A fact from Sea Mither appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 August 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
I recently deleted the adjective "simple" where it is used to describe the islanders who may have originated the myth. Sagaciousphil reverted it. I am of the opinion that a scholar of mythology, such as might be interested in an encyclopedia entry on a mythological topic, would not view the islanders as "simple" and besides, the word assumes a position of superiority that tends to subvert the authority of the content. In other words, why would an objective piece insult the islanders like that? Hypnopompus (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source was written before our present obsession with political correctness, but your removal of the word "simple" carries with it the implication that all islanders were of the same opinion, not just the simple ones. EricCorbett13:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by removing the word "simple" I did leave the word "islander", which is as straightforward a descriptor as I think is necessary, operating under the assumption that not all islanders were of the same opinion. There's a more precise way to say the same thing I'm sure so no objections there. As for "political correctness", that is not a consideration. I just don't think we should go around calling people simple for their beliefs.Hypnopompus (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... and not all islanders were simple, so I still don't see the problem. Have you considered that the people you're being so defensive about are long dead? EricCorbett19:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By using the word "simple" the article correctly reflects the wording in the original source; editors should not guess the opinions of others. SagaciousPhil - Chat19:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have got to be fucking kidding. "Political correctness" my asscrack—this is straight-up horseshit, and there is no lack of alternate wordings that would avoid the problem. "removing the adjective is a slur on all islanders" deserves an award for disingenuousness. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!05:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Curly Turkey, while civility is a necessity for collaboration, and swearing repeatedly does not fit most, if any, definitions of the term, I quite agree with your sentiment. Having spent substantial time in many of the countries in which English is the primary spoken/written language (US, CA, UK, IE, AU, SA--if SA counts), I can say with relative confidence that this use of the word "simple" (meaning... what, exactly? Unsophisticated? Unintelligent? It's an extremely ambiguous term) is widely considered outdated, and that its appearance here will be jarring to most readers. It sounds less like Wikipedian 21st-century encyclopedic style, and more like a 1920s treatise on the island nations of the South Pacific.
User:Sagaciousphil, a source's use of a particular term (and "term" is being used loosely here) does not require us to keep it in the article; it is the encyclopedic information, presented in "Wikipedia style", that matters. Our job is to make the articles accessible and informative, not to recreate the language of the historical context of every source. No actual information is added to the article by the word "simple"; it is a judgment of the people involved which the reader is perfectly capable of making themselves, if they are so inclined. User:Eric Corbett, your final comment ("Whatever, ...") does feel more like a rude parting shot than an actual attempt at resolving the dispute. You haven't really displayed any comprehension of the other users' concerns, and in spite of your insistence on ignoring the point, it is pretty widely agreed that explaining the existence of mythological beliefs and traditions with reference to a culture's "simplicity" is not so much "politically incorrect" as "unhelpful and reductive". I would be happy to talk further on the matter, but for now I feel relatively confident in removing the word. YarLucebith (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what disingenuous means? I suggest that you look it up before bandying that term around again, as you atre becoming increasingly offensive. EricCorbett12:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Assuming a pose of naïveté to make a point or for deception."—and here you are pretending that dropping the adjective would make "islanders" refer to all the islanders. Condescension fail. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!12:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Islanders" does not necessarily mean all islanders. It can equally well be interpreted as some islanders. Incidentally, there is also the term "primitive islanders" later in the article, which seems an equally, if not more, questionable term. Why not "uneducated", or "unsophisticated"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been explained to you several times why it's necessary to qualify islanders. That you don't like the explanation is something for you to come to terms with, not me. EricCorbett12:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More than one have explained that that explanation is bullshit, and there are plenty of other potential alternative wordings. Perhaps the simplest: "perhaps invented by simple islanders to explain". Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!12:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A bold statement, as if we all just imagined it—but no, there it is in the COD: "4. of very low intelligence". Nobody's going to read it as "uncomplicated islanders", and it's clear from Eric's "present obsession with political correctness" and "the implication that all islanders were of the same opinion, not just the simple ones" that "uncomplicated" was not the intended meaning, either. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!13:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be "obvious" if you keep your objections secret. You've got four people now who've raised objections, and the weight of evidence is heavily against you. "Simple" has to go—if you don't like my proposal, demonstrate what's wrong with it, or come up with something else. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!13:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having located this discussion from MOS:WTW, I believe the term "simple" to be a label and even if we are to attribute a notion to one set of individuals then an alternative should be used. The fourth citation of "islanders" is preceded by "primitive" and this may better suffice. --OJ (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have any idea what you are talking about? Or would you rather continue your racist slurs about "white [men's] burden"? Personally, I find your comments/edit summaries insulting and consider them personal attacks ... but I guess anything goes that suits the Civility Police, vindictive nominations and supporters of malicious socks? SagaciousPhil - Chat22:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As if you're so stupid as to believe that comment had anything to do with race. The rest of your comment is gibberish—I'm a supporter of socks, now, am I? I'm a potty-mouthed member of the Civility Police? Where in the flying fuck did these even come from?
But let's not fall for this game of misdirection—"simple" is unacceptable, and you've raised no concrete objections to my proposed rewording. So what's the holdup? Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!22:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Condescending 19th-century mentality" and all that horseshit? But demanding an explanation for something you understand is just more dodging. You obviously won't drop this game, so perhaps it's time to call in an admin to weigh the consensus. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!23:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you still haven't explained your "white burden" comment. I suppose you mean to count the vote rather than assess consensus? Just so long as you pick an admin who has a better command of English than you do. EricCorbett00:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
haven't explained your "white burden" comment. I didn't need to, but I sure as fuck did. The rest of your comment appears to have come as expected from your rubber-stamp pile. Not that I'm going to let someone lecture me on English who claims "islanders" here could be interpreted as "all islanders"—if I hadn't known better I'd've assumed you were a non-native speaker with a howler like that.
You're right, I was wrong—apparently your mother tongue is gibberish.
Half dozen or more have taken issue with your "unique" interpretation of the word "simple", including GigglesnortHotel and Rotideypoc41352 who haven't even commented here, and the COD also disagrees with you.
The bare plural, as in "islanders" in the given sentence, cannot be interpreted as the whole of the islanders—that would require some sort of qualifier, such as "the". The plural here works similar to the partitive in French and other languages—the plural here implies "some" and not "all", as in: "Hooligans trashed the place", which cannot be interpreted as "All hooligans trashed the placed". This is so elementary that even young children understand it—even my own, who've grown up in a non-English environment. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!04:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you've got very little idea of how to write a decent article, or even a passing acquaintance with the MoS. EricCorbett19:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely astonishing that this is even being discussed. I removed both "simple" and "primitive" as these serve no purpose whatsoever and are POV and denigrating. I'd also suggest that editors interested in social anthropology updates their literature, as the views on cultural development from the 19th century today are completely outdated. You wouldn't use a 17th century source to make claims on the age of the earth. Don't use 19th century sources to make claims about cultural development. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun in the ensuing edit war! But seriously, folks, I don't think this was ever "being discussed"—consensus is merely being fought tooth and nail. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!09:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{Sticking to subject} My last post suggested "primitive" and another editor stated that this is as pejorative as "simple". If we are talking about one section of the community then a qualifier may be indeed necessary, but if we cannot agree on a non-offensive label then why not skirt the issue by stating "some of the islanders", or "most islanders" or something to this effect. --OJ (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding, "some islanders", etc. I'd like to thank Sagaciousphil for their work promoting this article and nuckelavee to GA and FA respectively. I'd also encourage people to stick to the subject, as OJ said - the tone put me (and probably other people) off from contributing to this. It was OJ's comments that showed me that discussion might be made. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously, folks, I don't think this was ever "being discussed"—consensus is merely being fought tooth and nail. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)