Talk:Larry Sanger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Larry Sanger was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 19, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
March 2, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
May 11, 2010 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
October 22, 2013 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Larry Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Everipedia, blockchain, Larry Sanger[edit]

"Larry Sanger joins Everipedia to put encyclopedias on the blockchain" – Sanger has been in web news this past week. See web search. ––A Fellow Editor– 11:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Everipedia[edit]

Sanger has joined Everipedia. Someone should add that fact to this article. [1] 82.15.199.219 (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Larry Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Quote from original creator of Wikipedia[edit]

"Neutrality is important because it supports independent judgment. It is only independent judgment that can be properly scientific. If you want to force the minds of your readers, then you're just being another flavor of dogmatist," Sanger wrote on his Wikipedia talk page on December 22, 2017. We can add this to the article. It is a self-published primary source. Thoughts. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2017[edit]

Revert most recent edit by Javnwekjkkji9. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D5B2:E302:AB85:EC2E (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be  Done. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia[edit]

If one goes to Wikipedia's own article on Wikipedia and looks through its history, one will see that the page was created by Larry Sanger. Does anybody think that Sanger's role in creating the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia could go in this article on Sanger? Vorbee (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The edit history of all content on Wikipedia was purged in the early days. We don't know who started that article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Failed verification[edit]

Lawrence Mark Sanger (/ˈsæŋər/;[1] born July 16, 1968[failed verification]) is an American Internet project developer, co-founder of Wikipedia, and the founder of Citizendium.[2][3][4]

The sources at the end of the sentence failed to verify July 16, 1968. See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. Also see MOS:LEADCITE: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies." Content that fails verification does not conform to Verifiability policy. QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We are done here per policy. QuackGuru (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page." I explained my rationale based on policy in my edit summary and here on the talk page.

See MOS:CITELEAD "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies." How could failed verification content conform to Verifiability policy? Does Verifiability policy allow for failed verification content?

This edit does not address that the content fails verification. Stating "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body [...] editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead" - there are enough citations in the lead, and the DOB is not particularly controversial or contentious. the cite in the early life section is sufficient, and the lead merely repeats that date"[2] does not address that the content fails verification. The claim "should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead" suggests the citation is redundant but when other citations at the end of the sentence do not verify the claim it can't be redundant. If the citation was redundant then another citation in the first sentence would also verify the claim. The claim "there are enough citations in the lead" does not mean other citations at the end of the sentence verify the claim. Other citations at the end of the sentence do not verify the claim. I can't think of any policy based argument for content to fail verification. The easiest way to resolve the issue would be to restore the non-redundant citation. QuackGuru (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)