source, then anyone may remove the material from the article. Imagine the mayhem such a policy would produce! --Wetman 20:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Third paragraph
I've tweaked the third paragraph, to: "Disputed statements that are not attributed may be removed from Wikipedia articles. The material should generally be placed on the talk page, to give more opportunity to editors to find and indicate a source for the material." Maurreen 20:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Issue regarding credibility of sources/links on another page
I am in the middle of an ongoing dispute on another page over whether we should link to a website that is little better than a blog (as it mostly contains essays by one man on a subject in which he has no standing). If anyone is willing to go to Talk:Common Era and offer their fourpenn'orth, it would be welcome. The dispute is entirely over the efficacy of the link, jguk 09:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced statement moved here

 * For disputes concerning sourced information and text, especially the credibility of sources, users should consult the article Reliable sources.

I see no source for this. --SPUI (talk) 11:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I've reverted your change, because you failed to provide a reference indicating that it was unsourced. --iMb~Meow 11:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * You shouldn't move him back then; you should move her to Talk:Wikipedia talk:Confirm queried sources. Or would they be Wikipedia talk:Talk:Confirm queried sources? --SPUI (talk) 11:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I dispute the use of "it" in the above entry. Please provide a peer-reviewed source for this usage or retract. --iMb~Meow 11:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I have changed my wording to use weasel terms. I hope you're happy. --SPUI (talk) 11:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Seeing that Weasel itself is devoid of sources, I now have no recourse but to bring this dispute to arbcom and demand that you be permanently banned from using pronouns. --iMb~Meow 12:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, fuck you and the ground you walk on! Hah! --SPUI (talk) 12:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * All right, that's the last straw. I'm telling my mom. --iMb~Meow 12:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Confirm queried sources


text:
Rhode Island Route 1A

Route 1A, largely signed as Scenic 1A, is a 33.3 mi long numbered state highway located in Washington County, Rhode Island, United States. The route, which parallels U.S. Route 1 (US 1) for its entire length, has four distinct sections connected by US 1, two of which require median u-turn ramps to cross US 1. It travels through five towns in Washington County: Westerly, Charlestown, South Kingstown, Narragansett, and North Kingstown.

Route 1A should not be confused with U.S. Route 1A, which exists north of Route 1A in Providence County, beginning in Warwick and crossing into Massachusetts in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Not helping matters is the presence of Route 1A shields on US 1A.

Route description
Route 1A follows U.S. Route 1 (US 1) closely through Washington County. US 1 is a divided highway for most of its length in this region; there is also a short freeway section in South Kingstown and Narragansett. Because Interstate 95 largely bypasses the main population centers in the southern portion of the state, instead following a more inland routing, US 1 serves as the main thoroughfare. Route 1A, in comparison, runs on surface streets, acting as an alternate route for US 1 that provides access to more local roads and business districts. There are four distinct sections, each separated segments of US 1.

Westerly section
The first section of Route 1A is 8.1 mi in length and runs entirely in Westerly. Beginning in downtown Westerly, the roadway takes a more southerly route for its first 3.7 mi in the town, serving the affluent coastal community of Watch Hill and Misquamicut State Beach. The roadway begins as Main Street, which diverges from US 1 (Broad Street) just after the latter route crosses the Pawcatuck River from Stonington, Connecticut. Route 1A north continues southward on Beach Street before turning south onto Watch Hill Road. The roadway then turns to the southeast along Shore Road, which runs parallel to Misquamicut Beach, Atlantic Beach and Winnapaug Pond, until Shore Road meets Post Road not far from the Charlestown town line.

Charlestown and South Kingstown sections
The second segment of Route 1A begins 4.1 mi north of where the first section ends. This segment is 1.4 mi in length, begins shortly after Post Road passes Ninigret Pond in Charlestown. The roadway follows Old Post Road in Charlestown past Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge before merging back with the northbound lanes of US 1 / Post Road.

The third section of Route 1A begins just 0.07 mi north of where the second section ends, with the connection made by way of US 1 north. This section runs for a total of 5.4 mi, though the southernmost 3.2 mi are separated from rest due to a closed median at US 1. This section follows Old Post Road through Charlestown village and into South Kingstown before re-merging with US 1. This segment serves as a beach bypass, providing access to Charlestown Breachway State Beach, Charlestown Town Beach and Green Hill Beach. This segment also provides access to Route 110, before terminating at US 1 again, this time at the southbound lanes.

South Kingstown to North Kingstown section

After traveling north for 2.7 mi on US 1, the fourth section of Route 1A begins, again following Post Road. This section, like the previous one, is split into two by way of a closed median interchange. The portion below this closed interchange is only 1.2 mi long and barely more than a residential road. It parallels US 1 as a former alignment of the Boston Post Road before reaching the closed interchange. After crossing US 1 via a median u-turn, Route 1A continues north for 16.5 mi, this time taking a more distant course from US 1. This segment runs for 17.2 mi and serves as a major commercial corridor for the towns of South Kinsgtown, Narragansett, and North Kingstown.

Route 1A runs north and east along Post Road and Main Street into the village of Wakefield, a major commercial center of South Kingstown. Just after exiting downtown Wakefield, the road intersects with Route 108, beginning a 0.7 mi wrong-way concurrency: Route 1A north and Route 108 south run in a southeasterly direction along Kingstown Road. After entering the town of Narragansett, the concurrent routes partially intersect US 1 at a grade-separated interchange. Just south of the US 1 overpass, Route 108 south and Route 1A north both enter the Dillon (Narragansett) Rotary. Route 108 exits to the south, heading towards the villages of Galilee and Point Judith, while Route 1A exits to the east, heading towards the village of Narragansett Pier.

The 4.4 mi portion of Route 1A in Wakefield between US 1 and the Dillon Rotary is not actually signed as part of Route 1A on most maps; however, the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) has posted reassurance markers on Post Road, Main Street and Kingstown Road though Wakefield, and the register of state highways indicates that this routing is officially part of Route 1A.

In Narragansett, Route 1A follows Kingstown Road and Narragansett Avenue. When the highway reaches the village of Narragansett Pier, it turns due north onto Beach Street and passes Narragansett Town Beach just north of The Towers. The mainline of Beach Street becomes Boston Neck Road just north of the village center and crosses the Pettaquamscutt River (also known as Narrow River) via the Sprague Bridge. Route 1A serves as a major commercial corridor in northern Narragansett, and also provides access to the village of Bonnet Shores. It then crosses into the Saunderstown neighborhood of North Kingstown, interchanging with Rhode Island Route 138 just west of the Jamestown-Verrazano Bridge. Route 1A heads north for another 3.3 mi before crossing a branch of Wickford Cove via the Hussey Bridge, entering the village of Wickford. Route 1A turns north onto Brown Street, intersecting with the southern terminus of Route 102. The roadway then turns to the west onto West Main Street before terminating at US 1 just northwest of the main Wickford business district.

History
At various points in time, every segment of Route 1A except the one in Westerly served as part of U.S. 1, which historically was the lower routing of the Boston Post Road mail route. The Route 1A designation came after the U.S. 1 designation was moved to a different alignment. This led to most segments of Route 1A being named Old Post Road or Post Road, while much of US 1 is now named the Commodore Perry Highway.

Before that, Route 1A existed on an alignment that is now roughly Route 3.

The 19.0 mi segment from old U.S. 1 in downtown Wakefield to current US 1 near Wickford, now most of the fourth section, was once Route 1B. It was renumbered to Route 1A by 1934.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Rhode Island Route 1A


text:
Seventh Edition

Seventh Edition may refer to:

 * 7th Edition (Magic: The Gathering), playing cards
 * Version 7 Unix, operating system

title: Seventh Edition


text:
Holiday Magic

Holiday Magic was a multi-level marketing organization, founded in 1964, by William Penn Patrick (1930–1973) in the United States. Originally the organization distributed goods such as home-care products and cosmetics. Company distributors were encouraged to recruit other distributors in a multilevel marketing structure, which was later characterized as a pyramid scheme.

On May 16, 1974, a compromise settlement with approximately 31,000 class members, establishing a trust fund worth $2,600,381, was approved by the court. The organization was dissolved in 1974, subsequent to the death of Patrick in 1973.

The company had been investigated by the Market Court of Sweden, United States Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the State of California.

Origins
In 1964, after a bankruptcy and several business failures, Patrick (age 33) was walking by a garage in San Rafael, California, and noted that fruit-scented cosmetics were being sold. The company called Zolene was about to go out of business. Patrick bought all of the cosmetics supplies for $16,250, and founded Holiday Magic, Inc. After the purchase, Patrick began selling distributorships in his new company.

Patrick, a student of Alexander Everett (founder of Mind Dynamics), used Mind Dynamics techniques as well as the Silva Method in the Holiday Magic organization.

Legal problems
The State of California filed suit against Holiday Magic in December 1972.

In February 1973, Holiday Magic was sued for calumny by Avon Products. In the lawsuit, Avon Products' claimed that "Holiday Magic employees distributed leaflets accusing Avon of goon squads, paying off The District attorney's office."

In June 1973, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit against Holiday Magic, charging Patrick with "bilking some 80,000 people out of more than $250 million through his Holiday Magic cosmetics and soap empire".

The company was investigated by the Federal Trade Commission, and in June 1973 the company was found guilty of deceptive trade practices. The FTC found that Holiday Magic was in violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and section 2 (a) of the Clayton Antitrust Act.

In 1973, Holiday Magic's proceedings were prohibited by the Market Court of Sweden, and a fine of 2 million Swedish kronor was imposed.

Pyramid scheme
The company was termed as part of the "big three" scams, in a 1974 United States Senate hearing before the Consumers of the Committee on Commerce that dealt with pyramid sales. 1974 hearings before the Congressional Oversight panel of the Federal Trade Commission described Holiday Magic as a "Multi-level marketer of cosmetics", that used an "unfair and deceptive pyramid distribution scheme". Holiday Magic was also labeled a "pyramid scheme" and a "multi-level distributorship" by the United States Bureau of Domestic Commerce, in their 1976 published book: Crimes Against Business: A Management Perspective.

The company was cited by the United States House of Representatives in a 1975 hearing as an example of consumer fraud, again in 1977, and in 1991, in a hearing by the House Committee on Small Business. Katz's Everybody's Business: An Almanac also referred to Holiday Magic as a "pyramid sales organization". Turner described it as one of the first "pyramid marketing" companies in America. Clarke referred to the company as an "illegitimate" business. Tobias poked fun at the pyramid nature of the organization, in his book The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need, telling readers to be wary of "Holiday Magic - where the big money to be made was not in selling cosmetics, but in selling franchises to sell franchises (to sell franchises)" Howe wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle that Holiday Magic was "one of the largest of all pyramid schemes".

Holiday Magic is used as an example in graduate level criminal justice coursework to analyze the nature of corporate scams. According to the Duke Law Journal: "Illegality permeated every facet of the promotion of the Holiday Magic marketing program." One of the Holiday Magic Inc. cases was also cited by The University of Chicago Law Review and the Columbia Law Review. The Office of the State Attorney General in Maine, United States cites In re Holiday Magic, Inc., 84 F.T.C. 748 as an example of pyramid schemes. Faltinsky described Holiday Magic as "the largest pyramid scam of all time".

Leadership Dynamics
In 1967, William Penn Patrick wrote a booklet, entitled Happiness and Success through Principle, and founded Leadership Dynamics based on those principles. Holiday Magic distributors were invited, though not required, to attend the Leadership Dynamics Institute self-improvement sessions at a cost of $1000 each. Those in the positions of instructor general, trainer general, and senior general were required to take the training. Navarro described the training as having "overtones of strict military training techniques.

Ben Gay, a high-level instructor at Leadership Dynamics, was president of Holiday Magic in the United States. Though he claimed Leadership Dynamics was a separate company, "in no way related to Holiday Magic, Inc.", Gene Church pointed out many inconsistencies in this statement, in his book The Pit: A Group Encounter Defiled.

Mind Dynamics
William Penn Patrick bought Mind Dynamics in 1970. The Mind Dynamics course was described as providing "a means of achieving personal success through the conscious use of the subconscious mind". Distributors for Holiday Magic, who took the course, have considered it as a Holiday Magic Business expense.

Sales Dynamics
Sales Dynamics was another program of instruction for pay available to Holiday Magic Distributors to help them in their business activities.

Ceased operations
In 1974, after almost 10 years in operation and tied to pyramid schemes and controversy, both Leadership Dynamics and Mind Dynamics ceased operations.

Later information
CEO and President Roland R. Nocera pleaded guilty to securities fraud, in the case United States v. Nocera, et al. (unrelated to Holiday Magic). Larry Stephen Huff, another key individual in the company, served two years in a Federal Prison, for charges related to a Ponzi scam (unrelated to Holiday Magic).

Abe F. March held several executive positions for Holiday Magic and parent company U.S. Universal; Regional Vice President, Canada (1971–1972), Vice President, Greece (1972–1973) and Managing Director for Sta-Power, Germany (1973). He subsequently bought exclusive rights for Middle East distribution of Holiday Magic cosmetics and formed his own company, Beauty Magic, in Beirut, Lebanon. In 2006 he published a book (To Beirut and Back - An American in the Middle East) dealing, in part, with his experiences.

Glenn W. Turner worked briefly for Holiday Magic in 1966. He then started two multi-level marketing companies, Koscot Interplanetary, selling cosmetics, and Dare to Be Great, selling motivational and self-improvement courses.

In popular culture
The Dream, a podcast about multi-level marketing, discussed Holiday Magic and William Penn Patrick.

The Last Podcast on the Left, a podcast covering topics like serial killers, conspiracy theories, and cults, discussed Holiday Magic on a 2023 episode about David Miscavige.

Citation Needed, a podcast, has an episode about William Penn Patrick (and Holiday Magic).

Behind the Bastards, a podcast, discussed Holiday Magic and William Penn Patrick during an episode on Amway.

title: Holiday Magic


text:
Talk:Zdzisław Beksiński

where can i buy?
hello! i want to buy pictures of beksinski! where can i buy them? thank you. i want the big ones.

wah...?
"especially for one working in a Communist country" - what does this contribute to the article? It would be better to state simply that poland was behind the iron curtain, or a communist country, but this statement is clearly implying that communist countries did not have inovative artists. Please, let me refer you to the russian counter-part to the bauhaus movement in germany and america: the constructivists. []

66.227.111.238 21:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Red13

construction site supervisor?
This article contains information, taht beksinski worked as a construction site supervisor. I wanted to ask about the source of this information (it is very probable, I just wanted to see it in a source article) User:M. Alexander (sig added by (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Reasons behind the murder?
It doesn't go into much detail over why he was killed. I would appreciate it if someone would be able to update the article with this information.

Broken Link.
The link of the first gallery is broken, should it be replaced or is the site temporarily down? Someone should look into it.

Baroque and Gothic
It would be greatly appreciated if you could describe how Beksinski went around each of these methods.

Beksiński family house in Sanok...
...was demolished by authorities and that's why he moved to Warsaw in 1977. The source also describes his influences better and suggests artists such as him benefitted from a "political thaw" that occured in Poland in 1956. heqs 08:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

er whut?
Beksiński's son was analy raped multiple times. No cite? If there is a cite why not put it on his son's Wikipedia page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heptapod (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

signature
there seems to be a 2 or backwards S in many paintings. is this coincidence, is there a reason? perhaps a way of signing his paintings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.160.117 (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

World War 2/Holocaust
Why is there no mention of his life during WW2 and the Holocaust? Are there no records? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.114.34 (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, the article does need more info. Try putting something in and I'll help. Volunteer Marek 04:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

After seeing his art, reading the article, and realizing that he came of age in war torn Poland, I was in disbelief that the impact of WW2 on his work is not addressed at all. This blog post has some interesting info, but likely is not authoritative to serve as a source: https://www.namnab.com/post/prussian-blue-zdzis%C5%82aw-beksi%C5%84ski However, it does list sources at the end that may be of use. 69.94.200.11 (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Utopian?
"Zdzisław Beksiński ... was a Polish painter, photographer and sculptor, specializing in the field of utopian art."

Utopian? Really? Has the author of that sentence even looked at Beksinski's art? According to the following definition the word "utopia" means:

''utopia [noun] an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect. Synonyms: ideal place, paradise, heaven, heaven on earth, Eden, Garden of Eden, ...''

"Distopian" would be a bit more fitting description, but even that has some limitations. Maybe "distopian surrealism" would be better. Surrealism "is most distanced from magical realism [in that] the aspects that it explores are associated not with material reality but with the imagination and the mind, and in particular it attempts to express the 'inner life' and psychology of humans through art." --SetHeh (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks for noticing this. I think "distopian surrealism" would be most appropriate. Poeticbent talk 05:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zdzisław Beksiński. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430091913/http://film.onet.pl/0,0,1232945,1,600,artykul.html to http://film.onet.pl/0,0,1232945,1,600,artykul.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Zdzisek 1941.jpg

nah son
his profile pic goes HARD 2600:4040:91E8:800:4818:229D:D512:49BC (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Is the photo really appropriate for a potrait?
Is the photo of the artist featured on this page truly the best to show his face? I think an actually photo would be better than an artistic interpretation.

Just my opinion Gøøse060 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Computer Graphics Artist
I've removed the recent addition of Computer Graphics Artist from the lead. He did do a bunch of digital works at the end of his career but the term CG Artist is very specific and defines a different kind of work. See CG Artist. We can definitely add more to the Later Work section in the article but I don't have the time or energy to do so. If the IP user who made those edits is reading this may I request you to collect data from reliable sources and expand that section instead? Here is one website I found with a quick search but I am not sure how reliable this is -. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 * You're right that Artist CG is a bit different. In fact, it is difficult for researchers to categorize this part of his work. It is something on the border between photography and painting. Basically, he "painted" the photos back then, but instead of using a brush and paint, he used a computer program. There is no good word for it in English. Could I expand on the "Later Work" sections? I think I could find time. Even though he is known mainly as a painter of pictures, this last period of his work is the most interesting to me. Despite his mature age and great reputation in painting, he decided to use new technologies to create his works. Just one question: What do you consider reliable sources? I don't want my contribution to be rejected. 2A01:11DF:4203:5C00:C83D:8950:8C44:B2F6 (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For this case IMO news articles (in respected papers), interviews, prominent art magazines, etc could be considered reliable sources. Peer-reviewed articles should also be ok but they are usually not preferred - articles in media talking about the peer-reviewed articles can work though. If you want a list of sources whose reliablity is widely considered as either good or bad by other editors you can check WP:RSPSOURCES. I would definitely find a source first and only then look it up in that list - it is quite long. Thanks a ton for making the effort! Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zdzisław Beksiński


text: User talk:12.4.254.254

title: User talk:12.4.254.254


text:
Halliday

Halliday or Haliday is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Alexander Henry Haliday (1807–1870), Irish entomologist
 * Andrew Halliday (journalist) (1830–1877), British journalist and dramatist
 * Andrew Halliday (physician) (1782–1839), Scottish physician, reformer, and writer
 * Andy Halliday (born 1991), Scottish footballer
 * Billy Halliday (1906 – after 1933), Scottish footballer
 * Brad Halliday (born 1995), English professional footballer
 * Brett Halliday (1904–1977), pen name of American mystery author Davis Dresser
 * Bruce Halliday (footballer)
 * Bryant Haliday (1928–1996), American actor
 * Charles Haliday (1789–1866), Irish historian and antiquary
 * Dave Halliday (1901–1970), Scottish footballer
 * David Halliday (physicist) (1916–2010), American physicist and textbook author
 * Denis Halliday (born c. 1941), former United Nations Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq
 * Ebby Halliday (1911-2015), American realtor
 * Edward Halliday (1902–1994), British painter
 * Eugene Halliday (1911–1987), artist, philosopher and spiritual teacher
 * F. E. Halliday (1903–1982), English academic and author
 * Fred Halliday (1946–2010), Middle East scholar
 * Fred Halliday (footballer) (1880-1953), English footballer
 * Frederick James Halliday (1806–1901), first lieutenant-governor of Bengal
 * Harry Halliday (cricketer, born 1920) (1920–1967), English cricketer
 * Harry Halliday (cricketer, born 1855) (1855–1922), New Zealand cricketer
 * Henry Halliday (1945-2022) Paediatrician and neonatologist
 * Jack Halliday (1926–2000), American football player
 * James Halliday (Canadian politician) (1845–1921), in the Canadian House of Commons from 1901 to 1904
 * James Halliday (weightlifter) (1918–2007), British weightlifter
 * James Halliday (wine) (born 1938), Australian wine critic and writer
 * Jimmy Halliday (1927–2013), leader of the Scottish National Party (1956–1960)
 * John Halliday (actor) (1880–1947), American actor
 * John Halliday (ophthalmologist) (1871–1946), Australian doctor
 * Jon Halliday, Irish historian and co-author of the book Mao: the Unknown Story
 * Lin Halliday (1936–2000), American saxophonist
 * Matt Halliday (born 1979), New Zealand race car driver
 * Mark Halliday (born 1949), American poet
 * Martin Halliday (1926–2008), British neurophysiologist
 * Michael Halliday (1925–2018), linguist
 * Michael Halliday (footballer) (born 1979), footballer from Northern Ireland
 * Simon Halliday (Suffolk cricketer) (born 1958), English cricketer
 * Simon Halliday (born 1960), English rugby union player and cricketer
 * Tommy Halliday (born 1940), Scottish football player
 * Toni Halliday (born 1964), English vocalist, lyricist and occasional guitarist of the band Curve
 * William Reginald Halliday (1886–1966), historian and archaeologist

title: Halliday


text:
Biarmia

Biarmia or Bjarmia:
 * Bjarmaland, historical country
 * 1146 Biarmia, asteroid
 * , poem

title: Biarmia


text:
James Hervey Otey

James Hervey Otey (January 27, 1800 – April 23, 1863), Christian educator, author, and the first Episcopal Bishop of Tennessee, having established the Anglican church in the state, including its first parish churches and what became the University of the South.

Early and family life
James Hervey Otey was born January 27, 1800, on a plantation near Fancy Farm in Bedford County, Virginia to Major Isaac Otey and Elizabeth Mathews. His paternal grandfather, Capt. John Armistead Otey, had served in the American Revolutionary War. Major Otey farmed using enslaved labor as well as represented Bedford County in the Virginia House of Delegates (part-time) for many terms beginning (1798-1804, 1805–1812), before attaining his military rank in the War of 1812. In 1807, Major Isaac Otey purchased Fancy Farm (including a distillery and grist mill) from the estate of Andrew Donald, a Scottish merchant who had built that plantation but died before his sons reached legal age. Major Otey or his heir of the same name also served as executor of the will of Thomas Dillard, who owned Fancy Farm 1817–1820. His son Isaac Otey Jr. would also operate plantations and serve five terms in the Virginia House of Delegates representing Bedford County. Isaac Otey purchased Mount Prospect plantation and other properties on the Otter River (altogether about 3000 acres) in 1818, then sold 1540 acres to his son John M. Otey in 1820 James Otey was among the youngest of his father's twelve children, and received a private education at the New London Academy at the county seat (then called Liberty, Virginia, now Bedford), before attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In addition to receiving an A.B. and B.D., Otey was named a Bachelor of Belles Lettres".

After graduating in 1820, Otey became a tutor in Greek and Latin at his alma mater. Following his marriage in 1821 to Elizabeth Davis Pannill, daughter of William Pannill and Martha Mitchell of Petersburg, Virginia, Otey moved to Maury County, Tennessee and opened a boys' school. The Oteys would have at least six children. Their household also included enslaved people, as did other related families back in Virginia. In the 1840 federal census, Otey owned three enslaved people.

Ministry
However, Otey soon left Tennessee, having accepted a position as President of Warrenton Academy in North Carolina. While in Warrenton, Otey was baptized and confirmed in The Episcopal Church by bishop Ravenscroft. He became a deacon in 1825 and priest in 1827.

Otey then returned to Franklin and organized Tennessee's first Episcopal church there in the Masonic Lodge. His later-famous pupils included Matthew F. Maury, future Confederate General Braxton Bragg, and Thomas Bragg. Otey also established several other churches and on July 1, 1829, established the Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee at Nashville. Otey was elected the missionary diocese's first bishop in June 1833 and was consecrated at Christ Church, Philadelphia, the following January. Following his election, Otey also took charge of the Diocese of Mississippi and was missionary bishop for Arkansas and the Indian Territory (now Oklahoma). He traveled for months at a time across the extensive region, establishing new churches and preaching the Gospel.

Fervently interested in Christian education, Otey helped organize schools at Ashwood, Jackson and Columbia, Tennessee, the later with the Rev. Leonidas Polk, future Bishop of Louisiana and Confederate general. Bishop Otey's 30-year dream for a "Literary and Theological Seminary" for the region were realized when the University of the South at Sewanee, in southeastern Tennessee, was established in 1857.

Otey lived at "Mercer Hall" in Columbia from 1835 to 1852, when he relocated to Memphis, Tennessee, where in 1863 he died. He had opposed coercion as the Civil War began, and declined to attend the organizational meetings of the Confederate Episcopal Church. After the Civil War, he was re-buried at St. John's Church at Ashwood in Maury County.

title: James Hervey Otey


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RK 2/Evidence

The Arbitration Committee can decide for itself which material on the Evidence page to consider and which to ignore. Do not move the additions of other editors to here unless you are an AC member engaged in clean-up. --Zero 04:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zero

 * Comments. When the earlier AC case opened, RK's behaviour improved for the better.  Of course this means nothing as he was under threat of banning.  When he was blocked, his behaviour was even better.  Now he is being investigated again, so once more his behaviour means nothing (but look at the insults I quoted above and also note he is already in a revert war on Chabad Lubavitch, see below).   IMHO, a quick read of  RfA/RK and  RfA/RK/Evidence will make it abundantly clear why the AC hit him with a long ban.  He is the most disruptive, combative, offensive editor I have ever encountered.
 * The claim that the disputes were resolved is a stunt. He was not banned because of specific disputes over specific articles but over a long history of offensive behavior.  He will do it again; I am certain of it.
 * Again, this is not "evidence". Your claim that you can see the future is not acceptable as evidence of anything. Please restrict your "evidence" to actual edits. RK 00:57, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, when the previous AC wrote "directly or indirectly related to Judaism" I'm pretty sure they meant the "indirectly" to cover articles on Israel-related politics/history, Zionism, and the like. You can see this from the "findings of fact".  This was an area where RK did the most damage, so don't look just at directly Jewish issues.

Truthaboutchabad
Apparently RK is very biased against many people and will resort to any means including misusing wikipedia to achieve what he wants. His recent biased POV edits to chabad have proven this. --Truthaboutchabad 00:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Additionaly RK has violated a ban against his editing Judaism related articles for one year as seen by his recent edit to chabad. --Truthaboutchabad 00:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Robert has evidence that there are indeed subgroups of Chabad Lubavitch that insist the Rebbe is a Godly reincarnation. Please discuss this with him, rather than coming here to rant. Not everything that you are uncomfortable with is false. JFW | T@lk  00:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Robert seems to have "evidence" thatis made up by his biased mind. REMEMBER that Wikipedia needs to have a NEUTRAL point of view! --Truthaboutchabad 02:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RK has vandalized the chabad page AGAIN! The chabad page had a very delicate balance before RK decided to start vandalizing it.--Truthaboutchabad 05:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg
I have been holding back from this case until now, hoping that I would see evidence that RK's behaviour had changed. Unfortunately, I see the exact opposite; that even under the threat of continued edit banning, he cannot restrain himself. As Zero's evidence shows, he has reverted to his previous discussion style, heated and personal denunciations of those he considers to be persecuting him, combined with a profound misunderstanding of the Wikipedia process. Even on this Talk: page his arguments are filled with ad hominems; as a simple example, witness his response to Dissident above, in which he attributes "anger" to Dissident (a typical RK response to those who disagree with him).

As well, he has reverted his previous editing style. For example, on Feb 24 he made massive edits to the Judaism article without any prior discussion at all in the Talk: page. He has also reverted to pushing his POV, but the evidence is only obvious to those familiar with the subjects in question, and in any event is beyond the scope of this page.

 * Huh? I have no idea of what you are talking about! In fact, I have made very few edits, and I have discussed them on Talk pages. And in regards to the Maimonides article, I have refused to make unilateral edits on controversial sections, and have repeatedly asked you for your views and sources!  RK 03:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

This is not a new pattern; he acted this way years ago on message boards, he has consistently acted this way throughout his editing period at Wikipedia, and even after his 4 month banning I see no evidence whatsoever that RK can restrain himself in a way that will conform to Wikipedia policy. I say this with a rather heavy heart; months ago RK told me that I had lost a "friend and an ally" over the original banning, and this certainly won't help. As well, I think he truly believes what he says; that he is civil, that his edits are reasonable, and that Nazis and anti-Semites and their supporters are conspiring against him and manipulating Wikipedia. Finally, RK has contributed much of value to Wikipedia. However, that does not change the facts as I see them. Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Jayjg is confused! The massive spate of posts about Nazis abusing Wikipedia on the WikiEn list was not written by me.  I perhaps added two messages, to the dozens of messages written by others. As for edits on articles, I have added zero comments on this issue.  I honestly cannot see what he is talking about.  I admit that I did view Jay as a friend and as an ally, and I was sad to lose him as such.  Why does this make be bad, or count as a bannable offense?  Would he have preferred personal attacks?  Come on, that's just not right. RK 03:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * If he truly believes that he is civil, that his edits are reasonable, and that Nazis and anti-Semites and their supporters are conspiring against him and manipulating Wikipedia... then he is insane, pure and simple. I am opposed to allowing an insane person who was banned from editing Jewish-related articles (for extraordinarily good cause) to edit them once again... wouldn't you be? Therefore, I do not really think I understand your point here, Jayig. Note that I'm not saying that RK is insane... just that if what Jayig says is TRUE that he would, perforce, be. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:26, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Dante, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to go around classifying people as mentally ill because you disagree with their edits. Please desist. RK 03:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I cannot desist from something I am not doing. Read what I wrote. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think one should speculate about the mental state of another Wikipedia editor; I certainly wouldn't presume to. As for my point, it is that I think RK makes his edits and comments in good faith; that he is not intentionally trying to disrupt Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk)  15:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It is possible for both of the following statements to be true: RK does not intentionally disrupt Wikipedia. RK does not believe all of the statements he makes on/about Wikipedia. I don't believe that he is always disruptive intentionally. My personal belief (based on my experience with RK on Wikipedia and the mailing lists) is that RK:
 * is quick to get "worked up".
 * makes poor decisions when he is upset.
 * throws around highly charged phrases (such as anti-semitism) without due care or consideration.
 * exaggerates regularly (or uses hyperbole) to "help" his position.
 * This is why I think your statements are wrong. I don't think RK is insane (a little paranoid maybe), but I similarly do not accept that he is "good" for Wikipedia. I think his general behavior and specific actions make him a hindrance to what Wikipedia attempts to accomplish. A look at the history of his conflicts will show someone who more vitriolic conflicts than most and, IMO, with far less (and sometimes no) reasonable provocation. It's one thing to get vehemently upset at real anti-semitism (or any other hateful "speech"). It's quite another to accuse those who disagree with you of being proven Nazis. Furthermore, the thing I believe that RK "just doesn't get" is that there are many people at Wikipedia who don't like HIM. Not Jews. Him. There are quite a few "anti-RKites" at Wikipedia, but that doesn't make them anti-semites. RK sometimes seems to be unable to believe that people could dislike him personally while having no problem with people he's ostensibly genetically related to. Akin would be RK's insistence on seeing "Jew-baiting" at Wikipedia where (even if the actions he refers to did indeed take place) they could perhaps be more probably labeled "RK-baiting". Someone who (and I don't support this, mind you) is trying to get a rise out of RK will likely say things about Jews, as this will get him riled-up. It doesn't, perforce, make them an anti-semite. An asshole maybe, but not necessarily an anti-semite. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:11, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm not sure where we are disagreeing; I think the 1 year ban, as decided by ArbCom, should stand. Did my comments not make that clear? Jayjg (talk)  17:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * We agree on that point it seems. Reading your post, I thought that you were offering his "sincerity" and his good contributions as mitigating factors (albeit not ones that sufficiently redeemed him), and I was disagreeing with the interpretation that he did believe what he said. In essence, I was offering a theory of his actions different from "he believes everything he says" or "he's intentionally being disruptive". I suppose we're not really in that much disagreement. Perhaps, if anything, we differ on the precise reasons that the one-year ban should be maintained, but that's small potatoes, I imagine. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:15, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Guys, this page is about evidence. You have offered none. In contrast, Jay just seems angry because I am asking him to present sources in regards to the Maimonides article. For this alone he is trying to ban me again, which is grossly unfair. I am still trying to reach out to him! Every time he asks me for sources, I comply. Every time he asks me to explain my position, I comply! Yet each time I ask him for sources, or to explain his position, he refuses. I do not understand why he is obstructionist. 03:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) (Signature added: RK)

Dissident

 * You seem confused. Martin Harper (MyRedDice) decided to imagine that he was my enemy, and thus made up a list of everyone who ever attacked me, and all of my responses to them.  What does that have to do with the current question - Why an additional ban after the four month ban?  You and others keep rehashing the past, trying to prevent the Wikipedia process from working.  Stop the anger and personal attacks, and concentrate on the present: Nothing above is evidence for any new problem. Please try and find ways to make Wikipedia work, ok? RK 00:49, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Why do you insist on claiming to know what goes on inside other peoples' heads? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:13, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * My list is, as it states, a list of people attacked by Robert "fuck you sick Nazi bastards" Kaiser. I did not bother discovering "who started it" in each case, as I am not a primary school teacher.
 * RK's speculations about my motivation are erroneous. My actual rationale is on the page itself. Martin 17:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * RK was banned for one year from editing Jewish related article. He just showed up recently after a 4-month ban and is demanding that the one-year ban should be lifted. Why should it be lifted? We don't know whether RK's behavior has changed. At least wait five months where he can demonstrate that he can edit Wikipedia without resorting to his trademark personal insults and other abuses (calling people Nazis, anti-Semites, calling the whole community Nazipedia). Since he is back, he has already been involved in a dispute. He has already started posting insults and accusations, like against Zero on the mailing list (see evidence). Why should the ban be lifted without requiring him to demonstrate for five or six months that he can edit Wikipedia without his trade mark personal insults and other abuses? OneGuy 13:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

 * Remember the ban on Gzornenplatz for the last year vandalism as Wik? That kind of post should have led to permanent ban on RK OneGuy 22:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You seem confused. There is no such ban against me. In fact, I am allowed to edit 99% of all Wikipedia articles. The question is whether or not the ban on editing Judaism articles for the next few months is warranted.  This page is for evidence, not for discussions about how much you wish the ArbCom had come up with a totally different attack on me. RK

End of moved text
I removed the above text from the evidence page. The section headers are the from the evidence section headers on the evidence page and are not necessarily the same people who actually made the comments. My reasons for doing this are to keep the evidence page short and sweet, and try to have only evidence on the page. Please use this talk page for discussions, opinions etc. Abitrators will read both pages. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 07:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)