This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I believe this is factually incorrect - see [1]. —Stormie 01:34, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
Interesting points -- and precisely the kind of article I was looking for when I was writing the Wiki entry. Could you add that to the Wiki page? Maybe we'll change the name later, although I suspect that, even if that's not the actual name of the book, it's the name by which it's best known now -- and therefore the entry under which Wikipedia readers will look for it. (Hmm -- an article on famous misapprehensions would be a good addition to Wikipedia.) -- orthogonal 01:42, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthogonal (talk • contribs)
As there are no other "My Pet Goat" articles, this doesn't need "book" to disambiguate it. If an admin reads this could they please perform the move, as there is a redirect at the target. Trilobite(Talk) 02:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I noticed this as well. Done. Derrick Coetzee 18:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Since the name of the book is actually The Pet Goat, should the title of this article be switched to that? My Pet Goat is the more popular usage, but a simple redirect could take care of that problem, and the article would end up being a tiny bit more factual in its presentation. Beginning 02:43, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
Support. The article could be made more NPOV, but the book has achieved a degree of fame (notoriety?) and should have an article. I can't name a single elementary school reader—except maybe some of the ones we used in the '70s—but I know about this book. Bin Laden made reference to the book in his last video; that says famous to me... —Tkinias 20:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Addendum: I've extensively rewritten the article to NPOV it and clarify the work's cultural significance. —Tkinias 21:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Much much better, no longer reads like a Michael Moore muppet wrote it. Alkivar 00:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. The work's only claim to fame is that a President read it to elementary school children while his countrymen burned and fell to their deaths. Whatever its true name, the name by which most people (around the world) know it is "My Pet Goat." The article can contain a correction on the title and a redirect can take care fo those few people who do know the correct title. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
support. use accurate titles--Jiang 15:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. It shouldn't be too confusing. When people get the redirect, they'll see the picture of Bush and know they're at the right page. Nathanlarson32767 21:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
support. The factual title of the story should be used with a cross-reference to the erroneous title. It is historically accurate and a substantive issue that Michael Moore got the title wrong. This is not nitpicking, but represents Michael Moore's fast-and-loose relationship with facts. The "popularity" of the erroneous title illustrates the lack of intellectual curiosity in those who accept Michael Moore's shockumentary as gospel. Almost four years after the event, people are still erroneously parroting Moore's error. The false title should be listed properly as "erroneous" and not merely "popular". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.151.68 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
support. So according to Tony Wiki should generalize. Forget the fact the President was read TO, forget the fact about the story title....it's most important that opinions matter when distorting REALITY and can be verified somewhere else. (Haamer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.159.236 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, bin Laden's speech makes the factual error of assuming that among the things that the "goat did... that made the girl's dad mad" included ramming things. The goat in this story only eats things, and does not make any attempt to force its horns on anything.
is a bit of a weak argument. It's clear in context that Osama uses the word "ramming" in order to suggest the "ramming" of the Twin Towers. It's not then a factual error, but more like "poetic license". I suggest it be removed. Dysprosia 03:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
'Schoolchildren" is not listed as a word by Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition ("schoolchild" is, but "schoolchildren" isn't). A google search of the dictionaries doesn't find it in the online dictionaries either. But I'm not going to change it again. --Bubba73 01:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
schoolchild (noun) A child attending school. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2000). Houghton Mifflin.
As in most dictionaries, including the one you consulted, the word is listed under the singular, but that doesn't mean the plural is not a word. Jonathunder 03:30, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
You are right. I thought I was right when I made the change, but I was wrong.--Bubba73 00:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the 68.236.180.238 edit as it was POV and unnecessary (though admittedly funny... this just isn't the right forum for your joke).Isotope2319:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there should be more space between the spoiler warning and the spoiler itself. I was going to read the book, and now you've ruined it for me. I hope you're all happy now. sobsob --Slashme12:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I put it back in since it seemed so popular. If anyone wants to remove it, can I suggest a vote ... or at least a UN Security Council resolution. Alanmoss12:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an {{endspoiler}} as otherwise people would not know where to recommence their reading. This would lead to a situation where the bulk of the article was not read. This is not desirable. Camhusmj3811:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The spoiler warnings have been removed. More people seem to want them here than not (see above). So I will put them back. If you want to remove the spoiler warnings, can you please explain why? The spoiler warnings have been removed. Shame! More people seem to want them here than not (see above). Alanmoss08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that the article is more amusing with the spoiler warning than without. As if the book were some kind of terrible secret that must not be seen without preparation. --Tony Sidaway17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the word "to" to "with" in the statement that the President was reading "to" the schoolchildren. As actually the children were reading TO the President. He just happened to be reading along. (haamer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.159.236 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that Bush considered the crash to be an accident contradicts his claim that he immediately implemented the government's emergency response plans. Also, the first plane crash was not broadcast live anywhere. There was no footage of the first plane hitting the WTC until the next day." Is this passage retarded? The footage capturing live events of 911 didn't exist as events happened and only existed the NEXT DAY?! I'm amazed....and I hope the words I'm typing right now appear immediately and don't suffer the same delay as live events under political propoganda. There at Booker Elementary school President Bush had stated,"Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack...a full scale investigation to hunt down and to find those folks that commited this act...". Don't allow a political agenda to cloud the facts here on Wiki.(haamer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.159.236 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me, or is this sentence a little too pedantic and POV? "The truth, of course was that Bush, like anyone who had a sense of responsibility, realized that there was nothing he could do at the moment, and found it best not to throw the children into a panic by telling them the country was under attack." The chavi01:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some clarification for "haamer": I believe that what was meant was that footage of the first plane crash was not captured by the news media as there was no reason for any television station to be filming the towers at that time. The footage of the first collision that eventually surfaced was taken by tourists and videographers who were filming the towers at the time by chance. Television stations did not get access to this amateur footage until late that day (or perhaps early the following). As such, the collision Bush would have seen on television must have been of the second tower (which, of course, was filmed by several television stations). I think the inference made by the previous poster was that since Bush saw the second collission, the idea of it being an accident was foolish. Of course, this assumes that Bush knew he was watching the second of two collision, which it appears he didn't. In conclusion, the statement you reference is faulty in its logic--and, I agree, unnecessary in this article--but it's not as "retarded" as you think. --Edmondjohnson02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article incorrectly stated that "In the 2003 parody film Scary Movie 3, the President..." whereas it should have stated "In the 2006 parody film Scary Movie 4, the President....". I have corrected this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.208.117 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm would like to propose removing the adjective "unreputable" from the line about Bush's critics. It seems to me that it is neither objective or necessary. Simply labelling them critics is enough without inserting a value judgement. (Not to mention that "unreputable" is rather archaic word--if the adjective has to be there, "disreputable" is more standard.) --Edmondjohnson02:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack." 89.172.63.7421:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the Bush image from the lead to the section titled "Bush's 2001 reading of the book". As the image is of Bush's 2001 reading of the book, this is common sense. Images go in the section they illustrate. Images that would be appropriate in the lead would be things such as the book cover, the author, or an illustration from the story. - auburnpilottalk23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're very sincere, but (as you say) the book wouldn't have the slightest claim to inclusion as a Wikipedia article if it weren't for the Bush connection -- so that therefore it seems that the only two logical alternatives are to discuss Bush, or to delete this article entirely. I don't see much middle ground between these two, so your attempt to remove all references to George W. Bush from this page, yet preserve its status as a separate Wikipedia article, really doesn't make too much sense to me at all.
I don't really see what the other problem is, either -- Wikipedia has many groups of articles where one article is a broad overview article, while the other articles discuss specific sub-areas in detail. Unnecessary duplication of content or overlap between articles should be avoided, but in principle there's nothing wrong with such having both broad and narrow articles in a given subject area. This article discusses one specific tiny small area of criticism of George W. Bush, basically limited to one hour of his life, in great detail -- something which probably should not be done in the broad general "Criticism of George W. Bush" article, so there's room for both articles. If there are any actual contradictions between this article and the "Criticism of George W. Bush" article, then you should certainly point them out so that they can be dealt with... AnonMoos18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I wasn't trying to remove every mention of Bush (I left the bit in the intro). Here's my problem: there are only a few sentences about the book, and the vast majority of the article is spent on Bush. The article is about the book, not George Bush. I would still like to see this section trimmed, so long as others agree with me. PabloTalk | Contributions18:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about I re-write the article in userspace? I would trim down the current "Bush's 2001 reading" section, and I would also incorporate the Popular Culture section into the "Bush's 2001 reading" section (the Popular Culture section is a list of trivia, and needs to be incorporated into the article anyway. PabloTalk | Contributions18:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article is connected with Bush because all the "newsworthiness" or notability of the book is connected with the Bush incident and its ramifications. Attempting to "balance" the article to get around this is like trying to "balance" an article on the Lorraine Motel motel by adding details about the colors of the drapes in the rooms, while downplaying the fact that somebody got shot there... AnonMoos02:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case perhaps it should be merged/moved under a more appropriate title. As it is, this article gives almost no information about its titular subject, but a considerable amount about an incident involving a man who read it once; in short, an almost perfect example of a coatrack article. It could, for instance, be moved to something like George Bush's 2001 reading of "The Pet Goat", but if the article title specifies that it's an article about the book, then the body of the article should follow through on that.
Also, Wikipedia doesn't currently have an article on the Lorraine Motel.
I've trimmed the section down to the basics. Bush's 9/11 reading is the reason for the book's notability, but the section here was greatly overdone. I tried to keep it to the basics, that Bush was reading it and continued reading after being informed of the second tower, that critics, most notably Moore, have used that to criticize him, and that even Bin Laden got in on it. The long discussion of the events of the morning, complete with Bush's recollections, was unwarranted.--Cúchullaint/c22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know? It's not really the book in general that's famous, it's the Florida school's particular copy that Bush read from. If it's in a display case at the library of the school, or is eventually moved to the G.W. Bush Presidential Library or whatever, that should definitely be reported in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.164.47 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HOW DID BUSH SEE THE PLANE HIT THE TOWER ON TV? NO ONE SAW THE FIRST PLANE HIT ON TV. THE SECOND ABSOLUTELY AND IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THAT PLANE WAS AN AIRLINER AND NOT A 'TERRIBLE PILOT' AS WE UNDERSTOOD WE WERE UNDER ATTACK AT THAT POINT. GOSH I KNOW IT'S NITPICKING, BUT IT'S ALSO BUSH PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH FACTS! -MARC WITZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.53.61 (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is partial towards "The Pet Goat" story over the full & RELATED reading lesson
As the so called "direct reading" mantra, no, "lesson" includes words that play off the vowel stressing (Ex. KITE & KIT), and, as the "The Pet Goat" story likewise features several of these, and, as the only essential difference between the "lesson" read before and the "The Pet Goat Story" is a narrative built around well metered lines, there should be a separate page for the reading lesson previous to the "The Pet Goat" allegory, or include it in this article.
Also remarking on the comment on this page suggesting the removal of Bin Laden's reported dig at Bush and punning off the "The Pet Goat" story: Should it be removed much less people would grasp the significance of him allegedly seeking out this seemingly obscure reading lesson while, although possibly to pay for the cheap pun, he didn't accurately represent the story nor Bush's actions, as, unless he has a more complete version of the "lesson" on that day, he alleges, according to this translation, Bush was talking to a little girl about the goat "butting"? Without checking the Arabic, there is another obvious pun also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.6 (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This owes all its notability to the Bush connection; there aren't going to be any Wikipedia articles on the preceding and following booklets in the series... AnonMoos (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the above section notes, this article is a classic coatrack—it has next to nothing to do with the book and everything to do with the September 11 attacks. All information on the book should be neatly packaged into one of the existing articles on the attack and the section on this article reduced to put due weight on other parts of the book. If other parts of the book don't matter, we should be looking at deleting/merging this article. czar06:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is actually not a fair observation. The topic of the article is not a book, it is a reading exercise. Contained within the reading exercise is a goat story, along with other elements that make up the exercise titled "The Pet Goat". The reading exercise was anthologized in a book, but it is still an integral creative work on its own separate from that book or any other place the exercise has been published. True it is not typical for Wikipedia to have notable reading exercises, but they can exist, and this is an example of one. Unless or until the topic of this article is changed/merged it should not be modified in a way that takes focus away from the primary topic. We still have majority weight on the Bush episode because that is the reality of why the exercise is notable. -- GreenC16:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WINAC. The reader is not being misled is the defining characteristic of a coatrack ie. they didn't come to the article to learn about the story only to go off on a tangent about something else under the guise of being about the story. 9-11 is why the story is notable, thus majority focus. -- GreenC15:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The story and its workbook attracted attention after the release of Michael Moore's documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11.
Of course, but I imagine the workbook attracted attention prior to the release of Fahrenheit 9/11. If Moore was the first to attract attention to it, that is a significant claim, but it needs to be sourced. Also the section "Reading exercise" should not have Bush episode content, it concerns the work itself like author, publishing history, plot - standard written work material found in any article. It is also standard in written work articles to have an 'editions' section. -- GreenC03:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The New Yorker confirms public interest started with Moore, and it was a blogger who made the correct identification. This is now part of the 9/11 section which gives events chronologically. -- GreenC04:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The singular vs plural is easily fixed, although "editions" allows room for multiple editions. Second, it's unclear what verification problem you are having. V requires there is enough information for someone to find the source ie. there is enough information for someone to go to a library or bookstore, assuming it can't already be found online (not a requirement). Some databases list Siegfried Engelmann and some Bruner and Englemann so clearly there are multiple authors, either way there is enough information to find the book, evidently, it passes V. -- GreenC21:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I don't see how this fails WP:V. Of course whenever we include a citation for a printed work the reader has to trust us that we aren't lying to them about the ISBN. If this fails WP:V then so does every print book we cite in the entire encyclopedia. Einsof (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a citation, where the purpose is to help the reader verify what we've written, though. This is a matter of explicitly telling the reader in the encyclopedic prose that 'this story can be found by acquiring the book associated with this ISBN', and that is currently the encyclopedia's claim as its uncited. — Fourthords | =Λ= |00:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, this article is about a short story which reliable sources place in Reading Mastery: Rainbow Edition, Level 2, Storybook 1. The article cites sources that the story was written by Engelmann. However, was Reading Mastery: Rainbow Edition, Level 2, Storybook 1 co-written by "Elaine C. Bruner", published by "SRA Macmillan/McGraw-Hill" in "Worthington, Ohio", with an ISBN of "0-574-10128-4"? The article has no sources to attest to that. The policy says that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."Now, reading our own article on WorldCat sounds like it might be a reliable source, and I don't see any precedent to exclude it as such, but your link doesn't say anything about "Rainbow Edition, Leven 2" to verify it's the same specific work, nor is "Elaine C. Bruner", "SRA Macmillan/McGraw-Hill", "Worthington, Ohio", or "0-574-10128-4" on that page. So while you could include a section that says Engelmann, Siegfried. Reading Mastery: Rainbow Edition, Level 2, Storybook 1., it would be an undersized and unnecessary section repeating what's in the preexisting prose. — Fourthords | =Λ= |21:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for "unnecessary and undersized section". Those are both opinionated terms with no objective measure, so we turn to Wikipedia precedent. As this shows "Editions" sections are commonly used throughout Wikipedia. Some of these are Featured content. So while you might believe it is "unnecessary" many other people do not and the community considers "Editions" sections a best practice as seen in Featured articles.
As for which edition Amazon shows the book with ISBN-10: 0026863553 ISBN-13: 978-0026863551 published in 1997 which would be expected for a text in use in 2001. Multiple book reviewers (tagged with Verified purchase) mention the goat story within. Again, the purpose of V is to provide enough information for verification. If you don't believe it, your job is to verify it or provide a convincing reason why not (specific reasons not rules lawyering). There is more than enough information for this to satisfy V and I expect other editors would agree should it come down to asking for opinions. You are already 2:1 (myself and Einsof) that trend is likely to continue. -- GreenC22:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So because reviewers (tagged with Verified purchase) mention the goat story within, we should assume it is? I ask because the reliable-sources list of perennial sources says that "User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all." Lacking that uncited source, claiming that "The Pet Goat" is to be found in your specific edition is original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourthords (talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming tedious after four months. First, Amazon Review is not cited anywhere and thus RS does not apply, it is a tool to help us make an editorial decision based on rational thinking and judgement which we do all the time on Wikipedia. You have presented no reason as to why multiple web pages (another, another) all report the same thing as reported by multiple people (over a dozen). Is there is a wide conspiracy to misrepresent basic factual information as to the content of a book? Short of some rationale it is either paranoid or pedantic to ignore the evidence. Further searching Google Books the first entry is an edition from 1995 - it's "No Preview" but "The Pet Goat Lesson 60 page 153" did not randomly land in the top search spot. -- GreenC01:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your threshold for tedium notwithstanding, the article currently only has reliable sources sufficient to verify that "The Pet Goat" (a) was written by Siegfried Engelmann and (b) appeared in an edition of Reading Mastery: Rainbow Edition, Level 2, Storybook 1. Your "Editions" section then, properly cited, should only show that information. If the reliable-sources noticeboard consensus is okay with either source to which you linked, I'll certainly mine them for content to verify the article (or you may, if you prefer). As for the third, does an inconclusive search result from Google Books qualify as reliable sourcing? That's more of a procedure than content question, or I'd've added it to my RSN inquiry. — Fourthords | =Λ= |05:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit you claim ("dispute") the story is not in the book. But every reliable source says it is. If you think the sources are wrong, the burden is yours to demonstrate it. It's not my responsibility to prove reliable resources are accurate, only they are reliable. Until you prove the reliable sources are wrong, we go by what the reliable sources say. The sources say the story is in the book. -- GreenC20:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that. I added {{disputed inline}} because that section says "The Pet Goat" can be found in a specific edition of a book for which there are no citations to reliable sources. There are zero sources in the article to verify that "The Pet Goat" is found specifically in the "978-0026863551" edition of the book along with the publisher, coauthor, year, edition, and location claims. Properly cited, with the reliable sources currently in the article, the "Editions" section would look like the image to the right.If you think the sources are wrong… I don't think any of the sources currently cited in the article are wrong. The sources say the story is in the book. Which sources in the article verify the specific six claims I noted? — Fourthords | =Λ= |21:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to think otherwise.What you or any other editors believe isn't relevant. The verifiability policy says "Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. […] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Fourthords | =Λ= |00:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Where is your source that says the story is not in every edition? All reliable sources say it is in the book and there is no reason to think otherwise. -- GreenC12:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Are you asking me to prove a negative? (b) If there are reliable soruces connecting the "The Pet Goat" with that ISBN, publisher, coauthor, year, edition, and location, then why aren't they cited in the article? (c) The verifiability policystill says "Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. […] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Fourthords | =Λ= |18:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No you are asking me to prove a negative. The sources state the story is in the book. The responsibility is yours to confirm if those sources are correct, it's not my responsibility to fact check what a source says. -- GreenC19:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've said All reliable sources say and The sources state. If there are reliable, independent sources that confirm the ISBN, publisher, coauthor, year, edition, and publishing-location for "The Pet Goat", then please provide them. You explicitly said that Ledge of Liberty and Google Answers weren't the sources you meant, and the sources currently in the article don't have the information, so in what reliable sources are you finding these data? Secondly, I'm pretty sure the only responsibility here "lies with the editor who adds or restores material". — Fourthords | =Λ= |20:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources, currently cited in the article, say the story is contained in the textbook. Further auxiliary sources such as Google Search and others support this - those sources are not cited in the article thus RSN does not apply, but they also can't be ignored when arriving at at a common sense conclusion over a basic fact. You have offered no rationale or reason to "litigate" (your word), and this is looking very much like a legal court proceeding. Wikipedia is not that, we use common sense and don't treat the policies and guidelines as writ law that ignores common sense. If Wikipedia rules are preventing you from arriving at an obvious conclusion than suggest WP:IAR. I am here every day for the days, weeks and months ahead (I've been here 16 years now I think). Look forward to working with you for however long, weeks, months even years. -- GreenC00:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit, I made a number of changes that I explained in my edit summary as Undid revision 1019790031 by 78.174.16.51 (talk) as contradictory to rest of lead; + {{use mdy dates}} update; - "Editions" parameters with uncited claims; + citations for remaining "Editions" content; + chapter-url citation parameter rather than linking in page numbers; + minor copyedit;. This was partially reverted by GreenC (talk·contribs) about an hour later, who said, I am here every day for the days, weeks and months ahead (I've been here 16 years now I think). Look forward to working with you for however long, weeks, months even years. See discussion.
I don't understand what that user's... presence or... regularity? has to do with their reversion of my edits, but per their orders I looked here and found no new reliable sources offered since the {{disputed inline}} tag was added in September. Is there an explicitly prescribed time to wait for other editors to find sources to cite their claims? Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests there is not. Was waiting seven months too short a time to allow GreenC & others to find and cite the sources to support their claims? — Fourthords | =Λ= |11:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2.19 years later, neither GreenC nor any other editors have come forward with the sources needed to retain the otherwise-uncited material in the "Editions" section needed by the same editor. In accordance with the verifiability policy, I've removed that information pending an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. — Fourthords | =Λ= |02:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
a discussion which the previous editor walked away from, waited 2.5 years, then declared they wonAre you referring to #April 2021, as being over two years ago (actually 2.19, as mentioned)? This isn't a… competition, I assume you mean to imply, and I've never made any declarations suggesting otherwise. As for my absence, I was the last contributor on this talk page with my request for sources IAW WP:V; neither GreenC nor any other editors replied.
rather than responding to the points that were made about the core policy WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:IAR etc...The page at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules hasn't changed since I last checked, and it says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Since removing uncited information is unquestionably an improvement of the encyclopedia, I don't understand your position.
They have insisted on including uncited information in contravention of all policies mentioned. I would love for they or another editor to say they've found the requisite sources to keep the section GreenC themselves added to the article. Otherwise, the uncited claims (or the section entirely) must go. — Fourthords | =Λ= |03:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really the question is why Fourthords thinks any edition should not be listed, since every reliable source says the story is in this book, and no source says the story is edition-specific. Furthermore a couple unreliable sources say the story is in this edition, and there is no reason to discount those sources for the purposes of common sense. Furthermore this was the edition published just prior to 9/11 so it all makes sense. It is WP:COMMONSENSE. So can we focus on why Fourthords is so bound and determined to question why the story is not in this edition, the edition published near the time of events described in this article, and thus the most relevant. -- GreenC03:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. What you call COMMONSENSE, I call OR. For that reason, I have reverted to status quo ante as you have no consensus for your version and you've provided no compelling sources. I think you'll find that IAR no longer has the political acceptance it used to have when you first registered your account. You are welcome to start an RfC. Chris Troutman (talk)19:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I buy a copy of the book with the story in it, will you accept that. I would even provide a scan of relevant pages. I may not get that exact edition but one close to it. Or is that still OR for you? I mean, WP:V assumes good faith that if someone goes to the library and finds the book and verifies the book contains what the citation says, then that's good enough. You basically would have to assume bad faith that I am lying and did not verify the book. So I am taking an extra step here and offering to not only buy and verify the book, but prove it to you, with some scans. Are you OK with that for the purpose of restoring the edition-specific information? -- GreenC20:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I bought a copy. It will be here in a week or two, when it will be verified if it contains the Pet Goat story or not. Presumably it's the 1997 edition but used book dealers don't always get metadata right we'll see. -- GreenC20:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I asked at the outset for your need to include that specific edition, which you chose not to answer. If I were dealing with the editor of a draft who insisted on including a particular sentence I'd ask why, with the assumption they have a CoI. With you, I have no idea why and you refuse to tell us. I will not be assuming good faith or taking your word that the story is in the hardcopy you bought. A woman once complained to me about an apparent mistake in Wikipedia about her daughter's birth date; I told her that the LA Times says her daughter was born on a Monday, despite this mother's insistence that it was a Tuesday. Sources or it didn't happen. The article gives the title of the book and that portion is sourced, which is good enough for my mind. Anything more from you raises issues of WP:DUE. Chris Troutman (talk)21:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said, "the edition published near the time of events described in this article, and thus the most relevant". The topic of the article is not a book, it is a reading exercise. The reading exercise is notable because it was read by Bush during 9/11. Thus we want to list not just any copy of the book but one that was published prior to 9/11 and that contains the reading exercise. We can't verify with reliable sources Bush was reading the 1997 edition, but unreliable sources say he was, and it makes sense this was the case (it was the last edition printed prior to 9/11). Still, so long as we can verify any edition from pre-9/11 contains the exercise, that would be better than a generic book cite with no date and no verification it contains the reading exercise. The cite makes no claim to being the edition read by Bush, but it at least can point readers to a copy we have verified contains the story, and would be available on 9/11. It would serve readers better than just saying any old generic copy. -- GreenC22:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get the logic of your position. You think there's value-added in your original research; I don't. I think Wikipedia articles need to express what the cited sources say. To do otherwise violates WP:V. Again, if you want to gather consensus for your position, start an RfC. Chris Troutman (talk)22:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What original research? If we list an edition that is verified to contain the exercise, the topic of this page, that is OR? -- GreenC22:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if you include a page number, then you've sourced the assertion. It seems like a lot of trouble for not much but we don't need a source independent of the exercise and since the exercise is "published" it would be ok (although only a primary source). Chris Troutman (talk)22:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Deletion requests/File:George W. Bush being told about second plane hitting WTC.png czar 06:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
