User talk:62.101.195.234

December 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Schminnte. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to International Workingmen's Association. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Adakiko (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to dispute your protest Adakiko. The edit isn't "controversial", it's acknowledging that the quote by Bismarck has never been verified since it started appearing across leftist circles. The source does not point to the validity of the quote either, did you check it?

This change does not need a talk discussion, even though it already has one. I have contributed to this discussion now in the spirit of compromise.

My point stands: The quote isn't verifiable so the summary of the wikipedia page should reflect that reality.

As editors we ought to be more concerned about quotes being backed by sources that don't verify it. The quote is from the opening crawl of the book and gives no source for the Bismarck quote while sourcing other quotes just fine. If a quote by someone as documented and quoted as Bismarck does not show up in a cursory search, then pointing out this fact is not a controversial edit, and we should not risk having misinformation be up on wikipedia while waiting for approval of hawks who have zero interest in verifying facts themselves.

We should not be aiding misinformation just because it appears legitimate at first glance. I have added an unreliable source tag to the quote. In the longer term we will remove this quote or have its unreliability pointed out in the text, perhaps with a ^{[dubious – discuss]} tag once verification of the quote fails to materialize. I hope my declaration of intent and the evidence provided on the talk page will allow my edit to remain the next time I edit the page. 62.101.195.234 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.