User talk:66.27.70.237

Analysis at Sleeping Beauty problem

While your analysis of the problem might well be accurate, it is essentially original research. That is, it presents your opinion rather than the views outlined in reliable secondary sources. If you have sources that express these same views please feel free to re-add the section with those attached. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess you think that you're keeping Wikipedia factual but in fact people like you only help propagate misinformation. The whole page is based on a false premise and that is clear as day to anyone understanding basic probability. You obviously don't have that understanding so you shouldn't self-appoint yourself as editor of pages that require it. 66.27.70.237 (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Mildly, the insults don't strengthen your argument. Howver, on the actual topic: if your opinion is indeed "as clear as day" to the world at large you should have no problem finding reliable secondary sources that state the same. When you have these you can feel free to re-add the material with those reliable secondary sources attached. As a general comment please note a basic premise of Wikipedia which is that all material in articles must be independently verifiable and not the unsourced opinions of individual editors, no matter how expert those opinions might be. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand your adherence to these principles, but unfortunately here that results in a very perverse situation: opinions of idiots who publish "research" analyzing obvious issues, usually incorrectly, get elevated over obvious reasons why those analyses are completely misguided because any serious mathematician would be laughed at if they wrote a paper pointing that out. This page is equivalent to people analyzing whether 2+2 is 4 or 22, and one of the topics where Wikipedia falls flat on its face. But OK - if those are the rules, thanks for your enforcement of them. 66.27.70.237 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately those are indeed the rules. And yes it does mean we suffer a little in philosophy and some sciences, because our articles end up as a mix of references for the absolutely elementary and the more advanced and this can create a jarring experience for readers. I guess it's the price that gets paid for the "anyone can edit" approach. Fwiw as a rank amateur in this space I agree your analysis seems correct. It just needs some third-party sourcing to be included in the page. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

---