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)
General Semantics in relation to the Internet: “The Map is not the territory!”
General semantics is about the meaning of meaning.
In this case, the Internet is the “map,” reality is the “Territory.”
That is what these bozo editors fail to grasp.
Somebody, somewhere, had to do the original grunt research to post it, publish it, somewhere on the internet which was the original purpose of Wikipedia. Not everything is yet digitized and on the Internet. Some data, like this Benson, Arizona, city resolution will never be put on the internet unless someone like you has the time and interest to do the “original research,” ferret it out, and puts it there. Otherwise it will remain in a dusty, dead tree file drawer until it’s someday thrown out in a general purge of old files by an ignorant clerk, or gets destroyed in a fire or other catastrophe, or is just abandoned.