| Revision as of 19:01, 21 May 2013 editSean.hoyland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers34,524 edits →My edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:03, 21 May 2013 edit undoSepsis II (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,988 edits →My editNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| I agree that looks poor, but what was there before was gave extreme undue weight to the source"s" and only showed one example (disguised as "many souces") from one side, and nothing from the other side. ] (]) 18:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | I agree that looks poor, but what was there before was gave extreme undue weight to the source"s" and only showed one example (disguised as "many souces") from one side, and nothing from the other side. ] (]) 18:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm opposed to that change although I understand your concern about statements without evidence, but I think that statement was always meant to be a summary of a large number of sources that have been looked at over the years. Having said that, your concern there appears to be somewhat asymmetric given that you didn't alter 'In prose, objective sources...'. I think what the original statement is intended to convey is that some sources (I'm not sure of the extent and probably tertiary) say "Capital: Jerusalem" in their equivalent of infoboxes (when there is little room for nuance) but in prose, even in the same sources, they elaborate. My concerns aren't quite the same as yours. I don't think the 'consider it correct to ' should be there or perhaps the 'objective' either but we are so close to the RfC that I would rather leave the original wording than mess with it if there is a risk of starting a fire. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | :I'm opposed to that change although I understand your concern about statements without evidence, but I think that statement was always meant to be a summary of a large number of sources that have been looked at over the years. Having said that, your concern there appears to be somewhat asymmetric given that you didn't alter 'In prose, objective sources...'. I think what the original statement is intended to convey is that some sources (I'm not sure of the extent and probably tertiary) say "Capital: Jerusalem" in their equivalent of infoboxes (when there is little room for nuance) but in prose, even in the same sources, they elaborate. My concerns aren't quite the same as yours. I don't think the 'consider it correct to ' should be there or perhaps the 'objective' either but we are so close to the RfC that I would rather leave the original wording than mess with it if there is a risk of starting a fire. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::I would also support the change to 'objective'. If someone wants to they can add more sources to make 'many sources' a true statement though I would then add more sources that leave the capital of Israel as blank to keep as far as I know, the real life occurance in balance. ] (]) 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:03, 21 May 2013
General note
Looks interesting. thanks for all your work on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
My edit
I agree that looks poor, but what was there before was gave extreme undue weight to the source"s" and only showed one example (disguised as "many souces") from one side, and nothing from the other side. Sepsis II (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to that change although I understand your concern about statements without evidence, but I think that statement was always meant to be a summary of a large number of sources that have been looked at over the years. Having said that, your concern there appears to be somewhat asymmetric given that you didn't alter 'In prose, objective sources...'. I think what the original statement is intended to convey is that some sources (I'm not sure of the extent and probably tertiary) say "Capital: Jerusalem" in their equivalent of infoboxes (when there is little room for nuance) but in prose, even in the same sources, they elaborate. My concerns aren't quite the same as yours. I don't think the 'consider it correct to ' should be there or perhaps the 'objective' either but we are so close to the RfC that I would rather leave the original wording than mess with it if there is a risk of starting a fire. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would also support the change to 'objective'. If someone wants to they can add more sources to make 'many sources' a true statement though I would then add more sources that leave the capital of Israel as blank to keep as far as I know, the real life occurance in balance. Sepsis II (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)