Talk:Tribune of Galileo

Research needing citations: original?
There's a rather well-written and thoughtful paragraph of synthesis that I've tagged. Could the author of it please find one or two citations with similar perspectives and install these? Wikipedia editors are expected to refrain from obvious original research or synthesis, and work instead by marshaling citations of known, citeable authorities. cheers, Easchiff (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is at war with itself. Be bold, but timidly paraphrase. I think the model that we should move towards is one where an educated consensus leads us forward. Why not move towards a program where a number of editors look to see if the consensus opinions can be derived from the material. For example, I may never be able to find a source that says that the Church was slow in burying Galileo in a main church, but is there any other conclusion one could derive from the data (I expect I could find a footnote about the opposition to burying in Santa Croce). In addition, sometimes I mention the presence architectural elements in pictures but not commented on in text; is that original research? Who am I to believe, the words on paper or my lying eyes? I am generally dry and stick only to facts. But this entry led to more conclusions. Censor the paragraph if this is the best you can contribute. Do it even if you think it is wrong. That is your challenge, cheers.Rococo1700 (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Rococo1700, Please don't take offense at the tag. I am sympathetic to your view, and finding your paragraph in the article was a delight. I'll cheerfully remove the tag, but my feeling is that leaving the tag as well as your unaltered text may be better. It respects both your contribution as well as the difficulties raised when editors are untrammeled about introducing their own ideas. The larger question, which is how talented editors can be freed to introduce livelier and more original writing, is worth raising at a higher level than this individual article. One idea that has occurred to me is for Wikipedia to sponsor signed blogs that would then be citeable in articles. Not something I'm likely to lead, regrettably, although I have considered authoring a blog myself for exactly this purpose. Best, Easchiff (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I see your position, and I agree. I am not going to remove the tag either, because there is something interpretative to it. I just wanted to voice my wonky, two cents (if that) of public disobedience. I have wondered if we can put an author's corner in the article, where he can include contemporary opinion. It is my concern that if Wikipedia had to write the star trek by-line, it would have been "To boldly go, only where others have previously gone". Thanks.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OK - I'm happy with the outcome. I had a further idea about the Wikipedia-sponsored blogs. I'm wondering if that privilege could be restricted to "master editors" (let's say at least 2 years of contributions and at least 5,000 edits). This would avoid the problem of peer review of some sort for the blogs, since I hope that experienced editors will show good judgment. The opinions of master editors would thus become citeable, although I still feel that such blogs would have to be signed with real world names. Anyway, just an idle thought for now. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)