It’s obvious from that series of posts that you have a group of self-congratulating, fiefdom guards who don’t really understand the advancement of knowledge or that an encyclopedia is merely, at heart, a compendium of original research. This comes out of our public school teaching that you can only regurgitate what you’ve been taught, no original thinking allowed. You can only report on what someone else has already done or said. Even fifty years ago, I saw the signs of hide-bound thought being clamped down. No matter how tight my logic chain of original thought, no matter what level of proof I could argue, I would inevitably be marked down in grade for NOT SOURCING WHAT I WAS PROPOSING OR ARGUING FROM SOME OTHER AUTHORITY!
It was inevitable that original thought or research was to be clamped down on unless it supposedly came from some one with the proper credentials, someone with some alphabet soup behind their name, otherwise, these snobs would not accept it. Logic and proof, even presented before their eyes was not acceptable, because they’d been taught it had to be approved by the hoary anointed high priests of what ever field the subject was. It did not matter that these nabobs of orthodoxy were often protecting fiefdoms of long debunked and disproven drivel, often outdated by much more recent discoveries, or were politically motivated incompetents, long past their prime, just protecting their prior, but now disproved, or out-dated contributions, often fearful their income streams from textbooks they authored would be curtailed or even ended, bypassed in favor of more up-to-date scholarship. They’ve put themselves in the position of gatekeepers, —Jonathan Swift’s "flappers" for the members of their disciplines, who flap the ears of their peers if they think they should hear something, or flap their lips if they think the peers should say anything—who must be appeased with the approval of peer-review and citation in new thoughts in their fields even if it causes stagnation or even the complete blockade of new thinking.
What these WP editors fail to grasp is that today, something approaching 70%-80% of published academic research articles are twaddle, faked research to meet the "publish or perish" demands of academia. There isn’t any facts or truth in them. . . and very little original factual research. Even the peer-review is a joke. It’s more of the same self-congratulating, circle of knowing winking at each other being published in journals that exist merely to publish twaddle.
Here’s more twaddle from another page “debating” my research, and my response... (third paragraph)
Benson, Arizona[edit]
I would appreciate input about whether this edit at Benson, Arizona is original research. User:DJ xxx used personal correspondence with a city employee to support an edit, and now that editor and I differ on whether this is original research. I searched online for a published source to support this edit but have not located one. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I don’t think that this will qualify as a valid source, simply for the reason that WP has no way to know if the document was tampered with or altered in any way. Also, the editor says they “Provided pdf copy of scan from City Manager of resolution from city records. Cannot scan to Wikipedia.” Which means we basically have to take the editor’s word that they received this information. Now, I understand WP:AGF, but I think that is taking the concept a bit far. As such, I think it fails WP:VERIFY. Clearly, if a city underwent a change like that, there must be a verifiable source which can be used: a local newspaper?Onel5969 TT me 16:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I cited the date (Jan 1985), where it was received from (Benson), when it was received (10/1), and from whom (the City Manager). I cited the resolution, which is not available online because there is no way a town of that size has the resources and manpower to put up documents from long-ago council meetings (and same goes for trying to find an article from a tiny town newspaper from that long ago). The whole point of CONTACTING the City Manager was because that information wasn’t available online ! I’ve been making edits and contributions for 12 years almost explicitly on this subjects of cities, towns, villages, ghost towns, et al. Still not enough. Yes, because someone is going to tamper/alter with a document of an almost 34-year old resolution of a town council and the set date the election was held to upgrade the status from town to city. You bring paranoia and silliness to a whole new standard... and with the standards you boys set, you’re going to have to delete 90% of what’s on this entire website because — guess what — it’s “original research.” Perhaps 95%. Good job, kids. DJ (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Why? Because Princeton Theological Seminary. was not an unbiased source, as I support some university like Harvard would be considered to be. Yet consider his resume:
Professor of New Testament Theology at Houston Baptist University. Previously he was a tenured Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, teaching there for 23 years (1994-2017). Before that he had a one-year position as Visiting Professor of Religion at Middlebury College in Vermont. He has a B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. His main fields of interest are Pauline theology and sexual issues in the Bible. He is a member both of the Society of Biblical Literature and of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas [Society of New Testament Studies]. He is also an ordained elder at a Presbyterian Church (USA) in Pittsburgh. He is the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001; 520 pgs.); co-author (with Dan O. Via) of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003; 125 pgs.); and, as a service to the church, provides a large amount of free material on the web dealing with Scripture and homosexuality. In addition, he has published scholarly articles on biblical studies in Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Novum Testamentum, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, and Horizons in Biblical Theology; and more popular treatments in The Christian Century and First Things. He is also author of article-length encyclopedia entries in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Baker/SPCK), New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics (IVP), Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology (Oxford University Press), and Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization (Wiley-Blackwell). In addition, he has been quoted in, or has written for, the New York Times, National Public Radio, CNN, U.S. News and World Report, Christianity Today, Christian Century, and other news outlets and popular magazines. http://www.robgagnon.net/