File talk:Bentley Speed Six.JPG

captioning

Hi everyone, on en.wiki, this image had a caption added which read 'Replica body on a Speed Six chassis' and that was reverted because someone said it wasn't so. I do not know myself, and I would like to ask if I may, what makes people on both sides take their differing positions on this, it would be awesome to give this image a lot more information than it already has, and even add some reasoning and details about the vehicle. Penyulap ☏ 07:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is indeed weighty and quite fascinating stuff.

It's disappointing to see the rank dishonesty of the claim that the caption Replica body on a Speed Six chassis (at the en.wiki Bentley Speed Six article) was reverted "because someone said it wasn't so." I reverted it. I expressed absolutely no view on the originality or otherwise of the car's body. And actually I don't give a fuck whether or not it's a replica Speed Six body in place of one made by Weyman, Lancefield, Molesworth, Boondoggle, Gruntfuttock or whatever coachbuilder happens to spring to another editor's mind. The sole reason for the revert, as very clearly stated in my edit summary, and repeatedly at this [1] section of en.wiki user Eddaido's UTP, was that the "replica body" addition to the caption was not verified in a reliable source as required by Wikipedia policy. Which constitutes original research, which in turn is contrary to a core Wikipedia editing policy. I invited user Eddaido, the other editor, to provide a policy-compliant source on the article's talk page and add the detail back into the caption [2]--my edit summary says:

rm unsupported pov editorializing addition from caption; you are welcome to provide corroborative RS cite at talk and then add it back

Likewise at the WO Bentley article, where Eddaido added 11' 6" wheelbase chassis FR2642 with a replica body Until recently a Weymann saloon by Lancefield to the existing caption, without any supporting evidence from any reliable source whatsoever. My edit summary for the revert there states:

rm pov editorializing addition from caption; you are welcome to provide corroborating RS cite at talk and then add it back.

I still stand by it. If there's a WP policy-compliant source that verifies Eddaido's claim, then that information should be included.

In talk page discussion I drew Eddaido's attention to some relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, e.g. WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:DE.

I'm not interested in continuing repetitive discussion with Eddaido. He has failed to produce even a single reliable source that verifies the details he is so keen to add to the caption, and seems unable or unwilling to grasp the basics of editing Wikipedia. His sulky comments on the caption issue have been entirely evasive (re. the policy requirements) and mostly infantile. He should put up the evidence for what is otherwise pure speculation—or shut up. Neither am I interested in any further discussion with Penyulap, who is indefinitely banned from en.wiki for sockpuppetering, and who has represented the issue here dishonestly.

I have substituted a better Speed Six image at both articles. Writegeist (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

well, fair enough if you don't want my assistance I can simply help Eddaido and SamBlob. It's a bit of a shame because I'm not too bad at resolving conflicts and surely I have some good ideas. Obviously that wouldn't be a level playing field for you, but if Eddaido and SamBlob have no objections to me helping just them and not you, that's ok too.

To respond to the subject you raise, I'm not banned and never have been, banned means that the whole community has had a say. A block is a few people who don't agree with you. The blocks have been more than controversial and one editor thought it was a good idea to block the entire community from my talkpage in order to 'disperse the crowds' hardly synonymous with the basic concept of consensus. It has led to poor quality control on that project and more importantly the loss of many editors Jaguar Andreasegde and dear Pesky are ones I recall off the top of my head, there are more, and there are many who are upset over the while thing. I think it was yesterday that the man who made 5 million edits to wikipedia, 1 million manually and the rest with a robot army, was blocked for a full year for using cut and paste. So I'm in good company when it comes to having a ludicrous block on that project. My bot was blocked with checkuser, that's where someone can't actually work out who is operating the bot, so look at PALZ userpage and tell me if that makes sense to you. Whatever, you can hang on to your opinion and that's just fine. Both Eddaido and SamBlob are aware and have no problem with it I believe.

Now to the subject at hand, it is true that citations are required on wikipedia, however, not always. When concepts are well understood by readers already, are covered in the text in the case of captions, or just too basic, they're not needed. I'll quote a page from en.wiki:

When a source may not be needed

see also You don't need to cite that the sky is blue as well as Likely to be challenged as well as The Pope is Catholic as well as Citation_overkill

• General common knowledge: Statements that the average adult recognizes as true. Examples: "Paris is the capital of France" or "Humans normally have two arms and two legs."
• Subject-specific common knowledge: Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions."

So the question is not a matter of 'where is the citation' it may be 'does it require a citation at all'. Now certainly that is something that Eddaido and SamBlob can help with. I'm quite sure that each of them has forgotten more about vintage cars than I've ever known ! I think I could give a general knowledge opinion, and you guys can give a subject-specific common knowledge opinion as well.

I think the discussion will head towards the question of 'what is a Replica body' and I would expect, given that the model is about 85 years old, that if a non-replica body is an original body and 80 years old or older, than captioning this photo with 'original body' might be more of a claim that is likely to be challenged than suggesting the car has been restored with replica parts. Penyulap ☏ 18:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Writegeist, actually: cite it or strike it... or have it be struck. Everybody knows the sky is blue. Everybody does not know the specific length of a chassis and the body that was on it originally. This information comes from somewhere. If Eddaido does not say from whence the information came, the only assumption that can be made is that the information is from the top of his head, which is original research. The onus is on him to provide the source of his information, because it is not common knowledge. SamBlob (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that's fair enough, and I agree with you SamBlob, up to a point. Where you suggest that there is only one assumption that can be made, I don't agree. If my intuition is correct, I'd bet that he knows perfectly well what he's talking about, I would expect that if I asked my friend Eddaido where I might find that information he'd be quite happy to tell me.

I also think it is possible that if you, SamBlob, asked him nicely he'd tell you, even though you two have had your differences in the past, I must say I do not mind helping you at all. I think the problem here may be Writegeist needs some assistance in getting along with other people. I note that he makes use of words like dishonest, infantile and fuck in a manner that may not inspire other people to leap to his assistance with great zealousy. Where it makes no difference at all to me, I expect that for ordinary editors, or editors who don't have the patience of a saint, it may be a problem.

For the time being, have you researched these things yourself ? if you have found contrary claims then of course you add those with cites to the article. If you're unable to inspire Eddaido to assist you with a reference, then the use of a 'citation needed' template will ask other editors for their help instead. If you research these things and find a citation then you could just add it. Still, we need to hear from Eddaido if he'd like to add anything. I'm not sure that I would if I was him, because looking at the comments Writegeist has made, and knowing Eddaido, well, I'm not so sure I'd leap to assist. Though I think SamBlob you've been quite friendly. Lets wait a while and see if he comes for a chat shall we?. Penyulap ☏ 22:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the plate UV4863 does indeed belong to what Eddaido stated. This source seems eminently dependable to me. Yeesh, doing that little bit of "research" took me all of 45 seconds. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 00:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source. This is the advantage of knowing where to look and what to look for, and is a lot less prickly and more productive that saying that "one does not have to prove that the sky is blue." (Especially since, at the time and location at which I type this, the sky is not blue.) SamBlob (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been obliged to be away from Wikipedia for near 20 hours and am very pleased to return to see all is now well. Eddaido (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you Eddaido. SamBlob, yes, touché :) Mr.choppers, thank you that's excellent work ! Penyulap ☏ 09:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)