Make it a forum rule to cite sources

I think it should be a forum rule that you must cite sources if challenged. Its well and good for people to say that Wikipedia is not an accurate source, but if you are saying someone is wrong for using Wikipedia and that the information in Wikipedia on that subject is wrong, then you should be required to provide proof. Citing sources used to be common courtesy in forums that way everyone reading the thread could know where you are getting your information and could read more about it if they chose. If for no other reason than that it should be required when someone challenges you.

The veterans here cite their sources already. Whenever there is news they cite the article with it. A guy like me with my strong opinions doesn’t need to cite sources. However, if you do end up challenging me, which is a huge mistake, then prove me wrong, and yes that would mean you’d have to find a contradictory source. You’d have to make the effort.

I’d like to file a motion to only use historical documents as sources we cite. That means the constitution, Declaration of Independence, federalist papers etc… anybody want to second it?

:rofl:

:rofl:

4 Likes

I personally would LOVE to see a role playing section created. We each decide on a character we want to mimic that has the opposite views of the other character and we just wing it for as long as we can. If we fail to advance our characters positions, then someone can take over or we lose.

Man that’s kinda funny and fun I like that!

Yes, I find his assertion that the veterans provide links to their sources funny to Seravee. I’ve seen them bash sources and debate things, but short of sources for news articles, very few of them provide sources from what I’ve seen.

I don’t think that is what he was referring to… I just have a hunch…

Sounds like another liberal is upset he can not rule over a site because he can not back up what he says so he tries to make believe it is others who can not back up what they say instead of his assertions. This is called transference.

3 Likes

First of all, this is an OPINION site. Ranma needs to understand that first and foremost. Secondly, when you resort to posting what Wikipedia says as “factual” you need to understand how Wikipedia works first. Citing “sources” is a useless exercise as most here don’t have the time or the interest to go checking every loony who posts something on Wikipedia (and lots of loonies DO just that).

I’ve seen dozens of scholarly-sounding treatises on Wikipedia–with dozens of “citations” at the bottom…NONE of which have the slightest resemblance to the truth.

Wiki has been known for duplicity when it comes to articles in that people do come in and write stuff that is not true. Politicians come to mind in there have been the opposite party writing all kinds of nonsense to smear that person. That is only one example.

[quote=“Pappadave, post:9, topic:44295”]
First of all, this is an OPINION site. Ranma needs to understand that first and foremost. Secondly, when you resort to posting what Wikipedia says as “factual” you need to understand how Wikipedia works first. Citing “sources” is a useless exercise as most here don’t have the time or the interest to go checking every loony who posts something on Wikipedia (and lots of loonies DO just that).

I’ve seen dozens of scholarly-sounding treatises on Wikipedia–with dozens of “citations” at the bottom…NONE of which have the slightest resemblance to the truth.
[/quote] Some sources are better than no sources, which is what you post Pappa, NO SOURCES. As with our discussion about the languages. When talking about the history of languages, that is NOT opinion, that is FACT. And I posted additional sources (one from a school) saying the SAME THING.

And Sam, even if I was a liberal, what difference does that make? (I’m not BTW) I’m the one backing up what I say with sources (more than just Wikipedia). If people (Like Pappadave) can back up what they are saying with sources, let them prove it so we know they aren’t pulling it out of their fourth point of contact.

Correctly it is called “projection”, a psychological defense mechanism…but why quibble?

1 Like

Wikipedia cites it’s own sources. It is an excellent resource.

2 Likes

The recitation of sources will ultimately reinforce one’s argument, but this is a discussion forum, not a court of law. Ideally, I see a forum like this as a gathering of colleagues who acknowledge each other’s good faith, even when opinions differ. So in most circumstances, it should be unnecessary to cite sources.

What I see as dangerous is brewer’s apparent view that folks should come here to have “fun” by adopting personas/characters that don’t reflect their real views. Every last word I post here reflects what I believe, and I assume that those I converse with here are similarly sincere and not trying to be pranksters or false-flagsters.

4 Likes

I have yet to find anything that Pappa claims as untrue. He has years of experience, as most of us do, myself included. I choose to cite my claims sometimes because there are some here who refuse to acknowledge experience as valid.

RMJ, take folks’ posts for what they are. This is an Interwebz forum not a classroom, and not everyone hast the time, skills or interest in writing a properly cited academic paper. They’re just talking. I don’t and I’m sure you don’t drag out papers and books and volumes to support a point you’re making when you’re sitting around yapping with a buddy over coffee.

Also, maybe you could lead by example. And where are your citations for this thread? Shouldn’t you quantify and evaluate the amount of citation used at this site before proposing such a drastic rules change? Or post citations to those who have?

3 Likes

I don’t have to “cite a source” for what I’ve experienced myself and I’ve been on this planet for 72 1/2 years now, have had a close to eidetic…memory (though that’s no longer the case, sadly) and have traveled all over the world–I daresay at LEAST as extensively as anyone else on this board. Also, I’ve found lots of things posted on Wikipedia that are simply and undisputedly as phony as a three-dollar bill.

2 Likes

They are equally silly, I agree. That’s my point.

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:15, topic:44295”]
I have yet to find anything that Pappa claims as untrue. He has years of experience, as most of us do, myself included. I choose to cite my claims sometimes because there are some here who refuse to acknowledge experience as valid.
[/quote] Really? Here’s a partial quote of one of his latest posts… "

[quote=“Pappadave, post:228, topic:44168”]
There is NO SUCH THING as the “Iranian” language.
[/quote] And here’s what Marriam-Webster says… “IRANIAN
1: a native or inhabitant of Iran
2: a branch of the Indo-European family of languages that includes PersianIranian - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary not to mention Encyclopedia Britannica Iranian languages – Encyclopedia Britannica

How about this one?

[quote=“Pappadave, post:216, topic:44168”]
Indo-European does NOT include the Romance Languages–which stem from Latin. They include, Spanish, Italian, French, Portugese and Romanian.
[/quote] Really? Of course the great Pappadave is correct here, the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn’t know what they are talking about when they say, “Romance languages, group of related languages all derived from Vulgar Latin within historical times and** forming a subgroup of the Italic branch of the Indo-European language family**.” Romance languages – Encyclopedia Britannica

Yeah, Pappadave is right, one of the most accredited and well researched encyclopedias MUST be wrong, and not a man none of us truly know who claims to be 72 years old and claims to have completed a 63 week language course in 47 weeks. Nobody ever lies about their background and experiences on forums after all.

Rightwing, I wasn’t sure exactly how to word it, but inherent in the rule would be that sources do not need to be cited for opinions, since they are opinion, not fact. You can’t realistically prove most opinions as right or wrong.

a branch of the Indo-European family of languages that includes Persian

This is the same type of argument I end up crushing conservatives on. Conservatism is a branch of the GOP or republican party and isn’t it’s own entity. However, you said Iranian language which is a branch of the Persian language. It’s technically not it’s own language. Learn the difference.