User talk:Miiknaans

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You did not provide any reliable source (in the form of inline citation, not in the text of the article) for his Erdős number. His website is not a reliable source. Anyone can set up a website and claim anything.
Thanks for the "a" vs. "an" lesson, but I learned that about 50 years ago when I was learning to speak English, my native language. Cresix (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the verifiability, you can check it in Google scholar. If you insist I'll cite all the articles, but that's a higher standard than for the others cited in this article. If you're looking for verifiability, USA Today is NOT an adequate source by any stretch of the imagination. The only point to referring to his website is to get a pointer on where to look. IDMB verifies the Bacon side. Citations in Google scholar verify the Erdos side. To make you happy I'll cite them all the way back to the Erdos number project. Miiknaans (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the a, an, but when you undid Nunberg, you undid the corrected an in a previous section that I couldn't resist throwing in at the same time.

It doesn't work that way on Wikipedia. It is your responsibility to provide reliable sources using inline citations. Cresix (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of adding inline citation to the articles that link Nunberg to Erdos. Please let me finish. You do not hold other citations in this same article to those standards. (There are no inline citations for Foecke either in the Erdos-Bacon article or in the wiki article on him. How come? Miiknaans (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the proposed Nunberg section. Does this pass muster with you?

Linguist and language commentator Geoff Nunberg has a Bacon Number of 3 by several routes. His website^[1] cites the line through his appearance in the documentary F*ck^[2] with Pat Boone, who was in The Cross and the Switchblade (1970) with Erik Estrada, who was in We Married Margo (2000) with Kevin Bacon, and an Erdős Number of 4, as a co-author with Jan Pedersen^[3], who co-authored with John Tukey^[4], who is listed in the Erdős number Project^[5], with a number 2 two ways, having co-authored with Arthur Harold Stone and with Ralph Philip Boas, Jr., both of whom co-authored with Paul Erdős. This gives him an Erdős–Bacon number of 7. (An alternate calculation through Dennis Miller via The Joy of Lex^[6] (2008) is also possible.)

You don't seem to get this. This is not about "passing muster with me". This is about fundamental Wikipedia policy: sourcing. Why an academic would have trouble understanding that is beyond me. Or is it that you think your credentials should allow you to violate policy? As for whether it "passes muster" with Wikipedia, there's nothing about Tukey at the page http://www.oakland.edu/enp/ . Please provide a specific source linking Tukey with Erdos. Cresix (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I just follow the links without thinking about it. ENP provides a list of all Erdos 2's at https://files.oakland.edu/users/grossman/enp/Erdos2.html which is two clicks from the home page.

I certainly understand about citation. And I have no interest in standing on my own authority -- except in the places where I am at the end of the citation chain. But I also understand the problems with citation chains firsthand. My gosh, I teach a course in which it's one of the learning goals -- to get to the bottom of any "fact" you want to cite. So I when I look at the paragraph on Foecke which lacks the citations you ask for, I think you're applying a different standard to my contribution, because you haven't deleted that paragraph. And hence the question, does my piece pass muster with you.

I know what Wikipedia wants, but I also see what Wikipedia gets. In principle I'm willing to throw in the sources to whatever level, but the Erdos-Bacon number article as it stands requires you to do a lot of legwork to get to the bottom of many of the assertions in it, i.e., it is pretty far the published Wikipedia standard.

My issue is simple. I would just like to add this paragraph about Geoff Nunberg. (Chalk it up to linguist's pride.) Would you be willing to upload the following (with the more direct citation to Tukey's Erdos number), so I don't get blocked (and can go back to working on articles about language and linguistics)? Miiknaans (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linguist and language commentator Geoff Nunberg has a Bacon Number of 3 by several routes. His website^[1] cites the line through his appearance in the documentary F*ck^[2] with Pat Boone, who was in The Cross and the Switchblade (1970) with Erik Estrada, who was in We Married Margo (2000) with Kevin Bacon, and an Erdős Number of 4, as a co-author with Jan Pedersen^[3], who co-authored with John Tukey^[4], who is listed in the Erdős number Project^[5], with a number 2 two ways, having co-authored with Arthur Harold Stone and with Ralph Philip Boas, Jr., both of whom co-authored with Paul Erdős. This gives him an Erdős–Bacon number of 7. (An alternate calculation through Dennis Miller via The Joy of Lex^[6] (2008) is also possible.)

Your sources now seem OK to me. But I still think you don't get what Wikipedia is about. This is not about me. It's not about me applying a different standard. The fact that "other stuff exists" is no reason to continue to make a mess of things by adding further problems. Any editor is perfectly entitled to point out the deficiencies of your edits, and that editor is not then required to make the entire article perfect. If you feel that there is a "different standard", please discuss on the article's talk page rather than whining about it to someone who points out the problems with your edits. If an edit you wish to make "requires you to do a lot of legwork", that's the responsibility that you and you alone have (although editors are often willing to help) in order to abide by policy. How far do you think you would get in academia trying to put forth a claim with inadequate verification from a reliable source? This is not a personal matter between you and me (or any editor); it is simply a matter of following policies. You might wish to read WP:5P before you decide whether you want to spend your time and energy here or elsewhere. One less important matter: it's not necessary to name the actors/writers in every link to Erdos or Bacon as long as the links are properly cited. But that's a stylistic rather than policy issue. Thanks for providing the appropriate sources. Cresix (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's pointless (but not a policy violation) to cite his website; it's not considered a reliable source. Cresix (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't mind doing the legwork. I do that for a living. This is more a matter of figuring out how the rules apply. Since I mostly post in highly technical areas, we assume that our readers know a lot already, and we rarely go all the way to the bottom. Citing a source that you need to take two clicks more to find the relevant datum isn't generally seen as a problem. (It's actually a benefit in many cases, because of what you pass on the way. And since there are lots things you can't see when you just surf, it's often handy to have the higher level links directly mentioned. A good example of that is Tukey's Erdos number. If you just surf for it, you won't find a reliable citation chain, but if you know to look in the ENP, with a little reading you can find where to find it [under Data > Edros2].) Out here in a more general public area the conventions seem to be different. I understand that there is a Wikipedia ideal, and I fully agree with it. But I also know the problems with citation chains and there are a lot of those problems going around. I'm happy to ramp up to full citation when it's asked for. (Sorry I was a little confrontational early on. I was trying to figure out what level of citation is appropriate and why it appears the policy is unevenly applied.)

I know the problem with citing to someone's own website. Geoff has several possible Bacon links because Pat Boone was in a lot of movies, I was citing him mainly for the purpose of showing where I got the particular one I wrote about. I'd be happy to omit that citation.

BTW I've also written several articles in print encyclopedias and their standards are more like the standards in the Wikipedia technical areas I have contributed to. The epistemological theory here is all quite interesting. Miiknaans (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Erdős–Bacon number. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Erdős–Bacon number. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cresix (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's very interesting! – Alensha ^talk 19:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]