This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Pet Goat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I believe this is factually incorrect - see [1]. — Stormie 01:34, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
As there are no other "My Pet Goat" articles, this doesn't need "book" to disambiguate it. If an admin reads this could they please perform the move, as there is a redirect at the target. Trilobite (Talk) 02:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Since the name of the book is actually The Pet Goat, should the title of this article be switched to that? My Pet Goat is the more popular usage, but a simple redirect could take care of that problem, and the article would end up being a tiny bit more factual in its presentation. Beginning 02:43, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
In fact, bin Laden's speech makes the factual error of assuming that among the things that the "goat did... that made the girl's dad mad" included ramming things. The goat in this story only eats things, and does not make any attempt to force its horns on anything.
is a bit of a weak argument. It's clear in context that Osama uses the word "ramming" in order to suggest the "ramming" of the Twin Towers. It's not then a factual error, but more like " poetic license". I suggest it be removed. Dysprosia 03:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
'Schoolchildren" is not listed as a word by Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition ("schoolchild" is, but "schoolchildren" isn't). A google search of the dictionaries doesn't find it in the online dictionaries either. But I'm not going to change it again. -- Bubba73 01:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the 68.236.180.238 edit as it was POV and unnecessary (though admittedly funny... this just isn't the right forum for your joke). Isotope23 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey, there should be more space between the spoiler warning and the spoiler itself. I was going to read the book, and now you've ruined it for me. I hope you're all happy now. sob sob -- Slashme 12:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I put it back in since it seemed so popular. If anyone wants to remove it, can I suggest a vote ... or at least a UN Security Council resolution. Alanmoss 12:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have added an {{ endspoiler}} as otherwise people would not know where to recommence their reading. This would lead to a situation where the bulk of the article was not read. This is not desirable. Camhusmj38 11:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The spoiler warnings have been removed. More people seem to want them here than not (see above). So I will put them back. If you want to remove the spoiler warnings, can you please explain why? The spoiler warnings have been removed. Shame! More people seem to want them here than not (see above). Alanmoss 08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the word "to" to "with" in the statement that the President was reading "to" the schoolchildren. As actually the children were reading TO the President. He just happened to be reading along. (haamer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.159.236 ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
"The fact that Bush considered the crash to be an accident contradicts his claim that he immediately implemented the government's emergency response plans. Also, the first plane crash was not broadcast live anywhere. There was no footage of the first plane hitting the WTC until the next day." Is this passage retarded? The footage capturing live events of 911 didn't exist as events happened and only existed the NEXT DAY?! I'm amazed....and I hope the words I'm typing right now appear immediately and don't suffer the same delay as live events under political propoganda. There at Booker Elementary school President Bush had stated,"Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack...a full scale investigation to hunt down and to find those folks that commited this act...". Don't allow a political agenda to cloud the facts here on Wiki.(haamer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.159.236 ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This article incorrectly stated that "In the 2003 parody film Scary Movie 3, the President..." whereas it should have stated "In the 2006 parody film Scary Movie 4, the President....". I have corrected this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.208.117 ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm would like to propose removing the adjective "unreputable" from the line about Bush's critics. It seems to me that it is neither objective or necessary. Simply labelling them critics is enough without inserting a value judgement. (Not to mention that "unreputable" is rather archaic word--if the adjective has to be there, "disreputable" is more standard.) -- Edmondjohnson 02:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
My Pet Goat was featured in a kids' cartoon, but I've forgotten which one. If you've seen it, reply to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.151.77 ( talk • contribs) 02:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
quote
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack." 89.172.63.74 21:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the Bush image from the lead to the section titled "Bush's 2001 reading of the book". As the image is of Bush's 2001 reading of the book, this is common sense. Images go in the section they illustrate. Images that would be appropriate in the lead would be things such as the book cover, the author, or an illustration from the story. - auburnpilot talk 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I propose that we either remove or trim back this section. Although Bush's reading is the only reason that the book has the notability to have its own article, the article currently is little more than a POV fork of Criticism of George W. Bush. Any thoughts? Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
the plot description in this article is exactly the same as will ferrell's plot description of the book in the HBO special.. Reliefappearance ( talk) 04:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know? It's not really the book in general that's famous, it's the Florida school's particular copy that Bush read from. If it's in a display case at the library of the school, or is eventually moved to the G.W. Bush Presidential Library or whatever, that should definitely be reported in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.164.47 ( talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
HOW DID BUSH SEE THE PLANE HIT THE TOWER ON TV? NO ONE SAW THE FIRST PLANE HIT ON TV. THE SECOND ABSOLUTELY AND IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THAT PLANE WAS AN AIRLINER AND NOT A 'TERRIBLE PILOT' AS WE UNDERSTOOD WE WERE UNDER ATTACK AT THAT POINT. GOSH I KNOW IT'S NITPICKING, BUT IT'S ALSO BUSH PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH FACTS! -MARC WITZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.53.61 ( talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
As the so called "direct reading" mantra, no, "lesson" includes words that play off the vowel stressing (Ex. KITE & KIT), and, as the "The Pet Goat" story likewise features several of these, and, as the only essential difference between the "lesson" read before and the "The Pet Goat Story" is a narrative built around well metered lines, there should be a separate page for the reading lesson previous to the "The Pet Goat" allegory, or include it in this article.
Also remarking on the comment on this page suggesting the removal of Bin Laden's reported dig at Bush and punning off the "The Pet Goat" story: Should it be removed much less people would grasp the significance of him allegedly seeking out this seemingly obscure reading lesson while, although possibly to pay for the cheap pun, he didn't accurately represent the story nor Bush's actions, as, unless he has a more complete version of the "lesson" on that day, he alleges, according to this translation, Bush was talking to a little girl about the goat "butting"? Without checking the Arabic, there is another obvious pun also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.6 ( talk) 05:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
As the above section notes, this article is a classic coatrack—it has next to nothing to do with the book and everything to do with the September 11 attacks. All information on the book should be neatly packaged into one of the existing articles on the attack and the section on this article reduced to put due weight on other parts of the book. If other parts of the book don't matter, we should be looking at deleting/merging this article. czar 06:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:George W. Bush being told about second plane hitting WTC.png
czar
06:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this line:
Of course, but I imagine the workbook attracted attention prior to the release of Fahrenheit 9/11. If Moore was the first to attract attention to it, that is a significant claim, but it needs to be sourced. Also the section "Reading exercise" should not have Bush episode content, it concerns the work itself like author, publishing history, plot - standard written work material found in any article. It is also standard in written work articles to have an 'editions' section. -- Green C 03:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
This new section was titled "Editions", yet only listed one item. Secondly, this addition listed an author of "Elaine C. Bruner", a publisher of "SRA Macmillan/McGraw-Hill", a publication location of "Worthington, Ohio", and an ISBN of "0-574-10128-4", all in contravention of the verifiability policy. I've undone that edit and recommended that GreenC ( talk · contribs) and anybody else interested discuss such here IAW the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Engelmann, Siegfried. Reading Mastery: Rainbow Edition, Level 2, Storybook 1., it would be an undersized and unnecessary section repeating what's in the preexisting prose. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
reviewers (tagged with Verified purchase) mention the goat story within, we should assume it is? I ask because the reliable-sources list of perennial sources says that "User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all." Lacking that uncited source, claiming that "The Pet Goat" is to be found in your specific edition is original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourthords ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
In this you claim ("dispute") the story is not in the book. But every reliable source says it is. If you think the sources are wrong, the burden is yours to demonstrate it. It's not my responsibility to prove reliable resources are accurate, only they are reliable. Until you prove the reliable sources are wrong, we go by what the reliable sources say. The sources say the story is in the book. -- Green C 20:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
If you think the sources are wrong…I don't think any of the sources currently cited in the article are wrong.
The sources say the story is in the book.Which sources in the article verify the specific six claims I noted? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no reason to think otherwise.What you or any other editors believe isn't relevant. The verifiability policy says "Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. […] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
All reliable sources sayand
The sources state. If there are reliable, independent sources that confirm the ISBN, publisher, coauthor, year, edition, and publishing-location for "The Pet Goat", then please provide them. You explicitly said that Ledge of Liberty and Google Answers weren't the sources you meant, and the sources currently in the article don't have the information, so in what reliable sources are you finding these data? Secondly, I'm pretty sure the only responsibility here " lies with the editor who adds or restores material". — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
With
this edit, I made a number of changes that I explained in my
edit summary as Undid revision 1019790031 by 78.174.16.51 (
talk) as contradictory to rest of lead; + {{
use mdy dates}} update; - "Editions" parameters with
uncited claims; + citations for remaining "Editions" content; + chapter-url citation parameter rather than linking in page numbers; + minor copyedit;
. This was partially reverted by
GreenC (
talk ·
contribs) about an hour later, who said, I am here every day for the days, weeks and months ahead (I've been here 16 years now I think). Look forward to working with you for however long, weeks, months even years. See discussion.
I don't understand what that user's... presence or... regularity? has to do with their reversion of my edits, but per their orders I looked here and found no new reliable sources offered since the {{ disputed inline}} tag was added in September. Is there an explicitly prescribed time to wait for other editors to find sources to cite their claims? Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests there is not. Was waiting seven months too short a time to allow GreenC & others to find and cite the sources to support their claims? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 11:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
2.19 years later, neither GreenC nor any other editors have come forward with the sources needed to retain the otherwise-uncited material in the "Editions" section needed by the same editor. In accordance with the
verifiability policy, I've removed that information pending an
inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
—
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
02:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm honestly at a loss in the face of accusations made and the disregard policies. Let's break down GreenC's most-recent edit summary:
restore as explained in Talk:The_Pet_Goat#"Editions"Yes, I thought I thoroughly explained the facets of Wikipedia:Verifiability at #"Editions"; hence my edit.
a discussion which the previous editor walked away from, waited 2.5 years, then declared they wonAre you referring to #April 2021, as being over two years ago (actually 2.19, as mentioned)? This isn't a… competition, I assume you mean to imply, and I've never made any declarations suggesting otherwise. As for my absence, I was the last contributor on this talk page with my request for sources IAW WP:V; neither GreenC nor any other editors replied.
rather than responding to the points that were made about the core policy WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:IAR etc...The page at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules hasn't changed since I last checked, and it says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Since removing uncited information is unquestionably an improvement of the encyclopedia, I don't understand your position.
They have insisted on including uncited information in contravention of all policies mentioned. I would love for they or another editor to say they've found the requisite sources to keep the section GreenC themselves added to the article. Otherwise, the uncited claims (or the section entirely) must go. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Pet Goat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I believe this is factually incorrect - see [1]. — Stormie 01:34, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
As there are no other "My Pet Goat" articles, this doesn't need "book" to disambiguate it. If an admin reads this could they please perform the move, as there is a redirect at the target. Trilobite (Talk) 02:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Since the name of the book is actually The Pet Goat, should the title of this article be switched to that? My Pet Goat is the more popular usage, but a simple redirect could take care of that problem, and the article would end up being a tiny bit more factual in its presentation. Beginning 02:43, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
In fact, bin Laden's speech makes the factual error of assuming that among the things that the "goat did... that made the girl's dad mad" included ramming things. The goat in this story only eats things, and does not make any attempt to force its horns on anything.
is a bit of a weak argument. It's clear in context that Osama uses the word "ramming" in order to suggest the "ramming" of the Twin Towers. It's not then a factual error, but more like " poetic license". I suggest it be removed. Dysprosia 03:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
'Schoolchildren" is not listed as a word by Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition ("schoolchild" is, but "schoolchildren" isn't). A google search of the dictionaries doesn't find it in the online dictionaries either. But I'm not going to change it again. -- Bubba73 01:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the 68.236.180.238 edit as it was POV and unnecessary (though admittedly funny... this just isn't the right forum for your joke). Isotope23 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey, there should be more space between the spoiler warning and the spoiler itself. I was going to read the book, and now you've ruined it for me. I hope you're all happy now. sob sob -- Slashme 12:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I put it back in since it seemed so popular. If anyone wants to remove it, can I suggest a vote ... or at least a UN Security Council resolution. Alanmoss 12:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have added an {{ endspoiler}} as otherwise people would not know where to recommence their reading. This would lead to a situation where the bulk of the article was not read. This is not desirable. Camhusmj38 11:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The spoiler warnings have been removed. More people seem to want them here than not (see above). So I will put them back. If you want to remove the spoiler warnings, can you please explain why? The spoiler warnings have been removed. Shame! More people seem to want them here than not (see above). Alanmoss 08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the word "to" to "with" in the statement that the President was reading "to" the schoolchildren. As actually the children were reading TO the President. He just happened to be reading along. (haamer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.159.236 ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
"The fact that Bush considered the crash to be an accident contradicts his claim that he immediately implemented the government's emergency response plans. Also, the first plane crash was not broadcast live anywhere. There was no footage of the first plane hitting the WTC until the next day." Is this passage retarded? The footage capturing live events of 911 didn't exist as events happened and only existed the NEXT DAY?! I'm amazed....and I hope the words I'm typing right now appear immediately and don't suffer the same delay as live events under political propoganda. There at Booker Elementary school President Bush had stated,"Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack...a full scale investigation to hunt down and to find those folks that commited this act...". Don't allow a political agenda to cloud the facts here on Wiki.(haamer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.159.236 ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This article incorrectly stated that "In the 2003 parody film Scary Movie 3, the President..." whereas it should have stated "In the 2006 parody film Scary Movie 4, the President....". I have corrected this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.208.117 ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm would like to propose removing the adjective "unreputable" from the line about Bush's critics. It seems to me that it is neither objective or necessary. Simply labelling them critics is enough without inserting a value judgement. (Not to mention that "unreputable" is rather archaic word--if the adjective has to be there, "disreputable" is more standard.) -- Edmondjohnson 02:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
My Pet Goat was featured in a kids' cartoon, but I've forgotten which one. If you've seen it, reply to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.151.77 ( talk • contribs) 02:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
quote
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack." 89.172.63.74 21:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the Bush image from the lead to the section titled "Bush's 2001 reading of the book". As the image is of Bush's 2001 reading of the book, this is common sense. Images go in the section they illustrate. Images that would be appropriate in the lead would be things such as the book cover, the author, or an illustration from the story. - auburnpilot talk 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I propose that we either remove or trim back this section. Although Bush's reading is the only reason that the book has the notability to have its own article, the article currently is little more than a POV fork of Criticism of George W. Bush. Any thoughts? Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
the plot description in this article is exactly the same as will ferrell's plot description of the book in the HBO special.. Reliefappearance ( talk) 04:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know? It's not really the book in general that's famous, it's the Florida school's particular copy that Bush read from. If it's in a display case at the library of the school, or is eventually moved to the G.W. Bush Presidential Library or whatever, that should definitely be reported in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.164.47 ( talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
HOW DID BUSH SEE THE PLANE HIT THE TOWER ON TV? NO ONE SAW THE FIRST PLANE HIT ON TV. THE SECOND ABSOLUTELY AND IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THAT PLANE WAS AN AIRLINER AND NOT A 'TERRIBLE PILOT' AS WE UNDERSTOOD WE WERE UNDER ATTACK AT THAT POINT. GOSH I KNOW IT'S NITPICKING, BUT IT'S ALSO BUSH PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH FACTS! -MARC WITZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.53.61 ( talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
As the so called "direct reading" mantra, no, "lesson" includes words that play off the vowel stressing (Ex. KITE & KIT), and, as the "The Pet Goat" story likewise features several of these, and, as the only essential difference between the "lesson" read before and the "The Pet Goat Story" is a narrative built around well metered lines, there should be a separate page for the reading lesson previous to the "The Pet Goat" allegory, or include it in this article.
Also remarking on the comment on this page suggesting the removal of Bin Laden's reported dig at Bush and punning off the "The Pet Goat" story: Should it be removed much less people would grasp the significance of him allegedly seeking out this seemingly obscure reading lesson while, although possibly to pay for the cheap pun, he didn't accurately represent the story nor Bush's actions, as, unless he has a more complete version of the "lesson" on that day, he alleges, according to this translation, Bush was talking to a little girl about the goat "butting"? Without checking the Arabic, there is another obvious pun also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.6 ( talk) 05:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
As the above section notes, this article is a classic coatrack—it has next to nothing to do with the book and everything to do with the September 11 attacks. All information on the book should be neatly packaged into one of the existing articles on the attack and the section on this article reduced to put due weight on other parts of the book. If other parts of the book don't matter, we should be looking at deleting/merging this article. czar 06:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:George W. Bush being told about second plane hitting WTC.png
czar
06:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this line:
Of course, but I imagine the workbook attracted attention prior to the release of Fahrenheit 9/11. If Moore was the first to attract attention to it, that is a significant claim, but it needs to be sourced. Also the section "Reading exercise" should not have Bush episode content, it concerns the work itself like author, publishing history, plot - standard written work material found in any article. It is also standard in written work articles to have an 'editions' section. -- Green C 03:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
This new section was titled "Editions", yet only listed one item. Secondly, this addition listed an author of "Elaine C. Bruner", a publisher of "SRA Macmillan/McGraw-Hill", a publication location of "Worthington, Ohio", and an ISBN of "0-574-10128-4", all in contravention of the verifiability policy. I've undone that edit and recommended that GreenC ( talk · contribs) and anybody else interested discuss such here IAW the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Engelmann, Siegfried. Reading Mastery: Rainbow Edition, Level 2, Storybook 1., it would be an undersized and unnecessary section repeating what's in the preexisting prose. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
reviewers (tagged with Verified purchase) mention the goat story within, we should assume it is? I ask because the reliable-sources list of perennial sources says that "User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all." Lacking that uncited source, claiming that "The Pet Goat" is to be found in your specific edition is original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourthords ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
In this you claim ("dispute") the story is not in the book. But every reliable source says it is. If you think the sources are wrong, the burden is yours to demonstrate it. It's not my responsibility to prove reliable resources are accurate, only they are reliable. Until you prove the reliable sources are wrong, we go by what the reliable sources say. The sources say the story is in the book. -- Green C 20:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
If you think the sources are wrong…I don't think any of the sources currently cited in the article are wrong.
The sources say the story is in the book.Which sources in the article verify the specific six claims I noted? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no reason to think otherwise.What you or any other editors believe isn't relevant. The verifiability policy says "Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. […] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
All reliable sources sayand
The sources state. If there are reliable, independent sources that confirm the ISBN, publisher, coauthor, year, edition, and publishing-location for "The Pet Goat", then please provide them. You explicitly said that Ledge of Liberty and Google Answers weren't the sources you meant, and the sources currently in the article don't have the information, so in what reliable sources are you finding these data? Secondly, I'm pretty sure the only responsibility here " lies with the editor who adds or restores material". — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
With
this edit, I made a number of changes that I explained in my
edit summary as Undid revision 1019790031 by 78.174.16.51 (
talk) as contradictory to rest of lead; + {{
use mdy dates}} update; - "Editions" parameters with
uncited claims; + citations for remaining "Editions" content; + chapter-url citation parameter rather than linking in page numbers; + minor copyedit;
. This was partially reverted by
GreenC (
talk ·
contribs) about an hour later, who said, I am here every day for the days, weeks and months ahead (I've been here 16 years now I think). Look forward to working with you for however long, weeks, months even years. See discussion.
I don't understand what that user's... presence or... regularity? has to do with their reversion of my edits, but per their orders I looked here and found no new reliable sources offered since the {{ disputed inline}} tag was added in September. Is there an explicitly prescribed time to wait for other editors to find sources to cite their claims? Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests there is not. Was waiting seven months too short a time to allow GreenC & others to find and cite the sources to support their claims? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 11:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
2.19 years later, neither GreenC nor any other editors have come forward with the sources needed to retain the otherwise-uncited material in the "Editions" section needed by the same editor. In accordance with the
verifiability policy, I've removed that information pending an
inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
—
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
02:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm honestly at a loss in the face of accusations made and the disregard policies. Let's break down GreenC's most-recent edit summary:
restore as explained in Talk:The_Pet_Goat#"Editions"Yes, I thought I thoroughly explained the facets of Wikipedia:Verifiability at #"Editions"; hence my edit.
a discussion which the previous editor walked away from, waited 2.5 years, then declared they wonAre you referring to #April 2021, as being over two years ago (actually 2.19, as mentioned)? This isn't a… competition, I assume you mean to imply, and I've never made any declarations suggesting otherwise. As for my absence, I was the last contributor on this talk page with my request for sources IAW WP:V; neither GreenC nor any other editors replied.
rather than responding to the points that were made about the core policy WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:IAR etc...The page at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules hasn't changed since I last checked, and it says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Since removing uncited information is unquestionably an improvement of the encyclopedia, I don't understand your position.
They have insisted on including uncited information in contravention of all policies mentioned. I would love for they or another editor to say they've found the requisite sources to keep the section GreenC themselves added to the article. Otherwise, the uncited claims (or the section entirely) must go. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)