User talk:LosAngeles08

Welcome![edit]

Welcome!

Hello, LosAngeles08, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your question at the help desk. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cremony[edit]

You seem to be missing the point. Wikipedia is not about writing essays about what you think or feel. It's about writing an article based on reliable sources. Use of primary sources is to be avoided. I'll give you an example. Col Charles Askins was known for saying that he "killed 23 men not counting niggers and Mexicans". He listed this in his biography, too of all places. Now, you or I would read that and say "Racist". Which is what we draw from reading the material. However, we can't put that in the article, as its original research. We can put in his exact quote and let the reader draw their own conclusion, particularly with regard to the context. Or, you can go a step further and find another author who refers to him as a racist. As in Cremony, despite what the touchy-feely revisionist historians feel; Cremony would not be considered a racist by his contemporaries. Bottom line, when you write a manifesto pushing your views like a screed, I'm not going to cherry pick it for wlittle nuggets that you may be right about. The whole thing gets reverted, period. Don't take it personal its just the interweb.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, but with one significant addition: we prefer the secondary source of another author talking about the person, that would be preferable to quoting. We like secondary sources. Quotes can, indeed, be used - but with caution; it's so easy to take something out of context, and give a misleading impression. So beware choosing quotes that may not reflect the whole picture; much better to find a couple of secondary reliable sources that state he's racist, or whatever the fact/s are. c/f Wikipedia:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources.

The obvious problem that can then arise is, when there are several sources with opposing views - but again, that is easily solved by not "cherry-picking", but neutrally covering the best-supported views, with mentions of other views as appropriate, giving due balance. Chzz ► 14:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what he said.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]