The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 05:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
US-centric, non-notable type of theft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiao ( talk • contribs) 2010-12-16 02:37:02
Filler stories on everyday petty crime, absent serious discussion deeper than that of the Washington Post article, cannot be the basis of an article on Wikipedia. EEng ( talk) 10:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
P.S. Old Dragnet episodes, as outlined in the article, don't count as reliable sources.
You (collectively) say there's a phenomenon of increased Jesus thefts. OK, point me to a source that seriously considers that question via sober numerical analysis. Can't find one? Is it possible that there just aren't any good statistics on this? Then, unfortunately, this subject will have to remain outside of Wikipedia, because it's outside the realm of the knowable.
EEng ( talk) 17:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Meanwhile, we're well past the point where we should be comparing the available sources to applicable guideslines. At this point I'll outdent, and the bolding here is mine:
Let's start with WP:INDEPTH:
One user's essay on the subject( [5]) puts it very well:
Can you point me to any of this with regard to our poor baby Jesuses? Or, if you prefer, can you explain why the criteria set forth above shouldn't apply? EEng ( talk) 22:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The essay cited (not even a guideline, let alone a policy) applies to current events, and in no way to a cultural theme going back more than 60 years. One from 1949 cited the Dragnet radio episode as a "famous story" about a boy taking the stolen Baby Jesus for a ride in his new wagon. Edison ( talk) 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I have to ask you: Really? This is really the "in-depth coverage" documenting (what you call) "a cultural theme going back more than 60 years"? A 900-word article from 2004, [7] and a 400-word article in 2009, [8] constitute treatment "such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents..."? Really? EEng ( talk) 02:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 05:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
US-centric, non-notable type of theft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiao ( talk • contribs) 2010-12-16 02:37:02
Filler stories on everyday petty crime, absent serious discussion deeper than that of the Washington Post article, cannot be the basis of an article on Wikipedia. EEng ( talk) 10:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
P.S. Old Dragnet episodes, as outlined in the article, don't count as reliable sources.
You (collectively) say there's a phenomenon of increased Jesus thefts. OK, point me to a source that seriously considers that question via sober numerical analysis. Can't find one? Is it possible that there just aren't any good statistics on this? Then, unfortunately, this subject will have to remain outside of Wikipedia, because it's outside the realm of the knowable.
EEng ( talk) 17:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Meanwhile, we're well past the point where we should be comparing the available sources to applicable guideslines. At this point I'll outdent, and the bolding here is mine:
Let's start with WP:INDEPTH:
One user's essay on the subject( [5]) puts it very well:
Can you point me to any of this with regard to our poor baby Jesuses? Or, if you prefer, can you explain why the criteria set forth above shouldn't apply? EEng ( talk) 22:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The essay cited (not even a guideline, let alone a policy) applies to current events, and in no way to a cultural theme going back more than 60 years. One from 1949 cited the Dragnet radio episode as a "famous story" about a boy taking the stolen Baby Jesus for a ride in his new wagon. Edison ( talk) 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I have to ask you: Really? This is really the "in-depth coverage" documenting (what you call) "a cultural theme going back more than 60 years"? A 900-word article from 2004, [7] and a 400-word article in 2009, [8] constitute treatment "such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents..."? Really? EEng ( talk) 02:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply