User talk:Lemur20

Re: spiral deletion
I see my addition to the log spiral page has been deleted for lack of citation. I haven't seen this formula anywhere other than on the page you've just deleted it from. That's why I added it. It's equivalent to the standard formula, but is more useful to someone wanting to sketch a particular spiral arc. Lemur20 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot emphasize enough that we don't care if you think the info you added is useful. Wikipedia relies on independent, reliable sources. We cannot accept something that you reasoned out and we insist on being able to verify claims made. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Chris troutman, exactly said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I hardly know what to say. Sure, as a general rule, citing sources is good thing to do. For example, the web is filled with false quotations lacking citations. But this general rule could not be more misapplied than in this particular case. The formula can be "independently verified" by anyone with a working knowledge of algebra, and cannot be verified in any other way. Moreover, mathematical truths are not decided by appeals to authority. Wikipedia pages are filled with derivations far more lengthy than this trivial substitution. Occasionally, content authors make mistakes. And then these mistakes are corrected. But the content is revised or removed because it is wrong, not because it lacks a citation. I ask that you restore my post, and allow Wikipedians to decide for themselves the truth of the matter, and whether or not this is a helpful thing to know about the logarithmic spiral. Lemur20 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Um, you seem not to be aware of Wikipedia's core policy on "Verifiability". This is central to the way the encyclopedia works. Please read it; if you find it uncongenial, you are perfectly free not to be involved in the project: we are all volunteers here. If you want to contribute, these are the rules. As for "appeals to authority", let me say that science is not judged by authority but by evidence, properly documented and open for all to see; and I dare say that history is that way too. If mathematics textbooks or journal papers agree on a proof, Wikipedia may use it. What it can't use is material thought up by editors, right or wrong: we call that "Original Research", and it's explicitly forbidden here. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see I'm not going to persuade you. But verifiability is precisely what is at issue here. I claim the formula is independently verifiable by anyone with a knowledge of algebra. I've not heard you dispute that point. For some kinds of knowledge, we do rely on the source of the knowledge. You can't justifiably claim that George Washington said something without citing the speech in which he said it. But mathematics is nothing like that. I claim that the Pythagorean Theorem is true. But what am I to say to someone who insists that the matter is "not judged by authority but by evidence". Oh really? Well what kind of evidence would suffice? How many triangles would you have to measure? The funny part of all of this is that Wikipedia is a peer-reviewed journal. Wikipedia has a mechanism for correcting errors, and for finding out what is and is not of general interest. Wikipedia ought to be one of the most helpful sources of information on non-controversial topics. I was just trying to help. Lemur20 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from, but that's not how we operate. You say that 2 + 2 = 4. That's original research. My undergrad degree is in history; it'll take me some time and both hands to figure out if you're right. Instead, find a quote from The New York Times that supports your claim about 2 + 2. Further, if NYT and other sources say that the sky is green, then it is; Wikipedia will show that. That's how we operate. If that's too far for your mind to grasp, then Wikipedia is not for you. Also, Wikipedia is not a journal. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)