Best practices for requesting cites

Counter

When a reasonable (and I know that varies and is subjective) request for a cite is made, the original poster who made the claim should provide a cite, admit that they have no cite or admit their error.

Certain things, such as twitter, facebook, et al. are not valid cites, especially in FQ/GD. Some posters seem to think that other people’s opinions are also cites. They are not.

When they provide direct factual quotes specifically relevant to the question being discussed, they are valid whether you like it or not.

Other posters don’t have to abide by your specific preferences for types of cites, and if you are going to dismiss huge swaths of the internet just because of your own preferences, you shouldn’t be surprised if your request for a cite is presumed disingenuous.

Withdrawn. Not going to re-litigate it here.

You dismissed Twitter posts (and other sources, including news articles), that contained direct specific quotes from individuals that were specifically relevant to the discussion, over and over again. That’s why you were suspended.

By the way, here are a couple of posts in which you cited Twitter posts to support something you were saying:

So you can probably see why your opinions on the validity of Twitter cites are greeted with skepticism.

Cite?

Very funny. There are a lot of instances of people quoting articles clearly labeled “opinion” or “editorial” as if they were facts.

That’s a grossly dishonest and disingenous description of what’s going on in that thread. I certainly haven’t been mocking anyone, and neither have most of the people disagreeing with UV.

Stranger said (emphasis added)

A state cannot prevent a non-convicted person from traveling to another state (in general; I’m sure you can contrive some situation in which it could invoke public health or another measure to invoke authority), cannot claim that someone is formulating ‘intent’ to commit an action that is not a crime in the jurisdiction in which the act occurs, and cannot pass laws regarding the legality of actions in other states. There is actually a significant body of law about this regarding liquor laws and other ‘blue laws’ with challenges to whether someone from one state can travel to another state to purchase liquor or prohibited items in that state (even if their intent is to transport the the purchases back across state lines in violation of the laws of the home state), and I am not aware of any challenge that has held up regarding the legal exchange in another state.

I am hoping he will return with more detailed cites.

Not laughing. You made a vague, inflammatory accusation. Can we see a cite?

ETA: if you’d rather withdraw your previous claim, I’d understand.

Opinion articles and editorials very often include facts and factual quotes meant to support the opinion being made.

The search engine kinda sucks, or more likely user error on my part.

But there have been more than one thread in FQ/GD/PE where someone asks for a cite, and the response is a link to an opinion piece on NYT/WaPo/WSJ.

Excuses are like . . .
Again, put up or shut up. Please.

UV’s only argument there is “because I say so”. He hasn’t produced any cites showing that any courts have ever agreed with his interpretation, despite having been asked to do so multiple times.

Your hostility in this thread is unwarranted.

Ok, but why not link to the facts and factual quotes themselves, instead of the editorial one has read?

Granted, I’d only ask for some understanding, as I only became hostile when I read unsubstantiated claims. That bothers some people.

Sometimes those are the factual quotes - a writer interviews a politician, gets a quote from the politician, and uses that quote in the editorial or opinion piece they are writing. If you dismiss any and everything titled “editorial” or “opinion”, you are indeed dismissing some legitimate factual sources of quotes.

Better, ISTM, to consider each cite on its own merits rather than dismissing vast swaths because of their title, website, or some other similarly cosmetic reason.

You’re right. A direct quote is factual. Most often, IME, editorials go well beyond that. An editorial (which is like 95% what someone else thinks about a subject) is not factual.

So you shouldn’t dismiss the whole category, but rather consider each cite on its own merits.