The Study of Racialism

fwsweet · Last edited by fwsweet on Fri 30 May 2008 18:47; edited 1 time in total

The whole idea of requiring sources is to enable other members to see it for themselves. This means that writing, "it is in a book," or "in the dictionary," or "on the internet somewhere," or "go look it up," or "it's in the census," or "everyone knows" are NOT acceptable. You must provide a citation or link that other members can use to see it for themselves.

Ideally, the source content itself should be made available online via a URL link so that members can read the information without recourse to a library or bookstore. But a formal citation (author, title, city, publisher, date, page, etc.) is acceptable if its referent can be accessed and read. The important thing is that you must explain, right down to the page number, where members can read it for themselves, so that they can assess its trustworthiness for themselves.

Ideally, the source should contain primary raw data but even an appeal to authority is acceptable. When someone makes a questionable claim and backs it up with a weak source (for example a website notorious for falsification like Wikipedia, Dienekes, or Racial Reality, or one that cannot be checked like the so-called CIA "fact book"), the moderator might be tempted to rule that the substantiation is inadequate. A better response is to allow it, but then to show (or let the other members show) why the source is untrustworthy. Members recognize when a substantiation source is useless. Accepting an unreliable source as substantiation (albeit lacking in credibility) has the advantage of revealing possible hidden agenda on the part of the member who cited it. The alternative, a moderator’s ruling that an unreliable source does not satisfy the requirement of the substantiation policy, might discourage new members from presenting claims on which they sought others’ views because they themselves found them doubtful.

Do not lose sight that a moderator's request for a source is intended to elicit a way for others read the material for themselves. If you fail to provide a way for others to read the material for themselves, your posting privileges will be suspended.

fwsweet · Posted: Fri 27 Jul 2007 12:41 Post subject:

Three points seem so obvious as to require no elaboration. Nevertheless, points two and three below have been challenged by some members:

1. If you fail to cite a source (either with a URL or a formal citation including page number) when demanded by a moderator, your posting privilege will be suspended.
2. If you simply make up a source that does not exist, your posting privilege will be suspended.
3. If you falsify data by citing a source that that does not contain what you claimed, your posting privilege will be suspended.

Specifically, some members have argued that points two and three above should be allowed in order to encourage "diversity of opinion." Please understand that this site does not allow data fabrication or falsification, even if you label it "diversity of opinion."