This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BostonMA (talk | contribs) at 13:25, 15 December 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:25, 15 December 2005 by BostonMA (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the user page for BostonMA. BostonMA is an active editor of the Communism page. Please do not edit this page, except where invited.
Proposals
This section contains proposals for agreements that I have made for working out editting issues. I have copied them here from the talk pages of Communism because the latter pages tend to get both cluttered and archived. Anyone is invited to add their sig to a proposal. However, please do not add comments to this page. If you would like to comment on a proposal, please do so in my talk page.
Proposal re: Original Research (originally at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ACommunism&diff=31226072&oldid=31215436
In my opinion, there are many sorts of statements that are immediately suspect as original research, and more or less require verifiable sources if they are to stand. Such suspect statements include statements of the implications of certain theories. For example, if one states, "Person X's theory implies Y", that is likely to be original research, that it is likely that the editor actually made the implication. It would not be original research if a verifiable source drew the implication, although questions of neutrality may come into play at that point. Another suspect class of statements are those that purport to provide the motives or reasons behind the actions of various parties. Again, if there are verifiable sources, then it would not be original research, but these sorts of statements are immediately suspect. A third class of statements that I would find suspect includes those that have "The world" or "History" as the subject of an action clause.
Suspect statements are not necessarily original research. However, the following phrases in Communism are examples of things that raise red flags for me.
- "Marx's theory had presumed that..." (Who drew the implication from Marx's theory? A verifiable source, or the author of the edit?)
- "according to Marxian theory" (According to Marxian theory, or according to the interpetation of Marxian theory of the editor?)
- "For this reason, the socialist Mensheviks..." (Who drew this inference? The editor? or a verifiable source?)
I would favor the establishment of an informal, but at least explicitly stated agreement regarding such suspect statements.
The agreement I would propose is this:
- 1. An editor puts on the discussion page a section entitled
- "Original Research -- some description".
- 2. Other editors supply, within 48 hours, verifiable sources if they exist, or a request for extension.
- 3. If no offer of verifiable sources or request for extension is made within 48 hours, an editor may edit or remove the suspect statement.
- 4. Editors agree not to revert a suspect statement removed or editted in accordance with this procedure, unless verifiable sources are provided.
(BostonMA 19:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC))