This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Why is this page semi-protected? ~ PseudoSudo 06:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Posted a request at WP:RFPP. ~ PseudoSudo 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected by Stifle. ~ PseudoSudo 16:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, the constant bickering about The Game on this site has really killed the fun it for me. Is it a Meme? Is it not a Meme? Is it worthy of Wikipedia or was it created by persons unknown simply to put in Wikipedia? Who cares anymore? Thanks for killing the buzz. I can no longer be bothered to play properly and am doomed to a life of cheating through indifference. Theaardvark 13:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with The Aardvark. I can read this article without it even occuring to me that I've lost now. Thanks for spoiling it obsessive game maniacs and article deleters. Tom Michael - Mostly Zen (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool, shall I delete it now? Guy 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Timrem 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the normal AFD notice to the page. There is no indication on the AFD page that it is closed, and users are still editing it. The custom notice also gives the impression that the decision is only up to administrators. the wub "?!" 16:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion period had ended, all we were waiting for was an interpretation of the result. Liken it, if you will, to the jury being out. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a new game: guess how long it will be before someone nominates this for AfD #7.--Isotope23 20:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Game 10th nomination pool? Kotepho 20:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that bet, seeing as the continued existence of this article is clearly a sad indictment on the pathetic state of Wikipedia. "No consensus" must not be allowed to become de facto keep; if there is no consensus, there should be further discussion until there is a consensus. Kinitawowi 21:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There will not be consensus on this article if debate were to continue. Take a look at the AfD; there's a lot of harsh language going on in there, and people need to simmer down. If anyone wants to start an RfC or an RfAr on this article, let me know and I'll help prepare it. I think there's a compelling case to be made here for ArbCom intervention. Mangojuice 22:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

All that's going to happen with more discussion is a bigger flood of meatpuppets, vague emotional terms, and general nonsense incompatible with building an encyclopaedia. I could put an RFC out on this article, but the ArbCom virtually never rules on content matters. Stifle (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Heck, there's still an old RfC listing up for this article, about sorting out all of the junk that was in it prior to the March AfD. WarpstarRider 22:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, Kotepho :( Stifle (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone loves pools. Even the trillion pool was kept by MfD. Kotepho 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I lost the Game damit! Smart194 19:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my new edits, I am aware that for the time being they are classed unverifiable, but I figure that since the article has, by hook or by crook, been deleted before (along with all the information it contained) the least we can do while its here is to have a vaguely good article. Quibbling has meant that instead of an excellent article with verifiability problems (but which everyone seems to admit still exists) we now have a paltry article with a paltry source. Great work team!

My friend, a psychology major, says that he has read a university Psychology dissertation analysing The Game, and stuff to do with it. Assuming we can find it again (you must have all noticed that this thing is incredibly hard to search for) would that count as verification? Jdcooper 22:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly help. I've placed a banner stating that the article needs more references - I think that's a decent tag for the time being. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be excellent. JoshuaZ 22:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I did some poking around on WorldCat and couldn't find anything. Does your friend remember anything else about the dissertation? It would probably be a wonderful addition to the article. As for adding unverified information... there's really no reason why we shouldn't treat it as we would any other time. It will either be reverted or tagged with ((citation needed)), depending on how nice the editor is feeling. —Seqsea (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He just remembers that he read it, he's going to ask around his coursemates and other people to see. This is so infuriating, how can something so widely-played be so under-documented. Well I suppose that depends how you define documentation, but does the fact that it doesn't have a name mean that it is automatically unencyclopaedic? That is the real issue here as far as I'm concerned. If people don't know what to call it (outside of "the game" which is as good as not calling it anything for practical purposes) then how can they write about it in any way we can find to source? Its very nature makes it unsourceable, if not "unverifiable". In exceptional cases like this, we should improve the encyclopaedia as best we can... Jdcooper 00:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

An article RFC was posted concerning this article on 2006-04-20. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, the RfC doesn't mention verifiability. Isn't another aspect of the problem whether The Game requires verification (since as was admitted, almost all the deletionists concede that it exists) or whether it is such an exceptional case that we can invoke the most important policy of all, which states: "If the rules discourage you from improving the Wiki, then ignore them and improve the Wiki anyway." As far as I can see, that has been what all the argument has been about, not the exact nature of the article? Jdcooper 23:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The #1 problem with this article is the lack of verifiability from reliable sources. IMO, all other issues with it are secondary to that. WP:IAR has its place, but there is nothing exceptional or notable enough about the Game that it should get a free pass on WP:V. Something that is as pervasive as the Game supposedly is should have generated at least a minimal interest in WP:RS publications. I don't see any logical reason to trump WP:V here.--Isotope23 02:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We have the Belgian article, so we do have WP:V for the basic game. I suspect a serious problem with finding sourcing is the name. Almost any reasonable search string for this (for example "The Game") will turn up millions of false positives. JoshuaZ 02:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, most of the times that this gets AFDd you end up with floods of people saying "keep, because I like this". Stifle (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I attempted with no succcess to get people not to do that in the last AfD. My impression is that such comments produce strong deletionary feelings in other people looking at an AfD, including possibly the closing admin. It is understandable that they do, both as a matter of basic psych and also one of logic; if someone who really wants to keep an article can't come up with a better reason to keep it than that they like the article, the article probably doesn't have much reason to be kept. JoshuaZ 13:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it 'exists' at least conceptually. The belgian link is still somewhat spurious. But lots of other stuff 'exists'. Is there notability? Doubtful. Meme? only in the sense that putting it on wiki appears to be of great concern to the perpetrators/players - in other words, it is in the process of becoming a meme & will likely succceed in doing so only if it gets the help of wiki. - the perfect self-licking ice cream cone. I dislike it when wiki gets 'used' in this fashion. Plus the famous old WP:BAI self-promotion & vanity. Plus putting yourself back on in spite of having been failed AfD several times. Repeatedly. If you want to create a meme, you really should use more imagination.Bridesmill 13:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the game is stupid and inane, but I think it meets WP:N and WP:V. So...JoshuaZ 13:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

See, I don't know if I consider 1 article in a Belgian newspaper to satisfy WP:V for the game... especially since I can't actually read the article and see what it says (due to subscription; not because it is in Dutch). I think 1 article in a middle circulation English language newspaper would pose the same problem: if this is so pervasive, why is only one person in the entire world writing about it?--Isotope23 13:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a phenomenon of ever-increasing notability. Less than a few weeks ago, people where saying things like "if this is so pervasive, why is no one in the entire world writing about it?" Kernow 14:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring all the reasonless votes, the only real dispute between the delete and keep voters is the article's verifiability. Although many delete voters refer to WP:V, none have quoted any policies which invalidate the De Morgan article. The main reasons given are the circulation numbers and that it's in a foreign language. The language that it's in is obviously irrelevant. Although the circulation is relatively small, it certainly doesn't invalidate it as a reputable source. As I said on the AfD, it's read by 1 in every 150 Belgians. If you look here, De Standaard has a circulation of 76,000 and is in the top five Belgian newspapers, which means that De Morgan is probably within the top ten. It is definately in most lists of Belgian newspapers I can find. My personal view is that, as these discussions have gone on for so long, many delete voters are unwilling to give up their attack on this article, even though a reputable source has now been found. Kernow 14:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To Bridesmill:

"The belgian link is still somewhat spurious." - Why?

"Is there notability?" - Yes

"Plus putting yourself back on in spite of having been failed AfD several times. Repeatedly." - These article has been nominated for deletion four times. Two resulted in keep, one in no consensus, and one in delete. It says so clearly at the top of this page. Please think before you type, especially before you put the incorrect word in bold. Kernow 14:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

27 March 2006 keep deleted - 17 March 2006 Delete - 21 February 2006 Delete. In my opinion htat qualifies as 'several times'. I guess I didnh't bold the wrong word after all. I call the Belgian article spurious because I cannot access it - I speak dutch, so no problem there, but as the site won't let me in (nothing about subscribtion - just a blank page) it doesn't exactly exude the 'quality' of a reputable source. Finally, citing the game's own website as proof of notability is flawed circular logic. My website says I'm notable - means nothing.Bridesmill 17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• With regards to AfDs, the (sole) time this was successfully deleted, the closing admin stated that although there was not consensus, since AfD is neither a democracy nor a vote, hence why he was ignoring the "Keep because i like it" votes. I agree these were stupid, and should have been discounted, but then so should all the "Delete because i don't like it votes" of which there were many. The Game was called "childish" and "inane", but reasoned and unbiased statements like JoshuaZ's "Personally, I think the game is stupid and inane, but I think it meets WP:N and WP:V." were sadly lacking in the AfD forums. There was rather a lot of intellectual snobbery going around. At the end of the day, all votes that wern't supported by a WP suitable reason, or indeed any reasoning at all, should have been unbolded, if not removed. The Game itself is no more childish and inane than people voting to delete just because they want to keep their precious wiki confined to the traditional encyclopaedia articles, which would fail to put us ahead of Britannica et al. and which other encyclopaedias possibly do better, or at least just as well. This is exactly the kind of information that people come to wikipedia for, we would be doing ourselves a grave disservice by weeding it out. Jdcooper 17:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Bridesmill, the 21 Feb vote was about an article about The Game with a different name. It's deletion has nothing to do with whether or not an article about The Game should exist. I linked to the website because it provides a list of all the evidence, not because it is evidence itself. Is there actually any claims on it that you dispute? Unfortunately, I don't speak Dutch, but I managed to get to the registration page for the article's website, I'm sure you can work it out. Kernow 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Jdcooper, I agree that articles like these are exactly why Wikipedia is so popular. It's sad to see that people want to remove these articles simply because they don't like them, or believe that they're stupid, when really they do have a place on Wikipedia. TerrorBite 03:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the rough translation of the article here because of disputes over what info is verifiable. Kernow

The Game must be the simplest game in the world. It all comes down to: "the moment you think about it, you loose". Psychology for beginners: try very hard not to think about something and you will think about it.

In the US and UK the game is, mainly in schools and university, a modest hype. In Brazil, Australia and Japan, more and more youngsters follow. Nearer to us, the game starts appearing as well - slowly at the moment, but unstoppable all the same. The first rule determines that whoever knows of the game, is playing it - so there's no escaping it.

The player who loses the game by thinking about it, is obliged to state out loud that he lost. One version says that all other players in the vicinity lose as well, other versions give other players a short amount of time - ten minutes ot half an hour, the rules are vague - to forget about the game again . Whichever version is palyed, for the losers not all is lost: the moment that the Game is out of their head again, they are playing it once more.

In the UK, fanatics have developed several strategies to make their fellow players lose. They write "The Game" in big letters on the chalkboard in front of the class, they hide little notes saying that the finder of the note has lost. The ultimate strategy is, of course, to remind the competition of the Game as often as possible, without being reminded of it yourself.

But every victory is short, for it is always temporary. The ultimate victory does not exist, the Game never ends. Even for expert players, it is not known what the origins of the game are. On the internet, several websites are dedicated to finding those origins.

Those of you who were not paying close attention might have missed it, but there can be no misunderstanding about it: all those who have read this article, play the game now, whether you like it or not. Sorry.

Did the original Dutch really say "you loose"? Could someone please let us know just who translated this? Did the newspaper article give any sources for the article, or did they just make it up in thin air? Why is the supposed Game, rampant throughout the English speaking world, have to rely on a Dutch langauge article for verification? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume that's a typo of "you lose", although obvioulsy it said it in Dutch. I believe User:Seqsea knows who translated it as he provided the translation. It doesn't look like the article gave any sources...my personal experience of newspaper articles is that they don't usually provide sources...it definately doesn't mean "they just make it up in thin air". No one is claiming The Game is "rampant throughout the English speaking world", just that it is notable. It has to rely on it for verification because it is the only reputable source yet found. Kernow 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule, newspapers are very infrequent in citing sources for their information, unless direct quotes are involved. And "supposed Game"? Is the very existance of the Game now in question? Darquis 02:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not know who originally translated it (they said someone on IRC), but I can attest for its accuracy in general. If you have a specific question, feel free to ask it. If I cannot make it out I know several native Dutch speakers that I can ask. Kotepho 03:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Should the picture of the original article (linked above) be included alongside the article for those who don't subscribe to the paper? Darquis 18:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Kotepho 20:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? I think it has value in that it would allow people who cannot/will not register for that site to see it (thus setting aside the complaint that the only source requires registration)Darquis 02:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a copyright violation. Kotepho 03:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've put this image up if anyone thinks it would be suitable in the article. Kernow 16:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel like the most useful image addition to this article would be a photo capture of "I LOST!" grafitti somewhere, preferably in a notable location. It would help communicate the concept behind the game, especially helping to alleviate the immense confusion typically experienced by new readers. ~ PseudoSudo 19:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How about The Game on a whiteboard at college? That's a trick used by some of my friends. Although, I really don't think this article needs an image. --Liface 21:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting better sourcing for the inevitable next deletion seems like a better use of one's time. JoshuaZ 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's two such images:[1] Kernow 14:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Any idea what the liscences on these images are? JoshuaZ 14:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The second one has a (c)2005 watermark; I don't feel as if the first is an especially good photo. ~ PseudoSudo 18:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, hadn't noticed the (c). The first photo is mine so I will put it up if someone wants. It does give a good example of Game strategies. Kernow

How about putting this either at the top or in the Strategies section. Kernow 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait on that. Given how hard it has been to get this article past anything at all, we might not want to credibility with a picture of a toilet just yet. Other than that, seems good. JoshuaZ 21:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, the article has been deleted. Even if that deletion was out of process, the appropriate thing to do is leave the article in the deleted state until the deletion review is complete. JoshuaZ 06:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's out of process, it should be overturned Will (^E_@) T 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And there's a deletion review being held to determine whether it was out of process. If it is determined to be, it will be overturned, within process! It's not a foregone conclusion though, so why jump the gun? What harm occurs if you can't see this article for, what, another two days? A week even? Let the wheels turn at their pace. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with an admin boldly reverting a currently-undisputed out-of-process deletion. ~ PseudoSudo 06:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that the AFD that just closed was closed as no consensus by one admin and then another admin speedied it based on supposed violation of a policy that many of the keep voters, as well as the closing admin, considered, I would suggest that it remain undeleted while the DRV runs, and that it can be deleted at the end of the DRV if the DRV determines the AFD closure was incorrect.-Polotet 06:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, thinking about it more, I could just about go either way. I still see no point in reverting over it. It matters so little whether the article is visible right now. Refraining from reverting each other back and forth is more important. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree that revert warring either way in this situation is silly and pointless and only creates bad blood.-Polotet 06:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As a political matter, I think it makes more sense to keep it removed for now, since it will show that those supporting undeletion are following policy. JoshuaZ 06:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually cite WP:POINT on your reply, JoshuaZ. Actively ignoring an incorrect action to prove a point about the policy-abiding qualities of one side of a debate doesn't seem like a proper way to go about things. ~ PseudoSudo 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't WP:POINT, I have no intention of waving in anyones face "Look at us! See w follow policy unlike those other guys." Its more of a preemptive issue so no one can confuse an already muddled matter by saying that the proponents of the article are not following policy. JoshuaZ 14:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we please develop a consensus on whether or not it should be included in external links? As it is now, it keeps getting put back in and then taken out. JoshuaZ 15:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me that it would definitely fall under "self-reference" - same reason wikipedia is not mentioned in Jordanhill Railway Station article. I don't think it should be there. Jdcooper 15:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's my feeling as well. JoshuaZ 15:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel the same, but if they want to remove all references to our article/AFD and act simply as a repository of information about The Game, then I have no problem including them as a generic "fan" site. —Seqsea (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a point, it would be nice to be able to link to their "compiled list of references to the game", since it gives some kind of context to our article as well, but we can't really do that at the moment. Jdcooper 16:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Savethegame.org should be linked somewhere, even if it's just this talk page. If the request is for more sources, that page seems to be a legitimate way to find such. Whether it needs to be on the actual article, I'm not sure. Darquis 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Along the Same lines... I beleive that the answers.com link should most definately not be included in the external links section, since it is a mirror of the prior version of the same article (and says so in the bar right above the article). Gsham 21:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I do not propose that any information from the answers.com link should be included in the article, since it is not a reliable source, but even so, it contains far more information than the wikipedia article, which is supposedly "the sum of all human knowledge", so if a user comes here looking for information, even if we do not give them the information they are looking for, we can surely direct them to a place where they can find it? Some people might care more about actual information than pedantic boredomcruft, and it is definitely an external website about the game. Jdcooper 15:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    I disagree about linking to Answers.com's mirror of Wikipedia. First of all, it will probably update pretty soon, and then we'll have an entirely self-referential link. Secondly, we don't need to link readers to non-reliable sources - they can use google, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    • But why should they have to? Are we supposed to make things as inconvenient as possible for users? If I need information, I come here first, which is what we want other people to do. We should make things as easy as possible for people. If not, why do we have external links at all? When it updates we can delete the link, but at the moment it serves an important purpose. Its not our problem that it is non-reliable itself, our problem is making the current wikipedia accord to WP:V, which it currently does. They know that by looking outside of wikipedia they are looking at sub-standard information, thats up to them. We are like a piece of liberal legislation, giving people the freedom to choose and make their own mind up :) Jdcooper 16:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Although I don't really have an opinion on the answers.com link, saying they can use google is not a very good argument. Information about The Game is quite hard to find on google, simply because of its name. I will try and include the information found on answers.com on losethegame.com if that will resolve the situation. Kernow 16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not buying it, about it being ok to link to substandard information. We delete links to substandard information all the time, and good job. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, which means a reliable, well-researched source, and the purpose of external links is to point readers to more reliable information. We're not "making things as inconvenient possible," we're just applying the same standards we try to apply in all our articles. We shouldn't think of academic standards as a pain in the neck that we have to find ways to work around; we should embrace them as what will make Wikipedia a respected source. Additionaly, it's not difficult to search for information about the game: you just google "just lost the game" and similar strings. I won't revert, but I'm utterly unconvinced. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
          • That's my point, its not substandard information, just because it doesnt have sources. I was being tongue-in-cheek when i described it thus. The old wikipedia article was a good summary of The Game, which is played widely, and which everyone agrees exists, but which also happened not to have any sources. Academic standards are not a pain in the neck, but the fact that we cannot find sources to verify something that is clearly true is. A Right Bloody Pain in the neck. For the moment we can help people out. Jdcooper 17:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
            • We can't cite our own articles. Answers.com is just our own articles repackaged with advertisements. It's not appropriate—there's a reason we deleted the old version. —Seqsea (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Seqsea, the question at hand is whether to include the link under External links, not as a source under References. Regarding your edit summary, you should base your decision of its inclusion on your interpretation of WP:EL, not WP:CITE. ~ PseudoSudo 19:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
                • Yes, thank you. You're right, WP:EL was the correct policy and not WP:CITE. That having been said, the implication with external links, or at least, the way I view them, is that what lives on the other side of those links is verifiable, correct, information that will enhance our own article. The first entry under "Links to normally avoid" on WP:EL is "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research." We deleted our article precisely because it was unverified original research, and linking to it under external links is the same as endorsing the information that was there. User:Jdcooper seems to want to include the link because our current article doesn't have enough information, which means that even though we've changed the heading from References to External links, we're still using the link as a means of saying, "The information at this link is correct." And since we wrote it, we're citing ourselves. —Seqsea (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Jdcooper, "help people out"? What are you talking about, an link to information on how to identify a stroke when it's happening, or lists of toxic household products? Ah no, we're talking about a mind game. The goal is not to include all true information here; it's to write a good, reliable encyclopedia. We should really embrace the omission of information that isn't WP:Verifiable. That makes Wikipedia better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
              • I am currently wondering what the purpose of an encyclopaedia is. Surely to inform people. That is what i mean by "help people out". By including this link as an external link, we are not including all true information, answers.com is. Fine, it is an old mirror of wikipedia, but it is not wikipedia, which has proven that it does not want this information here. Fine, I think that is a shame, but policy is policy. The least we can do is show people something on another source which informs them more than the sum of all human knowledge. External links are not wikipedia. WP:V does not apply to non-wikipedia articles, because it is a Wikipedia policy. The fact that we deleted it makes it not a wikipedia article. The site does not contain factually inaccurate material, it contains editorial-style analysis of a phenomenon, which is linked to constantly on wikipedia articles under "external links", so dont try and cite the bit about "unverified original research" in external links, because that is breached wholesale on major articles, far more major than this. The information at that link is correct, and since, as i stressed, we deleted it, we no longer wrote it. The individual contributors now become the authors. Furthermore, since it is not available anywhere on the wikipedia website, we are not citing ourselves. Now I am not going to revert, because consensus is clearly, and i believe misguidedly, against my opinions, and against the dissemination of valuable and relevant information, and i have reached my alloted reverts anyway, so whatever, its not worth getting blocked over, but i believe we are making a mistake, considering the volume of people that were directed to wikipedia via this article. I must repeat my belief that this is exactly the kind of information that sets wikipedia apart from other encyclopaedias, not that i suspect it will do much good. Understanding of the concept that certain articles are exceptions to blanket policies is clearly absent here, and so much the pity. Jdcooper 23:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
                • Wikipedia isn't about being true, but being verifiable. And as far as Unverified Original Research being in other external links..my understanding of Wiki policy is that other articles violating policy aren't cause for another, but rather, all the articles should be fixed so as to conform to policy. So, to say that other articles do it is not an argument for this article to do it. Rather, it is an argument to fix those articles to meet Wiki standards. Nevermind the debate that can come from "is linking to a mirror linking to yourself".Darquis 02:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
                • Most politics articles link to editorials, which are by their very nature POV, and often original research. Should they not do this? Of course they should, because they add more context to the article. The original deleted article on this topic was essentially an editorial, but not wikipedia fare, so was deleted. As long as it exists we can make use of it, because it adds further context to our article. To say that other articles do it, and well, is not only an argument that this article should do it, but that policy is wrong. Jdcooper 09:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
                • I don't think you are understanding the issue here Jdcooper. The information in the answers.com article is the exact same info that was deleted from the article here. The reason it was deleted is because it was unverified. continuing to link to that information that was deleted is tantamount to an endorsement of that deleted information, which will only serve to tick off the raving deletionists who want to take the article down. beyond that, it is most definately self referential, because it is an earlier version of this same article. if people really want to see the information, there is a lovely link at the top called "history", where they can get at it, if they want. and your comment about editorial links on politics articles is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not allow Original Research, however (obviously) you can link to other sites that have original research. but answers.com is by its very nature an extension of wikipedia, and still bound by its rules. Maybe if you find this information on another site, it would be acceptable for an "external link", but as it is now, it's innapropriate. Gsham 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • You can't find it in History, because it was deleted. Since it was deleted and cannot be found on wikipedia (including history), i view it as a separate site. And please do not patronise me by saying that i dont understand the issue, when i in fact do understand the issue, but simply disagree with you. Thanks! Jdcooper 01:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
                    • It doesn't matter how you view it. The fact of the matter is, it was taken directly from Wikipedia, and contains information that has since been removed as unverifiable. Linking to the mirror article is merely skating around the restriction imposed (that we verify whatever is written in this article)Darquis 02:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)