Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon/Archive1
I welcome the help of User:Daniel to mediate this dispute. I respect the removal of two items from the list[1] citing they are 'general policy questions' and not 'article specific', though I do not understand. As I see it, general policy and its application to this article is at the heart of this disagreement. SaltyBoatr 18:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Mediation isn't binding, therefore it can't make decisions on policy as those decisions would really only be one person's suggestion.--LWF 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. You, Yaf and myself need to find some common ground instead. How do you two think we can establish what is the worldwide usage of the word 'Weapon'? SaltyBoatr 15:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- To tell the truth I think that the best way would be to find multiple definitions of it. In my opinion relying on just one dictionary can lead to overly narrow definitions, as dicitionaries cannot include every correct definition in the interest of space, and some contain possible ommissions through no fault of their own. In fact I believe that most of the time on Wikipedia, multiple citations are considered a good thing because there is less chance of them all being inaccurate, and they can provide multiple points of view on a single subject matter.--LWF 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unlike the dictionaries you are using, The Oxford English Dictionary has the policy of not omitting word meanings based on space limitations. Further, the problem is that your meaning of the word is a relatively modern meaning, and therefore not yet recognized in worldwide usage. The OED is especially enlightening to help understand the evolution of the history of the meanings of words because it covers the historical usages. Your dictionaries fall short in this critical regard. SaltyBoatr 16:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- To tell the truth I think that the best way would be to find multiple definitions of it. In my opinion relying on just one dictionary can lead to overly narrow definitions, as dicitionaries cannot include every correct definition in the interest of space, and some contain possible ommissions through no fault of their own. In fact I believe that most of the time on Wikipedia, multiple citations are considered a good thing because there is less chance of them all being inaccurate, and they can provide multiple points of view on a single subject matter.--LWF 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)