Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Son Of Suggestion

JA: Okay, here's another programme for e-gress from this mess.

1. Center the above array of Historial Datapoints in the middle of your screen.
2. Stand back 6 or 7 feet.
3. Toss a dart — well, you'd better make it a piece of sticky bubble gum — at the screen.
4. Repeat until you hit a date in the array.
5. Return result.

JA: The indicated version of WP:NOR will be superior to the transmogrifications of Original Research Policy that some folks started trying to put past us on or about the middle of August. Jon Awbrey 02:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: What did you get? I got 02 January 2005. Looks like a winner to me! Jon Awbrey 02:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is another example of a pattern in Jon Awbrey´s comments: whenever a few people begin to work together constructively - even if they disagree - John Awbrey creates a new section with inane comments just in order to disrupt the conversation. Clearly, Awbrey is a troll. You are not contributing to any constructive discussion. Jon, this page is to discuss improving the article. If you cannot do that, go back to your own talk page and play in your personal sand box. Don´t troll around here. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Trolling? Nonsense-- in fact, just the opposite. All JA and I and the rest of us pesky nay-sayers are doing is blocking a raid on a long-standing and fundamental Wikipedia rule that has caused no problems. We would be quite happy if the original rule before this attempt to change it is restored. Remember, it take a "consensus' to change such a rule. and they sure don't have that. Just in case any recent entrants are wondering what is going on. Pproctor 17:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a recent entrant (who's had limited interactions with both Slrubenstein and JA in the past), yeah, I'm wondering what's going on. Supposedly this guideline is being discussed, but under this header, all I see is a tantrum being thrown, and various reactions to it. Precisely what detail of the guideline are we talking about right now? What "raid" is being made that needs to be "blocked", if we're to indulge in military metaphor? Can you link to a good copy and a bad copy of the paragraph or paragraphs in question, and indicate clearly what's going on? Maybe in bringing ignorant ol' me up to speed, someone will hit upon some kind of clarity, and we may get somewhere. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Umpteenth time. I disagreed with an editor on Raymond Damadian, namely because 1) I have some expertise in the area and 2) While a graduate student, I was a personal witness to the fact that the editor was wrong, having heard the facts directly from the subject of the biography, a point verifiable from published sources, a la NOR. For some reason, this so displeased the editor that, having found out my true name, he proceeded to delete/revert everything I had posted in other pages. This was under the excuse that I had cited my own published work, at arms length and that this is was "vanity".

When I pointed out that the existing rule allows exactly this, he proceeded to change the rule on the project page, without any discussion on the talk page or the slightest attempt to develop a concensus. Before anyone could change the rule back, it was "frozen" by an admin, who may not have understood he was freezing the change and not the original form. If this stands, anybody with the cooperation of an admin can use the same methodology to change any Wiki rule they like. This transcends the importance of any single rule.

As a first step in clearing up this mess, we simply seek to change the rule back to the original form. This reads:

• == Expert editors == "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy."Pproctor 22:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Pproctor, I'm not seeing any difference between this and the version of that paragraph currently in the article except for cosmetic rewordings here and there. Additionally, the section title is different, and there is now a link to the vanity guideline using link text without the prejudicial word "vanity". Can you explain what difference between the current version and the version you're suggesting you consider to be significant? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

First, the sentence ought to be removed completely. As my case proves, "vanity" is too subjective and vanity accusations may too easily be abused by one of Larry Sanger's "Trolls and Fools". I cited the existing rule against one such who was vandalizing my postings. If the present form passes, this will be more difficult---is exactly why he initiated the change.

Drive off the experts and they won't be quoting inconvenient cites at you. So much for NPOV. Also, who are you going to get to fix the technical pages. Do any of you-all know about stroke or myocardial infarction? Whoever made those pages sure did and they have better things to do than be here debating policy. Wikipedia is pretty stony ground for us experts anyway.

The other issue is the way this was forced thru. As I note above, if this gets by, then all you need to change any Wikipedia rule will be a cooperative or inattentive Admin to freeze the page after you make the change. Pproctor 00:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Pproctor, I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your position. Are you saying that the section of WP:NOR dealing with citing oneself should not link at all to the vanity guidelines?

Exactly.Pproctor 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the content of those guidelines? Don't worry, you don't have to convince me that driving off experts is a bad idea; I just fail to see how a neutrally worded link to a relevant guideline will do that.

It will not. But it will provide a weapon for Larry Sanger's "Fools and Trolls" [1] to harass experts. How do I know this-- I had it happen to me. The guideline as orginally written gave us some protection, which as Sanger has noted, is rather missing here, which is why he left and many experts finally give up and leave. Differ with some troll, provide the appropriate cites to neuralize a POV and the next thing you know your carefully-done writings here get reverted under the excuse that you have cited yourself at arms link. Natually the troll has not a clue about the technical aspect of the field. Pproctor 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As for "the way this was forced thru", I don't know why you're talking in the past tense. We're still talking about what the guideline should say. Nothings been written in stone, so nothing's been forced through in a way that can't be undone with a click of a mouse. I'm much more interested in discussing what the policy needs to say and why than I am in coming up with "bad guys". Let's keep our eye on the prize, shall we?

The only reason this coup did not succeed is that some of us strongly protested about the high-handed and irregular way it was done (totally against the usual and customary procedure) and continue to do so. BTW, the original culprit seems to have disappeared, unless he has a sockpuppet or two.

• As Sanger notes [2] "There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups and mailing lists that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. This drama has played out thousands of times over the years on unmoderated Internet groups, and since about the fall of 2001 on the unmoderated Wikipedia."
• LIkewise "A few of the project's participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated. So, for any person who can and wants to work politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed people--which is to say, to be sure, most people working on Wikipedia--the constant fighting can be so off-putting as to drive them away from the project. This explains why I am gone; it also explains why many others, including some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people, have left the project." Pproctor 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To repeat my main question: is it your position that the "Citing oneself" section of this policy page should not link at all to the vanity guidelines? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It did not do this before for preciesly the reasons we are now citing over and over. Pproctor 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me try another question - is it your position that the Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, as they currently exist, are a problem? I mean, removing a link to it from a paragraph here doesn't make it not exist, so I don't see how you're stopping "fools and trolls" from harassing you by delinking guideline and policy pages from each other. I think the correct way to address that problem is to deal with them on an individual basis. In fact, if you find yourself being harassed, I invite you to find me and let me know - I'm an administrator and would quite cheerfully help defend an expert editor against harassment. I just don't see delinking guidelines as a way to do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Oh, Friday Night Funning Around Aside, I assure you that I am perfectly serious. Although some people's unsourced allusions to "long-standing formulations" did not quite comport with my own memory of WP:NOR, I was willing to AGF on account of my own problems with L&STM. But one of the things that I learned, with three days of nuttin' better to do in my sandbox, was that my own recollection of WP:NOR was just fine, but that there was simply no credibility to the oft-repeated assertions of some folkses, er, how shall I put it — "novel narrative or historical interpretation" of the policy developments in question. So now that I have gone and done the legwork of making a sample chronicle readily available to all and sundry, it will not be necessary for any of us to rely on the conveniences of our personal anamneses. Jon Awbrey 03:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can't comment constructively or engage politely with other editors, please go away. Sarcastic sniping is not constructive. —Steven G. Johnson 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What Steven said. Jon Awbrey, if you can't act like an adult, go away. I suspect you're capable of contributing constructively and in a mature fashion. Are you going to prove me wrong? Your posts under this header so far are uttely juvenile and useless. Is this how you were brought up to believe civilized people ever behave? If you're not capable of better, we don't need any of your input. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Okay, let's get really serious. Sarcasm and irony are partly defenses against strong emotion, a strangled attempt to communicate through one's teeth. One of the things that puts me in that frame of tooth is what appears to be the shoddy practices of some people's way of going about a campaign or decree of policy change, all in yer face of anybody who tries to point out its radical and non-consent character. By shoddy practices I simply mean practices the likes of which are expressly deprecated on any article page, for example:

1. Making assertions with no citations of supporting evidence.
2. Simply dismissing the very idea that one should have to provide evidence, even after being repeatedly challenged to do so.
3. Pooh²ing the very idea that one should have to explain, that is to say, give adequate reasons for the proposed changes.
4. Continuing to insist on POV-based-&-biased descriptions of matters long after evidence has been provided to deflate the descriptions in question.

JA: Stuff like that. Jon Awbrey 11:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I read your words, and then I note that all of your points are vague accusations without evidence or specificity. How ironic. But still not constructive. —Steven G. Johnson 16:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: I was talking to people who have been present here and paying attention for a while now. If you are seriously disputing my account of events, then details can be supplied. Jon Awbrey 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I also find Jon Awbrey's comments helpful. The concerted attack against him is unhelpful to achieve resolution of the issue so I sincerely wish the principal participants will take a day and come back with a cool head, which does not include personal attacks. Wjhonson 18:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Jon, I have no interest in wasting my time parsing your "account of events"...the purpose of this discussion is not to assign blame or to see who has been polite to whom. We are trying to discuss specific improvements to the wording of the policy. Do you have any specific, constructive suggestions to add? i.e. can you suggest a specific improvement to the specific section of the policy that is being discussed? Unless you can do so, I fail to see how your comments are "helpful". —Steven G. Johnson 18:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Jon, it appears you're saying above that it's because of frustration that you're acting like a child. That's fair, and you have every right to be frustrated. That doesn't make your expressions of frustration constructive or useful. I'd love it if you would be specific about which part of this guideline needs to be changed in what way. When you get so upset that you have to resort to irony and sarcasm, you should make it a habit of walking away from the computer until you're able to contribute in a way that does something other than give vent to your emotions. Now specifically, which assertion are you talking about being made without supporting evidence? Try to phrase your answer in a way that places clear communication above expression of your frustration, and I'll bet we can work with you, rather than run around silly semantic obstacle courses. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

17 edits in less than 48 hrs... Jon: take a break and come back in a few days. Walking away works wonders. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

On 20:55 Sept. 1 Steven Johnson proposed a modification to WAS´s modification of a proposed new paragraph that has and I believe contines to have considerable support. In the following 24 hours there has been much discusson none of which involved a specific criticism of any element of the proposed improvement, or any specific suggestion to make it even better. 24 hours spent accomplishing absolutely nothing ... except to disrupt for 24 hours a process of collaboration and constructive discussion. So, one or two people here are interested only in trolling. As for everyone else, I ask: taking into account WAS and Steve Johnson´s ultimate modifications, does anyone have any speficic problems with the proposed text? Does anyone want to suggest any more specific improvements? If the answer to both questions is "no" I ask an admin to modify the protection so that only admins can edit, and then replace the existing text with the new revised text. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this page has been protected too long. WAS's paragraph with Steven Johnson's modification seems to me like an improvement over the current version. I'd like to touch base with Morven, the protecting admin, before I unprotect, which probably won't happen until tomorrow or late tonight, based on the time of day that Morven seems to be online the most. Do you think it'll hold for a few more hours? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Christian Cross Asterism (astronomy)

This article was a piece of original research and not suitable for Wikipedia. It might be more suited to a personal website or a blog. (aeropagitica) 10:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research should not include the use of commonly available tools such as computer programs, where one only needs to enter the appropriate data provided as input to receive other expected data as output. No original research is involved, because someone else has already done the research in order to provide the simple functional computing tool. --Eric R. Meyers (Ermeyers) (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

File:ChristianCrossAsterism 160000 29August26BCE LimaPeruZenith.png

And, just like my opening a particular page in a book, I did not personally create this output; instead I simply selected the correct (date, time and location) page, and captured the output to a file, and reported on it, following the WP:5P to the best of my abilities. --Eric R. Meyers (Ermeyers) (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think the policy already adequately covers this case, and your proposed modification is too broad.

The policy already says that presentations of data from primary sources is okay as long as there is no novel synthesis or analysis or conclusions drawn from it. Simply plotting existing data to graphically illustrate a relationship that is already known qualifies, and is done all over Wikipedia.

On the other hand, just because you type numbers into a computer program and plot the results doesn't mean it is not original research. For example, you could take data from sources, plot them together, in order to show a novel relationship between two variables (i.e. a relationship that has not been commmented on before, or using data that have not been related before). Or you could do a computer simulation using an existing program but with inputs unlike any that have been used before, in order to get new results, or... The point is, the computer is not a magic "novelty laundering" tool that never produces original information.

—Steven G. Johnson 15:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steven, Thank you very much for your very good three paragraphs here for me to talk about this, and this is why I'm here to simply ask this NOR policy question. I don't believe that it is too broad to allow for referencing from reliable Functional Information computing resources, but I really do understand what you're basically saying about opening this NOR policy door. I believe that what I did conforms very well to your second paragraph, and I honestly did my very best not to offend the WP:5P. I didn't take multiple sources and put them together to present something new, and other than trying to correctly name exactly what I found, so that I could put it down somewhere, I didn't synthesize, analyze nor conclude from the scientific observation of a scientifically repeatable reference point (page) of (date, time and location). I simply said here look at this scientific Functional Information that is available, and go here to this scientific computer program's Functional Information page to look at the scientifically observable event and verify the scientific facts for yourself. This is not a personal war, just a simple NOR policy question. Thanks. --Eric R. Meyers (Ermeyers) (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A related essay

In some of my contributions, I have written things that I felt some people might presume to be original research. I describe three cases of these in my essay Wikipedia:These are not Original Research. Comments welcomed. -- llywrch 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

- Obvious deductions: sure, that's implicit in Jimbo's original comments on this issue.

- Typos and proofing errors: interesting, I roughly agree but I think it needs a little elaboration/modification.

(Note that I now also without hesitation correct your pasted spelling error above!)

- Caveats to the statements of authorities: sure - spotting and mentioning apparent contradictions can't be called original research. It would be OR if the contrary information isn't publicly known. Harald88 21:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Practical and Structural Problems with the Present Directives on Self-Citation

JA: I will discuss under this heading a number of logical, practical, and structural problems that are rather apparent in the present configuration of directives regarding self-citation. As it is a holiday in the U.S., this may take a couple of days.

JA: The present edition of WP:NOR Policy makes its own statement about "Citing Oneself" and then defers by way of a slightly euphemistic bit of piping to a section of the WP:VAIN Guideline, to wit, the statement copied here:

Citing oneself If you wish Wikipedia to cite your own reliably published work, please bear in mind the neutral point of view and no original research policies. It is probably best that you do not cite your own work, as this might be misintepreted. You can however suggest that changes be made to the talk page of the article in question so that other editors can discuss and make those changes if they are worthwhile. (Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines#Citing oneself, 03 Sep 2006).

JA: This bit of indirection introduces a whole host of problems into WP directives, which I will detail later on, tonight or tomorrow. Jon Awbrey 01:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this policy page should reflect the fundamental policy, and that the guideline WP:VAIN is more of an elucidation of what the policy means and how to apply it. If the wording of WP:VAIN is at variance with the actual NOR policy, then it should be changed. I would hope we hammer out the appropriate wording here, and then take the results of our discussions over to WP:VAIN and make it consistent and correct next. Does that seem right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. A guideline is not a policy and less watched, so there is no real problem here. Nevertheless, it does deviate from the current policy - which has been like this for a long time and is well-founded. I have noticed it before, without taking action; but now I strongly suggest to adjust the guideline to be consistent with the policy. Harald88 07:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed "Expert Editors" back to original

Just changed the article back to its original form as Expert editors. I remind everyone: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus". This means Wikipedia:consensus. Pproctor 17:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done. I now also adapted the phrasing in the vanity guide so that it doesn't contradict the policy anymore. Harald88 20:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I read your arguments above, but I admit to still being a little puzzled. The policy said, in the version you didn't agree with, that experts are allowed to cite themselves. It said so quite clearly, so I don't really see what your objection was. Failing to link to the vanity guidelines at all is just wrong - I can't agree with that. Perhaps you can suggest a less objectionable way to do it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A light just flashed. Evidently, the real problem is simply that the present guideline offends some people's sensibilities. The changed one also offends-- to me and others, a link to the vanity guidelines is "just wrong", for reasons we have spelled out ad nauseum. Ergo, no Wikipedia:consensus. Ergo, the guideline stays. Once more-- Can you give us a single instance where the present guideline has caused any problems, other than causing moral outrage? Pproctor 03:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

An afterthought reply here: your arguments are entirely symmetrical. No consensus isn't an argument for any particular version. You say that both versions offend someone, so that's symmetrical. Neither form has caused any problems, other than moral outrage, as far as I know. What am I missing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't, no. Of whom should we be asking this question? Slrubenstein, since he's the one who reverted you? I've left a note on his talk page; perhaps he'll join us here soon... -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure enough, SIrubenstein posts to the same pages as Dunc, who started this attempt to change the guideline. What are the chances? Accordingly, I have posted the following message to his talk page:

• "After crossing Dunc, etc. on avowed creationist Raymond Damadian's biopage by attempting to introduce a neutral point of view, I seem to be getting chased all over Wikipedia by people from the creationist/evolutionist pages. Reversions, deletes, the whole bit. What are the chances, out of 1 million plus sites, that all the hassle comes from people who post to a few common sites.

• You are one of them. Ironically, I am very much a "Darwinist", having published one of the few examples of classic natural selection in humans [3]. As an admin, you should be well aware that it is forbidden to extend differences on one page to others. More to the point, the fact that you-all will do this to "one of your own" for daring to support a creationist even a little just reinforces the creationist paranoia that their views are being systematically suppressed. Pproctor 13:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)" Pproctor 13:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Remind me to ask you when I need advice about diplomacy sometime, Pproctor. I bet you resolve a lot of disputes that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that was a pretty crap example of diplomacy on my part. Instant karma, huh? Consider it striken. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not appreciate the context here. In retribution for differing with them on one page, I got chased all over Wikipedia by these trolls, had stuff that I had spent hours of my otherwise rather expensive PhD, MD time on reverted, deleated, etc.. This was on the basis that citing my own work was "vanity". When I cite the present guideline allowing this, they come over here and attempt to change it. Sorry if I get a little testy and sorry if I question their motives. Just perhaps, they don't like the present guideline because it impedes harassing pointy headed experts who dare to differ with them. If someone can give a better explaination, please do so. Pproctor 15:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you pointy-headed enough to realize that speculating about people's motives is counterproductive? Do you wish to get things done, or to vent your feelings? Let's keep our eye on the prize. I've asked some clarifying questions in the "Original consensus formulation" section of this page; let's talk there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am just trying to point out that this attempt to change the rule is not being done according to the guidelines. Likewise, I again quote wikipedia founder Larry Sanger. [4]

• "Second problem: the dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their enablers. I stopped participating in Wikipedia when funding for my position ran out. That does not mean that I am merely mercenary; I might have continued to participate, were it not for a certain poisonous social or political atmosphere in the project.

• There are many ways to explain this problem, and I will start with just one. Far too much credence and respect accorded to people who in other Internet contexts would be labelled "trolls." There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups and mailing lists that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. This drama has played out thousands of times over the years on unmoderated Internet groups, and since about the fall of 2001 on the unmoderated Wikipedia.

• Wikipedia has, to its credit, done something about the most serious trolling and other kinds of abuse: there is an Arbitration Committee that provides a process whereby the most disruptive users of Wikipedia can be ejected from the project.

• But there are myriad abuses and problems that never make it to mediation, let alone arbitration. A few of the project's participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated. So, for any person who can and wants to work politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed people--which is to say, to be sure, most people working on Wikipedia--the constant fighting can be so off-putting as to drive them away from the project. This explains why I am gone; it also explains why many others, including some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people, have left the project."

Pointing this sort of thing out is not being uncooperative. Pproctor 00:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Pprocotr, who gives a shit? I mean, what if "this attempt to change the rule is not being done according to the guidelines"? So what? Talk about the fucking content, if you have any interest in it. Just drop the other hangups already. You are stubbornly refusing to focus on the task at hand; it's rather frustrating. The only interesting question is: what should the policy say, and why? I'm so fully convinced that trolls are a problem, and that we mustn't allow them to harras good editors, that I'm finding your shit really repetitive and boring. Shut up about that already, and show that you have any comprehension of what prize we're keeping our eye on. In particular, do I have to beg you, do I have to suck your dick, to get you to specify what line in any policy or guideline, gives trolls license to harass good editors, so we can fucking change it already? I mean, why is this like pulling teeth, seriously? Are you 12 years old? Why won't you address the question at hand? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I was upset when I typed that. I should know better. I apologize for my hysterical tone. To put what I would like to say better, I hope: The issues you're bringing up are important, and should be addressed. They constitute a separate issue from the actual content of our policies and guidelines. This talk page is for working on the latter. Furthermore, if we can focus on fixing the policies and guidelines (wherever they may be broken), then a lot your other issues, like "how this was forced through", become moot, because "this" (this bad consequence that you wish to avoid) won't have been forced through at all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Let me suggest the following empirical approach.

1. Go to a research library.
2. Pull a random sample of 20 "A-list" peer-reviewed journals off the shelves.
3. Look at the "instructions to authors" in the back of the journal.

JA: If > 0 of them use the word vanity in connection with editorial policy on self-citation, then I will reconsider my position that the use of this term in this connection is highly inappropriate, if not an insulting presumption of moral turpitude. (I will also forthwith announce the end of civilization as we know it, but that's another issue.) Jon Awbrey 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe that's why I've suggested renaming that guideline, and linking to it without using the word "vanity", which has precisely the problems you say. Now that it's established that we agree the title sucks, can we address whether the content of the guideline in question is relevant to link to, and if not, why does it exist at all? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Sounds like a plan. The problems that I foresee in trying to implement it are (1) What is the best name for that satellite page? (2) What sort of luck do you think we'll have fixing that page? (3) There are, on the average, about eleventy-one problems that I never foresee. Jon Awbrey 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, regarding your problem (1), I posted a section: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Renaming Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, and it's begun to generate some positive response. Let's see how that goes. The other 112 bridges, let's cross when we come to them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Just from my experience with the village pump, there's a reason why they have that gravitational hole icon at the top of the page, so I won't go there again. The problem we have here is this: (114) There really are such things as vanity presses. (115) Their existence has nothing at all to do with the issue of a WP editor citing a statement made by that same editor, most likely under the name that appears on that editor's birth certificate or driver's licence, in the sorts of articles and books that WP expressly takes as its own "gold standard" for reliability, to wit, articles and books that are issued by peer-reviewed journal editors and other publishers of impeccable reputations. So I continue to think that it's a mistake to confound these two issues. They are not the same issue, and issue 114 does not even rate discussion here. Jon Awbrey 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, let's not talk about (114). Back to (1) though, I think Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines would be a pretty good name, which would expand the scope of the page somewhat, but that's not a bad thing. What do others think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: It appears there exists a proposed policy called Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest. That might be of interest to those involved in this discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That Was No Revert

JA: GTB, that was not a mass revert. I merely restored the lead sections to where they were on 19 Aug 2006. We wouldn't want anybody to get confused and start calling what is essentially the same thing as the lockdown version "longstanding" or anything, now would we? Jon Awbrey 19:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling anything longstanding; I'm just unfamiliar with the distinction between restore and revert. Whatever it was, it was sloppily done, and I was cleaning it up. If this starts flip-flopping back and forth again, we'll have it protected again, in the Wrong Version. Ok? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you the 1COWAAT guy, anyway? Aren't we still working on the "Expert editors" can? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it came from, but someone reinserted part of an old version of this article that was disputed and dealt with (or so I believe). I reverted back to the last recent version by GTBacchus. Harald88 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't "someone", it was User:Duncharris. He's got a talk page. I've left him a note. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: GTB, thanks for snaking the pipes. I would have done it myself eventually, but I'm not all here yet, so to speak. Jon Awbrey 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at [5] there is something dodgy going on with removing the primary sources section. I am confused. But you shouldn't be making changes without consensus. — Dunc|☺ 20:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we saw that happen. There is something dodgy going on, and we're trying to work it out here. Please don't engage in any editing of this article that's under discussion without being involved in the discussion. This page will be protected again very soon if people continue to make reversions, restorations, reinsertions, or any other disputed edit without prior establishment of consensus. We have to leave it in the Wrong Version while we talk about it - there is no other way to avoid protection. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Looky here:

• 23:09, 19 August 2006, Pproctor → 19:56, 5 September 2006 Harald88

JA: No diffs in the lead except for piping. By lead I mean the nutshell, defs, and fundamentals, stopping just before that absurdly complex example about analysis/synthesis. Jon Awbrey 20:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I called it a revert. What point are you making, exactly? Why is our energy directed to editing the article instead of trying to further the discussion, at this point? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: I already explained that in the edit line, and again above. The rule is "no change w/o consensus", so we need to go back to the last time we had a longstanding consensus version, and proceed from there. Otherwise, in a few days, some people will start calling last months fad the longstanding consensus version — oops, they already did. Jon Awbrey 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, the "longstanding consensus version" is also not a consensus version. "No change w/o consensus" also means no change back without consensus. When there is a dispute, as there manifestly is right now, we all have to stop editing and talk. If someone makes an edit in a dispute, we have to talk to them (or at least make a good faith attempt) before undoing anything they did. Otherwise, we get another edit war, and in a war, being right doesn't really mean shit. If someone calls the Wrong Version the consensus version, then you may correct them, and let me know, and I'll point out as well how wrong they are.... but that's no excuse to edit war. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Don't trouble yourself about it. I won't last much longer. I have now examined a sufficient quantity of the 3 to 4-year histories of several policy pages that I can now see how things really work around here. All of it violates the wiki way of life, and it just ain't a happy place to be anymore. I started out doing what I have always done to improve the quality of knowledge about a subject, and some WikiPunk Kid comes down on the articles I'm working on with a Writ of HaveYourAss Corpus and tells me how I ought to be doing it. I have just wasted a month of my life patiently explaining what ought to be, ever was, and ever will be in the Real World, an utter no-brainer. There's data in that. Jon Awbrey 21:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jon, I'm trying to keep an edit war from happening (you'll note the page is protected again), and I'm trying to apply what little I've learned about building consensus on controversial articles. If it's very frustrating to you, I'm sorry; perhaps you can teach me a better way to be. I think we need to focus on discussion before editing, and I'm not so naïve as to think anybody ends a revert war by reverting. What have you got, Jon, what should I be doing better? Am I one of these "WikiPunk Kids" you're talking about? Why not be clear about whom you're accusing of what - obscurity leads to misunderstanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a longtanding version that lasts longer than four years, please see a doctor

JA: People keep explaining the very same stuff till they are blue in the face.

1. None of us who came to WP to work on subject matter articles like spending our time on these policy pages.
2. The only reason we come to a policy page is because some [executive deleterious]-type person sets upon an article we're working on with some typically anti-knowledge commandment like "X is non-encyclopedic", where X is anything from an epigraph to a primary source quotation to a Greek epitome to a bib that's to big for them.
3. So we come out to a policy page to check out whether their writ is legit.
4. Ninety percent of the time, at least until recently, the policy page states what is just plain common sense to people who have common sense about doing sourced research, and it's only that particular Con-Troll-Freek's super-looney or hyper-literal way of reading the policy that is the real source of the absurdity.
5. So you waste a week or so explaining that to the person in question.
6. The third time this happens, you realize you will have to rinse and repeat this cycle about every month or two, but that's okay, that's almost bearable, or so you think.
7. So you go back to work, feeling a bit reassured, fool that you are.
8. Meanwhile, the Hermeneutic Loonies in question, who never actually waste their time on writing articles, have snuck off to their sandboxes to craft a new version of the policy page that will cast in stone their peculiar grasp of the realites of research.
9. Then they descend on the policy page in one fell swoop with their sandbox revision, utterly non-incrementally the way it's sposed to be done in a wiki, with their new edition, and start calling it longstanding policy.
10. All the people who protest get hounded off the scene, and many of them you never see their name in WP again.
11. You can look back through the histories and see this happening time and again.

JA: Jon Awbrey 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JA, you're not telling me anything new, nor do I see a direction forward indicated in your post here. What exactly is your point? That you're frustrated? Understood. Anything else? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: The point is that people who want to make those changes should have to explain them and justify them and quit wasting our time asking for "concrete examples" that they don't really care about, or "explicit formulations" that we already have in the previous version that was consensus for a long time. Jon Awbrey 23:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Super. That's why I'm trying to get Duncharris and Slrubenstein, who seem to be the originators of the changes in question, to come here and discuss those changes. It sounds like you and I are just about on the same page, no? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The new paragraph is the result of considerable discussion and proposals, then my editing different suggestions together, then several other people making additional changes based on discussion. In short, there has already been considerable discussion concerning these changes, and an overwhelming majority of editors participating in the discussion supported the current version. I have nothing to add to what I have said already and I doubt anyone else does. The result will be this: Jon will keep writing criticisms. That no one responds is not a sign that his view is the consensus view, but rather the opposite. We never censor people on talk pages which is why this kind of thing will happen now and again. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh. As far as I can tell, the current version IS the old version IS the version that Jon Awbrey supports. Am I missing something? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been mostly lurking here, but I agree that the last two or three weeks have thoroughly muddied the waters of this policy, partly because more than one change has been thrown in. I think we need to go back to before the revert wars broke out and take the latest version that was relatively stable for a while as the basis for discussion. I understand that a consensus can shift, but a version that has been stable for a while may be presumed to represent a consensus, and one person's edit should not be taken as having established a new consensus, unless acquiesced in by everyone else. -- Donald Albury 23:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's where we are right now, with the page protected in something very close to the three-weeks-ago version. The exception would be the "Expert editors" section, which has changed to a "Citing oneself" section, which is almost identical except for a discreet link to the vanity guidelines. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

GTBacchus is correct. There were two different discussions going on: one concerning primary and secondary sources, which was moved to its own page to facilitate clear discussion. I made a change which was reverted, but most editors support the revision I made, understanding it to be a clarification of existing policy. Nevertheless, the change I proposed was reverted, and has NOT been put back into the policy. Theoretically the iscussion is still ongoing on that talk page though no one has made any recent contributions.

This page was then freed up for discussion on one section, concerning expert editors. The current protected version includes a revised section that incorporates the views of many editors and has the support of a wide majority.

There have been no other changes since these two lines of discussion began. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems accurate to me. The version in which the page is currently protected appears to be supported by many editors, although Pproctor seems to still have an issue with any kind of link to the vanity guidelines. Some of us are now attempting to get the vanity guidelines renamed and rescoped as "conflict of interest guidelines", which might solve Pproctor's issue - not sure. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC for Hyles Anderson College

User claims you need a source to claim something doesn't exist.[6] Thoughts? Arbusto 20:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Without looking at it, it seems a rather obvious fact that a source is required for such an extreme claim. Harald88 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)