[WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Genus:    Priority Inversion
Species:  Pseudo-Consensus Overturning the Big Three (and the Five Pillars)

Case 7.

Article:  Charles Peirce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Peirce

Section:  Relationships, relations, relatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Peirce#Relationships.2C_relations.2C_relatives

Edit:  Revision as of 08:12, 12 June 2006 by MengTheMagnificent
(-> Relationships, relations, relatives -
removing as per editor agreement in discussion page)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Peirce&diff=next&oldid=58054308

Entire section deleted by "new user" MengTheMagnificent (incept date 10 June 2006).

Copied here is the entire pretense of discussion that preceded this deletion:

| ==The Relationships and relatives stuff should go==
|
| It seems to me that all of the stuff on relationships and relatives
| at least up to the section "Theory of categories" is way too advanced
| for a generally educated reader.  It is also unmotivated.  We are told
| that a reader of Peirce must understand how Peirce used these terms,
| but we are not told why.  Finally, it is unsourced original research.
| There's a reference to a Peirce article in Monist, but it is detached
| from any particular sentence.  At any rate, this is obviously somebody's
| original interpretation of Peircean thoughts about relations.  (If I'm
| wrong about that, then references to the secondary sources where these
| interpretations come from should be added.)  But I'm going to wait to
| see if there is a concensus among others that it should be removed.
| Would everyone please give me an opinion yay or nay on removing this?
| --[[User:Wylie Ali|Wylie Ali]] 16:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
|
| : I vote to delete it.
| --[[User:LogicMan|LogicMan]] 16:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
|
| : Delete for the reasons Wylie Ali gives.
| --[[User:AnnMBake|AnnMBake]] 19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
|
| : Me too.
| --[[User:MengTheMagnificent|MengTheMagnificent]] 08:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is of course the knee-jerk response of WP editors who are novices
in a given subject area to declare anything they haven't heard of to
be "Original Research".  Normal practice is to ask for citations of
things that you may have doubts about.  All of this stuff has been
in print for 100 to 130 years.  If setting some of this stuff into
the form of Wiki Tables constitutes "originality", then I worry
about the wrath of the gods for all our sakes.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o