I sent a second email (which I don't think was received), noting that Adam hadn't really neglected the Muslims -- I dunno. Im not trying to cast him as some crazy; its just, he is being rude to me and I don't like it. Anyways, Im sure Erik Moller is getting pretty sick of seeing my rapidfire mailing list posts, so Ill stop trying to clarify what Im trying to communicate.
At [[Talk:Jesus]], besides being (in my not at all humble opinion) a most disagreeable person; Adam has stated that Jews hate Jesus (for good reason). I just think people should be aware that he said this, I am sure it has some bearing on...something or other. I also noticed that he didn't include Islam in his list of major world religions...Im sure you see what Im getting at.
The Cunctator wrote:
> It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are
> being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We
have
> methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive
> than simply deleting them.
There are plenty of things that are not offensive or illegal that are
fine to list on VfD. "List pages that you believe will simply will never
become encyclopedia articles. For example, articles that represent
completely idiosyncratic non-topics, articles that could never be more
than dictionary definitions, etc." says the deletion policy.
I agree that stubs should not be deleted, but "sub-stubs" should be.
Whether something is a stub or a sub-stub is a matter of opinion of
course.
Jake wrote:
> Agreed. Very few of the pages listed have any particular reason to
be
> deleted.
If you think that Wikipedia is for any kind of knowledge whatsoever,
then you're right. If you think (as I do) that Wikipedia should only be
for topics of a certain importance, then in fact most of the pages
listed there should be deleted.
Again, I find it amazing that we have no policy on this. The deletion
process cannot be fixed until we agree on the most basic criteria for
deletion. We're supposed to delete pages that "will simply will never
become encyclopedia articles", yet we have no basic agreement about what
this means.
Alex
If the mailing list html page would place the newest emails at the top; then, a user wouldn't have to wait for the whole long thing to load, in order to view the newer information. They could just click stop and view the email. The same holds true for pages like the Village Pump.
Toby is right, and I'll add that BOTH Adam's seem to be making personal
remarks. Ironically, it's on a page about someone who said [[turn the
other cheek]] (see Wikipedia article).
I hope neither of them "takes this observation personally".
Uncle Ed
The reason the [[Mother Theresa]] article starts off '''Mother
Theresa''' and not "Blessed Mother Theresa" can be explained in two
words:
* Uncle Ed *
(Those are the two words :-)
As Vicki explained before, our primary rule-of-thumb is that we call a
person the way most people call them. So the article on X@QJKjqjz (or
whatever her birth name was) uses her adopted name of Theresa because
not one reader in 50 would recognize her Albanian (or whatever) name. It
also adds the title "Mother" because she's been famous as a convent
leader for the past 2 decades.
Her recent title, from her beatification this month, makes her the
"Blessed" Mother Theresa (for Catholics and others who believe in
beatification by a sitting pope). I placed her title, if I recall
correctly, at the end of the paragraph with (I hope) a short note
explaining that (a) it's a recent title upgrade and (b) hardly anyone
but Catholics 'recognizes' the title.
I'm not -- and James and Vicki are not -- suggesting that Wikipedia take
a POSITION on whether the title is justified. It's just the handiest way
to refer to her.
*sigh* about twice a year, there's a big re-examination of our style
sheet. I hope this isn't that time...
Ed Poor (aka Uncle Ed)
Oh, Alex, you're making it too complex; stop thinking like a lawyer.
And, Cunc, stop being a dick ;-)
All we have to do is define the Wikipedia Inclusion Policy. Then, we can
start our deletion policy based on:
"Delete anything that shouldn't be included"
Logical, right?
Ed Poor
>
>>James Duffy wrote:
>>
>>>As we have an agreed naming convention, applied to thousands of articles,
>>>by a range of people from professional editors like Zoe and bookworms
>>>like Deb to experts on constitutional history like John Kenney, any
>>>unilateral attempt to abandon what has been agreed because Mark has a POV
>>>he wishes to push, would be a gross abuse of wiki and grossly insulting
>>>to the many people who solved what had been a glaring problem. Mark may
>>>not like titles, but the fact that they exist. Covering them accurately
>>>and factually is NPOV. Trying to push an agenda that says 'I don't like
>>>them, therefore I will remove them', is pushing a POV, is unencylopic and
>>>grossly disrespectiful to the large numbers of people who debated the
>>>issue, made observations and have spent a year implementing the agreed
>>>wikipedia policy in a professional, encyclopic NPOV manner.
>>
>>
>>I disagree strongly, and your attempt to leverage credentials is both a
>>logical fallacy (look up "appeal to authority", or the equivalent Latin
>>phrase if you prefer) and grossly un-wiki.
>>
>>The issue is that Wikipedia is endorsing certain titles, and not endorsing
>>others, which is inconsistent and POV. When we use Sir, Blessed, and so
>>on, and refuse to use His All-Holiness, His Excellency, and The Honorable,
>>this is a POV judgment, and unacceptable in a professional encyclopedia.
>>
>>If you do wish to use some honorifics, I would like to see some
>>conventions adopted indicating which we should use, and which we should
>>not. Why should the article on [[Mother Theresa]] start off "Blessed
>>Mother Theresa", while the article on [[Clarence Thomas]] does not start
>>off "The Honorable Clarence Thomas"? Is there a principle behind this
>>decision?
>
>You're talking about two different issues. James is talking about article
>titles. Delirium is talking about personal titles at the beginning of the
>text IN an article. It makes it easier to know what we disagree about when
>when we agree to disagree about the same thing. :-)
>
>POV is unencyclopic when it pokes out one's only good eye. ;-) Sorry
>James, but I can't resist the temptation of a good typo.!
>Ec
:-) Actually Ec, the naming conventions deal with whole issue of naming;
article titles and textual entries. Whether one likes titles or loathe
titles, they do (unfortunately) exist. Using factually existing titles is
simply a recognition of reality. ''Choosing'' to ignore them is by
definition POV and you are choosing because of a point of view to ignore
them. So Delirium's stance, apart from doing a Bobby Ewing and trying to
imagine that the last year and the work of many people, not to mention
debates, discussions, proposals put to the Wiki-L, etc didn't exist, is POV
in that it is taking a policy stance based on personal opinion to ignore
something that exists. So on three fronts, ignorance of what titles are,
ignoring the work of everyone over the last year who following an agreed
naming convention, and seeking to opt for POV reasons to ignore the reality
and push a POV agenda on titles, Delirium is wrong.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
(replying on wikiEN-l)
Matt M. wrote:
>>I partially agree, and partially disagree. "Saint Bernard of Clairvaux"
>>is perfectly fine, as people who have been beatified are often referred
>>to as such, both by those who recognize the sainthood and those who do
>>not (there are plenty of atheists who debate the viewpoints of Saint
>>Peter, for example). I do think "Blessed ..." is inappropriate though,
>>and frankly a little ridiculous.
>>
>>
>
>I don't see why. "Blessed" is analogous to "Saint." "Saint" is the title of
>a person who has been canonized; "Blessed" is the title of a person who has
>been beatified.
>
>
In retrospect I agree partially, and would move towards using neither
Blessed or Saint. In fact, I would prefer not using titles at all. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant for an example of this in
practice (note that it does not start off "General Ulysses S. Grant..."
-- even though in this case "General Grant" was in fact a common way to
refer to him before, during, and after his Presidency.
There are a few exceptions, of course. "Saint Peter" should be referred
to as such, because that's the most common way to refer to him (though I
wouldn't object to "Peter the Apostle" either). Popes should probably
be referred to as "Pope John Paul II", because "John Paul II" is not
actually a personal name, but one adopted with the office. But I don't
think this should extend to all people who have titles.
So, basically, I'd propose we remove titles from both article names and
the beginning of the first sentence of the article, unless they are
absolutely integral. This includes both official titles (President,
Prime Minister, etc.) and honorific titles (Blessed, Sir, etc.). Then
if having the title is important, it can be mentioned later (perhaps
later in the first sentence). Thoughts?
-Mark