3 ms·
Quote: "as I had cited the documents that proved my point, including verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress" His opinion
by bendauphinee 15y ago
Quote: "as I had cited the documents that proved my point, including verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress"
His opinion in this matter isn't as relevant as the fact that he cited actual testimony. That alone should lend enough weight to the edit that it should not have been reverted simply b/c of the Wikipedia "undue weight" policy.
- Symmetry 15y agoEvaluating primary sources isn't a perfectly simple and straightforward exercise, and cranks generally have facts that they can point to to "prove" that their view. I expect that with selective enough citation I could create a fairly convincing (to a layman) argument for quite a wide variety of points of view.
- CPlatypus 15y agoComparing primary sources is indeed not straightforward, but this is primary vs. secondary. If a book makes a claim that is directly contradicted by the author's own source then not much expertise is required to see that preferring the "child" over the "parent" would be absurd.
- sp332 15y agoHis opinion in this matter isn't as relevant as the fact that he cited actual testimony. Actually if you look at the page, he only cited his own blog post. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haymarket_affair&diff=prev&oldid=265741836#.22No_Evidence.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haymarket_af... (His blog post cited those other sources, but that doesn't really add to WP.)