SkipCaptcha, nsSupply_SidersR, nsSupply_Siders_
8,436
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 163:
Line 163: +
Talk:Disturbed character (view source)
Revision as of 20:01, December 22, 2013
, 20:01, December 22, 2013response
=== This is a terrible approach ===
=== This is a terrible approach ===
::::I agree that the article is an embarrassment, however I need to add that i.a. to people who tend to answer the question for getting wider input on issue from other editors first by making an ominous warning: ''"you're clearly trolling and if you do it again i'll block you, love, iduan"'' [editing article is not, after all, a trolling] and then by blocking that person who makes such a call. That's not very ethical, IMHO. As for your point(s), pls. see also [[Truth at Wikipedia]]. I do not need to ascribe a diagnosis to a person as whether a person qualifies for something depends solely on evaluating his/her behavior described in sources against the criteria as was already explained. If you are interested only in what sources say, then it is peculiar that you had absolutely no objections whatsoever against the folkloristic entry ("Common speech and folklore are...") inserted by SamHB. There was your unique opportunity to express your strong beliefs in sourced information that you obviously missed (people usually call such approach [[hypocrisy]]: "criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself. It is hypocritical to use a double standard which strictly applies a rule to one group of people, while exempting or excusing another group."). Moreover, you should have a look at [[Hearsay_society#Notable_examples]], there was the case of Philip Roth when WP claimed obvious nonsense only because it was supported by "sources". The term "one author has used in his book" itself is meaningful because it correctly recognizes the tendencies we can plainly see are taking place in the society and tries to reasonably counter them. I hope this helps, thanks for understanding.--[[User:AK|AK]] 13:44, 22 December 2013 (EST)
::::I agree that the article is an embarrassment, however I need to add that i.a. to people who tend to answer the question for getting wider input on issue from other editors first by making an ominous warning: ''"you're clearly trolling and if you do it again i'll block you, love, iduan"'' [editing article is not, after all, a trolling] and then by blocking that person who makes such a call. That's not very ethical, IMHO. As for your point(s), pls. see also [[Truth at Wikipedia]]. I do not need to ascribe a diagnosis to a person as whether a person qualifies for something depends solely on evaluating his/her behavior described in sources against the criteria as was already explained. If you are interested only in what sources say, then it is peculiar that you had absolutely no objections whatsoever against the folkloristic entry ("Common speech and folklore are...") inserted by SamHB. There was your unique opportunity to express your strong beliefs in sourced information that you obviously missed (people usually call such approach [[hypocrisy]]: "criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself. It is hypocritical to use a double standard which strictly applies a rule to one group of people, while exempting or excusing another group."). Moreover, you should have a look at [[Hearsay_society#Notable_examples]], there was the case of Philip Roth when WP claimed obvious nonsense only because it was supported by "sources". The term "one author has used in his book" itself is meaningful because it correctly recognizes the tendencies we can plainly see are taking place in the society and tries to reasonably counter them. I hope this helps, thanks for understanding.--[[User:AK|AK]] 13:44, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals. Imagine if we just allowed users to make this kind of evaluations for other articles. One user says John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder. Another says Bin Laden was a great example of clinical narcissism. One user says some eccentric artist must be schizophrenic. The problem is that allowing that type of layman diagnosis turns the conversation from "is this article sourced and fact checked" to a bunch of non-professionals arguing over what psychological disease they think an article subject had. If you can't understand that that's a problem, I don't know how else to explain it to you. And it's a much larger problem than a folkloristic entry - if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find an article I've written that has those kinds of claims. You won't have any luck. And your analysis that the term is meaningful is based on what ... your expert opinion? Fantastic. Lastly, my block of you - which was brief (a week, I think?) - was justified. Two editors questioned you on this talk page and you responded with ad hominem attacks. ("Are you an evolutionist? Do you also oppose the Question Evolution campaign?"). I appreciate your attempt at explanation, but my concerns about you as an editor remain. Best of luck improving the article.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 15:01, 22 December 2013 (EST)