Talk:Corroborating evidence

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Corroborating evidence article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Science Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

nod[edit]

How do you people come up with this stuff? Do you do this for a living?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.157.14 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; therefore, what more can be said about corroborating evidence that makes it clear that this topic can be given more than just a dictionary definition? For example, can we add a discourse on the meaning (history, etc.) of "corroborating evidence" as an important piece of, e.g., legal jargon? --LMS

But, the organization of this topic (and others) lists a series of often obscure (to the lay reader) terms that require concise definitions to be useful. That does not make Wikipedia a dictionary because (eventually), for example, one could read a piece on "corroborating evidence" as part of a larger article on the history and use of evidence.

Could do with a discussion on to what extent corroboration is required by evidential law of different jurisdictions perhaps?195.33.121.133 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although he does not specifically mention Wikipedia by name, Stephen Colbert refers to "open-source encyclopedias" on page 156 of I Am America (And So Can You!) and states that he believes "corroborated" should now mean "a zesty sour cream-based dip." Although there is no "corroborated" page in Wikipedia, this is the closest thing. Should it be protected against vandalism based on previous Colbert-related strikes?Mobo85 22:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of corroboration[edit]

I propose to delete the second (middle) paragraph of this section.

I think the example is poor, badly-written, badly punctuated, and hard to understand. It is replete with sentences that lack a verb. It is apparently describing evidence of a crime, but it's not clear what the crime is. And it is uncited (as is the entire section), and so is eligible for deletion. However I am not proposing to delete the entire section - just the middle paragraph (which is, admittedly, the bulk of the section).

Please provide a citation, which would (a) remove that ground for deletion, and (b) provide a source that could be used to improve the section. Ideally, please improve the section.