Jump to content

Talk:2006 Virginia Question 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original Source games...

[edit]

The source which was originally cited to support the statement on the page that Juge Wright Allen had ruled the Marshall-Newman Amendment unconstitutional states so in the source. That makes the source, produced by Wright Allen herself, supported by the source and reliable.
In the same source, Wright Allen states that the US Constitution declares all men created equal. The US Constitution does not declare all men equal, but the Declaration of Independence does. It is therefore true that Wright Allen has confused the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the most reliable source for that is the source produced by Wright Allen herself and used as the reference for stating she has ruled the Marshall-Newman Amendment unconstitutional.
There is absolutely no more and no less validity to the two statements, both are statements of fact and neither is a statement of opinion. They are both facts derived from the same source. If the fact that Wright Allen has confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence is WP:OR based on this artidle then the fact that the ruled the Amendment unconstitutional is WP:OR if using the same source. Wright Allen may not, in the broadest sense confuse the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, but in the instance of this statement in her opinion, which is EXACTLY the wording of the statement now and before it was removed. Stop removing this statement of fact which is fully and completely supported by the reference.157.185.95.245 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)mjd[reply]

Your assertions here do not correctly reflect Wikipedia policies. You are synthesizing several sources (the courts opinion, the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence) to form a new theory - see WP:SYNTH. I could apply different theories - for example that she is referring to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution or section 1 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which is part of the Virginia Constitution.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then your theory would be wrong, because the neither the US Constitution its original text nor in the 14th or any other amendment declare "all men are created equal." The Declaration of Independence is the document that does that. Your "theories" then would be actual original research, and in violation of WP:OR, as originally asserted to remove this text. But WP:OR clearly states:
The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.
That is, because there is CLEARLY an abundance of reliable sources that support the existence of Paris in France there is NO NEED to source that statement since it is UNLIKELY TO BE CHALLENGED. This challenge is frivolous because a preponderance of the public (both American and not) are aware of the fact that the phrase "all men are created equal" exists in the Declaration of Independence and NOT in the US Constitution. No one SHOULD be likely to object to relying on those well known facts, just as no one should expect an objection to an unsourced statement like, "Paris is the capital of France." Now, following on to reference in the WP:OR section I quoted (Reference [1]), it states:
By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
So, once again, as long as there is no REASONABLE EXPECTATION that a moderately informed community would object. Unfortunately, I appear to be dealing with an unreasonable community.96.241.60.132 (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)mjd[reply]
Mojo Hand - I should also note that in the ABC News article I referenced Carman Cox shoots down your 14th Amendment theory - as I already suggested.96.241.60.132 (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)mjd[reply]
Surely, if it is an undeniable fact that Judge Wright Allen is confused, some reliable source has written about it. If so, anyone adding the statement back should include the reference. Otherwise, it is unsupported original research that should not be in the article. RossPatterson (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a interesting blog about this.[1]. Apparently the court has no amended the order to clarify. While, I've learned something from this discussion, it's not very significant to the subject of the article, in the grand scheme.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that very minor typo was meant to be, "now amended the order to clarify." But that is wrong - it was not amended to clarify, is was amended to correct. There IS a difference. And this also means that at the point you posted this you were WELL AWARE of the fact that there was AMPLE reference material available regarding the confusion AND that Wright Allen had admitted the confusion in issuing the amendment - yet you didn't reverse your opinion on WP:OR or WP:SYNTH96.241.60.132 (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)mjd[reply]
First to RossPeterson - if you were really concerned about quality on Wikipedia then instead of asserting that there is no reference or that I must find a reference you would have applied the requirement of WP:OR to see if in fact there was plenty of evidence available, therefore not requiring the reference. If you'd Googled "Judge Wright Allen confuses Constitution for Declaration" you would have gotten almost 60,000 hits and most of the first several hundred (believe it or not, I didn't look at all) are from hard news sources - such as http://abcnewsradioonline.com/national-news/va-judge-confuses-constitution-declaration-of-independence-i.html. Second to Mojo Hand - the first sentence of the section that has been in dispute states: "On February 13, 2014, US District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional..." How, I ask, could a statement on the first page of that same opinion which demonstrates confusion regarding that same Constitution be more relevant? To you both - this is OBVIOUSLY not original WP:OR, and it is OBVIOUSLY not WP:SYNTH, but to satisfy your arguments I'll reference the ABC News source on the main page, unnecessarily. And the useless clutter, like references of this type on the vast majority of Wikipedia pages, will break in a few months when ABC News reorganizes its servers and contribute to more not only frivolous but unusable clutter on Wikipedia. Wikipedia - are you paying attention to this?96.241.60.132 (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)mjd[reply]

Thank you for adding a reliable reference. RossPatterson (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which, I predict, will be a broken link inside of 6 months, at which point the material will rely on WP:OR guidelines - i.e., no source needed for material that "still exists somewhere in the world" - and Wikipedia has been needlessly cluttered to support information that needed no reference.96.241.60.132 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)mjd[reply]
You'll find Wikipedia to be a much more pleasant place if you try working with people and building consensus. The sarcasm and hostility makes people not want to work with you.
The text you have added is an interesting observation on the court's written opinion. If this article where about the opinion, then it would an significant point. However, it seems like a pretty small point in the grand scheme of the Marshall-Newman Amendment. The lead section is a summary of the most important aspects of a topic.--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind - I applied WP:SOFIXIT to myself and put the material about the opinion in its own section.Mojo Hand (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marshall-Newman Amendment. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Virginia_Question_1&oldid=1196489774"