Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by -Lumière (talk | contribs) at 21:26, 11 April 2006 (→Interpreting Jimbo's post as an inclusion criteria for the Undue weight section.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.

SlimVirgin's request

Harald88, MonkeeSage, Iantresman and Bensaccount what do you think of SlimVirgin's request. Don't worry! A break is not a problem, if it can help. Just tell me whether you feel it will be better for our progress that I take such a break.— Preceding unsigned comment added by -Lumière (talk • contribs)

Yes, -Lumière, please stop cluttering up the policy talk pages. I skip over your comments because I do not find them useful. You are not engaging in useful discussion, but you do give the appearance of trying to beat everyone down by your incessant posting. We are not going to change these policies because you say so, no matter how many times you say it. Give it a break! -- Donald Albury 11:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A break merely delays the time when discussion will begin again. And again, And again, until the issue is resolved. If people can't be bothered to participate and EXPLAIN their points of view, then don't winge when others decide things in their absence.

Clearly, not participating is a tacit acknowledgement that the status quo is satisfactory. THIS IS THE STATUS QUO... post after post after post. --Iantresman 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No one is trying to CHANGE policy. People are trying to clarify it. --Iantresman 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

People have participated, read the archives. They've all come to the same conclusion that some here aren't interested in actual discussion, but in furthering their own views and so are completely resistant to reason. Opinions already expressed here by some the project's long-term, credible contributors indicate that they fail to see a problem that needs fixing and that these proposals are not acceptable. The only problem here is that a few are unwilling to accept it. Enough editors have objected over the months to the incessant droning on about this alleged "issue" that any further ignoring of requests to take long-winded, one-sided discussion on this same topic to user talk pages can and will be moved to free up this page for other discussions. FeloniousMonk 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My experience is that responding to these kind of discussions doesn't make any difference. The proposers know what they want and don't listen to my opinions. It has been explained that many of the 'clarifications' will just open loop-holes. There is a good reason why we are told to avoid instruction creep. I've also seen editors spend a lot of time and effort tidying-up a policy, only to see most of their work overturned when it comes time to put it into effect. These policies have been around for a while, and IMO don't need 'clarification'. Three or four editors getting together to try to change a policy like this one is just not going to fly. I am not contributing to the discussion because I think the proposed changes are not needed, but I will step in to oppose any such changes if someone actually attempts to insert them in the article. -- Donald Albury 14:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would users be pre-opposed to any changes which try to clarify the policy, regardless of whether they succeed? My guess is that as Lumiere has aptly noted, it feels safer for those who have a "firm grasp of the policy already" to keep it vague (see above). Lumiere does not need to be suppressed, just more succinct. Bensaccount 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wants my support for fixing this policy is going to have to do a much better job of convincing me that it is broken. And I don't respond well to hearing the same arguments made over and over and over and... -- Donald Albury 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Donald for such a succinct expression of exactly my position. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconding this approach --Francis Schonken 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Interpreting Jimbo's post as an inclusion criteria for the Undue weight section.

Per numerous requests from the community to either drop the issue or take it to his personal talk pages and his constant refusal to abide by the wishes of the community, this discussion has been moved to User_talk:-Lumière#Discussion_moved_from_Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view FeloniousMonk 21:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Interpreting Jimbo's post as an inclusion criteria for the Undue weight section.

From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

We will only consider the three categories that are defined in the last part of each of the three sentences. The first category contains the view that are "subtanciated with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". The second category contains the view with "easy to name prominent adherents". In my proposal, we would say that a view is "significant" if it belongs to the first or the second category. I propose such a definition of significance as an inclusion criteria in a given article. The third category contains what remains, the non significant views. Even a view that is "non significant" is acceptable in its own separate article, if it is verifiable. The term "significance" can be replaced by something else, though I think its use here is consistent with the use of this term in this talk page.

What I would like to emphasis is that the expression "in the majority" should never be interpreted to exclude a view that is "substanciated with a reference to to commonly accepted reference texts" such as a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Obviously, the expression "in the majority" does not mean that the view must be held by the majority. The majority of what? In practice, it means that the view is substanciated in reference texts that are commonly accepted. -Lumière 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What is a "prominent adherent"?

1. What does "prominent" mean here?
2. What is the criteria for determining "prominence"?
3. Does an "adherent" have to be a person or persons?

--MonkeeSage ☺ 21:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, once we have the big picture from Jimbo's quote, which I try to provide above, this is exactly the next question to ask. Very good. We are doing fine! -Lumière 21:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)