Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reference desk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Entertainment desk

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The questions on the desk aren't being seperated into days. Is there a bot which does that or is it done by editors? Crisco 1492 01:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

deletion issues

Latest comment: 17 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion

[n.b. This thread flows from one on "Finalizing the rules proposal", now archived at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 18 —Steve Summit (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)]

I think this problem is already solved. Anyone who made a habit of removing things just because they don't like it would find themselves buried in requests to cut that out. Ned Wilbury 17:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And what happens if they ignore those ? StuRat 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If we must, we continue with dispute resolution. Also, if one person is unreasonably removing things, others will put them back, and this won't be controversial. Anyone who insists on edit warring over such a thing will only make themselves look like the unreasonable one. Editors who continue to be unable to work well with others may find themselves ignored, or even blocked from editing. Ned Wilbury 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For one data point on controversial deletion, see the third through sixth comments at User talk:Ummit#Reference desk.

My take on the propriety of deletion (though I haven't taken the time to research chapter and verse on this) is that we've got a general policy somewhere that says that all editors should (in general) be highly reluctant to delete information outright. My feeling also is that deletion is much more appropriate in article space (where it may well be combined with a move or an addition somewhere else) than in talk space. My feeling is finally that the Reference Desk is much more like talk space than article space (or even, for that matter, than project space). But as I say, I haven't researched these arguments fully, so I'm not sure how well they'd stand up, and I'm also not sure how to rebut the oft-repeated argument that "deletion anywhere is acceptable if it helps the project". —Steve Summit (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of those doing the excessive deletions are Admins, however, so blocking seems unlikely, especially if there isn't any actual policy they've violated ("Hey, I'm just 'following the wiki process', by deleting everything I dislike."). StuRat 19:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins can be blocked, same as anyone. As for policy violations, excessive reverting is already severely frowned upon and is a common cause of blocks. Keep in mind that it takes at least two to edit war. See WP:1RR. If you're talking about some specific edit war that actually happened, I'm not familiar with that situation. I'd be surprised if anything like that continued for any significant period of time- blocks for excessive reverting are not usually controversial. Ned Wilbury 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(added after a couple of edit conflicts) Frankly, I don't think we're going to be able to assemble a one-size-fits-all procses to remove comments or impose sanctions. Anything we put together will be too rigid, prone to wikilawyering, and discourage people from using common sense to resolve disputes. I suspect that we're actually taking the wrong approach by trying to discuss a complicated process for removing problem edits when the crux of the issue is problematic behaviour. I expect that if someone makes a habit of making unhelpful or inappropriate remarks on the Desk, other editors will point out why this is a problem—hopefully with specific reference to general Wikipedia policy (especially WP:CIV) or with a specific explanation of how the remarks interfere with the purpose of the Desk. (This is why it's so important to have discussion and general agreement on whether or not I've correctly and clearly described our purpose, principles, and the attendant guidelines.)

I also expect that if an editor considers a remark so egregiously out of place that they immediately remove it, that editor will explain his actions to the original poster of the comment, again with explanation for why it was removed (probably with reference to WP:NPA or severe breaches of WP:CIV). If a remark is removed without good justification, I would be very surprised if the editor who removed it didn't get an earfull. Anyone who edit wars over something like this – whether they're 'right' or 'wrong' – is asking for trouble.

In any case (inappropriate remarks or overzealous removal of comments) I expect that if this informal process of reminders (and if necessary, warnings) doesn't effect a modification of behaviour, there will be intervention by admins. This is how every other dispute resolution process works where one party refuses to cooperate (attempted discussion and informal reminders of policy, warning, admin intervention, and possible arbitration); I don't see a reason for the Ref Desk to reinvent the wheel. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You nailed it. But, I think you (and others) have nailed this before, too. The common response so far is "But, things happened that there was disagreement over, thus proving that we need more specific rules." I can't think of a new way to answer this objection, but I hope somebody comes up with one. Ned Wilbury 19:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I have answered my own question. Rules are a way of writing down accepted practice in a generalized way. If there's still wide disagreement over specific incidents, this means that right now, "accepted practice" is too unclear to be generalized. If we cannot agree on what to do in specific incidents, we obviously cannot agree on a generalized set of rules, so trying to create such a ruleset would be pointless. This makes sense to me, but I don't know if it will sound convincing to those editors who want specific rules. Ned Wilbury 19:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and I too think that behavior is a big part and wikipedia has plenty of experience in and mechanisms for dealing with behavior. Just remember that there are also substantive issues on the RD not covered by general policy; use of OR/opinion not fully cited being the big one that comes to mind (this is probably most an issue on the Misc Desk where I do all my RD work). I know that Ten is aware of these; I just don't want it thought that all the issues we are addressing are already adequately covered. The RD does need some purpose-specific guidance. --Justanother 19:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a question. Several weeks ago, well before I was aware of the whole Reference Desk policy brouhaha, I remember discovering that a reference desk comment, that I thought was useful and appropriate, had been summarily deleted by SCZenz. I was about to complain on his talk page, but first I came across his longwinded defense of his policy at User:SCZenz/Reference desk removals, and I got the impression he was so sure of himself that it wasn't worth complaining, and on that day I wasn't up for a long debate, so I let the matter drop without comment. (Yes, this was wimpy of me, I know.) But since then, as I gather, there have been complaints about the summary deletions by SCZenz, and also about the deletions by Friday and Hipocrite. I suspect that the deletions by these three users (and perhaps others) were among the primary instigations of the brouhaha. Now, the key question (for me) is: how many people felt the deletions were inappropriate, how many of them (unlike me) complained, and how many (besides the three deleters) supported the deletion? In short, was there any attempt to build consensus around those deletions, and if not, were any of the normal dispute resolution processes attempted? (Sorry for all the questions, I know I'm still missing a lot of recent history.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was the source of the issue (although Admin:Rick Block tried something similar before Admin:SCZenz and then Admin:Friday and later Admin:Radiant! and then User:Hipocrite got involved). The problem was that they didn't feel the need to get a consensus for deletions, saying anyone can delete anything they like "as part of the wiki process". Many Ref Desk volunteers disagreed, and thought such issues should be based on consensus. This led to an attempt to come up with some basic rules (initiated by me, now at /rules), with the goal of gaining a consensus and putting them "into force". The people mentioned previously strongly took issue with developing any rules, then created a competing set of rules, now at /guideline, which were far more strict on what could be posted and far more lenient on what could be deleted, essentially allowing anyone to delete anything they dislike, without consensus, as before. This probably brings us up to where you came in. One way to characterize the disagreement is inclusionists ("leave everything in unless doing so causes more harm than removing it") versus deletionist ("delete everything that you don't like"). StuRat 20:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Some uses of the word "consensus" above should probably read "supermajority vote". One point that was brought up by some was that many standard Wikipedia practices are either unknown or unaccepted by some other editors who wanted to make these exact rules. So, the people who kept arguing that "this is not how we do things here" ended up not making very convincing arguments in the eyes of some others. Ned Wilbury 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that argument looked like pure bureaucracy gone amuck, the "we have to do it that way because we've always done it that way" argument (when, actually, the Ref Desk has always had it's own "unwritten" rules). For example, the "no original research" rule, applied strictly to the Ref Desk, would eliminate half of the correct answers given. StuRat 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But weren't the people saying "this isn't how we do things" the SAME ones saying "we don't need firm rules"? I don't get it- are they advocating bureaucracy, or common sense? Surely you can't advocate both at the same time? Ned Wilbury 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys may be talking about two different things. StuRat's talking about Radiant saying, "you can't build consensus by holding votes, that's not how we do things." Ned, what were you talking about? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, your description of inclusionists and deletionists above is inaccurate and unfair. I think nearly everyone agrees that we should leave things there unless removing it is better than leaving it there. There's simply some surprisingly wide disagreement over specific cases. Show me any editor who thinks "I should delete whatever I don't like" and I'll show you someone with NO understanding of how Wikipedia works. Such an editor would not last very long here- they would be blocked in a hurry. Ned Wilbury 20:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Agreed that the polarazition is inappropriate. But I have a question and a comment:

How accurate do other people think StuRat's characterization of the early stages of the deletion debate is? Ned Wilbury has already cast doubt on the characterization of the deleter's defense as "I can delete anything I like as part of the wiki process". But, rightly or wrongly, I get the impression that the complainers felt that they couldn't (say) just bring a complaint against the deleters at RfC, because the deleters claimed they had general Wikipedia policy on their side. So, rather than going to dispute resolution, the complainers set about trying to clearly document the ways in with the Reference Desk might be different, such that "general Wikipedia policy" didn't necessarily apply. And we know what happened next. But now it's being said, with some justification (heck, I've said it myself [1]) that we don't need lots of new rules, we just need to use the normal dispute resolution process if people start acting out-of-hand. But I would have total sympathy with the complainers (the complainers about deletion, that is) if they said, "We were already going to do that, but we were told it wouldn't work." —Steve Summit (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You said, "Show me any editor who thinks 'I should delete whatever I don't like'". That is precisely the impression that User:Hipocrite has given me. (Apologies if I'm wrong, Hipocrite, but that is the impression I've gotten.) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some things I don't like, that I think are not helpful to Wikipedia, that I have failed to delete - Derek Smart, Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, WP:AMA, WP:PAIN, this question with little value, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision, Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin_coaching among SCORES of other pages. I delete things when I think deleting those things net/net makes the encyclopedia better. That's the only standard I have used, and the only standard I will use. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me reword the deletionist POV as "I can delete anything, without consensus, so long as I think doing so improves Wikipedia". I've also seen it extended to "I have a duty to delete anything, without consensus, if I think doing so improves Wikipedia". StuRat 20:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If I saw inappropriate deletions I put them back. --Justanother 19:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is finding them. If the person who does the inappropriate deletion doesn't notify anyone, and doesn't even put "deletion" in the history comment, it's unlikely that anyone will notice it. This is a fundamental diff versus talk pages, the volume of changes is so high that the edit on that section may only show up under the watchlist for a minute or two before being superseded. StuRat 19:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent, responding to Steve Summit's query) I guess you could put me in the strong deletionist camp, i supported all the deletions (at least the ones i saw and can recall) and thought they improved the reference desk. None of them individually needed consensus beforehand and none of them should have been reverted. That said, all in combination, and w/ the blocks and all the new faces showing up caused problems. In retrospect there should have been more effort to convince everyone that there was a problem before taking action. It's probably unhelpful now tho keep looking back at past events. If we need to assign some blame for the current difficulties then lets just blame the system and move on eh?EricR 16:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Call for Suggestions on How to Appropriately Deal with Factual Inaccuracies in Responses

Latest comment: 17 years ago59 comments16 people in discussion

I'm open to any and all suggestions. What is the most appropriate way to deal with factually incorrect responses, (as well as their insertion into wiki articles on the subject) keeping in mind that the FIRST PILLAR of Wikipedia is that it is above all Encyclopedia, and more particularly, that as an Encyclopedia, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, factual accuracy is of utmost importance?

The most recent example of this ocurred here: [[2]] in response to a question asking for the origin of the prefix "step" as in "step-parent".

Apparently I don't seem to be able to deal with these problems in a manner that is acceptable to many other users.

Once again, I'm open to any and all suggestions as to how to better deal with the matter. Loomis 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Stu, where are we discussing policy now? --Justanother 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking how this question would be addressed by the /rules ? It's clearly not a case of "disruption", so a speedy delete is out, that leaves notifying the author of the "incorrect info" politely on their talk page and requesting that they remove it. If that fails, it could be brought up here, and, if there is consensus, it could then be removed. StuRat 17:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just that the way he worded the header and question was as a call for policy issue with his specific case as an example, not as "can anyone help me with a situation." Loomis, nothing wrong with what you did; but since we are in the process of drafting policy then it be best if we keep the draft policy discussion in one place so I was asking Stu where that might be. --Justanother 18:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally think there is a need for a specific rule on dealing with potential factual errors in responses, but, if you disagree, let me know which rule you would like to propose and I will add it to the talk page for /rules, then see what type of response it gets. StuRat 18:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My copy of Collins also has the 'steop' etymology, so it appears that this is not a straightforward factual error, but rather a matter of dispute. I'm not clear why Loomis thinks that www.etymonline.com is so obviously the final authority. The answer to the question, surely, is that alternatives, with supporting sources, should be given, which is what has happened in Loomis's example. Yours, Sam Clark 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, don't remove something because you "know" it's wrong. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, let the person who asked the question decide. Presumably, the one with the correct answer (in cases where there is a single correct answer) will be able to present better evidence and references, and thus convince the audience they are correct. StuRat 17:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also have a source giving "not a blood relative", the transposition of vowels and Old English vs. Middle English vs. Anglo-Saxon i can't comment on. What research did you do to determine this was one of many "Factual Inaccuracies" on the desk? And why did you remove part of my response and sig [3]?EricR 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This kind of dispute is, in my opinion, a good reason to be conservative in our answers and stick with what's in an article or a reputable source. If the sources disagree, that's fine- let the reader decide how to interpret this. Ned Wilbury 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see this type of dispute as a good reason not to remove posts you disagree with, without consensus, as they may be correct after all. StuRat 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, saying "I disagree with so-and-so because.." and giving a better answer if preferable. However my point was that these disagreements can be AVOIDED in the first place if we're more conservative with our answers. Ned Wilbury 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added another link to this question, confirming the accuracy of the first definition given. However, people, there is another, more serious issue underlying this whole thread. Please examine the history of the Humanities page. The response by User Looms was conceived as yet another assault on my integrity, by inference, rather than by name. To the original question I flagged up the Wikipedia Stepfamilies page, which, amongst other things, provided the definition I expanded on. User Loomis went to that page, removed the definition without explanation, and then posted some offensive personal remarks on the Humanities page, subsequently removed by User Eric, who advised Loomis of the action taken. I cannot imagine a greater breach of Wikipedia protocol than to airbrush out part of the article and then accuse another user of 'making up' a response. But with Eric's actions I saw no need for me to make further comment on this attempt at manipulation. However, here we are again. The first time User Loomis attacked me I was angry; now I find the whole business wretchedly sad. I can see him pouring over all of my contributions in a spirit of petty spite, looking for weak spots. But User Loomis, it is obvious to me, judging from his spluttering prose, his switches from one extreme to another, his inability to express himself with detachment, his lack of control, is suffering from some deep rooted emotional problem, and I say this with no sense of elation or satisfaction. I would simply ask all those who joined in his previous attempt at a witch-hunt against me to consider this matter in a little more depth. It is sad for me, sad for Wikipedia; but it's saddest of all for Loomis. Clio the Muse 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't say things like "suffering from some deep rooted emotional problem", that looks like a personal attack. Also, can you provide diffs to illustrate what you said Loomis did ? StuRat 20:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You saw what was said about me on this page under My Recent Remarks etc., which now appears in the Ref. Desk/Archive 17, item 19, and what was originally posted on the Humanities page itself, and still appears on this users talk page under Hi Loomis, some of it of a foul nature. You allowed all of this to pass without comment, even when I pointed out that it was contrary to Wikipedia policy. More than that, you added fuel to the fire. What I have written above is descriptive, and mild in contrast, based on my observations of Loomis' erratic conduct. As far as the present debate is concerned, please examine the page history of the Humanities desk itself and the article on Stepfamilies, then you will see what I mean. I would suggest, StuRat, that you try to take an objective view or step out of the matter altogether. And please do not take that as an attack. Clio the Muse 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Leaving the character analysis aside (which, whether I agree with it or not, is inappropriate here, and will likely be branded as a breach of NPA), this sounds like very bad behavior on Loomis's part. Is Clio's description accurate? If so, Loomis should be asked to apologize, and not to do that again. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Steve. I will not get, nor do I expect an apology. But I would ask other editors to keep this matter, and Loomis' future conduct, under close observation. I have made it clear that I will enter into no debate or conflict with him on any matter. Clio the Muse 23:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Loomis's actions look bad at first site but if his/her definition is correct (with the other being at fault) then his/her actions have been quite correct as regards "step-" if there are other issues eg politeness/tone of response/other edits I am not aware of them. Given that we now have two entymological roots for step I have made a temporary (?) change to the stepfamilies page mentioning both.

I suggest that all of you now make sure the stepfamily page is correct using its talk page - I'm no expert on etymology so I can't guarantee what I have done is correct.

that aside time for a pun - "step families are called such since they are always turning up on the steps (or steppes if you live in central asia)" <end of pun>. Hopefully everyone was having a bad day and no real offence has been taken or meant.87.102.8.141 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well this explains why there was no definition at the link provided by clio, that did surprise me. It was incorrect for Loomis to excise that defintion from the Stepfamily article without replacing it with another. I certainly read Loomis' reply to cleo as as an unwarranted snipe and now I find out the defintion was excised too i have to wonder what other agenda is going on here. Maybe Loomis should just avoid Clio for a bit? David D. (Talk) 22:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly hope so, David. But please keep this under watch. Clio the Muse 23:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary: "Step-" - "Old English steop- -orphan".

Websters Encyplopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 1996 ed.: "Steop-" [ME; OE steop-; c. G stief-, ON stjup- step-; akin to OE astepan to bereave]

I don't know about you guys, but for me, when Oxford, Webster and even etymonline.com all agree on the etymology of a word, i.e., that it's got nothing to do with lack of blood relation, and all to do with some sense of sorrow, I tend to accept their authority.

BTW, who's "Collins"? Loomis 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't know about Collins?

By the way, all above is a strawman argument. The point is HOW you went about it. David D. (Talk) 03:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget that this is an encyclopedia. Anchoress 03:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it. :) May be we should write a letter to Collins about their 'factual Inaccuracies ? David D. (Talk) 03:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm proud to say that I'm able to admit that I've got no clue what you guys are talking about. Could you perhaps fill me in? :) Loomis 04:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Collins is the Collins English Dictionary, which happens to be the etymological dictionary I have on my desk. There are two separate issues here, which are being muddled. 1. Authorities disagree about the etymology of 'stepchild' and related terms. This is a useful discovery, because it allows us to improve the encyclopedia. More importantly, 2. Loomis is continuing his hate-campaign against Clio. His personal attacks against her on the Humanities reference desk and continuing here are despicable, as is the support he's received from some other reference desk regulars, notably StuRat. They should apologise and withdraw these personal attacks. Clio has been accused, in particularly over-the-top and offensive language, of deliberately giving wrong answers to refdesk questions. There is no evidence whatever for this accusation. And now, when Clio points out Loomis's erratic and aggressive behaviour, we get StuRat warning her about personal attacks! Double standard, much? Yours, Sam Clark 14:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The warning about personal attacks was justified; you'll notice that I had independently made it, also.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Loomis should not be attacking Clio; Clio should not be publicly attributing psychological motives to Loomis. And, Loomis should not be castigating Clio for scholarly inaccuracy when she based a statement of hers on information she found on a Wikipedia page, information which Loomis later deleted. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Etymology is tricky, something we shouldn't speculate on without a reliable source to back us up. I have trouble enough understanding how words are used today—let alone a thousand years ago. An O.E. steop- w/ connotations of loss and M.E. steop- meaning unrelated by blood are not mutually exclusive. Loomis could have edited stepfamily in an effort to improve the article. He could have simply made a cut-and-paste error while editing, but has so far failed to explain. Plainly tho, the only reason he responded to the question at all was to attack Clio. I would have thought the first episode had provided enough embarrassment that he would discontinue his behavior. Apparently not. Loomis, you are behaving badly, steop.EricR 15:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it 'steop' does not mean 'unrelated by blood' at all - that was the original problem, neither does 'stoep' mean anything (except being a dutch version of step) - if there is any evidence for 'steop' or 'stoep' meaning 'unrelated by blood' could you please link to it for me so I can re-correct the stepfamily article. (and stoep hounding Loomis - as least his answer was right! manners aside)87.102.4.180 15:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do correct entymology in stepfamily, it is bugging me.EricR 15:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, but when you see some error like that which makes your skin crawl, feel free to correct it yourself. StuRat 15:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right of course, i was making a point and instead should have just fixed the article.EricR 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If the situation is this bad maybe you should create a list of the offending remarks and file a request for comment Wikipedia:Requests for comment. This page is for the reference desk, so why not take this personal dispute somewhere else where it can be sorted out. P.S. have any of you attempted to correct the stepfamily article - as it was originally at fault - I'm no etymology expert.87.102.4.180 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC) You could also try Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee perhaps.87.102.4.180 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I agree that this discussion is misplaced here, I beg to differ: No one is hounding Loomis. Loomis asked for comments and received them. ---Sluzzelin 15:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no fault on the stepfamily page except one of omission. It only had one of the arguments for the origins of step, rather than the full complement. David D. (Talk) 22:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank all those who have commented on my observations and concerns. It is not my intention to attack or malign anyone. But I now feel that my contributions are being 'stalked' with malevolent purpose. This will not stop me. But I would ask all editors, regardless of how they may feel about me personally, to keep this sorry situation under close scrutiny. Clio the Muse 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

When you say 'stalked', do you mean replied to or commented on?--Light current 01:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean that my contributions are being observed with spiteful intent. When no weakness is found, weakness has to be invented. But I really have no wish to say more on this wretched business. Clio the Muse 01:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Clio, unfortunately, whatever one says on wikipedia is examined through many powerful microscopes by many people.(as I know to my cost). Some people feel compelled to reply and sometimes these replies may not be to your liking. The only sure way of avoiding this is, Im afraid, not to say anything at all! 8-(--Light current 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Silent I will never be, Light current. I'm a big girl, and I can cope with disagreement. It's attempts at character assassination that disgust me. Clio the Muse 01:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I know all too well about that! Mines been assassinated a few times -- but Im still here and kicking! 8-)--Light current 01:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, this whole thing is becoming tiresome. At first I was absolutely amazed at Clio's apparent wealth of knowledge. It was actually quite enchanting. Too good to be true, apparently! "Really? I never knew that! You must know so much more than I!" But after a while my suspicions began to rise, until finally, with the whole silly Eli Whitney Cotton Gin thing, my suspicions were raised to the point where I actually bothered to check up on her apparent "facts". I still haven't received one bit of explanation from her explaining to me why she brought Eli Whitney into the discussion. An obvious red hering. (Oh I'm sorry Loomis, I was wrong on that one! :) No such luck. And there are dozens more.

Look, people, I really regret this whole thing. I love Wikipedia because I learn so much from it, and there's nothing I love more than to learn. On the other hand, when I come to the realization that for the past few weeks I've been being fed abolute fiction disguised as fact, I felt, quite understandably I'd say, betrayed. I'm an incredibly curious person and I've come to adore Wikipedia as a source of facts for whatever particular thing I'm curious about.

Yes, I admit it. I indeed "personally attacked" Clio, ONCE, when I said that it seemed as if she had some "pathological intention to mislead". I later apologized for it. In a sense, that's a microcosm of the difference between us. When I'm wrong, I admit it. The comment was inappropriate. I'm big enough of a person, and confident enough in my intelligence to be able to apologize when I'm wrong.

Since then though, I've been subject to the wildest of accusations ranging from a questioning of my mental health, to "stalking", and whatever other vitriol she can come up with. I haven't responded to any of those attacks because I find them so silly as to be unworthy of response. I try to think that I'm bigger than that.

Were you "wrong", Clio, about Eli Whitney? Were you "wrong" about the etymology of the prefix "step"? Were you "wrong" by linking to an article that actually negated you point? Are the words "I'm sorry, I'll try to do better research in the future" not in your vocabulary?

comment She was not wrong on the prefix "step" (its been noted quite a few times above too). Or is the Collins dictionary wrong? Loomis, not everything is black and white. Shades of grey can be discussed without saying someone is wrong, and then incorporated into wikipedia. You are missing the learning opportunity here by insiting on black and white. David D. (Talk) 19:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT! Can you please quote this alternative meaning from collins or give a link to it - because if you are right, and there is an alternative root for the etymology then I need to go and change the stepfamily page, again, so please supply this.83.100.132.121 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to get the wording from Sam Clark; see here and here where Sam made references to his copy. David D. (Talk) 03:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, whenever I quote a source I say "according to X-source, the answer is Y", leaving it up to the questioner to evaluate for him or herself the validity of the source. I never have and never would answer a question so arrogantly by saying "The answer is Y. See X".

On the other hand, if Wikipedia values decorum over truth; that the term "step-" was derived from some nonexistent Middle English word meaning "not related by blood"; that Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin had some sort of mysterious effect on the economics of slavery that would leave the most brilliant of economists scratching their heads; that Queen Elizabeth can commit a tort with utter impunity, and have no de facto price to pay for it; that the noble romantic Edward VIII simply decided of his own free will to abdicate the throne of England, and not because Stanley Baldwin, in the words of Don Corleone, "made him an offer he couldn't refuse"; that Vichy France was not complicit with Nazi Germany, but rather a bona fide "independent neutral" state during WWII; -- in other words, if Wikipedia is indeed NOT an Encyclopedia, but rather a repository for any deceptions, misconceptions, factual innaccuracies and whatever fantasies that its contributors choose to dream up, then honestly, I have no interest in further contributing. If this is indeed the case, then I beg of all of you, please BAN ME.

However, if Wikipedia is indeed everything I had hoped it to be, that is the best Encyclopedia to ever exist, due in large part to its dedication to TRUTH and ACCURACY, then I'd love to stick around.

Clio, I'd love to put this all behind us. I have no interest continuing this senseless feud. If you'd just be big enough of a woman to publicly and explicitly admit that you're but a mere human as I, and that you may have been "wrong" in certain of your "facts", and if you'd only publicly and explicitly commit yourself to being more honest and dilligent in the future in your research before making bald pronunciations of "fact", there's nothing I'd like better than to move on and forget about this silly dispute.

On the other hand, if you stubbornly reject this reality, in favour of insisting that I'm some sort of mentally deranged lunatic out to get you, well, then, I'll have no choice but to continue to scrutinize each and every one of your posts to make sure that what you claim to be fact, is indeed fact.

So here we are, I've tossed the olive branch. Please, Clio, for everybody's sake, pick it up so that we can all finally move on. Loomis 08:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, you are the only one with any "interest continuing this senseless feud." You solicited opinion on the matter, yet have ignored those opinions and failed to respond to questions that have been raised. Why did you accuse Clio of making things up [4] when what she said came from a portion of the Wikipedia article, a portion which you removed [5]? Why did you alter another editor's response (mine) [6]? Why do you ignore the further sources that have been brought forward? Instead of responding to these questions you post this ridiculous tirade. You demand public and explicit admissions of wrongdoing else you will continue the same behaviour. How is that an "olive branch"? Since pointing out were you have been mistaken has not convinced you to cease, maybe being more direct will. Loomis, you have made and are continuing to make a fool of yourself.EricR 16:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I solicited opinion, and one of the best of them was to back up my position with sources. And so I did. Oxford, Webster's, etymonline.com. Clio was actually kind enough to provide me with yet another, a fourth source agreeing with the previous three, from dictionary.reference.com:

[Origin: ME; OE stéop-; c. G stief-, ON stjūp- step-; akin to OE āstépan to bereave, bestépan to deprive (of children)]

I'm still waiting for this "evidence" from "Collins", that absolute, yet curiously elusive authority on the matter, one that puts the OED, Webster's, etymonline.com and dictionary.reference.com all to shame. Indeed not all issues are "black and white". But c'mon, are four sources still not enough? Would you like another six to make it an even ten?

I removed the portion from the article because it was false. I removed your post because you removed mine (you can remove my posts but I can't remove yours?) I made no demand of public and explicit admissions of "wrongdoing", merely the admission that, like myself, she too can make mistakes. All I'm asking for is a bit of long overdue humility. Scroll up and see. Apparently you disagree, apparently Clio is incapaple of making mistakes. Anything she says is apparently the Gospel truth.

Who was it that was speaking of shades of grey? It's quite ironic actually, but that's a good part of the point I've been trying to get across all along. Maybe you missed what I said above. I never answer questions in an absolute authoritative manner: "The answer is X. Period. -- Next question!" Not only is it extremely obnoxious and arrogant, but worse even, when it's wrong, (as is the case here) it's misleading. Something to be avoided at all costs.

You say I'm making a fool of myself, perhaps, but just for fun, lets sum up the facts:

Somebody asked the question: "Where does the prefix "step-" come from?

Clio responded: "It's from Old English for 'not related by blood'"

I stated that her answer was incorrect, which, as of yet, pending the arrival the Mysterious Mr. Collins, hasn't been backed up by a single source, and gave what I believed to be the correct answer, which, as it turns out, is supported by four separate sources.

Fed up with seeing this over and over and over again, I lost my cool and took a bit of a snipe at Clio, in small print. That was wrong and I apologize to Clio for that. In the future, when Clio inevitably makes yet more innacurate statements with the tone of absolute authority, unaccompanied by words expressing the tentative nature of the response, (something Clio desperately needs to learn), I'll do my best to keep it polite.

Ultimately, though, despite the messiness of it all, and my clumsy manner in dealing with it, at the end of the day, a misleading response on the RefDesk was corrected, as was an innacuracy in a wiki article. Is there no good in that? Don't I deserve the slightest bit of credit?

Apparently not. Nobody really seems to care about actually improving Wikipedia, at least not if it comes at the expense of ego. Better not rock the boat. If in improving the factual accuracy of Wikipedia I couldn't help but bruise Clio's ego, than better not, right? Ego comes first, truth a distant second.

I've been told I'm making a fool of myself, as if that would in some way bother me. Some people just don't realize that for a few of us, it's not all about ego. I know, it may be hard to understand for many others, but I really don't mind being called a fool. Indeed, to a certain extent, I am a fool. I'm aware of my ignorance.

Honestly, when think about it, my accusation that Clio "seems to have a 'pathological intent to mislead'" was, to be fair, over the top on my part. I've apologized for that and I'll apologize once more. She's got no "secret agenda". Nothing of the sort. She's just an obnoxious know-it-all, completely lacking in humility, and utterly incapable of recognizing that she's human. Incapable of recognizing that she makes mistakes just like the rest of us. Incapable of ONCE, just ONCE, EVER, admitting to be wrong about anything. Loomis 04:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you worked with shades of grey you'd have titled this section differently. You would not say things such as: "I removed the portion from the article because it was false". Finally, did you never consider that everyone else just copied the OED? The fact you can find ten others does not cancel the fact there is a difference of opinion. The stepfamilies article originally used that different opinion until you removed it as false. That alone justifys the answer that Clio gave on the humanities ref desk. Why is it not possible for you to see that? Why can't you deal with this is an academic style rather than a confrontational style? No one is here to fight. David D. (Talk) 04:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, apologies laced with pot-shot come across as token apologies. Let's just move on since we have all made ou points several times here. David D. (Talk) 04:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I promised to be completely polite when correcting misleading posts, and I like to think that I keep to my promises. Does the following correction here: [7] meet with your approval? Neither of the hyperlinks, despite the obvious implication that they do, provide any basis for a claim that Iconoclasm was influenced in any way by Muslim teachings. As for Webster's just "following" the OED, tell that to an editor at Webster's, those are fighting words! :) Loomis 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, who's "Webster"? Should OED sue him for plagarism? ;) David D. (Talk) 19:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Webster" aka Emmanuel Lewis, was the title character in an '80s sitcom rather overly derivative of the more successful Diff'rent Strokes (i.e. an adorable little black kid with some sort of condition stunting his growth, adopted by a white couple). But of course, as always, I'm only human! I could be wrong! Whatchyouutalkinaboutwillis! :) Loomis 03:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to enter into the fracas between Loomis and Clio. But, Loomis, may I say that I can't help noticing that, every time you repeat your apology to Clio you then immediately launch into further invective against her. That doesn't sound like a sincere apology to me. Why not just apologise (if that's what you want to do), then stop; or change the subject. :) JackofOz 04:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On the original question, one thing that would help reduce inaccurate responses is if people who actually don't know the answer could desist from guessing, or providing their own very often irrelevant perspective. A recent example was the question about Catholic communion received on the tongue, which was answered by a number of people who professed to be Anglicans and who therefore had no knowledge that would have been useful to the questioner. They made no attempt to research the question asked, but answered a question that was not asked. English language questions are often answered with the lamest folk etymology, that would put a real reference desk to shame. Foreign language questions are often answered by people who have little or no knowledge of the language concerned. If you don't know, or can't be bothered finding out, please don't just make it up as you go along. Surely our egos are not so unintegrated that we have to have a shot at every single question. JackofOz 04:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you decided to put in your two-cents, Jack. As always, your comments are wise ones. I admit that I handled the whole thing wrongly. I let it get too personal. To be clear, and without launching into any further invective, what I apologize for is my conduct, and my conduct alone. On the other hand, what I do not apologize for is the substance of my argument. I stand by it as firmly as ever. I share in your irritation concerning innacurate responses. I'm really walking on eggshells here, as I'm trying my very best not to launch any further personal attacks. Yet I can't help but admit to being dumbfounded today, with regard to the assertion that Christian iconoclasm has anything at all to do with Muslim teachings. I just don't understand it. Is there some sort of practical joke that I'm not in on? What exactly is going on here? Why does the same person keep doing the same thing, that being, making an authoritative assertion, and implying with hyperlinks that there is some sort of evidence for that assertion within the hyperlinked articles, yet upon examination of the articles, nothing even close to any evidence confirming the assertion actually exists? And why does the same person keep doing it over and over and over again? Honestly, I'm completely dumbfounded. I don't get it at all. There must be something going on that I'm unaware of, because I just can't make any sense of it anymore.

I'm not familiar with the case/person you're speaking of, but it may be an "unexpected" (but actually inevitable) result of our insistence that answers be well-sourced, where we define "sourcing" as "linking to Wikipedia articles". In that circumstance, someone who would really rather make up answers off the top of his head can instead randomly hyperlink the seemingly important words in his stream-of-consciousness answer, and claim (or perhaps honestly believe) he's complying with the guideline. —Steve Summit (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I fear though that I'm venturing yet again too close to what may be deemed another "personal attack", so I'll just leave it at that.

Jack, you probably know me longer than anyone here. You know that I can be erratic, to say the least, but I'm also confident that you know that beneath it all, I'm a decent man of principle. I'm no bully, I'm no sadistic predator who hunts down other users and attempts to assassinate their character for the sheer fun of it. I was merely following what my gut told me. I saw something very wrong going on and I attempted to rectify it, with partial success.

I've learned my lesson though. A polite refutation of a glaring innacuracy is all that's necessary. No need to get personal. Most contributors here are intelligent enough to know what's what. Thanks again for your input, Jack. Loomis 05:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Loomis. I've never doubted your principles. You summed up my point very well: correct or refute the error, but don't attack the error-maker. My work here is done now. :) JackofOz 05:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Polite refutation: exactly. When someone posts a wrong or incomplete answer, anyone should be free to correct it. But the reason to correct it is, first and foremost, to provide the correct information to the original questioner. Scolding the incorrect answerer (if that were even appropriate) would be a secondary issue -- but for various reasons, scolding is a bad idea anyway. If the incorrect answerer is intellectually responsible, they'll derive precisely as much of a lesson from a polite correction as a chastising one. If the incorrect answerer is not intellectually responsible, they will almost certainly launch into a distracting and unnecessary public defense of themselves if you seem to chastise them unnecessarily. But again, if your correction is factual and polite, you might get through to them anyway -- although you'll probably never know. (But that's okay. Which is to say, your goal should be to get the correct answer to the original questioner, and maybe to correct the incorrect answerer, but not to force the incorrect answerer to grovel or capitulate, and certainly not to "punish" the incorrect answerer. Especially since the incorrect answerer was probably well-intentioned in the first place, answering incorrectly out of ignorance, not malice.) —Steve Summit (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I see this hate-campaign against me continues by the same obsessive user. It was my intention to ignore this altogether, and let others deal with the matter as they saw fit; but once again my sincerity is impugned in the same loathsome fashion. I made a small point about Muslim influences on the Iconoclast movement on the Humanities page, particularly on the policy of the Emperor Leo III, not directly relevant to the point under debate but, I thought, a interesting amplification. The pages on Leo III and Iconoclasm were flagged up not by way of support, but merely to provide context. To the point made on the RD page itself I have now added a source confirming the accuracy of the argument I was trying to make. User Loomis made an observation questioning my contention on the Humanities page, which was quite within order. It is also worthy of note that he is seemingly now more conscious of the embarrassment he causes by his usual mode of discourse, which might best be described as the hysterical rant. But here we are again. He comes to this page to continue with his witch-hunt. Read his latest contribution: it's not my intellectual contentions, my empirical observations, my conjectures that are in question, but my motivations, my very existence, it might be said. In all of my intellectual life I have never come across any more disturbing campaign to personalise argument. I blame myself for ever having engaged with User Loomis in the first place, and I should have recognized the warning signs much earlier than I did: that someone who could make such abject, inappropriate and fawning remarks of devotion at one point (he even told another user that 'I was his'), was quite capable of switching to the opposite extreme at the next. I have already said that I will never, under any circumstances, engage in debate or discussion with User Loomis on any matter whatsoever. But I compelled to stress, yet again, for all editors who are aware of this whole sordid matter, that I am being stalked by an obsessive and petty-minded bully. I am deeply thankful that he does not know me in real life. I expect this campaign to continue in the same relentless way: but, please, I ask all of the reasonable and fair-minded people among this community to approach me directly, or raise a point on the RD page, if you wish any further information on anything I happen to write, rather than accept what this troubled and unhappy man alleges. User Loomis is an embarrassment to me, an embarrassment to Wikipedia; but most of all he is an embarrassment to himself. Clio the Muse 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh how life is full of learning experiences! Yet another lesson I've learnt: The role of "Fact-Checker" at an Encyclopedia or any other similar source of information is definitely not a popular one! I now know how it must have been felt for one of the first who at the New York Times who began to raise their eyebrowes in suspicion with regards to the accuracy of Jayson Blair's submissions. It's actually quite interesting. First I train myself in law, one of the most reviled of professions, and now this! One thing's for sure, I certainly can't be accused of not having a thick skin! Perhaps my next move should be to apply for a job in the legal department of the IRS! :)

All that remains now are three unanswered factual challenges. In response all I've been given are paragraphs upon paragraphs of unapologized for personal attacks: "Loomis is a bully", "Loomis is a predator out to assassinate the characters of others", "Loomis is engaging in a "witch-hunt"", "Loomis is engaging in a hate campaign", "Loomis is a mentally deranged "stalker" who thank heavens, doesn't know Clio in real life"! (Oh dear! Thank heavens indeed! If Loomis actually knew where Clio lived, God only knows what vile perversions he's capable of inflicting upon her!) And all this because I made three successful factual challenges, which have yet to be refuted. And it's not as if I have anything against people making mistakes. I've said it countless times, the simple statement: "I'm only human, I may have been wrong" would suffice. We're all human, we all make mistakes, (yours truly included) yet some of us are simply incapable of admitting to this most human of frailties.

Alright, next time around, when Clio inevitably makes yet erroneous another assertion of fact, and I correct it, and still she refuses to admit to being a human being capable of error, just in case the well of personal attacks finally runs dry, I'm imaginative enough to help out with a few more: "Loomis derives no larger pleasure than pulling the wings off of flies and the legs off of spiders", or "Loomis loves to torture puppies and kittens", or "Loomis gets his kicks by abusing the elderly and grabbing old ladies' purses". Take your pick. Because, as wiki's fact-checker, I'm sure those personal attacks will come in handy sooner or later! :) Loomis 03:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loomis51 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Archival

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All recent discussions archived in Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 18 - I'm very aware that there were a number of threads which were active, so please feel free to reinstate the ones which are ongoing and important. --HappyCamper 04:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Chastising opinion responses on the Ref Desk

Latest comment: 17 years ago62 comments11 people in discussion

I answered a question which I believed to be asking for opinions with my opinion. User:Sam Clark then complained, on the Ref Desk directly, about giving "unsupported opinions". I feel both that opinions are proper in response to questions which solicit an opinion, and that any chastisement of other editors should be done off the Ref Desk. Here is the question and answers: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Holocaust_guilt. What does everyone else think ? StuRat 18:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like Sam was trying to give information about how philosophy would address such an issue, and you were trying to give your personal opinions. Sam seems to be making a good case that even questions that could easily turn into just opinion and chatting could perhaps instead be answered in an encyclopedic way. I applaud that effort. As for whether it belongs on the talk page, I think a small amount of such stuff is acceptable on the RD itself, but if it turns into extended meta-dicussion it should be on the talk page. Friday (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you, yes, that's part of what I'm getting at: what looks like mere chat-fodder to one person is a question which deserves a serious response to people who know the area. Sam Clark 18:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Stu, according to the new rules (if Im not mistaken) say the Q itself should be disallowed as it asks for opinion 8-)--Light current 18:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that such rules have been approved. StuRat 18:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Stu, I didn't 'chastise' you, I suggested that your post was unhelpful, and in doing so, I further developed an answer to the question. Part of what is at stake here is whether the question was merely 'soliciting an opinion': as I've pointed out on the desk, your view that 'all moral questions are opinion' is a matter of controversy, and widely opposed. Making that point seems to me to be a worthwhile addition to the answer; if I hadn't thought that, I would simply have asked you, privately, to remove your contribution. Moral questions in fact raise difficult philosophical problems on which there is a large body of closely-reasoned debate, and that body of work is my professional expertise. Responding to this kind of question with your gut reaction does not strike me as adding any value to the desk. The point I'm making, essentially, is that we should all think twice before responding to a question which is outside our knowledge and expertise: I don't answer questions on the computing desk, for instance, for just that reason. On Light current's point: I don't think any such rule has wide acceptance, and I oppose it, because what counts as 'opinion' is (as this debate demonstrates) itself a matter of controversy. Yours, Sam Clark 18:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. But if they had been, the question would have been disallowed. Yes?--Light current 19:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so: the question doesn't ask for feelings and opinions. It asks for an answer to a difficult question, and encyclopedic answers - further information, context and sources - can be provided. That's what I tried to do in my answer. Sam Clark 19:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sam makes another good point above- people have expertise in different fields. So, as long as we have folks with philosophy expertise around, we can provide good answers. I agree that those unfamiliar with the field should probably think twice before just offering their personal opinions. Friday (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What about opinions on other peoples opinons? Are those allowed?--Light current 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what this comes down to is the quality of an opinion.

If something rings false, it's called an opinion.

If something rings true, then it is not challenged, and it can therefore be safely assumed to be either true or factual -- or at least not patently wrong. Vranak

I would argue that only things which can be test and proven, via the scientific method, are facts, while all else is opinion. Even widely held opinions, like that slavery was just (up until two centuries ago) are never the same as facts. StuRat 20:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said.

However, in my experience, scientifically-affirmed facts aren't much use. Example: the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West, is a scientifically-verifiable fact. What good does it do? Everybody already knows this is the case -- or if they didn't, they certainly go about their daily business as if they did. Vranak 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the field. In math, science, engineering, and history, facts are quite common and useful. In philosophy and morality, however, there are very few hard facts, mostly people in those fields deal in opinions. StuRat 21:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fully agreed.

As however, a fair portion of questions posed at the Reference Desk are of the sort to which no factual answer may be given, there is of course a wide range in quality in the given responses: some may be dismissed as mere opinion, while others will be useful, though they too are mere opinion. Thus, 'opinional answers' cannot be dismissed outright, though dubiously-opinionated answers certainly can. :) Vranak 03:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think my answer was dubiously opinionated, as you put it ? If so, why ? StuRat 13:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Which answer? :) I have no objection to any answer anywhere given by anyone. :)

Regardless -- I think that this talk desk is exclusively for opinions -- whether dubious or sage. :) Vranak 19:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I simply don't understand your argument, is it that matters of morality can be decided in some universal and scientific manner, with no opinion involved ? I don't see how. The only defense I could possibly see here is that they were soliciting the opinions of noted academics, not the general public. They didn't actually say that, though, so this is purely an assumption on your part. And, in any case, we want to avoid saying things like "that answer is unhelpful" on the Ref Desk. It's up to the questioner to decide what info is useful to them, not other responders. This type of conflict should be kept off the Ref Desk. StuRat 19:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Stu, my argument is 1. that 'moral questions are all opinion' is not an obvious truth, but a controversial metaethical position, and that simply assuming it in your answers is a mistake; and 2. that we should be wary of answering questions outside our fields of expertise. Your field of expertise (judging by your user page) is computers; mine is philosophy. You don't know anything much about philosophy, as you've revealed in your answers to a number of questions at the humanities desk. I therefore don't plan to get into any debate about the metaethical issue with you: you don't have the background or the particular skills to engage constructively in such a debate. It wouldn't be worth your while getting into a debate with me about COBOL programming, for the same reason. Finally, I'm not making an assumption about the questioner's intentions. Whatever they are, the question asked can be given an encyclopedic answer, not merely a gut-reaction, as I've demonstrated with the answer I gave. I suggest that this is what we should be trying to do here: this is an encyclopedia, not a chatroom. Yours, Sam Clark 19:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I reject your argument from authority (paraphrased as "I'm an authority, and you're not, so I'm not even going to discuss it with you"), as well as the assumption that each person can only have one area of expertise, and also your assumption that they only wanted to hear from experts in the field of morality. If that was the case, they would have said so. And, finally, you haven't addressed the issue of bringing negativity to the Ref Desk by criticizing the answers of others. If you believe another answer to be incorrect, then say so, and offer proof. However, don't engage in ad hominem attacks, or say "that answer is unhelpful", as that is for the question asker to decide for themself. StuRat 19:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're essentially rejecting the notion that statements about notable work done in a field, made by people with the knowledge of the field, are to be preffered to personal opinions? -- SCZenz 20:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So you are essentially saying that only professional philosophers are allowed to express views on moral or ethical questions ? Gandalf61 21:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about what's "allowed." I said we should be giving facts, and I said that people who know a field are more likely to do this well. But certainly anyone can give statements about the field of philosophy and provide relevant links supporting what they said. Sam Clark did that. -- SCZenz 21:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And he is welcome to do so. He is not, however, welcome to criticize other responders who he considers to be "unqualified to speak". StuRat 21:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat (and anyone else) is correct to chip in with his 2c in that the questioner did not ask for opinion only from a professional moral guidance counsellor or professional philosopher. The {{strict}} tag was not placed either. 8-)--Light current 21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(after eit conflict) But random Wikipedian's opinions are not notable or encyclopedaic. Schools of thought within the field of philosophy are. That's why Sam's answer was more consistent with the reference desk being a useful resource. -- SCZenz 21:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's try not to couch this in contentious terms, as an argument between "authorities" and "non-authorities".

I think we agree that the Reference Desk deals much more comfortably with facts than opinions; I think we agree that highly-opinionated discussion threads are problematic and often out-of-place. So I think we should all think twice before offering personal opinions on the Desks. (And I think we have to be just as careful regardless of whether the opinion was explicitly solicited, and whether by an original questioner or by another answerer.)

To my mind, one of the important questions to ask is, Is there anything special about my opinion that makes it worth posting here? If the question is a broad one on which everyone has an opinion, it's probably pointless for you (or anyone else) to post your own opinion; the Reference Desk is not for opinion polls. If, on the other hand, the question is particularly topical, and if you feel that your opinion has an above-average value (perhaps because the question is one which you've spent a lot of time thinking about already, even though you may not be a formal expert), then it might be worth posting.

It's somewhat of a delicate question, and I doubt we'll able to come up with any cut-and-dried rules. (I have some more thoughts which I'll post when I have more time.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed given a great deal of thought to this topic, as should everyone, in my opinion. To state that only those with degrees in philosophy are able to offer moral opinions (I'm not saying you did this, Steve), is, in my opinion, misguided. StuRat 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We are all philosophers in our own little ways! But naturally we will all have different judgements in such cases. 8-)--Light current 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is precisely because this particular question is a broad one that affects all of humanity that everyone is qualified to provide an answer if they wish to. A professional philosopher may have an academic opinion, but the man in the street may also have an equally valid opinion. As well as Sam and StuRat, three other editors have now provided their points of view, with suppporting reasoning. None of them sounds like a professional philosopher to me. Are we saying none of their reponses are valid ? If we allow this type of question then we must allow intelligent, polite and reasoned answers not matter what their source. Gandalf61 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

THis sort of question will be banned under the new rules! --Light current 22:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Sam was not providing his point of view; he was organizing the ideas of philosophers, which exist in our articles. If the ref desk is a place to solicit the personal opinions of random users, then how is it not a discussion forum? -- SCZenz 22:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions should not be sought by questioners on moral, ethical, religious or other sorts of serious issues. No answers that are satisfactory to all concerned are likely to be provided and we end up with pages of crap that has to be read thro and then archived. I actually beleive this sort of question is more disruptive to the RDs than joke questions and/or answers. At least jokey responses usually dont take up much more than 1 or 2 screens worth!and dont get editors all hot under the collar and at each others throats. Now which is more disruptive? Tell me honestly 8-)( --Light current 22:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Questioners who ask about moral, ethical, and religious issues can be told encyclopedaic facts about thought in those areas. Nobody's said anything in this section about what questions can be asked (except you, repeatedly); the complaint is about answers that are opinion and original research. -- SCZenz 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read my post again, you will see that I said questioners should not ask for opinion on matters to which there can be no unequivocal answers, neither should RD staff offer it. --Light current 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you, or anyone else, could honestly hold this sentiment. Can you think of a single interesting question to which there are no unequivocal answers? And, if a question is uninteresting, it will not be asked in the first place, and certainly not answered with any degree of vigour if it were.

If there are to be no questions asked that allow for variation or interpretation in answers, then the Reference Desk will quickly dry up and lose the bulk of its readership. Vranak 04:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that Sam certainly was providing his point of view. He selected and described two specific ethical approaches to the problem, from a menu of many possible choices. Presumably he selected the two approaches that coincide most closely with his own opinion. If someone asks "what is the best family car" and you reply "model A has some good points but model B has some good points as well", that is still an opinion. So, yes, the question asked for opinions and Sam, like all responders, provided them. Its just that he provided a choice of two opinions rather than one. Gandalf61 00:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no basis for your presumption that "he selected the two approaches that coincide most closely with his own opinion." I also note again that he presented notable ideas from the field, and linked to Wikipedia articles with further information (and support). There has to be some willingness here to aknowledge that sourced answers are better than pure opinions. -- SCZenz 01:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(rmv indent) Nevertheless Sam's answer is a POV answer, because he selected two possible approaches to the problem from many equivalent choices - whether this is actually his own opinion is irrelevant. And this is not a critcism of Sam's answer - it would be impossible for any single editor to create a balanced NPOV answer to such a complex question on their own. That is precisely why Wikiepdia is a colllaborative enterprise. In summary, we have:

The Holocaust guilt question, like any other moral or ethical question, has a wide range of possible approaches and answers. No answer is any "better" or more "right" than the others, because moral and ethical statements cannot be categorised as true or false (I am not just asserting this - this follows from A.J. Ayer's emotivism and R. M. Hare's prescriptivism, for example).
It is impossible for any single editor to give a balanced NPOV answer to such a complex question, giving equal weight to every approach. Sam did not attempt to give an NPOV answer - he selected two particular approaches and described them.
A professional philosopher such as Sam will be aware of wider range of opinions than the man in the street, and will know the arguments behind each of these views in more detail. However, the constraints of time and space in the RD format mean that even a professional philosopher can only provide a partial, POV answer to such a broad question.
Because no one approach is objectively better than any other, the man in the street's POV is just as valid as a professional philosopher's POV, provided it is presented in a rational and coherent fashion.
The only objective difference between Sam's response and those of the other editors who answered the question is that he provide some wikilinks and recommended a book for further reading. In this limited sense, his answer is more "factual" than the other responses - not because it is more correct, but because it provides references. This should certainly be encouraged, but it is a difference of degree - it does not place Sam's response in a different category to anyone else's.

If we allow moral and ethical questions on the RDs then we must also allow answers from all editors, not matter what their qualifications, and we must allow a certain amount of discussion between editors to clarify or refine their responses. Taking the sum of all such responses is the only way we can hope to approach an balanced NPOV answer to such questions. Gandalf61 10:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said, although I would add that "discussion between editors to clarify or refine their responses" should not include denigrating the value of another response or ad hominem attacks against other editors. Everyone is "qualified" to respond here, not just those with a degree in philosophy. StuRat 13:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Gandalf, you could also assemble committees to determine the world's premiere expert on every topic and only allow that expert to answer these types of questions--if you can get them to volunteer at Wikipedia. Alternatively, you could let an administrator pick someone to answer it. Or you could take the view that Wikipedia's an "encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" and allow anyone to answer. Maybe it would be a good idea to limit responses to three lines. -THB 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone asks for other editors' opinions, I don't see the problem with giving them. All experts are welcome to contribute or argue against the other editors. People ask opinion questions because they want to get a wide variety of answers; there are no "right" or "wrong" responses. I know some people think opinion questions shouldn't be allowed, but there's already a lot of discussion and debate going on at the reference desk. This is not a courtroom; do we need to follow "instructions" word by word? Also, opinion questions increase the questioner's knowledge, since he/she now knows many ways to argue a point. As such, they are useful to the questioner, and therefore legitimate questions. --Bowlhover 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just returned from a day at the beach releasing penguins we have rehabilitated from oil spill, and saw this rather long thread, on an interesting topic. So my comment is rather belated (but then, maybe more disinterested?). Sam Clark started off on an appropriate descriptive note, but illustrations of his points were not all that clear. I was expecting more to come, but Sam ended up choosing that he had a point to make (viz. "The point I was making, ... simply giving gut-reaction responses, without supporting reasoning, and without any evidence that you know anything about the subject in question, isn't adding much value to the reference desk."). The "point" was completely unrelated to the question, and was transferred to this page. What a disappointment. Thus he cut off the possibility of further informative comment about the philosophy of moral issues. Sam himself had already added value by pointing out that StuRat's argument was retributivist. Value was added when he pointed out - named - a "moral anti-realist point of view". Value could have been added if the other points of view were similarly commented, without getting into a huff about the issue. Examples of where I would have liked to see SC's philosophical input : "But I think that this man was guilty, because he was a Nazi."; "This should not have occurred -- someone should be feeling guilty right now"; "It is a crime: a crime against man, a crime against morality, a crime against law, and a crime against God"; "the ... notion of guilt ... is ... a touch misguided"; "... any person who is capable of rationally choosing to do what they did is evil. If not, then the word itself has no meaning."; "Is it a crime to choose one's one life ...?". These are moral judgements, and I for one would have enjoyed Sam Clark's comments on such ideas, but we have ended up writing more on this complaints page than on the answer page! --Seejyb 20:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have started a lengthy debate, but I think much of it is muddling two different issues:

1. There’s the interesting, difficult metaethical question of whether morality is anything more than opinion (whether ‘stealing is wrong’ is a different kind of statement from ‘strawberry icecream is yucky’, and how it is, if so). I’ve refused to engage in a debate with StuRat about this question, on the grounds that he doesn’t know enough about the subject for it to be worth my effort or time. Stu calls this an ‘argument from authority’. It’s not, because I haven’t asserted any view at all on the question, let alone insisted that anyone ‘respect my authority’ and accept my view. I’ve just pointed out that the question is controversial, that experts have nuanced, well-supported positions on all sides of it, that Stu doesn’t know anything about the issue, and that I don’t intend to waste my time on that kind of unbalanced debate. In any case, the whole argument is off topic for a talk-page. I take Seejyb's point that perhaps we could have had an interesting conversation about metaethics in response to the question, on the humanities desk; but the last time Stu and I got into a philosophical argument, I don't think it did much good.

You've stated that my arguments are invalid because they are opinion, implying that yours are not, and thus there is a universal standard by which Holocaust guilt may be determined, devoid of any opinion. All I can say is that this is an extreme minority view, on your part (although possibly not amongst philosophers) and that the different standards in use throughout the world and throughout time are a clear demonstration of this. Arguments have been made that violence should be reacted to with much more severe violence aimed at the perpetrator, their family, tribe, city, community, etc. Later arguments were for equal retribution, the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" approach. Later, the most lenient response of no punishment and total forgiveness, the "turn the other cheek" approach, was advocated. StuRat 12:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

2. There’s the issue I was actually meaning to raise: What kind of answers should we be giving to questions which might lead to lengthy and potentially heated exchanges of opinions? The question of holocaust guilt was a particular clear example of this problem. I tried to give the kind of encyclopedic answer I think is appropriate: no statement of my own views; context and links for further investigating how the question could be addressed. StuRat gave a kind of answer which I think we should avoid: ‘well, my opinion is…’, with no supporting reasoning and no links to the encyclopedia or anything else. This would be a perfectly reasonable response in a general chat forum, but this is an encyclopedia. When I challenged Stu on this, he claimed that ‘moral questions are all opinion’, and (by implication) that his answer was therefore the only possible kind of answer that could be given to the question, and was therefore fine. Hence issue 1, above: I pointed out that ‘moral questions are all opinion’, far from being the truism that Stu suggests, is a hugely controversial metaethical position (as Gandalf notes above, it’s a short statement of expressivism; what Gandalf doesn’t note is that expressivism is just one position, and has many significant critics).

The only reason that many people giving multiple views on a question would lead to a heated exchange is if responders denigrate the responses of others. If we treat each other with the proper respect, there is no reason a discussion can't remain civil, even when people disagree. On matters of fact, you may say you believe a statement to be incorrect and point to references which support your position. On matters of opinion, you may say you disagree and state why, but this does not include saying "his argument is wrong because he doesn't know what he's talking about". StuRat 12:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think that question 2 is important, and that this is the right place to discuss it. I assume that we don’t want the refdesk to turn into Yahoo answers, where any old crap gets posted in answer, and then know-nothings vote for their favourite response (note for the sensitive: I am not implying that this is the current situation, I’m offering an extreme example to make a point clearly). So, we need some kind of guideline for what is and what isn’t an appropriate answer. A number of people have been working on such guidelines, of course, and I largely support them (and appreciate the hard work of everyone involved, especially TenOfAllTrades and StuRat). But my view is:

1. that they currently don’t quite nail the distinction I made above, between an encyclopedic answer and a mere opinion; and

In order to give an "encyclopedic answer" one must start with an "encyclopedic question". The birth date of Abraham Lincoln is the type of question an encyclopedia would normally answer, while assessing moral guilt for the Holocaust is not. StuRat 12:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

2. that one way to make that distinction is to suggest that if you don’t know anything about a subject, you either shouldn’t post, or you should do some research. This is why I’ve emphasised expertise.

In certain areas, such as moral judgments, everyone is equally qualified to respond. In other areas, like the views of famous philosophers on moral judgments, some may be more familiar with the answers than others. However, even those unfamiliar with the views of philosophers can still provide links, etc. StuRat 12:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

One final attempt to head off some misunderstandings:

1. I haven’t claimed that people can only have one expertise, and I don’t know where anyone got the idea that I have.

The fact that you keep bringing up that I'm a computer programmer (how many times now ?) certainly seems to be designed to imply that I am therefore unqualified to talk about anything other than computers. StuRat 20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's designed to imply that I'm not setting myself up as better or more worthy to answer questions than you are. I'm simply saying (not implying: saying explicitly) that you don't know anything much about my field of expertise, and that I don't know anything much about yours. Are you claiming that you do know anything much about philosophy? Because if you do, you're doing a good job of disguising the fact. Sam Clark 10:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There you go again, assuming my profession is my only possible field of expertise. I also reject your assumption that this is a philosophical question: "when all you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail". I would argue that Holocaust guilt is a moral, religious, and legal issue, not a deep philosophical issue, and I am equally qualified to speak on moral issues. I also reject your assertion that there is one "correct" morality or philosophy, and that, therefore, all opinions are misplaced. That said, the only type of "factual response" possible is "this person holds this opinion on the matter". I don't consider facts about opinions to be any better than direct opinions; to put "professional opinions" above others is just another use of ad hominem. StuRat 12:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

2. I haven’t claimed that only professional philosophers can have opinions about moral issues – that would be ridiculous. I have claimed – and I still think – that an encyclopedic response on a moral question requires expertise, not just a moral opinion. The latter are two-a-penny.

Actually, anyone could refer them to the relevant articles, no expertise is required for that. And, in this case, they also appeared to be soliciting moral opinions, and no expertise is required for that, either. StuRat 20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But nobody else did so refer, I knew which articles were relevant, and I was able to gloss them. I have repeatedly answered the second argument. Were you planning actually to respond to the main points of my post, or are you going to continue your policy of skimming and replying only to trivial points? Sam Clark 10:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What points do you want me to respond to ? I can't say there's much point, if you're just going to ignore my responses anyway, saying "I don’t intend to waste my time on that kind of unbalanced debate." StuRat 12:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

3. I haven’t attacked StuRat in any way, so his claims of ‘ad hominem’ are mistaken. There’s nothing shameful about not knowing anything about a particular technical subject; as I pointed out above, I don’t know anything much about computer programming. But nonetheless, both computer programming and philosophy are technical disciplines, and it doesn’t help the refdesk or the encyclopedia as a whole to answer questions when one doesn’t know what one is talking about.

From our ad hominem article: "An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person...". That is precisely what you have done here. StuRat 21:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what an ad hominem is, thanks. And no, I haven't committed one, because I have neither said that anything whatever about you is discreditable, nor suggested that your metaethical claim is wrong. I have simply declined to engage in a lengthy, off-topic debate about metaethics. As I have repeatedely emphasised, the on-topic issue here is what kind of answers should be given to questions which could - but need not - lead to long, pointless exchanges of gut feelings. Will you please either address that issue, or stop wasting everyone's time with these petty, nitpicking replies? Sam Clark 10:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you don't know what ad hominem is, if you deny using such an argument. You said: "You don't know anything much about philosophy, as you've revealed in your answers to a number of questions at the humanities desk. I therefore don't plan to get into any debate about the metaethical issue with you: you don't have the background or the particular skills to engage constructively in such a debate." Also, you said: "Stu doesn’t know anything about the issue, and that I don’t intend to waste my time on that kind of unbalanced debate." Both are saying there is something "not-authoritative" about me (lack of background), and I am thus wrong to argue about anything in this field, and you refuse to respond to my arguments based on that. That is the very definition of an ad hominem attack, arguing "against the man" rather than against the statement made by the man. I could make the symmetrical argument, but won't, that "based on your background and previous conversations, I've determined you to be just a pompous academic, devoid of any practical knowledge, and thus unworthy of any logical discussion effort." StuRat 11:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yours, Sam Clark 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's another belated response. I've noticed that we've been focusing on the first half of StuRat's question, and haven't really touched the second.

Reviewing the refdesk post that started the thread, my own impression was that StuRat's first answer in the "Holocaust guilt" thread was marginal: it's not the sort of thing I would have posted, but it's not at all the sort of thing I would complain about, either. (More on this elsewhere.) But with that said, I didn't have a problem with Sam Clark's response, either; it was measured and appropriate. (The only bit of it that seemed to me like it could have been construed as "chastising" was the last clause, "I don't really see the value of unsupported opinion here.") If there weren't such a heightened sensitivity about Reference Desk posting appropriateness lately, I suspect this would have passed without incident.

My own opinion (and this is, for what it's worth, an armchair opinion) is that, in general and when done properly, criticism of Reference Desk appropriateness should be right there on the Reference Desk. That's a fine place for it.

It's important, unquestionably, that any such criticism be constructive, politic, and absolutely not ad-hominem. But if someone politely says, "you know, I think that response was a little on the opinionated/speculative/raucous side, not objective/sourced/reasonably-professional like we agreed we wanted", that seems perfectly appropriate and acceptable to me. (But the word "politely" is very significant, and in this context I would encourage a level of politeness bordering on deferential. It tends to cause at least as much trouble as someone thought they were trying to solve, if they make sharply-worded criticisms like "I can't believe you posted that" or "you're completely wrong" or "that's inappropriate here, you should not have posted that." The thread above about Loomis and Clio is apropos.)

Many if not most aspects of whatever "policy" we might come up with for the Reference Desk are bound to be subjective. They're themselves going to be matters of opinion; the word "reasonable" is always going to figure prominently in the discussion. So we're all individually going to accidentally stray from the bounds of "reasonableness" from time to time, and we're all going to have to do a certain amount of on-going communal attitude checking in order that we retain and evolve our group consensus on what is and isn't reasonable.

So, gentle constructive criticism seems to me not only to be not a problem, but to be a good and necessary thing. Furthermore, it seems to me that right there on the Reference Desk is the place for it, not hidden on a talk page. It belongs right there on the Reference Desk because that's where everyone will see it, and we do want everyone -- questioners, answerers, and lurkers -- to remain aware of the issues.

It can be argued that metadiscussion should be shunted to a Talk page (this one, I guess), but I'm afraid that too many people will miss it. Pages like the Reference Desk and Village Pump are already essentially talk pages, so it's somewhat surprising that they have their own, separate, talk pages at all. I suspect I'm not the only one who rarely looks at the "true" talk pages.

Anyway, that's my two cents, so to speak. --Steve Summit (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve, for this calm and sensible response. Cheers, Sam Clark 11:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[A final comment on the exchange with StuRat, because the above is getting too multilayered to follow]. Stu: in other words, the answers to my questions above are: 1. no, you don't know anything about philosophy, but you're unwilling to write the words 'I do not know about X'; and 2. no, you plan to continue to skim, to respond to trivial points rather than addressing the main issue, to insist on finding verbal fallacies where none exist, to reply to what you imagine I implied instead of what's there on the page, to nitpick and point-score and grandstand. You plan to continue to bolster your heroic self-image as challenging 'pompous academics' with arguments they don't dare face. But Stu, I have news for you: you haven't actually made any arguments. You've asserted that 'moral questions are all opinion' and that 'only claims verified by the scientific method are facts', just as so many of my first-year students do. You haven't given the slightest support for those claims, or even shown any awareness of what they might mean in detail or of what the alternatives are. Well, fine, you're not one of my students, and I don't have any obligation to help you sort out your intellectual confusions. Nor do you have any obligation to listen to me, and you've shown no ability or desire to do so anyway. So: let's just stop talking. Carry right on offering your ignorant opinions in response to whatever questions you fancy. I've lost interest in the whole business, to be honest. Sam Clark 13:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1) What I know about philosophy is simply irrelevant to the questions under discussion, and I refuse to let you to define it in the terms you wish, which is apparently that nobody is allowed to comment on Holocaust guilt unless they possess academic credentials in philosophy. StuRat 14:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

2) I really don't know what you are referring to as your "main issue", it could be your statements on the topic of Holocaust guilt of some subsequent statements on this talk page about the way you conduct your discussions. StuRat 14:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

3) Nothing could make me happier than not being one of your students. If your behavior here is any indication of your conduct in class, you would belittle your students and dismiss any argument they make as ignorant, rather than responding to their arguments and respecting their opinions. StuRat 14:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Strict

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Strict has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- SCZenz 21:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Proposed policy for the reference desk

Latest comment: 17 years ago22 comments5 people in discussion

What is going on here: A lot of work was done (in large part by StuRat) in developing two pages; /rules and /guideline. There was accusation of POV-forking. Then TenOfAllTrades developed a draft based in the previous work and discussions. There was consensus that that draft would be an appropriate continuation. To that end, and to prevent discussion of the same topic, proposed RD policy, taking place in multiple locations, I am bringing it all here. The /rule and /guideline are archived there for reference only. Please do not edit those. The Ten draft can and should be edited.

Please discuss edits HERE, on the regular RD talk page. --Justanother 16:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there some reason that our normal page/talk page arrangement won't work in this case? Ned Wilbury 16:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Only because people discuss there and discuss here too. If there is a consensus or policy reason to move it then it can be moved to its adjacent "project page". So please chime in and let me know you'all. One of my goals was to eliminate "all the discussion forking" at least, if not "all the forking discussion" (smile). --Justanother 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If people don't bother learning the purpose of pages and talk pages, the solution is to educate editors, not change our how procedure to match the misunderstanding. The Reference desk gets discussed at its talk page. The policy proposal gets discussed on its talk page. How is this difficult? If you want to edit the guideline, go ahead, but I see no reason to move it. And, moving it the way you did makes no sense at all. Ned Wilbury 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix the page move, by moving it to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Proposed policy for the reference desk. Why this name is better than the old one still eludes me. We don't name it "proposed policy" - that's a stage it might go thru, not the name of a page. However the old name is still there, so I think an admin will have to fix this, since we need to move the corresponding talk page also and there's a page in the way. Ned Wilbury 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is support for what I did. I did not invent this. Please review Wikipedia:Subpages re: placing drafts on subs of talk pages. If you messed up what I did then please fix it. --Justanother 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, two things: /guideline was a perfectly good name for the page. Naming it "proposed policy" is a bad idea- it may get marked as a proposal, or even a policy some day, but that shouldn't mean we rename the page. Also, you moved it to project talk space when it should have been in project space. Ned Wilbury 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again: There is support for what I did. I did not invent this. Please review Wikipedia:Subpages re: placing drafts on subs of talk pages. The name is irrelevant - this is a draft! --Justanother 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm astounded that we're continuing to have this conversation. Why do you NOT want a talk page for the proposed policy? As for Wikipedia:Subpages, the suggestion about articles drafts was to keep them out of mainspace. Really, we should probably leave the page moves to people who understand namespaces. Ned Wilbury 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Really, we should probably leave the page moves to people who understand namespaces." Please don't get personal with me. I take a very dim view of that. --Justanother 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That type of argument from authority has no place on Wikipedia, Ned. If you object to somebody's actions, state clearly why, don't just imply that they are incompetent and thus unworthy of a logical discussion. StuRat 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, about that reference. Here is one of two specific statements in Wikipedia:Subpages that support what I did.

From "Allowed Uses" - Temporary subpages in Talk namespace, usually formatted Talk:Example Article/Temp, for example the kind of "/Temp" pages that can be created from Template:Copyvio. But avoid additional incoming and outward links that would make it appear as if this "/Temp" page is part of the encyclopedia: that is, in the case the Copyvio template is used, only this template, applied in article namespace, can link to the "/Temp" article from article or "main" namespace. See below Disallowed uses for further recommendations on how to avoid creating the impression a "/Temp" page is an encyclopedia page.

Can you give me the specific statement that indicates that I erred? My way clearly shows that this is NOT policy and that is the intent of subbing off talk pages. --Justanother 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, I don't think there's anything 'broken' that needs to be 'fixed'. The proposed policy(/policies) are all 'temporary' over some reasonable timescale. It doesn't really matter where we keep our scratch pad and discussion. Somewhere in the Wikipedia namespace is dandy. I agree with the idea that having a single discussion somewhere is also a good idea; I'm not sure if this talk page is the best place for it, just because there is a lot of traffic here already. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so where has everything been moved to as of now ? Is there a way to get a directory of every page under the Ref Desk ? StuRat 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, after hipocrite got through, the proposal is at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines (note plural) while the talk is still at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline (note singular) and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines (note plural) has a redirect. If you want to do something without an admin so we can continue I suggest we just leave the proposal where it is and pull the redirect from its talk page and just carry on there. Make an announcement here with links and a "permalink" at the top of this page. --Justanother 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please do that ? I'm afraid any action I take will be used as an excuse to block me. StuRat 21:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, did. Now I hope to GOD no-one except an admin messes with the locations again. Stu, would you please make an announcement here and add a link to the top of this page? Also if you would like to check for and fix any important double redirects that would be peachy. I doubt that there are any important ones so that step might could be skipped. Also I see that there is another /purposes floating around that should also be merged in as an archived section. I would do more but I have work to do. --Justanother 21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This one: Wikipedia:Reference desk/purpose --Justanother 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm still too confused about what went where to make an announcement. Is there any way to get a comprehensive list ? StuRat 21:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(interject) Comprehensive list is at [8], see Special:prefindex. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. StuRat 11:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, see box at top and announcement below. --Justanother 21:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Like a reference desk

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

"The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk." - surely that is enough guidance - see Library reference desk it's very enlightening. Note that librarians are not there to "put in their 2 cents".87.102.13.235 16:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but most of us are not trained librarians so that does not really tell us how to act. We need some guidance. --Justanother 16:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of editors who agree. However there are a number of people who insist that they do not understand how to behave unless they have exact rules. Ned Wilbury 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest those are the users who would be breaking said rules.. such is life 87.102.13.235 17:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There are also a number of us that do know how to act but want some policy spelled to 1) defend the way we act against attacks that we are acting wrongly, and 2) have a standard to point "bad acters" to so they clearly know what they are doing wrong and can, hopefully, correct their behaviour. If someone does not want to participate in the process of developing policy they only need ignore the process and let those that care to get on with it do so. There will be a comment period before it is adopted when those that think it is unneeded can express their opinion. --Justanother 17:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I read a policy somewhere a long time ago.. can't remember where - are we sure we don't already have one??83.100.132.121 18:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Add a new talk page to discuss the new combined proposal page

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Support this idea because it will allow us to isolate discussion there, rather than have it here (with all the other discussions of archiving methods, abusive users, bad questions, bad answers, adding new Ref Desks, etc.) Also, anything we say here tends to get lost and archived before a consensus can be reached. StuRat 17:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Support I support moving the draft back to talk space as drafts belong in talk space and then creating another subpage of talk for discussion. Sure, that will work. --Justanother 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- You know Stu, that it might be best to let an admin move the talk from /rules as that is what I moved to start this process. The admin will need to creat a new talk space subpage anyway. We should wait to see what one or more of the interested admins say before doing anything further. Meanwhile feel free to disuss the draft here and edit the draft where it sits; no need to stop. --Justanother 18:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  - And now I see hipocrite is moving things all around too. I hope he cleans up all the redirects. We are just making the job of the admin that has to come in and fix this all the harder, I think. I really don't know why we are rushing around on moving the draft here and there. Just leave it until an admin gets here. --Justanother 18:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Weirdness

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I added this comment, which showed up in the history but not on the page: [9].

Then I added it again here: [10].

What's going on here ? Why didn't it "take" the first time I added it ? StuRat 19:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The database seems to be lagging. I'm seeing deletions due to edit conflicts, stuff reappearing for no reason, and instances where it takes minutes for edits to show in the history. As someone said on the AN boards, go out and enjoy the weather for a bit lol. Anchoress 19:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL. StuRat 19:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes get that. Its a bit slow in updating today actually. Either that or there really is a Ghost in the machine. WhhoooooaaaaaHHH!(eerie laughter)--Light current 20:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit slow ? There was almost an hour and a half between my two edits. If my comments weren't going to show up in that much time, I doubt if they ever would have. StuRat 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No I mean a few seconds. Are you BB or dial up? No I know what it is now: someones installed a StuRat post filter!(clever buggers)--Light current 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I was wondering who deleted my post, at first, but there's no record of it having been deleted, yet it was gone. Weird. I have DSL, what is BB ? A bulletin board ? StuRat 20:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

BroadBand is what we call DSL here (ie > 1Mbps).--Light current 21:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

OK, this is where we can work on a proposed policy/guideline and the associated talk is where we can discuss it. Below is the intro:

What is going on here: A lot of work was done (in large part by StuRat) in developing two pages; /rules and /guideline. There was accusation of POV-forking. Then TenOfAllTrades developed a draft based in the previous work and discussions. There was consensus that that draft would be an appropriate continuation. To that end, and to prevent discussion of the same topic, proposed RD policy, taking place in multiple locations, I am bringing it all here. The /rule and /guideline are archived here for reference only. Please do not edit those. The Ten draft can and should be edited.

Please discuss edits only on the associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines. --Justanother 15:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that need be done now is a merge of the /purpose page to another archived section in /guidelines. Feel free please. --Justanother 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A Regular Answer

Latest comment: 17 years ago37 comments13 people in discussion

For those of you who may wish a non-strict or regular answer there is now the regular template (append {{regular}}) to get the regular answer that you have been receiving for quite a while now. This may become the default response at some future time but in the meantime feel free to add this {{regular}}template request or nothing at all to receive a regular response. --hydnjo talk 22:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

lol, wha? ---Sluzzelin 22:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Boy, oh boy. Would that clutter up the pages. --Justanother 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. It's available if you feel that your question is being addressed too "strictly". Some responses seem to fall towards the way of strictiness either because of their construct or because of their subject matter. Unless the OP has explicitly requested a {{strict}} response but not having done so seems to be receiving "strict" responses, they now have the the opportunity to release the community's un-strict responses by appending the {{regular}} template to the question. In some cases, this would relieve some responders from the rigidly implied confines of a "strict" response and indeed may provide a richer form of responses for the OP to ponder. After all, those "regular" responses may indeed hold the very answer that was being sought. A cleverly crafted response, even an un-strict one, might just be the important one. --hydnjo talk 23:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Instruction creep. It's a bad idea, for the same reason the "strict" template was. Friday (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! But if one template, (strict), is allowed to stand then so should the other template, (regular), be allowed to stand. --hydnjo talk 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How about half-decaf soft-serve medium-well-done answers?Edison 00:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Or answers contrived to make a point? :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! Lets each of us interpret the question with our own frame of reference and respond accordingly. If the community feels that anyone's frame of reference is inappropriate then let's deal with that on an individual basis, not with an "impersonal, one-size-fits-all" template. --hydnjo talk 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like hydnjo is on a WP:POINT crusade here. A template that huge is obviously useless, and it also uses the abbrev "OP", which we've had pretty strong agreement should never be used (because the OP doesn't know what an OP is). StuRat 01:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify the meaning of "OP" within the text of the regular template which has made it only slightly more huge. I feel that this explanation is worthy and thank you for pointing out that its meaning may be obscure for some (if not most) of its readers. This is a valid criticism as I myself needed to ask around for its meaning (I hope I got it right). Please feel free to edit the text of the template so as to shorten its hugeness without compromising its meaning. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 03:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

addendum: It seems that I've concentrated my response to the criticism of my usage of the really cool abbreviation "OP". That caught my attention because of the "...we've had pretty strong agreement should never be used..." comment. In trying to correct that egregious mistake I overlooked StuRat's accusation of my being on a "crusade here". So as to not mislead any of the readers of StuRat's critical comments directed towards my introduction of a regular response request (as opposed to a strict response request), I've again read his criticism and have decided against a rebuttal at this time. Please (if you so desire) other RD (Reference Deskers), weigh in with your thoughts about the need for either, neither or both of the templates: "strict" or "regular".

To be completely candid, I feel that neither is needed but if we have one of them then the other should be available as its complement. --hydnjo talk 04:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As for: "hydnjo is on a WP:POINT crusade here" well, ouch! ;-) --hydnjo talk 06:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's accurate, though. Creating a template that shouldn't be used, in response to another template that shouldn't be used, is the wrong way to go about things; I'd rather we keep these arguments out of template space entirely. Illustrating that something is silly by creating more silliness just isn't productive. Since you're still the only contributor (except for typo-fixes), Hydnjo, I would politely suggest that you request it be speedy deleted. -- SCZenz 06:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a {{no wankers}} template?83.100.250.252 13:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You dont want to put everyone off, do you? How about {{No timewasters}} ? 8-)--Light current 14:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Though you know a {{inappropriate}} template is not a bad idea with text like "A user has raised the question as to whether this question is appropriate for the reference desk. Please do not address this question nor remove this notice without discussion on the talk page". I will bring that up on the policy page. Later. --Justanother 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we may also need a template for proposed deletion of a thread or post.

Like: {{This post/thread has been proposed for deletion in accordance with the RD guidelines}}--Light current 15:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that we need a deletion proposal and then a long discussion. It's simpler just to remove things when there's agreement that they're inappropriate. The last thing we need is to invent another monstrosity like AFD. Friday (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No we dont want an AfD process certainly. But there should be agreement between 2 or more editors that the post or thread is inappropriate. The template would flag up the fact that one editor has questioned the post. Other editors can then quickly home in on it and delete if they see fit (or mabe remove the tag if they dont) 8-)--Light current 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe someone should remove it and say on talk, "hey I've removed this" and see if people object to that. It depends on how disruptive the post is; I'm sure we all agree that large images of genitalia don't need a second opinion to be removed. (Radiant) 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we are removing a question from the RDs I think there a few additional steps which can avoid misunderstanding. First, we should explain the reasons for the removal in the edit summary - otherwise a well-meaning editor thinks the deletion is accidental and restores the question. Second, we should explain the deletion with a note on the questioner's talk page - otherwise the questioner goes back to look for answers, can't find their question, and adds it again. Third, it should be a polite note, so that the questioner isn't tempted to think "who died and left you in charge ?", and restore their question anyway. Now, I think that's all fairly obvious, but it can't be all that obvious, because not everyone follows those steps when deleting a question. Gandalf61 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a template for that talk page note? If not, there should be. (Radiant) 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well as StuRat said many moons ago:

Removing someones post is just about the most offensive thing you can do to an editor.

I paraphrase loosely.

Therefore, unless it is an extreme case of being likely to cuase offence, (like giant pictures of YKW or extreme legal or death threats etc) I think agreement should be sought with at least one other editor. Is that going to be so hard?! It removes unilateral actions, which in my view are undesirable, from the process. --Light current 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Radiant, Im not trying to yank ur chain, but when you said disruptive a few posts back, did you actually mean offensive? If not what exactly?--Light current 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant "disruptive", but being offensive is certainly a way of being disruptive. For instance, I could post a bunch of html code that makes the page illegible in most browsers; that's not offensive, but it sure is disruptive.
Other than that, first we should bear in mind that we are writing for our readers as well as our editors (so let's not be offensive to readers, except that WP:NDT), and second I disagree that post removal is the most offensive thing you can do to an editor (for instance, you could send the police over to someone's house on a trumped-up charge of planning a murder - and yes, that has happened in the past). For a more realistic example, many people consider namecalling and personal attacks far more offensive than post removal. (Radiant) 16:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

People who feel that their posts being edited is that offensive probably already seriously misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. Now we're back to the question of "When someone so misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia, do we bend that purpose to match the misunderstanding?" While I think we all want to be reasonably polite, we want to keep the project on topic also. We don't want people to come to see Wikipedia as some kind of forum for free speech (see Wikipedia:Free speech), so such misunderstandings are best nipped politely in the bud. Friday (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that if we AGF a questionable question and later it is more obviously inappropriate or if some editors answer a clearly inappropriate question rather than delete it then the whole thread has to go poof and that is that. The purpose of the desk takes precedence over enshrining our words of wit and general brilliance. --Justanother 16:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to quote StuRat again here. I think it was he who said, when referring to deletion of posts, that we must aim to minimise the totality of offence to all users. ie if its more offensive to the majority to leave it on, then it comes off. But if its more offensive to the OP if it comes off, than it would cause to the users then it should stay on. Sorry thats not very clear but I have to go out now. i may rephrase later.--Light current 16:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a rather silly quote, since it's impossible to measure the "totality of offence". I suppose we could create a scale for it, call it the Springer, and block any user that causes more than five millispringers per hour. Would that work? :P (Radiant) 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

- Would that be an SI, ANSI, RFC or ISO standard, or could we publish it as our own WPS 0001? I'm leaning towards RFC, but we might have to wait for April 1st to submit it... BigNate37_(T) 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel I've been somewhat misquoted (although, since that was several months ago, I could be wrong). To the best of my memory, however, I said something like this:

"Bear in mind that telling somebody their post is inappropriate and/or removing it, is almost certain to cause offense. Our goal should be to minimize total offense. Therefore, when dealing with a comment that "might, possibly, be offensive to somebody" versus a removal that is certain to be offensive to the author, the goal of minimizing total offense would normally indicate that the post should be left in. If, on the other hand, the post has definitely offended multiple people, then the goal of minimizing offense is best served by removing the post. However, the author should still be notified, in this case, that's just basic courtesy." StuRat 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant: you mean my quoting it was silly, or what Sturat said was silly?

Obviously it is difficult to measure the totality of offense and minimise it. Total likely offence must be judged. But causing major offence to the OP in order to avoid possible trifling minor offence to one or two editors is obviously not acceptable either. Everyone talks about not upsetting the newbies who may be here today and gone tomorrow, but i cant think of a single poster on this RD talk who has mentioned how we should treat the 'oldies' (and I mean all established editors- not just the RD regulars)

Sorry StuRat for misquoting you. It was from memory. But I feel I expressed the gist of what you were saying.--Light current 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we're focusing too much on offense here. Remember, the simplest definition of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", not "Wikipedia is not offensive". Serious, educational questions may be very offensive to some people, but we care more about being educational than we do about being nonoffensive. Friday (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hang on a minute: you seem to forget that a few weeks ago I and other RD regulars were being accused LR&C of being offensive. Some of us were even blocked (twice ) for it. So please dont tell me that I m focussing too much on it. It was the prosecutions main charge at one time!--Light current 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Though "telling somebody their post is inappropriate and/or removing it" is indeed likely to cause offense, it does not necessarily follow from this that commenting on each other's posts is a bad idea. If such comments are phrased gently, they can be quite beneficial. But they really need to be phrased gently, where the definition of "gently" is "not likely to cause offense" or equivalently "not likely to get the criticized poster's back up such that he feels the need to launch an impassioned defense." —Steve Summit (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've seen people who think the appropriate way to bring up a concern at the Ref Desk is to say "your comment ... is offensile, vile, untrue, and unacceptable, and a violation of ... and ... and ... and you are totally unqualified to speak on this matter anyway as you are (wrong profession, wrong age, wrong nationality, etc.), and, if you don't remove it immediately, I will". This is the type of thing that's certain to cause offense. StuRat 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Disappearing stuff

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Why is stuff disappearing off the Misc RD? Check this diff out. I had the same thing happen on one of my edits. Here is mine. I was not deleting anything - I was adding a reply. --Justanother 02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, same thing's been happening to me, Wikipedia is messed up today. StuRat 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Random deletions? That's scary. Or maybe not ;-) --Justanother 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See the thread above (Weirdness). I'm disappointed that this is still happening, I just noticed that a thread I tried twice to restore that had seemingly been accidentally removed during edit conflicts by other editors now looks like I deleted it lol (maybe it's one of the examples given above, I'll have to check). I feel reluctant to even try to restore it again until the problem is fixed. Anchoress 06:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's happened to me too; someone even yelled at me for "deliberately" deleting their thread this way. It seems only to be on the bigger boards, i.e. with lots of editable sections where this occurs (RD, ANI, ...) Usually I check my diff now to make sure I haven't nuked someone else's comment. Antandrus (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too (small stuff). It's Silent Cyber Stalinism! Clio the Muse 06:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Antandrus, that's funny, because the thread I tried to restore, which is now gone again (apparently at my hand) was one that you seemed to have removed with one of your edits. LOL. Anchoress 07:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh you're kidding. That's embarrassing. I'll make sure to check in the future ... (now watch me annihilate most of the reference desk with this "save" click... ;-) Antandrus (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, I don't think it was you. See here's what happened: I noticed that all of a sudden a few entries disappeared. I checked the history and it looked like you'd removed them during an edit conflict. I then restored them (with a copy/paste, to retain your addition). Then a few hours later, I noticed the entries were gone again, checked the edit history an lo and behold: the history said it was MY RESTORATION EDIT that REMOVED them lol. Anchoress 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I had weird missing history earlier tonight... try adding a "purge" command to the url and see if stuff reappears, it worked for me. See this link for an example of the syntax. What it does is forces Wikipedia to drop the cached version of the page and go back to the database. -- SCZenz 08:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of proposing rules & guidelines...

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

... I thought it might be useful if we all sat down and said what we want the Reference Desk to be like. I'll go first:

For questions to be answered in a timely, comprehensive, and friendly fashion
For questions and answers alike to hold a modicum of interest for a fair proportion of the readership

Of course the second point is a terrible can of worms to analyze -- so I won't even try to. I'm just acknowleding that it is indeed a can of worms. Cheers. Vranak 16:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I for one, would take "encyclopedic" over "interesting" any day of the week. Friday (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What does 'encyclopedic' mean in your mind? Vranak

I pass on # 2 also. People ask what they want to and we give them the answer. Neither the question nor the answer need hold any larger significance but for the commonality of human experience that interests us all. --Justanother 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since this is the Wikipedia reference desk, people are hopefully wanting answers to questions that might reasonably be found in an encyclopedia. No need to rehash all this here, but see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guidelines for some (IMO mostly sensible) guidelines. Friday (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A light goes off. So you see it as the "Wikipedia Reference Desk" i.e. it references wikipedia pretty much as a sole source while a lot of us see it as the "Ask the Wikipedia Editors Desk". This is interesting because in the first model we would use wikipedia as the only source just as a library reference desk has only the library for a source (of course now they have the internet too). But wikipedia is nowhere near as exhaustive as a library. So the RD can NOT work like a Library RD in the former; it can only work like a "smart" index to an encyclopedia. I will have to think about this but I think there is a fundamental issue here to sort out. --Justanother 17:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've no wish to rehash old debates, but yes, clearly the reference desk is part of Wikipedia and thus shares certain core goals. There can be no reasonable disagreement on this. As for what this means exactly- I've no illusions that we can answer every question with a link to an article. However I would suggest that using articles and reliable sources in answers is way preferable to using questionable sources and our personal opinions. Really, the scope of questions and answers is already addressed on the guideline page, so insofar as this question is important to the guideline, discussion should be on that talk page. Friday (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK!

Anyway -- I think we can all agree that when there's an intriguing, thought-provoking, discussion-stimulating question asked, this could be considered a Good Thing.

And Friday -- if desired information can be reasonably-expected to be found in a encyclopedica, chances are that it will be found in Wikipedia. Thus, for all questions and answers to be encyclopedic, can we not reasonably conclude that all questions asked, will be a product of laziness? And thus should not be asked at all? :) Vranak 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please join the discussion

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

A discussion about the proposed rules/guidelines is now underway here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines. Please join us and give your opinions. StuRat 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I just browsed through it, reading all the interesting bits. As close as I can figure, it's perfect. Absolutely not a trace of 'uptightness' or 'ruleslawyerness', which is good. :)

And reading it a second time -- it's actually good for a laugh as well. Vranak 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Purpose section needs tightening up I feel (I mean its a little wordy for its purpose). I may have a go at that if Im allowed to/. I mean I so lost now with all this stuff going on that I dont know what I can edit and what I cant/shouldnt 8-|--Light current 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Give it a go; we might like it. We can also merge your thoughts with others. Or put your proposed language on the talk page for some input first if you prefer or if you think you will be stepping on toes. --Justanother 22:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not the spirit of the section I wish to alter, just its wording to make it less...wordy I mean I would like to do to it what I would do to any article that was to wordy for its own good 8-)--Light current 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on that talk page, not here. StuRat 22:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah weve got a talk page for it as well? OK So all the above (except your initial intro) should be moved there as well?--Light current 22:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Attempt at communication removed and restored

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I removed something I thought was hopelessly off-topic, but it was restored. Bringing it up here for further input. My opinion was that, while sad, there's nothing the reference desk can do about this. Friday (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes sad. But the real point is that there is a very definite question there that we can address so let's help instead of blowing her off. I guarantee the librarian would help!! --Justanother 20:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You want us to help by publishing email addresses of television people? That would be a terrible thing for us to do, in my opinion. Friday (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? That would be public info on the TV station website, if available. If not we can give her the phone number or just a link to his website or the TV station website. We can help people. That is what we are allowed to do. If we cannot chat, at least we can help people. --Justanother 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that's her question, Justanother? Because it sounded more to me like she was wanting help organising other mothers of dead children, or that she was trying to figure out how to talk to the non-English speaking parents of her daughter's killer. Anchoress 20:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not add anything to the body of her text, The specific question is in there and it is the only question she asks. --Justanother 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't suggest you added anything to the text, Justanother, I'm not sure why you even mentioned it. I read the exact same thing as you, and what I got from it was different. I am not accusing you of anything. Anchoress 20:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for soapboxes, or memorials, or calls to action. Friday (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Start here: KDAF --Justanother 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

She was saying that this guy is the one guy she's ALREADY gotten cooperation from. She wanted other suggestions. Friday (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. So she is asking if we know of any other reporters or venues in the Dallas area that might publicize her story, especially Spanish-language venues. Is that such a bad question? --Justanother 20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that we figure out what is being asked and, if appropriate, we answer. I still do not see this as, in any way, an inappropriate question deserving of a callous deletion. --Justanother 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. Question is not offensive in any way. Leaving it on the RD cannot possibly harm Wikipedia. Someone reading it might just be able to provide this poor lady with some help. Summarily deleting it just says "we don't care about you or your problems, 'cos they are not encyclopaedic enough". Remember, as our proto-guideline says: "The Reference Desk maintains a friendly, open, welcoming environment". Gandalf61 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed medical advice

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I have just removed two comments that replied to the question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Swallowed_shampoo; the comments are quoted below.

Well, you're probably been through the worst of your sickness already, I am guessing. If you do still feel very sick though, I definitely concur with Hipocrite. Vranak 21:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How much, exactly, did you swallow? Chances are, anything that's meant to be rubbed anywhere near the face is not that dangerous. So try to call a poison control centre or see a doctor like the other editors said, but don't worry, there will be no severe effects. --Bowlhover 22:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Before now, I don't believe I've ever removed any comment from the Ref Desk before bar obvious trolling or vandalism. I believe that in this case my removal was justified because the comments gave what amounts to medical advice, to a minor, about an emergent medical condition. I have notified the editors of my reasoning.

If someone thinks I've overstepped, then do as you will; I'm going to be offline for the next little bit, and won't be able to follow this discussion. Please discuss before starting an edit war on the Ref Desk page, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked a question about swallowing superglue before, and a user told me not to worry because anything kids can get to is probably not very dangerous. Nobody warned the user not to give medical advice; that's why I felt it was O.K. to post what I did.

I won't be over-defensive, though, so I'll leave it to the other editors to debate on this. --Bowlhover 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ten's reasoning -- and for my part I will not make such a blunder sgain. Vranak 23:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This was the right call, Ten. If people ask for medical advice, the only "medical advice" we should give is to see a doctor. Giving advice on a talk page, especially advice like "don't worry" which may discourage someone from seeing a doctor, is potentially dangerous and has the potential to reflect very poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. I imagine that Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer might help the WikiMedia Foundation avoid being held legally responsible if something went wrong as a result of following ref desk advice, but it is clear (and part of the ref desk rules) that we should avoid putting that to the test. -- SCZenz 23:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes the correct response is one of :See your doctor/see your doctor urgently/go to the ER!--Light current 00:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OR.. if you live in UK. Phone NHS Direct for advice!8-)--Light current 00:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When someone says "I've just swallowed X. How much X is lethal?"(and I do not mean Ecstasy; maybe shampoo, maybe aspirin, whatever) I sense a cry for help, and the very best thing is to get the person talking to someone at a poison control center, suicide hotline, or a doctor. We have no business taking on that role of crisis counseling, and certainly should not be telling them how much to take to be sure of lethality. I question even telling them X is harmless. Edison 17:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So... what's the response here?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a generally accepted response to questions like this? 68.39.174.238 13:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with the question as such - the 'guy' is asking for the notes for a song.. nothing wrong with that.. If he asked 'where can i get a score for mozart opus 2 ..' that would be ok, i guess, or 'does anyone know where I can get (insert deep purple old album) ' would no doubt get a response.

If you mean what about the grammar, punctuation etc - do I correct etc - I'd suggest if you have an answer for him, then you could take the opportunity to make a few points politely at the same ime.87.102.5.69 14:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What do we think about answers where people just make stuff up?

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I have seen a massive uptick in answers where people (typically ref-desk regulars) just make stuff up that sounds right. One question about the ease of making narcotics was answered by using supply and demand as a signal for ease of creation (not accurate), and recently a question about Japaneese TV was answered with what appears to be someone's assumptions, as likley to be true as not. Can I request that people not just make stuff up? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it's not a good idea to just make up facts where they can easily be determined, many questions either require an opinion answer or facts to which we don't have access. In those cases, quite a bit of latitude should be given to educated guesses, as long as they are identified as such. StuRat

What do you mean by "facts to which we don't have access"? If a particular editor has no access to sources which speak to the topic, shouldn't they rather just not answer the question? Other editors may be able to provide an answer that goes beyond simple speculation.

As far as answering opinion questions, why shouldn't we follow the approach used in article space, mention the notable opinions of others? Some questions may indeed require an opinion answer, but i don't see that any should require our own opinion.EricR 16:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"How many hairs does Robert Redford have in his eyebrows", is a factual question to which we simply don't know the answer. Some amount of speculation might therefore be in order, like the average number of hairs in the eyebrows of a man that age. StuRat 15:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a question of fact, which has an answer independent of what anyone thinks, whether Julius Caesar at the age of twelve had an odd or an even number of hairs on his head. But it is a question impossible to answer with our present methods of historical inquiry. We could speculate about the answer, but our speculations would be worthless.Posner, Richard A. (1998). "The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory". Harvard Law Review. 111 (7): p. 1645. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

The average number of hairs in a typical eyebrow, if or how the count differs for men or women or different hair colors, could most probably be answered by pointing to some clinical studies on the matter. I don't see that redefining the question in the manner you suggest is "speculation", but instead a good way of responding to a poor question. What we shouldn't do tho is state that, for instance, "blonde haired people have thicker hair" w/o some source to back up that claim. If an editor cannot back such a statement up w/ a proper source then why shouldn't they simply remain silent?

Your question could only be answered with a 50% chance either way, but my question could actually result in a fairly accurate estimate; an effort worth making, in my opinion. StuRat 19:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that speculation is never warranted (Steve Summit made some very good points about how WP:V and WP:OR should apply to responses {which seem to be lost}.) For some of the more obscure questions the occasional wild-ass-guess may be the right way to proceed, but i would view such responses as sort of intermediate steps taken to achieve the desired end result. Didn't you say earlier that we are aiming for the end result to be NPOV, and it might require more than one editor responding to acomplish this? Maybe the same could be said about applying WP:V to our responses, one editor's hunch may help another find the correct reference. But still, i think we should always keep the desired end result in mind, an answer we can back up with reliable sources. Editors should be very careful how they present any intermediate guesswork, and not speculate simply for the sake of getting a response in.EricR 17:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, all the needless fighting above only shows one thing: we should answer by linking to articles, or using other reputable sources. Trying to argue from our own expertise leads to intractable differences of opinion between editors. If this were a place for general debate, these differences would be our bread and butter. However, since this is Wikipedia, these differences are pure time wasters. And, those who are insufficiently mature to debate without making things personal create a poisonous atmosphere that will drive off editors. Friday (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say we should "make stuff up" only as a last resort, and preferably not at all. We should be answering from referenceable sources first, factual personal knowledge second, informed opinion third, and chair-tilted-back blue-sky imagination a distant, distant fourth. Eric's right, there's nothing wrong with leaving a question unanswered, if we just don't know. "Regulars" should be wary of unanswered questions which "cry out" for an answer (any answer!), should resist the urge to pontificate emptily, should try not to use the excuse that "some answer is better than none" (because that's not necessarily true). —Steve Summit (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Purely as an outsider: Does Hipocrite have figures on the "massive uptick"; raw figures, statistics? What is "massive"? How does "make up stuff" correlate with status as "regular"? Is there a demonstrable difference between regular and non-regular - "made up stuff" and "not made up stuff", per user type? Does "uptick" correlate with holidays, schooltime, or any other identifiable factor? These answers can all be determined by analysing a few weeks' posts, but would first require definition of the words that are presently bandied about as facts. Emotivist and "everyone knows" arguments have no place in this debate. Take the phrase: " drive off editors." It sounds disasterous, but is it? It is a well-founded idea? Does it exist at all, or is it a made up opinion - superficially logical but lacking backing? Do we know which factors drive off editors, and which of those are applicable to the reference desks? Conversely: Is there something in the reference desk that draws editors? If so, what? It nothing, what would? Wikipedia persons are so used to unjustified opinions being bandied about at edit wars, arbitrations, deletions and the like - seem to have become so emotively overwhelmed - that anything remotely logical and superficially plausible is accepted as a valid argument, and reason for setting off a long discussion. I for one would like to see the claims that persons make here be related to facts, rather than to generalisations and poorly supported opinions. Else weasely is an apt description. --Seejyb 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Isnt there a bot that is supposed to assign date headings? This is now 2nd time I have to manually put dates in Misc. I mean if it was usually handled manually I'll just keep adding dates quitely, but if there was a bot it might need looking into... Shinhan 16:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, RefDeskBot should be doing it, but my server's fried :(. I'm currently running archivals manually every few days, but ut's a massive help if anyone can add the date headers (= December (date) =). I'm really sorry about this, and will try to come up with a replacement system. M a rtinp23 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The name "reference desk" implies references

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

I don't know why this never occurred to me before. We should notice that the name is "reference desk" rather than "chat desk", "joke desk", or "everyone replies to everything desk". I think this tells us something about what we should be doing here- we should use references. We should point people to information- preferably articles, but other good sources are OK too.

Yes, I understand that there's been a bit of disagreement over this. Perhaps it was all caused by people trying to use a single page for two different purposes? I propose that those editors who want to do something other than answer questions with references should set up shop at Wikipedia:Chat desk or somewhere similiar, and perhaps many of these disagreements will go away. I for one, would keep my nose out of Wikipedia:Chat desk- you'd not find me popping in over there, trying to get people to cut out the chatting. Friday (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually "reference desk" even better implies that we "refer" people to the answer and I imagine that is what goes on at a library. But we don't really do that either. I propose the name be changed to the "Ask the Editors Desk" as that is a more accurate description of what really goes on here. --Justanother 16:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That might be an alright name- better than "Chat desk". However I would suggest that the reference desk remain as a reference desk and the new "Ask the Editors desk" be set up somewhere like Wikipedia:Ask the editors. I just think that as long as we advertise this as a reference desk, we should deliver references here. Friday (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Again it goes to the core question of what the desk is to look like. I can see where a true "reference desk" could work. In that format editors could not enter ANY OR but could only point the asker at the relevant article and/or website and perhaps use a bit of quoted information to make an answer. I could see how it could be set up like that but it is not practical unless fully moderated so I think it is an unworkable idea and we should just call it what it is, Wikipedia:Ask the editors, and instruct the editors in the selfsame policies that we are developing. Wikipedia, as community, lacks the self-discipline that a trained librarian should exhibit so no way this is going to operate, unmoderated, as a "library reference desk". Instead it will tend to operate like, well, wikipedia. --Justanother 17:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a new version called the "Find it Desk", which strictly answers with references, no commentary allowed. I would be happy to stay off that desk. StuRat 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with commentary as long as it's relevant to the answers/references - what I get a bit fed up of is this:

Question:is such and such x?
 Answer:yes
 Answer:agree
    by the way that reminds me of a joke
      ha ha thats a funny one
       here's another (fuck the question) 
        ha ha ha
  I disagree with your answer blah,blah blah
     oh I see, we can discuss it here - fuck the original question
       yes i agree
  Oh and heres a fact that unrelated to the question - 
  I didn't actually read the question and the link I've given isn't an answer but - so what - I haven't noticed.
  etc.

I believe such things are called 'off topic' - 83.100.158.248 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you a programmer by any chance?--Light current 21:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Do I detect yet another deletionist sockpuppet ? This would be number 4, I believe. StuRat 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you two on about???87.102.4.227 12:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We are suggesting that you log on before making comments here, to avoid the appearance of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of another user. StuRat 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fuck off - that's an insult.87.102.4.227 14:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A small point: Barrier to Entry.

If the Reference Desk appears to be more formal than it actually is, it will discourage people from asking 'undesireable' questions. Hence, calling it a Reference Desk, when there's also a strong chat component, is not altogether unwise.

If people come in, take the trouble to look around, and notice an air of familiarity and informality, then they'll realize that it is a little more than a straight question-and-factual answer type-Reference Desk. Vranak 21:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

After whats been happening here of late, I suggest we rename it: The Punch and Judy show 8-)--Light current 09:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

At least the unfunny jokes are gone. Vranak 15:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats the way to do it!--Light current 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Get your money for nothing and your cheques for free

(sorry couldn't resist)Vranak

Lines I suggest be removed

Latest comment: 17 years ago78 comments13 people in discussion

I'd like to suggest that these lines be removed from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Personal allergy:

Yeah, they're "allergic", sure they are. Can't imagine why'd they claim that.. ;) Vespine 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Misogyny helps no one. Vranak 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The first line, funny though it may be to most people, is potentially offensive to women (and frankly, kind of turns my stomach too). The second line because it doesn't make much sense without the first. And, of course, neither actually contributes to answering the question (which was going quite well otherwise).

I've left a note on Vespine's talk page referring him here. Are there any objections to removing those lines? -- SCZenz 06:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Im trying very hard to read something into Vespines post. By the indentation, I assume it is replying to Ten. I dont understand what the post is trying to say and its not funny to me. So Im not offended by it. However, phrased as it is, it doesnt seem to answer the question either. SCZ would you care to email me to tell me what You find possibly offensive in the post? Thanks. Also, the reply by Vranak seems off topic to me. 8-?--Light current 08:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Vespines comment: It's 'off topic' and could be considered offensive. It's certainly no answer and no help to finding an answer.87.102.4.227 12:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither one is bad enough to demand removal, in my opinion. StuRat 14:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I only put my little quip in there because as harmless as Vespine's comment seems, it's the little sexist remarks that do most of the damage. Vranak 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since they're not relevant to the answer, there's little harm in removing them. This brings up a small point tho- how much agreement are we looking for on things like this? I think there needs to be a middle ground where people say "Well, I probably wouldn't have removed it myself, but I won't argue about someone else doing it, either". This is how the rest of the wiki often works. We need to encourage a culture where nobody sees it as some kind of insult for someone's off-topic remarks to be removed. Friday (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lack of consensus for removal

As of the point of removal, we've had comments from me and Light Current supporting keeping it in, and presumably the author is in favor of that, as well. We only received two comments in favor of removal, from SCZenz and Friday. Vranak's comment didn't seem to be either for or against removal. This hardly seems like a "consensus for removal", and thus, I object to any removal until more voices have been heard and a consensus is formed. StuRat

This is not about voting. It is about content. What worth while content was removed? David D. (Talk) 11:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not about voting, and there has been none here. It's about consensus, or, in this case, the lack thereof. StuRat 11:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, what worth while content was removed? David D. (Talk) 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I too agreed with it's removal.87.102.22.58 11:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you "87.102.4.227" ? I wasn't including anon I/P's, as they could very well be sockpuppets. StuRat 12:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's always 'me' - the IP varies but seems to always start with an 8. 87.102.22.58 13:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If a comment such as this needs consensus prior to removal, then when an editor feels the need to make a joke or off-topic comment they should list it here—we'll see if there is consensus for it's addition.EricR 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed

I removed those comments. I did not, indeed, "demand" removal. I asked for it, but in the end, there was no argument given for why those particular comments improve the reference desk, and I am 100% confident that the first remark is potentially offensive even if not all the above users agree. (The second remark, whose sentiments I agree with, I'm only removing because it would be contextless without the first.) As Friday says, maybe not everyone here would've personally removed them, but surely you can see that there's not much benefit to putting them back. -- SCZenz 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You were very reasonable. I also note that your primary consideration was whether the remarks improved the reference desk, which is exactly the standard we should all be using. My own opinion is that bringing it up ahead of time wasn't even necessary, but I'm willing to throw that one into the "not worth arguing over" pile. Friday (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing was right.87.102.4.227 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Put back?!?

StuRat, I am utterly astounded that you would put these back given the discussion here. Did you first read the discussion here? Do you think that putting these comments back improved the reference desk? Friday (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Intentional disruption is a blockable offence. Putting penis jokes (sorry, women don't like sex and lie about their reasons jokes) back on the desk is disruption. There is a point where patience must fail. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not disruption, and not even close to being a blockable offense. Try reading WP:DIS to get a better idea of what is, and what is not, disruption. You can't just call anything you disagree with disruption. StuRat 11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No blocking is needed here. I've left a note on StuRat's talk page, and I'm hoping we can make progress. But I think reference desk answerers who prefer a looser atmosphere but are interested in compromise have to show a willingness to stand up to StuRat's uncompromising position... and "clean their own house" as it were. In this case, that would mean using the wiki-process to improve the page by re-removing the remarks. You don't have to endorse "heavy-handed blocks and removals," you just have to take out a clear cut example of something that doesn't help, and wouldn't fit with the current proposed guidelines we're all working on. Anyone up for it? -- SCZenz 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The uncompromising positions would be:

Inclusionist: Nobody should ever delete anybody else's post.

Deletionist: Anyone can delete anything they want without first gaining a consensus.

I most definitely have compromised, and agreed that, once a consensus is reached to remove a problem post, it can be removed. I even add an exception for a post which is truly disruptive (prevents the Ref Desk from functioning), which I would allow anyone to delete, with notification of the author. I've done nothing but compromise, it's the deletionist side that hasn't, and still wants the right to delete anything they want, without consensus. StuRat 16:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I dont find these posts offensive in any way. But then I dont understand them. I must be too innocent! And here is a very interesting point;

How can you be offended if you dont know what the hell someone is talking about?

If I cant see the problem with them, Im hardly likely to vote for their deletion. I did ask SCZ if he would email me to tell me what the problem was. Im still waiting..... Anyone else is welcome to tell the the problem with the first post. 8-(--Light current 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a joke about trying to get women to swallow semen, which claims they are lying about why they won't do it. -- SCZenz 17:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It didn't say anything about swallowing semen, that's all a product of your own mind. I took the joke to mean that women use that as an excuse not to have normal sex. I don't see how anyone would find that offensive, any more than "I have a headache", much less disruptive. StuRat 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to abdicate my judgement about what was alluded to, just because you're willing to claim the obvious meaning of the remark is "a product of my mind." -- SCZenz 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I also thought it was about allergy to semen injected into the usual orifice due to normal sexual intercourse.--Light current 17:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your assumption that you can only have an allergic reaction to something taken orally is just plain wrong. StuRat 11:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I like to think of jokes as being remotely funny. I'd say his was a pathetic attempt at being witty: more a confession of a sick mind than a real joke. Vranak 18:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks won't help here, nor even insulting peoples' jokes. What will help is finding a way to remove content that hurts the desk. I won't remove it again, but if others feel it would be an improvement to do so, go for it. -- SCZenz 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not an ad hominem attack if he doesn't read it. That said, you're quite right. Vranak 18:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK THis post:

Yeah, they're "allergic", sure they are. Can't imagine why'd they claim that.. ;) Vespine 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Reads to me like a sarcastic statement meaning that women cannot in fact be allergic to semen but just say they are for some reason. It could be interpreted as Vespine saying that some women try to avoid sex with men by saying they are allergic to semen. Is that a joke? Its not funny to me, but neither is it offensive. I think SCZ has really had to try hard to glean his meaning from the above words and of course it shows he was thinking along those lines to start with. How does he know Vespine was referrinng to swallowing semen? I didnt/dont--Light current 20:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarities sake, what do you think "Popping the collar" means? Does it have two meanings? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It has no meaning in the UK 8-|--Light current 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Whereas 'popping your cork' is a completely different thing altogether!--Light current 22:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell

Someone asked a serious question.
Someone else (me, but that's beside the point) gave a serious, referenced answer.
Vespine opted to believe that since semen had been mentioned, it would be a good time to make a 'joke' about women who make excuses to avoid semen.
Vranek noted (following the remark in the thread) that the 'joke' was misogynist. In my judgement, it's also a pretty weak joke.
SCZenz described on this talk page his concerns about the remark; he simultaneously notified Vespine on his talk page of the discussion, and asked Vespine to consider removing the remark.
Comments were received. Some people believed that the remark was not serious enough to warrant removal; others thought that it was. In any case, nobody indicated (then or since) that they thought the remark was likely to be useful.
Ten hours after his initial post, SCZenz removed the comment. Vespine had not commented, and has not edited Wikipedia since.
StuRat restored the 'joke', without discussion or comment here.
Nobody has yet identified a clear reason why the posted message is useful.

In other words, there hasn't been any sort of censorship at work—SCZenz was very thorough and patient in notifying both the original poster through his talk page and the Desk collectively here. He waited a more than reasonable amount of time for comment.

Why the heck would we want to restore a comment that 1) doesn't help to answer any question, and 2) is potentially highly insulting to any women who read, ask, or answer at the Desk? This isn't a boys' locker room. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair summary in my opinion. I hope this episode drives home the point that we should put a higher value on improving the desk than on defending people's right to say what they want. That SCZenz would act so reasonably, and that there would be such an unreasonable response to his actions, indicates to me that there are misplaced priorities at work here. Friday (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like wikipoint to me. There is no reason at all to restore comments that add nothing to the answer. StuRat, can you just stop this war and concentrate on making ref desk a useful resource. Patrolling the edits to restore 'jokes' is not doing that. You're wasting your own time and going out of your way to piss people off at the same time. It's pretty lame. David D. (Talk) 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just endorsed the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat. I want to see StuRat start taking some his critics seriously. Ignoring them is not the path to take. Worse, escalating the tension is going to waste huge amounts of peoples valuable time. Don't make wikipoints. David D. (Talk) 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just followed the "wiki process", to restore a comment I thought was appropriate, and to limit offense to the author, who hadn't even had a chance to respond before his post was removed. I did not violate 3RR (I didn't even revert twice). And this is what you cite as cause to file a complaint against me ? I also note you had already endorsed comments on that page before this, so I don't quite buy your argument, in any case. StuRat 11:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why i wrote "I had held off endoring this whole RfC rather than a few of the comments below". Can you really not see, despite the discussion on this talk page, that adding back the comments was a bad idea? They did not address the question at all. If so, then you seem to be learning nothing about why people are frustrated with your actions. David D. (Talk) 11:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of people who've responded have endorsed comments favorable to me, and unfavorable to those who filed the RFC. Only a small, vocal minority, yourself included, seems to be seeking vengeance for my opposition to the deletionist POV. StuRat 15:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well there's your problem right there. I don't see RfC's as tools for vengeance, it is for comment, and i commented. The point of this RfC was to help Ref Desk function in a more encyclopedic way. You seem like a bright guy, why do you want off topic 'jokes' littering the answers? Usenet would be a far better venue. It is irrelevant if you, and your cohort here in ref desk, currently have consensus to continue with your anything goes approach. As they say, the lunatics do not run the asylum. Also why do you keep doging the following question with respect to the content you added back to the science desk. So again, "what worth while content was removed? " David D. (Talk) 16:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The "worth" is reducing the offense to the author, as I've said many times (aren't you paying attention ?). Since you are new to this debate, I will repeat my view (which is also the view of the majority of people here) on when a comment should be removed (done as a link, to save space here): User_talk:StuRat#Deletion. StuRat 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're worried about the fragile ego of editors who contribute comments that do not address the questions? Where is the logic here? The only consensus you had above was that the two sentences were not that offensive. But the focus of the debate was "did the comments contribute to answering the question?". Non of you have attempted to defend the quality of the sentences that were removed; there is nothing to defend, of course. I don't see how you can have a consensus to return the sentences without an argument to justify their quality? In fact, your argument appears to miss the whole point of the ref desk; to answer questions with thoughtful replies. David D. (Talk) 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're using a standard there, which nobody has ever agreed to, that anything which isn't a direct answer to a question may be immediately removed by anyone. StuRat 19:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a question: given that everyone (I think) agrees that the comment was borderline -- not terribly funny, potentially offensive but not terribly so -- is deleting it the best way to improve the Reference Desk?

We all agree (I think) that we want a high-quality Reference Desk, without excessive off-topic content, "humorous" or otherwise. What if, for borderline cases, we agreed that (a) someone who finds it on the wrong side of that border line is free to, politely, say so, and (b) the original poster promises to not take offense, not cry "censorship", but merely say, "I'm sorry, I'll try to be more considerate next time." Besides avoiding unnecessary contention, this has the added side benefit that others can see the exchange, and adjust their own assessment of what's likely to be found objectionable or otherwise inappropriate. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Meta-discussion on the desk itself will compound the disruption to the purpose of the desk. Remarks that are offensive to no purpose hurt the desk, and it isn't my fault if people take offense at seeing the desk improved through their removal.

I'm sorry, but that's fallacious. Saying "it isn't my fault if people take offense" is a recipe for being generally offensive. The people posting the offensive content (that you're asserting your right to delete) might as well say, "it's not my fault if people were offended".

It's a tricky row to hoe, no question. I'm not trying to say that anyone has a right to post anything and that it's the reader's problem if they're offended. But I also can't accept that it's any one person's right to delete anything which they personally are offended by or which they individually have decided does not contribute to the desk. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is a wiki... It's everyone's right to edit pages. Whether it's a good idea is a more subtle question, and maybe that's what you mean.

Exactly. —scs

At a certain point, I feel justified in using a modicum of common sense. Stupid sexist jokes, which are off-topic, do not contribute to the desk, right? And they do hurt the desk a tiny bit, right? So why not remove them? I asked for feedback in this case... it's just that I didn't get any objections except "it wasn't offensive" and "we have the right to post whatever we want", both of which are false, and several people agreed with me. -- SCZenz 02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The tricky part is that on the other hand, clever, witty jokes may help the disk a tiny bit. And of course jokes are terribly subjective; one man's stupid sexist joke may be another's clever, witty one. And it's very, very hard to limn all these distinctions, whether a joke is funny or stupid, helpful or hurtful, and whether deleting a marginally off-topic item helps more by cleaning the desk or hurts more by being contentious. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So why should we err on the side of letting the people who make the most sexist jokes determine the content of the page? Furthermore, some things are just plain inappropriate, and it doesn't matter who disagrees; claiming that we all have our own common sense, with none better than any other, is simply no way to run Wikipedia. -- SCZenz 18:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say we should err on the side of letting the people who make the most sexist jokes determine the content of the page. I don't know how to handle the case where one man's stupid sexist joke is another's clever, witty one, although I suspect it's a combination: sometimes the joke should be removed, and sometimes the people who profess to be offended by it should lighten up, depending.

(I suppose, though, that "err on the side of letting the people who make the jokes determine the content" is an implication you could derive from the "don't delete, just comment and hope that they do better next time" strategy. Point taken.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree there is a balance to be drawn here. I am very fond of the "don't delete, and just comment and hope they do better," in general. -- SCZenz 22:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also note that I've tried to explain why certain remarks are inappropriate in the past, and the rate of people saying "I'll try to be more considerate next time" is very low. -- SCZenz 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it's been very low. But we're (trying to) forge some new policy here, trying to compromise and find some middle ground, which is why I suggest this as a possibility. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am, and will always remain, happy to explain my reason for anything I propose or do. However, you seem to be proposing (correct me if I'm wrong) that I should accept on-desk meta-discussion and the continued presence of remarks that undermine the purpose of the desk... this seems like a recipe to end the conflict, but not a recipe to solve the problem. I think it's fair to ask for both. -- SCZenz 23:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And indeed, my vision is of on-desk metadiscussion which upholds the purpose of the desk and aids in solving the problem. There is nothing anathema to me about (limited) metadiscussion; indeed I suspect it's inevitable. And by keeping it on-desk it's seen by more people and therefore has a wider effect. Now, this is indeed a debatable point and I can't be sure how well it would work, but I must point out that summary deletions don't solve the problem, either, nor do they end the conflict. Me, I'm seeking both outcomes as well, by (optimistically, I admit) imagining an atmosphere where we neither have to delete offensive comment nor ask for it to be deleted nor live with its presence, because little of it gets posted in the first place. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the reference desk is the appropriate forum for discussion of how to use the reference desk; rather, this talk page is. The reference desk's audience is far wider than just the people who answer questions, and I think that's very important to remember. What I did today was not a summary deletion, it was one that was reasoned and explained in detail; I don't understand how you can expect me to give up on using the wiki process to improve the page, when nobody will explain in terms of Wikipedia's policies or the reference desk's goals how that action hurt the reference desk. Deletions aren't working because a few users are taking offense where none is intended—at the wiki process itself. I also would love to see a reference desk where there is little inappropriate content in the first place, and I would gladly remove nothing and explain problems endlessly for an entire month if I thought it would help... but it won't. -- SCZenz 02:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You did explain your reasoning, and I appreciate that.

My own feeling is that:

It's not worth the time it takes to explain and debate and then maybe (non-summarily) delete every bit of potentially inappropriate content. That's why I'd like to very briefly comment on its inappropriateness and move on, and hope that the poster won't post inappropriately in the future.
I don't agree that the reference desk is an inappropriate forum for discussion of how to use the reference desk.
While I sympathize with your wish not to subject bystanders to that metadiscussion, I'm not too worried by that. I imagine (perhaps incorrectly) that they won't be bothered by it, either; I imagine that they'll learn more about how the desks work, to their betterment if they ever stop lurking and start posting.
I'm unswayed by the argument that metadiscussion belongs on the talk page, because for project pages such as the reference desk which are intrinsically very talky, I know I tend to forget the existence of and ignore the "true" corresponding talk pages for months on end, and I suspect I'm not alone.
You say it won't work. Neither of us, of course, can be sure. What I'd like to try for that month would be: (a) everybody promises to try to stay on topic and to try to keep the extraneous chatter to a minimum and to try to follow the various other posting guidelines we're haltingly hammering out; (b) everybody promises not to delete anything except for clear, unmistakable trolling and vandalism; (c) everybody promises to briefly, politely, noncastigatingly mention when they see something they thought ought not to have been posted; and (d) everybody promises to (equally politely) say "I'm sorry, I'll try to be more considerate next time" whenever one of their comments is so commented on.

I'm not saying this would be a drop-kick or an easy panacea; it would require care and consideration, and compromise and actual changes in behavior, both by the people who want to see the reference desks cleaned up and by the people who have been posting all the "chatty" off-topic stuff which is being objected to. If either side refused to make the above-listed promises, my suggestion certainly wouldn't work. But if everybody did -- who knows? —Steve Summit (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on the appropriate place for meta-comments for the time being; if we could straighten everything else out, I'm sure that could be dealt with. However, I'm not going to promise to ignore inappropriate additions to the ref desk if they appear... Promising not to react to something someone else said they won't do is just plain silly, because if they do it then I've tied my hands for no reason. If nobody makes any inappropriate comments, then of course I won't do anything about them. -- SCZenz 05:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said you had to promise to ignore inappropriate additions? —Steve Summit (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're asking me to promise not to deal with them if discussion fails; if I make that promise, I would say discussion is actually more likely to fail, and then I will have to ignore them or break my promise. -- SCZenz 18:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, are you talking about "failure" as in, after discussion, the addition in question doesn't get deleted? Okay. In my mind, commenting on it meant that it hadn't been ignored, and the discussion is successful if it makes posts like the one in question less likely in the future. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There are some comments which cannot be suffered to remain on the desk; in these cases, not removing them is a failure, because leaving them up makes one a party to newbie biting. There are others types of comments where it's not such a big deal, as long as we're working towards a lower frequency of them in the future. I don't want to imply I'm planning to make a fight over very many comments... but I think giving up the right to take action in unusually problematic cases will reduce the perceived need to address concerns about the comments and improve. -- SCZenz 22:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No question that there's egregious stuff which ought to be removed forthwith. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! I only addressed half of your post. (How can I post 387 words, and only say half what I need to say? I must be less verbose.)

You said, "I don't understand how you can expect me to give up on using the wiki process to improve the page, when nobody will explain in terms of Wikipedia's policies or the reference desk's goals how that action hurt the reference desk." Two more points:

6. As I've said elsewhere, I don't agree that "the wiki process" necessarily gives people the right to just delete stuff. (Yes, yes, we're supposed to be bold, but we're also supposed to be more circumspect before taking precipitous action in contentious areas -- and as we've seen, deleting stuff here can be contentious.)

7. In the case of the (now-notorious) semen allergy question, the "hurt" to the Reference Desk by removing the controversial joke was certainly nonexistent. In the more general case, my answer must be not to the question of how deleting "off-topic" content hurts the desk, but contrariwise, how allowing it helps. My answer is that one of the secondary or tertiary goals of the desk, which I would very much like to get written into the formally-stated purpose (though I know it'll be a very tough sell at this point) is that Reference Desk participants enjoy themselves. A certain amount of light-hearted wit and wordplay nurtures and attracts the intelligent, free-thinking polymaths who are best able to find answers to some of the strange, multidisciplinary questions which the reference desks get. Erring too far on the side of suppressing or disallowing all humor and off-topic content would (I fear) lead to a rather sterile and uninteresting place.

Note well that I am not trying to give carte blanche here to every flimsy digression and every tedious piece of trivia and every sophomoric sex joke and every barbant mot which any self-proclaimed reference desk regular who thinks he's a delicious wit wants to post. Moderation, as ever, in all things. (345 more words. I ain't doin' so well on the moderation front, myself.) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [edited 14:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)]

I disagree emphatically with your first sentence on point 7. I don't think the hurt to the ref desk can be evaluated, but I think it's very possible that when there's a couple semen jokes every week, the cumulative effect is to needlessly turn away people who don't want to be exposed to such things for no reason. Given that risk, I think it's best to address such inappropriate comments when they appear. Regarding point 6, yes, of course we're supposed to be bold but not reckless, and that's an important guide for removing comments on any page... but at the same time, just because something is controversial isn't always a reason not to do it. Sometimes things are controversial because some users are using entirely the wrong metric for judging what's appropriate, and this is just such a case. -- SCZenz 05:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! I meant that the desk was certainly not hurt by the removal. Comment adjusted. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I did explain my reasoning in this case, and I requested a reason that the reference desk would be a better place if the remarks in question were left on the page—if no such reason exists, I cannot fathom why it causes "unnecessary contention" to remove the comments. I agree that it does cause contention, but no valid reason for the contention has been given. -- SCZenz 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(ec)Deleting it improved the reference desk in my opinion, certainly. We don't need to agree on some of the things you're suggesting above- they're already "allowed".

Allowed but not necessarily followed, which is why bringing them up explicitly and then agreeing to them can have value. See my reply to SCZenz just above. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the main controversial thing I see that happened was the re-addition of the material in question. To me, irrelevant material is sorta at 50%- it could stay or go, doesn't matter much (unless it gets out of hand). Irrelevant and also possibly offensive material lowers that number- now it's better for it to go than to stay. Basic editing etiquette should be what's needed here, altho I suppose it's possible that we may identify different points at which we feel that basic etiquette broke down. Friday (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another way to look at this is: rude, off-topic comments may offend ref desk visitors, and we'd never know it. They may also send the message that the ref desk IS just a chat page (I personally believe I have seen some of the effects of this, but again it's hard to say.) What does removing off-topic comments do? Well, it might offend the author, or another editor who thinks removing people's comments is bad. Those kind of disagreements tend to get hashed out on this talk page, or a user talk page. So, my strategy is this: let's err on the side of not alienating random ref desk visitors. If a logged-in editor get pissed off, this can be worked out. If the ref desk brings Wikipedia into disrepute, this is harder to fix. Friday (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well what a little storm I have caused! I had no idea all this was going on. Firstly, let me say that no offence was intended. Secondly, you know, reference desk or not, it doesn't have to mean banal and devoid of any soul. ;) There is a fine line between above and below what people consider appropriate and I obviously crossed that line, which happens when you like pushing boundaries. So to people who really think my comment added nothing: I accept the removal without and grievance. To the people valiantly fighting for the rights of all the women that I have potentially offended, seriously, get over yourself. I believe in an equal world where everyone has a voice. I consider my comment a battle for equal rights, your censorship takes equality back centuries where men have to shield women from the big bad mean world. ;) Censorship propagates inequality because YOU are deciding what is suitable or might be offensive, I believe people have the right to decide for themselves. And to those who took offence, good! Maybe you need to be shocked once in a while, thicken your skin a little and maybe even open your eyes to something new. ;) But in all honesty, I've written worse things which have caused less of a stir, I'm happy to drop it. Vespine 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's no big deal at all. The stir is because, as you may have noticed, we as a group are still figuring out how to deal with these issues, which made this incident something of a test case. I appreciate your comments—I by no means entirely agree with them, but I appreciate your willingness to accept that the joke wasn't worth fighting over. -- SCZenz 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The storm is that they were put back, not that you put them there in the first place. David D. (Talk) 23:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume that none of the people who have commented are women? Are women just generally more polite and pleasant and better behaved? :D

On a more serious note, I don't imagine that anyone on this talk page was particularly offended by your remark. Anyone who has survived the (teapot?) tempest surrounding events here for the last few weeks is no doubt very thick of skin. (This is unfortunate, inasmuch as we might frighten moderate voices who fear being bitten.) However, the purpose of the Ref Desk proper isn't to shock people out of their complacency; it is to be helpful, to answer questions, and to be a generally friendly and welcoming place.

If you'd like to make a brilliantly funny joke at the expense of women – or men, or some other group, or even some individual – could you make it at StuRat's talk page next time? Everyone would be happy, and nobody would need to be offended. No comments would be deleted and the Cabal^TM wouldn't need to viciously suppress your remarks. Please bear in mind that the Ref Desk is much more public than a talk page, and we should be aware of (and considerate toward) its much broader audience.

In any event, I'm glad that you're not as exercised over this as some people have become. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true, I am constantly attacked for things I say on my own talk page. StuRat 10:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I realise you're just kidding around but I didn't assume that none of the people who have commented are women as you suggest. What made you think I did? My point is that everyone is (sorry, not everyone, just some) quick to judge me as misogynist, yet those same people write comments like is potentially highly insulting to any women who read, ask, or answer at the Desk? which IMHO is more sexist then my remark. Why do you assume only women would take offence? Women wasn't even specifically the subject of my joke, my line read they claim that, meaning anyone who claims to be allergic to semen. Anyway, don't mean to go on, just wanted to clarify that:) Peace out. Vespine 00:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I ought to give gay men credit for being potentially offended as well. Although my flatmate might actually want to use the excuse.... (However, autophagic Onanists with MPD don't have an out here; different personalities share the same genetic material and won't provoke an allergic response.) Cheerio! :D (Note also that this talk page is an excellent outlet for those humourous comments....) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)