Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Replaced obsolete tt tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12) |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Crime}}, {{WikiProject Law}}, {{WikiProject Law Enforcement}}, {{WikiProject United States}}. Remove 5 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5. Tag: |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=Start|importance=Low}}▼
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|class=start}}▼
{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=Low|IN=yes|IN-importance=Low}}▼
}}▼
{{Old AfD multi| date = 17 March 2012 (UTC) | result = '''no consensus''' | page = Plummer v. State }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}}
▲{{WikiProject United States
▲}}
{{Annual readership|days=90}}
{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Plummer v. State|bot=ClueBot III|age=365}}
Line 35:
* '''Support:''' Wikipedia's rules exist to make articles better, not the other way around. The rules almost always result in a better article, but there are exceptions. [[WP:MEDRS]] is one good example; a special set of rules for a class of articles where following the normal rules makes the articles worse. [[WP:IAR]] specifically tells us '''"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."''' and this is a perfect example of an article where we need to apply that. [[WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY]] says '''"Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures."''' This article was just fine the way it was for the last few years. It doesn't need "improving" by taking out content after we worked very hard and came to a consensus. Please read those previous discussions before opposing. We had and still have good reasons to make the decision that we made. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 05:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' and '''Delete''' the entire section. I have given many reasons previously in other areas of this talk page. Mostly there are no secondary sources, such as law reviews, that qualify as appropriate [[WP:RS]] talking about the subject. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 05:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' -- I see nothing wrong with the way it is. Rules are there to be broken and I'm happy if those rules are broken if it means it's a benefit to the article. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<
*'''Oppose''' - contains unreliable FRINGE sources like Infowars. [[User:Govindaharihari|Govindaharihari]] ([[User talk:Govindaharihari|talk]]) 07:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I'm OK with the sourcing for the specific purpose, and the phrasing seems appropriate.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 09:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The editor was warned by an admin that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlummer_v._State&type=revision&diff=776235255&oldid=776232946 infowars is a problematic source]. The text ''The above Plummer v. State quotation is a fabrication because the quoted text does not appear in the text of the Plummer opinion.[4]'' failed to pass V policy. The source being used does not verify the text being proposed. The RfC should be stopped. [[User:QuackGuru|<
*'''Oppose as written'''. No issue with the use of ''Infowars'' as a primary source supporting text stating that ''Infowars'' published something. But there are issues with OR, V, and NPOV (due, tone) which are not ignorable. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 11:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Infowars is a literal [[List of fake news websites|fake news]] site, it should not be cited for anything, anywhere outside [[Infowars]]. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 12:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Line 62:
::::::Of course I did, several times. I will keep saying no as long as you keep misrepresenting me. Boring, but whatever. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 08:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Question'''. {{ping|Guy Macon}} In your !VOTE above, you suggest that we should IAR; which ''rule'' are you suggesting we ignore? - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 07:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
:*May it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlummer_v._State&type=revision&diff=776235255&oldid=776232946 ignoring this] or maybe it was ignoring [[WP:OR]] policy. [[User:QuackGuru|<
::*Say Infowars ''is'' removed, what do editors think about the veracity of the other sources that are cited alongside it? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
:::*They are all crap. For example, the bottom of the rayservers link states "Posted by ChiefSteve <nowiki>http://www.myspace.com/chiefsteve</nowiki>". -[[User:Location|Location]] ([[User talk:Location|talk]]) 12:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
| |||