Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

Asking a question and now Refdesk is semiprotected

I was reverting MarnetteD who was constantly deleting my question, saying that it's trolling, and now the humanities Refdesk is semiprotected. Why? Is it because I'm not allowed to ask questions? My question was why there are so many gay pride parades but no straight pride parades. What's wrong the question?24.130.68.155 (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Your premise is false. See Straight pride. General Ization ^Talk 15:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a decent answer. So why didn't we give that answer in the first place, not delete the question as "trolling", not semi-protect the Refdesk for "sock puppetry?" I mean, I have no idea if this is a sock puppet and frankly I don't need to for this argument -- if we're going to answer questions ... why not do it on the Refdesk? Just seems like sensible design! And as usual I see more disruption from the enforcement than the "trolls". Wnt (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's typical of one type of question the Nazi ref desk troll would ask. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

MarnetteD deleted the post. So, I went to the user's Talk Page to talk about the deletion. I told the user that I could have posted this as a reply: "Homosexuals are often stigmatized and shamed by society for being homosexuals. Homosexuals tend to feel an overwhelming sense of guilt for a harmless behavior. Given that there is no scientific or medical support for the harmfulness of homosexuality, homosexuals feel they should be exonerated from this guilt and be accepted by society. Acceptance is an universal human trait, because humans are very social. Social isolation is tantamount to torture, and humans feel that they do not deserve torture for a harmless thing. Heterosexuals do not experience shame for heterosexuality. Most of the time, heterosexuality is the expected and enforced norm." But the user just deleted that and told me in the little Edit Summary that I shouldn't reply to the troll or the other troll. That said, the Reference Desk post does seem a bit troll-ish, because no one should have to explain the central characteristic of human nature. It is always assumed that all humans understand human nature tacitly. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

With these edits, which I reverted, the OP was confirmed to be a troll. General Ization ^Talk 03:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The first question seems legitimate. One challenge in public health is trying to be more open and friendly to non-heterosexuals in a heterosexist, homophobic environment. The second question sounds like an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I was assuming good faith and composing a reply to the first followup question when the OP posted the second, making their true intent clear. Based on behavioral evidence, the OP is a well-known troll here.General Ization ^Talk 03:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:RBI is the standard practice, especially when dealing with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll. IMO it is a shame that "it" is being fed here. MarnetteD|Talk 04:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

As General's links show, the troll very soon reveals his true agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The Refdesk requires ignorance; without that, it would have no purpose at all. If Nazi or anti-Semitic or anti-gay posters are driven to ask us questions, even if they are pointed, then this is part of the world trying to purge itself by a normal healing process: the ignorant come to us with their ignorance and we have an opportunity to answer it. If we do so simply and honestly, we will either put the troll to rout because he is afraid to think about what we say, or we will convert him. Meanwhile, in making such answers we build up a database of responses that might productively be used by those facing discriminatory gibes or needing additional confidence. There are situations we know nothing about, where a lone victim cannot block the troll for some reason, and we should have confidence that straightforward responses by us now will eventually work their way out to that system. Wnt (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If you succeed in enlightening the Nazi troll, get back to us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Let me give you some medical advice, Wnt. There is no compulsion to answer every question.

And user 50's assertion that "Homosexuals tend to feel an overwhelming sense of guilt for a harmless behavior" is condescending twaddle. When I figured out my own sexuality, my reaction was "oh, so that's what the fuss is all about--well then their "moral" teachings are false and I can ignore them, since I feel no quilt for my nature." Marnette was right to close the discussion, it was a request for debate, as usual, not a request for references. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I won't be sending you a quilt for Christmas, then.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks homosexuals feel quilty must be a square. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Who makes the rules here?

So, does a user get to unilaterally make up their own rules, because he thinks some answers are "interesting", even if they contravene our policies and guidelines? I refer to "Is it certain that 1 WTC would have collapsed by the plane crash?", a question on Humanities.

I hatted the first 8 responses (from 6 different users) because they contained opinion, speculation, hypothesis, argument, debate – but not one link to any external source. Zero.

After that there was a post containing 2 references.

Then the OP comes along and unhats what I'd previously hatted: "I appreciate that you care about people sticking to the topic - but these arguments are interesting in their own right, and still, they are the context of the answer citing a source".

Well, yes, lots of things we see around us are "interesting". But so what? Saying these unreferenced posts are acceptable because they are interesting is tantamount to saying debate is perfectly OK here. Isn't it?

As for "they are the context of the answer citing a source", I don't get that at all, sorry. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

See WP:IAR and WP:DNFTT. I tend to think that it's not worth trying to contain edits unless they are directly disruptive (as e.g. those by our resident Nazi troll). The fallout is usually worse than the inconvenience of the original problem, and the interpretation on what is acceptable and what not differ too widely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a reference desk, not a discussion forum. That's what it's called, at least. If we want a forum, we should change the name after getting community consensus for the mission change. Jack is correct, although tilting at a windmill. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A rather quixotic remark, if I may so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:KnightMove. Sorry for overlooking the OP. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@JackofOz: The idea of the Refdesk is to get to references, but it isn't really necessary for responders to get there in one go. I made a brief comment about the floors in order to illustrate the concept, based on the pancake explanation, which has been very widely reported in American press; while it would have been better to source it, I was trusting someone with intimate familiarity would come along shortly and explain in better technical detail. This in fact did happen - you see that the post you approve of made a response that the pancake theory had been debunked. Now you can say that's some kind of offense, that any kind of idle talk is a crime against .... well, a crime against what, exactly? We were thinking about the question. Wnt (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The rules do not demand that all answers must provide sources, only that "Editors should strive to accurately and fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources." Anyone might have a look and judge whether the contributions hatted by JackofOz (see here) have violated that rule. I think they have not, even less all of them, so taking action was at least unnecessary. --KnightMove (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Questions that are such fodder for trolls and demand WP:AGF should put us on our best behavior. The replies are not our best behavior. The fact that OP is a long-term user in good standing who seems to acknowledge the potential for abuse is a mitigating factor in the eyes of many (though I still espouse that IPs are WP:HUMAN). Anyway, ending all the set up, the OP posts an entirely appropriate question for the ref desk: Has this question seriously been discussed, and possibly answered?

Unfortunately, nobody seems to have really tried to field the only appropriate part. Unsourced opinion is never ideal here, and it is especially bad for this kind of (potentially, inadvertently) troll-baiting question. In my estimation 209...'s response is fine, because it's ultimately seeking clarification and critiquing the associated image, not offering much in the way of speculation or WP:OR. Wnt's response at least contains some reference. I do think Wnt has a good point about incremental responses being occasionally useful, even if they don't contain references. In this specific case, however, none of it seems especially useful. Every other (current) responder deserves at least a WP:TROUTing in my book, because it's basically fan chatter and arm-chair analysis. Ultimately, the reference desk is for seeking and providing references, but all I can manage to do is try to act like a pro about it myself, and maybe toss out the occasional trouting.

Finally, as you know, the rules are ultimately upheld by the fickleness of the crowd and by people who like to boss people around and by people who just want this to be a nice place and also whoever the hell is awake and reading at the moment. It's crappy system, but still one of the best out there :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

See, I liken this to a RL library where there's a reference desk staffed by, say, 10 people. A user goes up to the desk to seek information on a certain topic. What he probably expects is either the names of some relevant books/sources, or at least a pointer to the relevant section of the library. What he gets, in this case, is a round-desk discussion among the staffers in which their private opinions and theories are bandied about, but no actual advice is given to the user as to where to go to find what they came to the desk for in the first place. Would any of us walk away feeling satisfied with such an experience? Would we be inclined to go back to that desk with other queries? I certainly would not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

But note the alternative of all 10 staffers cooly turning their back and ignoring the question - would that be better? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

How is that a relevant analogy? We don't "coolly turn our backs" and ignore OP's questions. No, what happens, ideally, is that anyone who can supply a reference does so pretty quickly, and others simply remain silent (if only ....). In the unlikely event that nobody has enough interest to be bothered getting involved, or enough smarts to be able to provide a reference, someone usually pipes up and asks a clarifying question. Remember, we do tell OPs that an answer may take a few days, so they should not expect instant responses. If you think that silence for a day or so would be interpreted as us "coolly ignoring" the OP, then I suggest you're shouldering too much emotional responsibility for the presumed feelings of anonymous people on the internet. There's probably a term for that. I hope it's not contagious. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

At a physical reference desk with a staff, the questioner would have face-to-face interaction. Here, it's like if the guy asks a question and then immediately bolts, possibly in the library, possibly out on the street, possibly to never return. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain what you're talking about? How is this type of occasional OP behaviour relevant to this topic? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You're trying to compare an electronic ref desk with a physical ref desk. And I'm saying that comparison doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Jack's point, with which I agree, is that the comparison doesn't work in respect of the respondents, not in respect of the questioners. --Viennese Waltz 12:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't work with regard to the questioners, either. The fundamental difference is the lack of face-to-face interaction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, I agree, and what I'm saying is that these folks have largely acted unprofessionally, hence the trouting. Unfortunately we can't really stop them, and we also can't force anyone to actually do a good job of it. If this were anything else I'd go finds some refs just to make a WP:POINT, but I have a severe allergy to reading materials on this topic. Perhaps your hatting would have stayed in place if it were not hat, but a simple collapse, like so:

Discussion without references for those interested, please post references below.
Comment A More bullshit That's a good point No it isn't you don't know anything If only there were a way to find out where I can read more, possibly in a reliable source!

I have had some mild success with that in the past. People don't like being told "no" or "you can't do that", but they are often ok with "let's put this material off to the side so it doesn't get in the way of good reference work." - your mileage may vary :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SemanticMantis (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The analogy that the reference desk is like a library reference desk is fundamentally wrong. I'd liken it more to a room at a university where students hang out between classes. Someone walks in and asks "Anyone know anything about XYZ"? People who have knowledge or interest in the subject have a discussion. People walk in or rush off to class at various times. (In a library if you don't like how the librarian is working you complain and they stop getting paid. No one here gets paid in the first place.) RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This is NOT the "anyone know anything?" desk. it is still a reference desk. Your drop-in-drop out point is apt, but our explicit goal is to provide references, not act like self-appointed experts. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, questions which are unanswerable or vaguely worded should be ignored. Realistically, people want to help. So they engage in discussion to try to figure out what the questioner wants or needs to know, whether references exist or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it's necessary to ask questions to get to the real question. But in this case the question was quite clear, yet the 1st respondent started out with "I am obviously not an expert, but the collapse of 1 seemed to come from the collapse of the floors above the impact site ...". This was just a personal observation. The next 7 responses just added more opinion, observation, thoughts. Nothing remotely resembling an attempt to answer the question posed, which was "Has this question seriously been discussed, and possibly answered?". Those who contributed their own opinions may well consider them to be in the realm of the "serious discussion" the OP was after. And the OP did say they were "interesting". But my point remains: they talked around the general topic without ever addressing the actual question, or even trying to.

It cannot possibly be the case that people come here primarily to find out what the anonymous respondents think (interesting and all as their thoughts sometimes may be). They come here to find out what published reputable sources have to say. Why are people so unwilling to do that basic work of looking up the references the OPs are after - which is after all why we're supposedly hanging around the reference desk in the first place - yet equally willing to pipe in with their own opinions, as if they counted for something? Is it an ego thing, where they think that whatever they have to say on any given topic has greater authority and merit than any published sources? They may well think that, but on the other hand, how highly would they regard anyone who would blithely accept the opinion of any old anonymous jerk on the internet? Not very, I suspect. So they're actually in the business of feeding people they consider idiots. I hope their mothers are proud of the great heights to which their paths in life have brought them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out some specifics of the current case:

• It was fairly obvious that the opinions of the posters don't come out of nowhere, but are rooted in published analyses of the WTC collapses - as required by the rules.
• Unsurprisingly, in the USA there is much more material on the collapses published and consumed, and I did learn a lot from these answers.
• None of the answers was destructive or 'trolling' in any way. Any disruption was far off.
• The non-sourced answers led to a sourced answer, as should be the case for a discussion.
• Some of the most active reference desk contributors were among the hatted posters, esp. StuRat. If conclude they did misbehave, it might seem advisable to either clarify or modify the rules.

--KnightMove (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

How was it obvious (point 1)? If they were just repeating stuff you already knew to be true, then that's hardly an advance in your knowledge. If they were saying stuff you did NOT know, what led you to believe them, and why would you prefer the personal testimony of a ref desk respondent over a link to a published source? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I have many, many times, begged and pleaded with StuRat to stop posting whatever pops in to his head. I'm not alone, several others have too. Sometimes I think we should start a support group. But it never works. I've mostly given up. More recently, I've noted a slight improvement in his (quality referenced post)/(unsourced opinion)/ ratio, but it is still far less than one, and he is still far from a ref-desk role model. For a guidance or role models on ref-desk behavior, look to Nimur, Jayron, BenRG, Nil Einne, Nyttend, Steve Summit, AlanSplodge, and many more. Jack himself does pretty good work here too. But your comment brings up a good point: since Stu is so active and so often engages in bad behavior, it does give the impression that this is ok. I don't want this to turn in to yet another thing about Stu, but since you bring up his behavior and activity as evidence of the acceptability of said activity, I had to correct that mistaken notion: just because Stu makes a lot of bad posts doesn't mean it's ok. This specific instance is not terrible in my book, but I'd also have recommended leaving all the unsourced material in a collapsed section like the one I used above. The notion of "It was fairly obvious that the opinions of the posters don't come out of nowhere, but are rooted in published analyses" is completely off base for a reference desk. If they have analyses, they should post them. This is not an expert desk, nor is it a "trust me I've read stuff" desk. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Also disturbing is when other editors yell at StuRat (or whoever) and tell him he's wrong about something which he might actually have right, or at least partially right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That utterly misses the point, as I think you know. This desk is not for respondents to say things that are right. It's for respondents to provide links to things that are published. Big difference. Huge. Now, OK, sometimes we can diverge from that core principle (as StuRat notes below), but often all we see is the variations, with nary even a suspicion of the theme. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The attackers, too often, fail to provide their own references to refute the original comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a mistake to say that every response needs a reference. Here are some exceptions I can think of:

1) Request for clarification of the Q.

2) Pointing out that the Q may be taken more than one way.

3) Pointing out answers which others have already given (like "You might have missed that the 3rd response from X included a link which shows...").

4) Calculations. Common on the Math Desk, but sometimes also on the Science Desk, Computer Desks, etc. (Something like a simple conversion from metric to US units doesn't really require a ref, unless there's an argument over it.)

5) Saying why an answer is not possible.

6) Reformatting (like boxing up large chunks of code).

7) Suggesting a method for finding the answer.

Another one I don't much support is responses that do nothing more than criticize the responses of others. That doesn't belong on the Ref Desk. Take it here or to their talk page instead. (Saying that a response in incorrect is OK, with evidence, but insulting people is not.)

Also, Jack, note that most your recent responses (since you posted this complaint) on the Ref Desk don't include refs either: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Now that doesn't mean those were bad posts, but neither does it mean so when others do the same. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Those are the 5 dumbest NON-refutations I've ever seen, Stu. A complete waste of your time, defending the indefensible by attacking the upholder of the rules. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have been saying that every Ref Desk post requires a ref, and that's clearly not the case, as I just described. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not what I've ever said. In fact, just up above I said: This desk is not for respondents to say things that are right. It's for respondents to provide links to things that are published. Big difference. Huge. Now, OK, sometimes we can diverge from that core principle (as StuRat notes below) .... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying my position is "indefensible" whilst simultaneously saying you agree with what I said ? Huh ? StuRat (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Let me make it clear. I have no issue with any of the 7 things you listed. But these are not pertinent to my topic, which is that a range of people provided "opinion, speculation, hypothesis, argument, debate", but nothing remotely like any source. I note that you didn't mention opinion, speculation, hypothesis, argument, or debate in your list of exceptions. Nor should you have. I take it you accept that these things are not welcome on the reference desks. Yet you were one of the users engaging in such behaviour in the thread in question. Care to explain? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The first link of your contributions I provided is opinion. In some cases, like Language Desk Q's, I don't see how you avoid opinion, say if somebody asks if a sentence sounds too formal for a given situation. As for speculation/hypothesis, that's often the first step in finding an answer. For example, on the Computer Desk, we might say "Sounds like a bad power cord, try another cord to test this hypothesis". "Argument/debate" is what you could call discussions like the one I linked to below, where the ability of US state governors to refuse extradition from other states was in doubt. As long as those are kept civil, that's a valuable part of the process. So no, I don't agree with that list of "banned interactions", either. StuRat (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, so now we know. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It makes no sense that someone is allowed to make a claim with evidence but you require evidence for a challenge of that claim. Yes evidence makes for a better challenge but sometimes comments are so stupid there's little point looking for the evidence. Of course simply questioning something which was claimed but without evidence, without saying it's definitely wrong, shouldn't require evidence either. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If someone attack's another's comments as being incorrect, without providing refuting evidence, then the attacker is just as guilty as the one they're attacking. In lieu of refuting evidence, the right response is not "That's so stupid." The right response is "What's your source for that?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. As for Nil's comment, a statement of fact doesn't always need proof, until somebody challenges it. If I claimed that the Sun set at 09:12 PM (EDT) in Detroit today, without proof, that's OK. However, if somebody challenges the truth of that claim, then they should provide their proof I am wrong, and ask me to provide my proof. In this way we could find out why there's a diff in our sources, such as one rounding the minutes up and the other rounding them down. Simply saying "You're wrong !" does not help to resolve the discrepancy, and doesn't even identify what the discrepancy is. And saying something like "You're a moron if you believe that !" is even less helpful. Civility should be our highest goal. StuRat (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Death_Penalty_In_1930s.2C_For_Out_of_State_Resident.3F for an example of the proper way to disagree. There was a question over whether US state governors had the right to refuse an extradition request from another US state in the 1930s, yet we were able to disagree and discuss this question civilly, without resorting to calling each other names. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, if in an article someone writes that the time of sunset on 21 June 2017 in Detroit was 21:12 EDT any person can tag it . They don't have to suggest or provide evidence that it is wrong. One consideration is that the sunset time varies according to where in Detroit you happen to be. That's what Stu says in the first part of his answer. On the reference desk, it's helpful, if someone believes a statement to be wrong, to say why they think it's wrong. It's not obligatory, however.

Again, someone commented that in London different classes live cheek by jowel. If the observation is supported by the fact that the informant lives there, and is speaking from personal observation, I don't see that whether the information has or has not been published derogates from it. 94.195.147.35 (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The danger there is that someone may be objectively mistaken in their well-meaning and good-faith testimony, whereas a published source is less likely to have this problem. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Many published sources are wrong. And, if there's an error in a post, others will catch it and point it out, and then we can look it up in various sources. This is an example of how the crowd is smarter than any individual, a principle behind both capitalism and Wikipedia. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

In my version of English, "less likely to [be mistaken]" includes the possibility that it is mistaken.

Your system involves open slather on the admission of erroneous (even maliciously erroneous) statements, and the consequent need for their correction. Permitting only sourced statements would greatly reduce this workload. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is you're making the silly assumption someone needs prove that something is wrong to ask for evidence it's correct. This explains why there's such a problem with "fake news". You don't need proof that something is wrong to ask for evidence to support it. We may be living in a world with Donald Trump but we're not living in a Trump world where everything someone says should automatically be believed even if there's zero evidence for it. Even more so since we're on the reference desk.

Further you seem to be implying that all questionable claims made on the RD have evidence to support them. The reality is with certain people, and yes no point beating around the bush, I'm referring to you in particular, the questionable claims have no real evidence hence why they were questionable in the first place. It's not that the sources were wrong or disagree, it's simply that there are none. In other words, the person had no good reason to think the claim is true in the first place. Whether they half remembered something they once read, or they came up with some idea but their understanding of the situation was too limited.

And yes civility is important, but so to is not misleading our readers which happens a lot when people like you just write whatever that comes into your head and make no attempt to research that what you're actually writing about is correct. Ultimately the best way to you can win an argument against someone who says you are wrong or stupid is to provide evidence that you are not wrong. If a person keeps saying you're wrong and you provide evidence you aren't, people are going to start thinking the challenger is the stupid one. And yes, it becomes resonable to start ignoring the challenges (although bearing in mind this is a reference desk requests for references should always get some respect if it's likely someone will use them). This doesn't happen here though because most of the time you are wrong and even when you try to provide references they often either don't support what you're saying or are very poor. The few times you are able to provide decent references tend to be cases when people ask for references without expressing any scepticism.

(And to be clear, I'm not saying that saying someone is stupid is a good way to handle a dispute, it clearly isn't but in reality it almost never happens. Saying you're wrong without some reason why you believe they're wrong is also generally unhelpful. Although there's no reason why you have to provide sources at the get go when the thing you're suggesting is wrong has no evidence in the first place. Especially if you have good reason to think no sources would be incoming and you have good reason to think sources could be found and it's not clear that point actually matters to anyone i.e. while we shouldn't misinform the reader, it doesn't necessarily matter that they can be sure which one is true. Still you ideally should be able to provide sources later if needed or at least try to. And then either admit you're wrong if it's clear the other person is right or if neither of you is able to provide sufficient sourcing to resolve the dispute, agree it's unclear so the person may not be wrong. And take the lessons learnt on board in future challenges. But let me repeat again, simply asking for evidence, or even if it includes some scepticism, should not mean that you are willing to provide evidence that the person is wrong.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyway I've already spent too much time on this. If you want to think you should be able to say whatever you want and no one is able to ask for your evidence without providing evidence you're wrong, that's up to you. I don't think it would be a good idea for us to try and police and these "ideal behaviour" discussions don't tend to go anywhere much. (Well I have tried to change my behaviour in response to some of them and I'm still hoping you will one day too, although my discussion style is probably not the best way to effect that.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's really not difficult. If you think someone has made a factually incorrect or questionable statement, you should either explain why they've got it wrong, or ask them what their source is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. So why does StuRat seem to think that you need to provide a source to ask for a source? Or if you offer some explaination of why someone is probably wrong but without a source, this is unacceptable despite the fact you may be offering a better explaination and no source was provided in the first place? These are the point of contention, and why I made my first comment. (And note, it's not just that the OP and others may have no interest in the issue, but also simply that there's no reason someone should be forced to spend their time to provide higher standard of evidence to disprove a claim based on no or little evidence. Sure it's better. But we are all volunteers. If someone is going to volunteer info they believe to be correct, someone else should be free to volunteer contradictory info they believe to be correct based on the same threshold of evidence. It may not allow the reader to be certain of which one to trust, but it does help any readers who are interested know they should be cautious of trusting the original statement. As someone who strongly dislikes incorrect or misleading info it is a pet peeve of mine.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. My dislike of something being wrong extends even more to myself hence why I often do way too much research before posting sometimes in a poor way. (Whether as a direct response to a question or when challenging a claim made.) However it's also one of the reasons for my long posts given the needs for countless caveats, clarifications etc and likewise sometimes means I'm reluctant to admit I'm wrong, both of which but I admit much more the later I'm trying to improve. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay on further consideration what I wrote above may easily be misintepreted so I'll offer one final clarification which will hopefully help you understand the situation from my POV. I'm not saying that people always need to provide references. I don't always and I have seen some great answers without references. Sometimes these are from personal experience etc and while as highlighted by others above. this isn't always the best source (although very occasionally it's actually better than what RS say) nor something acceptable on the encyclopaedia proper, they are something which we generally accept on the RD. There are other reasons why we don't always need sources and yes we may disagree on the extent.

Still I think it's clear that many participants feel your opinion of when you need sources is way too infrequent. The problem is not simply the lack of sources but how often you are wrong. In reference to one of my earlier points, AFAICR, I often either provide some evidence or simply ask for your evidence when challenging you. Still I'm sure I sometimes do express scepticism without much evidence presented for it when challenging you. But there's a reason why it happens with you but if I'm challenging someone like Nimur or Semantic Mantis or SBHB or Jayron32 yes even μηδείς for certain things and other people current and past, even when they didn't provide any sources; I nearly always provide evidence in the form of sources. And I personally believe it has little or hopefully nothing to do with any personal feelings towards you. It's because they're selective enough that when they do post without sources they still tend to be right.

We all make decisions about when to post and what to post and make mistakes at times. And to be clear, I'm not implying here or with my earlier comment that most of the time you're wrong and so can't provide sources but rather it's IMO too frequent. And so when people are challenging with scepticism, even if they don't provide evidence themselves, they are generally in the right and so you can't provide sources. When people think you're in the right or are fairly unsure, they either don't challenge or only ask for sources without expressing scepticism. (So this tends to be when you can provide sources.)

While I obviously don't edit my posts enough before posting, I do actually edit them a fair bit and can spend quite some time on them. Notably it isn't uncommon when I believe something but then when actually researching for the answer find out I'm wrong and have to re-write (or write something different from what planned). And yes this does happen when I think someone is wrong too. Particularly in the later case, I may feel there's nothing to be learnt so don't even post at all. (As I obviously have the nasty habit of writing long responses I'm perhaps a bit slack at providing what I've found even if it's probably helpful due to a lack of sources. Although my threshold for what I'd accept as "well maybe the respondent is right" is a lot lower than I like to provide to the RD.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you really do need to work on being concise, as I almost skipped reading your massive blocks of text. You might consider the outline form I favor.

I have long since given up on Nil Einne's absurdly long posts. I just cannot bring myself to read them anymore. They are completely wasted on me. I have numerous times asked him to learn to be more concise, but nothing ever changes. Even now, as he's explaining why he's not concise, he takes WAY TOO LONG to make his point. To keep doing this is an insult to his presumed readers, of whom he will find there are many fewer than he thinks. Just being a contributor to a thread online is zero guarantee others will read your posts, particularly if you make them unreadable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

He does seem to realize he has a problem, and that's the first step to overcoming an addiction. :-) Maybe he needs the lesson from A River Runs Through It, where the father had his sons rewrite everything repeatedly, cutting it down in size each time. Like everything, there's a cost-benefit analysis involved when we choose whether to read something, and the longer it is, the more benefit it would need to have to justify the time we must invest in reading it. StuRat (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

1) Nil Einne has improved, and structures his posts (as seen above). 2) If there is consensus that the length of Nil Einne's posts are of such repressive dimensions that they constitute an unreasonable demand to whoever is interested in reading this talk page, then I realize I am really out of tune with today's culture of communicating in snippets of 140 characters. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

140 chars per bullet point seems about right. Then maybe limit yourself to around 10 bullets, and you have a concise communication. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

My point is just that there needs to be equality in demand for sources on both sides. So, if you ask for a source to prove some factual statement, then you should be willing to provide a source disproving it. It would be unfair to demand a source when you yourself refuse to provide one. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

How can you provide a source that something is not true? See the discussion at Evidence of absence. 94.195.147.35 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You often can. In the two examples I've discussed so far:

A) For the sunrise time on a particular date and location, just provide a source for when it was, and this disproves any claims to the contrary.

B) For the discussion of if governors of US states can refuse extradition requests from other states, we have an article with sources that gives all the nuances. This will disprove any claims to the contrary.

Now there are some claims that can't be disproven, like "I saw a cat on Elm street the other day", but then there's no reason to challenge such claims either, unless they are extraordinary claims, then Occam's razor kicks in: "I can't believe you saw a T Rex running down the road in New York City. Now if you said Tokyo, I might believe it." :-) StuRat (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

Baseball Bugs said " If you think someone has made a factually incorrect or questionable statement, you should either explain why they've got it wrong, or ask them what their source is". How often does this happen? Especially with users who routinely post personal opinion, personal experience etc without any kind of factual and verifiable evidence? Should we now have a Ref Desk monitor who asks for all such "questionable statements" (and that can mean just about anything) to be referenced? Wouldn't it be simpler to just ask for such comments to be referenced in the first place? I'm happy to review every Ref Desk contribution and ask for citations, but I think it would work better the other way, the sourcing comes first, personal anecdotes, etc should be shelved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Or just ridicule the user. That seems to be the standard practice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from other regular users here. As I said, I'm happy to "ask them what their source is" every single time someone makes an unreferenced claim. After all, this is an encyclopedia and a Ref Desk should use verifiable responses. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I frequently ask people to provide sources.--Jayron32 03:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

As do I. However, in my case, I only do so if I am interested in reading the source or if I have reason to doubt the statement. I don't ask for a source just to be a dick. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hatting a question at the refdesk

Was it okay for me to hat the question about the origin of one quote? The question was a reasonable one but eventually turned into trolling. Or should have I removed the trolling part and kept the question unhatted?Uncle dan is home (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The OP quickly revealed himself to be the Nazi troll. Hatting was fine. As was deleting it, which I did after that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks.Uncle dan is home (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't take much to flush out the Nazi troll. It's like shooting gefilte fish in a barrel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is why I tried to answer the question briefly and factually without trying to engage him in conversation after the question was answered.

ApLundell (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Except the Nazi troll is a banned user, and is not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you won your game of cops and robbers by baiting the troll and encouraging disruption. I'm sure it made it fun for both you and the troll, And no doubt you're both looking forward to the next round.

How boring it would have been for everybody if you hadn't baited him.

ApLundell (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No adult can be baited unless they're willing to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you, Bugs, even realize that you're probably one of the reference desk's easiest targets of troll bait? ---Sluzzelin talk 02:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I can handle it. If he's messing with me, he's not messing with someone else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

See, I'm not sure I buy that, and you have complained about being harassed/targeted by people with nefarious goals in the past. Nobody wishes for you to be a martyr here, but, more to the point, when you call out trolls (rather than ignoring or responding to the skeleton question with references which possibly make trolloid questioners look stupid or, when really needed, removing a question) and respond antagonistically or make a big general fuss out of them (on this talk page, noticeboards, etc.), you're giving the attention most craved by the person we call troll. Sorry for singling you out, but you are singular, long ears, wisecrackery, and all. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the time, I let someone else handle the troll. He's got more eyes on him than you can shake a shtick at. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I admit that I have been called out as a "troll" before. Most of the time, I was never aware that I was trolling. I just knew that I asked a question that no one liked, and people started to question me as if I had some kind of hidden motive. It was extremely frustrating, because then I didn't know what people wanted from me or what people wanted me to say. It's like playing mind games. Looking back, I think that some people regarded my posts as "trolling", because they thought that my questions were hopelessly naïve. In my own matured self, I think that there are some questions that should not be asked in the first place, especially if the question touches on taboo or controversial subjects. Someone will always get offended or perceive that the questioner has "motives". The question must be of a certain difficulty level with some academic knowledge background in order to be perceived as genuine. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to change the description in the Reference Desk rules

I am referring to this part.

• We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
• We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
• We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.
• We are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.

These are all negative questions. Instead of talking about things NOT to do, I think it is better to write a brief description of what can be asked on the Reference Desks. First of all, the Reference Desk is not like other Q&A sites. Other Q&A sites may not have standards or requirements about references, but on the Reference Desk, references should be recommended, even made normative. While other Q&A sites may have points to incentivize adding references and citations to responses, Wikipedia Reference Desk does not, probably because it's Wikipedia and not built to handle points. Second, there should be some kind of affirmative question of what can be asked or be acceptable on the RD. The question must be a fact-based question, with enough information from the OP to allow the answerer know where the OP needs help on. "What is the capital of Norway?" is a fact-based question. Third, common-sense questions should not be asked on the Reference Desk. Such questions may be, "Is the Pope Catholic?" or "What is the capital of Norway?". Both are too searchable on the Internet. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Your first point has been a subject of frequent debate on this Talk page and elsewhere for many years (try looking though the Archives). Your second point is explicitly addressed by instructions at the tops of all the Ref Desk pages but, like your third point, is unenforcible because, despite any criteria we set, querents will persist in asking what they choose to ask.

Our only current recourse to "inappropriate" questions is to ignore, hat or delete questions deemed inappropriate, but no two volunteers will infallibly agree on what is and isn't inappropriate, and which reaction is best in each case.

Ignoring rarely works because there's usually someone who can't resist responding; many hattings and deletions lead to extended arguments about whether or not they were appropriate, and get reverted (rinse and repeat); the (over??) propensity of some regular editors to hat and/or revert regularly leads to proposals that they themselves be restricted or banned from activity on the RDs (no names, no pack drill).

I'd advise you to steer clear of the drama, as I (mostly) do. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.82.167 (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I do like the idea of some positive examples of Q's that could be asked. StuRat (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not against it in principle, but we must beware of making the introductory instructions on the Desks ever-more lengthy – the more preamble there is, the more likely that people just skim past it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.82.167 (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparent Copyvio

This rather long question from the Feynman Lectures seems to be an obvious copyvio, see my edit collapsing it for other's comments, rather than outright deletion. I believe the item should be removed. The http for the question links to scribd and to a work dated 1964. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Reproductions of small proportions of textbooks, for instructional purposes, has traditionally been regarded by publishers as permissible (and I speak as a former secondary-level textbook editor). Despite this OP's regular queries of the same sort, I doubt if he/she is actually trying to evade copyright, but the accumulation of extracts from a single work might by now be beginning to strain against the acceptable limit (traditionally, 10% of the overall text). Although these queries seem usually to elicit informed and satisfactory answers, I do wonder if this is the most appropriate venue for them; they seem more suited to something like University Tutorial sessions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.82.167 (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am quite aware that parts of, say, poems, or song lyrics under copyright can be reproduced: this is an entire page long and complete sample question. The source itself, Scribd, routinely publishes material under copyright. The OP did not just quote a few lines from the example, and ask what was meant, but provided the entire item, like giving the entire lyrics to "I am the Walrus" rather than asking what two lines of the song meant. I am not arguing that the OP's previous activity is relevant--it is not. This case stands alone so far as I know in reproducing a complete exercise. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I translated and gave the full text of the solution, because I assumed that in the discussion I would have to refer to some paragraphs, which ones I do not know before the discussion. Note that neither Feynman nor any American publisher did publish the solutions, but only exercises. Username160611000000 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not trying to compare it to a song lyric. The exercise evidently originates from some volume of/about the Feynman Lectures (regardless of Scribd being an intermediary) and I am saying that (from my own relevant professional experience of publishing science textbooks) just copying this size of passage from such a volume for educational purposes (rather than for trying to re-sell it), even if it does comprise a complete exercise, would in itself be acceptable by the traditions of paper textbook publishing, but that the OP's accumulated similar copyings over a number of similar queries on the Science Ref Desk might well be pushing the amount of reproduced material beyond what is acceptable.

I therefore concur with the removal of some at least of this particular query (which you have already done), and I also concur that the OP should be asked to refrain from copying such extensive extracts in future (as you have done on their talk page) – it should be possible for them to precis and paraphrase at much shorter length while still conveying the essence of their queries. If the OP is not prepared to do this, I feel they should be asked to find a different venue for this activity. I think this matter needs to be addressed not just because of this particular OP's behaviour, but also because of its setting a possible precedent for other OPS. Just my two-penneth worth. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.l230.195} 2.221.82.167 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)