Wikipedia talk:Verifying different types of statement

Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Yaris678 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Words from North8000

I think the words from North8000 are good be we need to merge it all together into one coherent essay. I'll have a think about the best way to do that. Yaris678 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My stuff is more of an outline / "skeleton" than content. If people think that my outline is good, might I suggest moving the other material into my skeleton? North8000 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think that is the way to go... although... I think we should keep the original introduction and obviously the "See also" should be at the end. Yaris678 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. North8000 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not delicate, and what I put in is just :brainstorming" Feel free to revert, change, delete etc. anything I do.North8000 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I kind of "ran out of gas" on this. This spans more than one major Wikipedia policy, and I'm not sure where's it's headed here. Don't hesitate to drop me a line with any thoughts now or in the future.

Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I keep meaning to give it a big overhaul. I need to work myself up to it. Yaris678 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

the listed number of statements (4) is wanting

the article currently has these four types of statements: fact contentious fact opinion gossip

but i find this list stark. what about these types of statements: a lie a theory a citation a process (turn on the computer - does not fall into any of the original four statements) a sequence (similar to process) a statement that is neither true nor false

and i'm sure there are many more; i couldn't think of them all, but others may. Hmazuji (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)