Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 97:

The onus is entirely and unquestionably upon you. It is you that must support inclusion and it is you that must show the presented source meets the Wikipedia standards found within [[WP:RS]]. Note that the relevant Wikipedia standard explicitly states that "'''''Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence... The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. '''''" No evidence has been presented to support any such influence, nor has the claim even been made. The material must be removed until support, and consensus, for inclusion are found. Your one-person [[quixotic]] campaign to rewrite the accepted scholarship of the period here in this article is not acceptable according to this encyclopedia's standards.[[Special:Contributions/99.141.243.84|99.141.243.84]] ([[User talk:99.141.243.84|talk]]) 01:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

:I'm really sick and tired of people presenting Wikipedia guidelines as though they're some kind of indisputable biblical text that must be obeyed no matter what. I've read Jones's essay, it seems well-researched and reliable enough to me. It's bizarre that on Wikipedia, the writings of a newspaper columnist on a subject with which he or she may be unfamiliar are often assumed to be perfectly reliable, and yet, the writings of a student who is very clearly versed in the subject matter, and who presents a list of sources which Wikipedia would certainly consider reliable, are not necessarily so.

:That's why I've repeatedly asked people to actually read the material, instead of seeing the horrific word "student" and immediately assuming that students are incapable of possessing any sort of expertise on the matter. That you're unwilling to actually try and demonstrate that she is in any way incorrect is proof enough that there's some seriously lazy thinking going on.

:Take it to whatever hallowed Wikipedia content dispute page you like, but I'm thoroughly sick and tired of people assuming the worst motives of those who try and improve articles. I will not allow you to simply remove content based on nothing but intellectual snobbery, and if that means someone has to block me, so be it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot]] [[User talk:Parrot of Doom|of Doom]]</span> 01:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)