On Fri, 25 May 2007, Skyring wrote:
In deference to the uptothemoment nature of Wikipedia, I'll support
spoiler
warnings for recent works of fiction and movies. Shakespeare or Tom
Clancy,
no - they belong to the ages.
I assume then you completely disagree with the claim that spoilers are original research? After all, we can't allow original research just for articles about newer subjects, we must completely eliminate it.
At this point, I hear the unmistakable groaning and sighing sound of a long bow being drawn.
I'm just sick and tired of specious arguments tossed in as part of an argument by exhaustion strategy. The "spoiler warnings are original research" argument is one of the most blatant.
I think it's entirely appropriate to point out when an anti-spoiler person suggests something that happens to contradict one of the big anti-spoiler arguments.
Must Wikipedia always be a community of fundamentalists battling over which end of the egg to slice?
You (or your side) started the battle. I was fine with things being as they were. You don't get to walk in, say "oh, I'm going to force you to turn your eggs over," and then plead that egg slicing isn't important anyway so everyone else should compromise by turning them halfway.
(Besides, Swift wrote about breaking eggs, not slicing them.)