Talk:Arnold Schoenberg

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

No. Same spelling error done more than once...a bit like a Vivaldi concerto.AlanE 20:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

"There is no way to verify that referenced statement"

Sure there is. One can pull the book of of one's shelf--or the copy at the library--and read page 505. Or one could simply click this link. AlexWD 23:15, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Is it a policy that books cannot be used to cite articles? If so, our ability to create an encyclopedia will be incredibly severely restricted. How can we write about presidents without their memoirs, or history without scholarship? DouglasA 23:31, 27 January 2010 (EST)
Don't read a book, write a book!" -- Andy Schlafly, 17 June 2007. AlexWD 23:34, 27 January 2010 (EST)
And? The point is not to simply acquire knowledge, but disseminate it. Something unclear? DouglasA 02:02, 28 January 2010 (EST)
My quandary here is that given the propensity of certain vandal sites to insert false or misleading information, without some kind of online verification, what is to stop someone from making up references out of whole cloth? Could the user not have found some online reference source quoting the information? I would be interested in hearing opinions on this. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 02:18, 28 January 2010 (EST)
TK, the quote is accurately cited, and can be checked on Google Books as AlexWD mentioned earlier. I'm not sure what opinions you're looking for. When you're dealing with a major political or pop culture figure, online sources should be easy to find; but with historical individuals like Schönberg who are not household names, books are the best reference.
If you really want my opinion, a vandal probably wouldn't be interested in planting a benign quote on the entry for Arnold Schönberg. The best way to make sure that references are legit is to keep people around who have read a lot of books on the subject. That means maintaining a welcoming atmosphere for people who genuinely want to contribute, which in my opinion does not include assuming that every new user is a vandal. JDWpianist 11:17, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Why online verification? Schoenberg, for example, is a crucial figure in Western cultural history, not some obscure guy, and any reasonably-educated, intelligent person would either have his memoirs on their own bookshelf, know someone who does, or have access to the text at their local library. Why limit ourselves to the online world--which is a severe limitation--when we, as intelligent, cultured and educated folks--have a much broader set of resources upon which to draw? AlexWD 15:05, 28 January 2010 (EST)

If the quote can be checked online with Google Books, then please provide the link to it. I have used Google Books before, and you can use the URL. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:43, 28 January 2010 (EST)
Which I see you did, post-facto, JDW. Don't go reversing my edits, but rather just edit, otherwise it appears as if you are making a snide comment, which you did anyway, and earn a ticket out of here. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:46, 28 January 2010 (EST)
For the record, TK, my revert wasn't meant personally, though in hindsight I can understand why you took it that way. I reverted for two reasons: first, because it was easier than going in to an old revision and copy+pasting to a new one. Second, because it's more honest -- I was making sure that the credit for the addition remained with the user who originally put it there.
As for the issue you raised earlier about reliability of sources in books, you should know that you can always drop me a question on whether a citation in a musical article is legit. I'd even be willing to look it up on my next trip to the library, as I feel a sense of stewardship for the musical articles here at CP. Still, I stand by my comment that a properly-cited addition to a non-controversial article is probably not vandalism, and for an admin to assume so scares away honest new members. Is that what you want? JDWpianist 08:01, 29 January 2010 (EST)

No, of course not. However this is not WP, we do not automatically assume good faith. That has to be earned. That is no different than WP, although we don't falsely state as they do that we assume such things. There isn't anything wrong with what you are saying, I would agree under normal circumstances...but what has been happening to CP isn't normal or usual. It is unrealistic to expect our users to have to make special trips to the public library to verify sources, IMO. We have repeatedly eschewed mob mentality here, and when you go make faux "debates" to hammer your POV home, here that is considered ignoring Admin instruction. Can you see that? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:32, 29 January 2010 (EST)

To be honest, I'm having a really hard time seeing where you're coming from. I don't see how using books as sources equates to "mob mentality," and I don't see how creating a debate topic about this issue is "ignoring Admin instruction." There was nothing faux about that debate, and I think some great points have been brought up so far. I started the debate because in principle I understand your concern about security, but I was hoping that you could see that I'm concerned about quality as well. It's a trade-off, and I'm interested in seeing good policy decisions come out of it.
Like I said, any questions about music article additions can be directed at me, and since I practically live at the library these days, it's no bother. All the best, and feel free to contribute at greater length and with more depth on the debate page. JDWpianist 18:06, 29 January 2010 (EST)