Talk:List of eponymous laws

Hofstadter's law

I miss Hofstadter's law (after Douglas Hofstadter), usually quoted as "It will always take longer than you think, even when Hofstadter's Law is taken into account" or the like, but I do not know the source (a Google search turns up a lot of quotations, but no source, and the Wikipedia article about Hofstadter does not mention it). Can someone who's better informed please write the entry? --80.126.21.213 15:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oliver Burkeman wrote an excellent piece in the Guardian that referred to Hofstadter's Law - http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/02/healthandwellbeing.psychology 325jdc (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To be added

Ashby's law of requisite varietyRobert Daoust 16:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Godel's theoremRobert Daoust 16:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd have hoped we stick to things that are named laws, not named theorems. --Tagishsimon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a few missing, that should be imported from this diff of List of adages named after people which was recently redirected to here, without proper merging. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Poe's Law would be another worthwhile addition. Colonel Tom 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

These sites refer to Scopie's Law: http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/163/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/the_nuttiness_that_is_whaleto.php http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Internet_Law http://jdc325.wordpress.com/laws-of-the-internet/ How notable does an internet law need to be before it is added to this page? 325jdc (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I removed this edit which was added by a friend while I was getting coffee. The edit wasn't "wrong" per se, but violated WP:COI in that I coined the law and my IP was the "editor". Pommer 18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability and verifiability

This list seems to be a catch-all for a whole slew of non-notable, unverifiable (i.e. no reliable sources) "laws" that are used only within certain groups of people. "Laws" from and used solely in newsgroups, forums, blogs, wikis, etc. placed here because some fanboy or fangirl thought it was "cool" (e.g. "Poe's Law") should be removed. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit of a hodge-podge at the moment. I'd welcome some consensus around inclusion rules. The page started out as a list of eponymous laws having wikipedia articles. I accept that we might need to go wider than that - there may be otherwise reasonable laws which for some reason do not have an article. Amara's law would be one of those, for me, at the moment. But the page is also a dumping ground for newly minted laws & attention seekers. I think we should probably get tough & sensible, and demand proper citation for laws, which is a mention by a reputable secondary source; or else remove them. Thoughts? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines for lists wp:lists states pretty clearly that items in lists must meet all the core content policies such as verifiability. It would seem to suggest to me that anything on here would need a wp:rs source to stay. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a template box we can put at the top of the page for that? 67.135.49.198 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind. I found it. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's strange that you would re-add "Poe's Law" without any sort of RS after making that post. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Its use widely on ScienceBlogs, for example, would be an adequate reference for notability for list. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples, in particular:

Are weblogs reliable sources? In most cases, no. Most weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of the verifiability policy. Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available.

67.135.49.198 (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ScienceBlogs is consistently used as a source through out wikipedia. Major blogs such as Pharnygula have cited Poe's Law. This more than meets the requirements for a list article. It is not enough for a full article, but to be included in this list it sure is. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:lists: "The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material. Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." Please follow this before re-adding the entry. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

JinxMchue I mean, anonymous user 67.135.49.198, could it be that your opposition to this term is based more on your dislike that targets a group you identify with rather than a lack of a RS. This term is widely used and is accepted by many sources. SirChuckB (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion on its notability does seem odd as it does not have an article. The question is not is it notable enough to have an article, in which case you would have a case for its deletion, but if it is widely used enough term to be added to a list already full of terms that are not notable enough to have an article. It has an article on Urban dictionary, these blogs all use it and after about 5 pages of shifting through a google search for the world it is coming clear that with in certain forums and blog sites, it is widely used and its meaning is understood, so as it not insignificant even if it is not significant. Aiden Fisher (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And if the Urban Dictionary and blogs were reliable sources, you'd have a point. They aren't, however, and so you don't. Perhaps I should start adding stuff to Wikipedia that I can find used on numerous Christian and conservative blogs. No? Didn't think so. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been explained to you that the notability requirements for a list are a lot less than for articles about the topic. The references on ScienceBlogs, and its Google presence is plenty to justify inclusion in a list. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "Fitzmas" used to have an article here on WP. Its references on blogs of all sorts and its "Google presence" was many, many times larger than "Poe's Law." Hundreds and possibly even thousands of times more at the height of its popularity. Heck, you can even find many past articles about Fitzmas via Google News. Yet the article was deleted and all references it to it save a redirect were removed as it was deemed a non-notable neologism. "Poe's Law" is far less known and far less used. There is exactly ONE ScienceBlogs article that comes up in Google News and it's by PZ Myers. Tell me, is PZ's field of expertise the study of whether or not something is a parody of fundamentalist Christianity, or not? 67.135.49.198 (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons to other articles or past deletions is on of the hallmark "arguments not to make" when discussing notability. We are not talking about an article on Poe's Law, which everyone agrees is not notable enough for an article. But everyone except for you seems to think it perfectly fine for a list. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you advocate different goalpost positions for different items on WP? 67.135.49.198 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the criteria for inclusion in a list is different than the criterion for an article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You really, really need to re-read WP:Lists:

Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.

Translation for the slower minds among us: the criteria for lists is exactly the same as that for articles. Period. End of story. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I suggest you read a little more carefully, we are dealing with two different concepts, one the actual "list" and two the content of the list. Stand alone lists as articles need to meet full criteria for an article, but the individual items in a list do not. The individual items in the list are more like paragraphs in an article. Individual sentences and paragraphs do not need to meet the same criteria of a whole article. A sentence can be backed up by a single source, and article can not. A single item in a list can be backed up by a single source, the whole list can not. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I support OP of this section. However, the template requesting citations doesn't make sense at all - it is a list, and how would it look if every single entry had a reference attached? Sure there are templates better suitable to indicate what this page is lacking? Pgallert (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Google quickly establishes for me that Poe's law is in widespread enough usage to be notable. Like all other entries in this list, I'd like to see us insert a WP:RS type reference; but I think there's little point in seeking to argue for its removal. As to the debate I've just read, I see the distinction as content in a list must be reliable; the list must be notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So to sum up, Poe's Law is notable because you say so. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-spore

There is significant coverage of Poe's Law now that the anti-spore site has been outed as parody. In a couple days I will pick the best source and drop it in this article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you're going to do much better than the "original post": http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17606580#post17606580 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.217.73 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. With as much coverage as that received, I likewise should have my own Wikipedia article because I've received more during my life. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is required to keep an item in a list. A single source is plenty. All the other reasons explained to you also apply. You are the lone voice in the wilderness, and I think this is a lost cause for you. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Because you say it is, right? Seriously, the twisting of the spirit of WP rules is why this article is filled with so much garbage. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I, and everyone other than you, say it is. Yes that it is right, yes, that is the way it works. See on this site consensus is built by the editors not handed down on from on high. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what "twists" wikipedia is editors who have a private agenda but are sufficiently hypocritical as to accuse others of bad faith when their agenda is not being served. Meanwhile, though it is abundantly clear that Poe's law is widely accepted (presumably by people other than fundamentalists), we would be as well to find a reference for it so as to close down this discussion for once & all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing Poe's Law

Options as I see them now, source to a high rank blog such as Pharyngula or some of the major gaming blogs that covered it during the antispore.com thing. Another option is that Robert Ebert brings it up as a post-script at the Chicago Sun Times but doesn't define it [1]. And still another option I will just throw out there is RationalWiki. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ebert says that he wasn't aware of it, and has to cite Urban Dictionary. And gaming blogs and "RationalWiki"? Are you kidding? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Please keep your comments and opinions about whether the "Poe's Law" entry should be removed in this Talk page, not in the main article. I don't think anyone has come up with a satisfactory reason for removing the entry against the Talk Page consensus, and this is a really, really petty thing to need to request Page Protection or Admin intervention over. Keep the discussion going here, and if you feel that it's not being fruitful and the "Poe's Law" entry should still be removed, please use Wikipedia's existing dispute resolution mechanisms. The question is not whether Poe's law is "right" or offends you, the question is whether it exists, is verifiable, and is notable. Alereon (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

indeed. I find it also in very poor taste to unilaterally delete the redirect pointing to the list entry. Yes, the Poe's Law article was deleted, back at a point in time when it was indeed not yet notable, in 2005. This presents no precedent whether the thing deserves to figure as a list entry here, or whether the article should even be recreated. We used to consider it disruptive to re-submit a case for reconsideration under changed circumstances within less than 2-3 months. I frankly consider admins who are attempting to stifle reconsideration of a case after three years pretty far out of line. Yes, "Poe's Law" wasn't verifiable as notable three years ago. No, that doesn't mean it automatically is still unnotable todaY. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was last deleted by consensus six months ago, not in 2005. Please do your homework before making comments such as these. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Consensus as I understand it is for Poe's law to remain, and I'm sorry to see the most recent removal and the insertion of a bogus scaryygram. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You understand incorrectly. If you wish the entry to remain in the article, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources. Unsourced material is subject to removal without warning at any time. There are no reliable sources for "Poe's law", and I am replacing it yet again with the "bogus scaryygram"[sic] that you dislike so much. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please abide by talk consensus, Earle. Little or nothing in the article is sourced. Why pick on Poe's law? It clearly has enough traction vide a google search for it. Even your own suggested search, minus all sorts of things, give us 2.5k pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

2,500 pages, none of which is a reliable source! It would be far less if "-inurl:" worked in Google searches, which it doesn't seem to. No offense, but are you actually aware of Wikipedia's sourcing requirements? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you go back and read WP:N properly. let me help: here are the opening paragraphs, with my emboldening:

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.

These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

Poe's law is not the topic of this article. It is one of the hundred or so laws found. It is very clearly very abundantly used.

So that leaves us with WP:V, which quickly passes us on to WP:RS. There we find "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution." You will grant me, Earle, that Poe's law does have very many google hits. You'll rant that there's no ambiguity about Poe's law - no dispute over what it is. That being the case it is not an "exceptional claim requiring an exceptional source".

As the person who established this page and has worked with it since its establishment, I have to tell you that google tends to be the bellweather for the page. I'm happy that the retention of Poe is very well within WP policy & guidelines. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never stated that "Poe's law" is the topic of this article, so I shall pass over your entirely irrelevant discussion of what merits the topic of an article.

I will also ignore your implication that I don't know what I'm talking about. As a Wikipedia administrator, I am quite conversant with the policies of this project.

Very many things on the Internet have very many Google hits. That is equally irrelevant. For you to say with a straight face that a search engine may be used as a measure of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia is, frankly, astonishing. You would do well to consider this section of WP:MADEUP.

You have still yet to provide a single non-self-published source for this "law". When you can do that, it will be suitable for inclusion. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read the discussion we had about this further up the page? Inclusion of an item in a list requires far less than inclusion of a whole article. There was coverage of Poe's Law during the "anti-spore" site in September in many of the game sites, such as pc gamer and others. It was mentioned in an online editorial by Roger Ebert at the Sun Times, it has been mentioned multiple times on major blogs such as Pharyngula and Bad Astronomy, which have been used as sources in many articles. More than enough for inclusion in a list. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent)

As I commented to you above on this very page, Ebert said he'd never heard of it, so that immediately doesn't count. And as I commented to Tagishsimon, if you have sources, PUT THEM IN. Don't just assert that references exist somewhere. Until such point as you or Tagishsimon provide at least one reliable citation, it comes out again. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c]

To Tmtolouse again: in your earlier comment you mentioned "RationalWiki" as an option for source. Having looked at your user page I now see that it is, in fact, your project. I think it would be patronizing of me to have to point out in detail what the issue is there. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And you certainly wouldn't want to appear patronizing now would you? Maybe a little late though...Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please address the issue. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just undone your edit. The Ebert piece does not count as a citation. He says he's never heard of it, and has to link to Urban Dictionary as a reference. You can do better than that, seriously. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain to me, using wikipedia policy, why that does not count as a source? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ebert added that comment as a postscript replying to its mention in comments on the article, and does not discuss the "law" in the article itself, so it is inappropriate to cite as a reference to the "law". As if that wasn't bad enough, the other two "citations" you added use your site, RationalWiki, as a "reference"! You are clearly having conflict of interest and possibly even ownership issues with this article. I am now formally warning you: if you continue to edit this article to insert material that you cannot reference beyond your own website, I will have to consider taking sanctions against you. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you are bucking the consensus I am sure someone will be along to revert you again soon, I will not since it would be a violation of the 3RR, a rule you have all ready broken, will you continue to do so? Now you are threaten action against an editor that you are having a dispute with, not to mention various other violations of good faith. Ownership issues? Glass houses and rocks and all that, I see the you have placed "Poe's Law" as one of your major causes on your user page. Back off Earle, take a walk, drink some scotch, or do whatever it is you need to do to chill out. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I will be happy to discuss the more substantive issues once I see evidence you are no longer crusading and recognize that any overt action you take against me as and administrator would be a massive violations of wikipedia policy. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't broken 3RR. Today I edited the article once, and have subsequently reverted Tagishsimon once and you twice.

"Poe's law" is not a "major cause" on my user page. I present there a list of things I have done as an editor, including nominating the "Poe's law" article for deletion as non-notable. The community agreed with my nomination.

I'm entitled to threaten action because you're breaking the rules. There's no ownership issue with me; my job here is to ensure that policy is followed. That's the commitment I made to this site when I became an administrator.

I'll repeat and expand my comment from earlier. If you can find a neutral, reliable source for this material, directly discussing "Poe's law", and not referencing any website with user-submitted content - let alone your website - and place it in the article as a citation, then it will be fine. If "Poe's law" is as notable as you say it is, this should be trivial. The ball is in your court. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That would make you in violation of the 3RR rule, anyway, the major issue is that I want you to retract your threat of administrative action, and admit that you can not use those tools in article, or against editors you are involved in an active dispute with. This a gross violation of Wikipedia policy and grounds for the removal of your admin rights. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. This discussion is over; I have nothing further to say to you. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Then we will let Wikipedia policy of the last word: "Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. We certainly shall let it have the last word. Try reading a few paragraphs down the same policy page you just selectively quoted.

However, one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them.

My interaction with you, and this article, is in an administrative role. And now in that role I'm giving you a second, and final, warning. Provide citations, or drop the issue. Blustering and making threats is not the best thing for you to do right now. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that you entered into, you lack any semblance of neutrality and came onto this page huffing and puffing with a massive chip on your shoulder and a history of bias in regards to the content dispute. When things aren't going your way you threaten, when you are called out on this you threaten even more. Pathetic. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's enough. I'm giving you a 24 hour time-out. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What other steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution have been tried here? Has there been an article RfC? If not, I strongly recommend filing one. --Elonka 22:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Abusive admin actions by Earle Martin

I note here for the record what I perceive to be wholly inappropriate and abusive actions by Earle Martin, specifically:

• his block of tmtolouse
• his (now failed) RfC aimed against tmtolouse

Martin has involved himself in a content dispute, but appears to labour under the misapprehension that any content dispute in which an admin is involved is an administrative matter. I regret to note that Martin's actions come across as the worst kind of bullying.

WP:ADMIN states in unambiguous terms: "Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."

I call Martin to account for his lapse here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I reject your accusations in their entirety. Your invented "misapprehension" does not represent my opinion. It is an admin's job to prevent the abuse of this website by those determined to add unsuitable material to it. When someone repeatedly adds false references to an article that cite a website that he runs himself, as Tmtoulouse did, that is a violation of policy. I note also for the record that Tmtoulouse has been blocked twice this year for edit warring, in a total history of only 700 edits made to the project.

Tagishsimon, seeing as how you stated on this page "As the person who established this page and has worked with it since its establishment.... I'm happy that the retention of Poe is very well within WP policy & guidelines", perhaps you should spend some time considering your apparent ownership issues with the article, instead of playing Junior Wikilawyer. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to the issues at hand

The meta issues above are now being discussed elsewhere, my block is overturned, and I imagine Earle will not be threatening administrative action on this issue again. That brings us to the specific issue at hand. There are two policy points where I think expectations are drifting.

1. The criteria for inclusion of an item in a list vs. the criterion of inclusion for an article
2. The issue of the sources for our sources

To the first point I think it is prima facie obvious that inclusion in a list does not need to meet the same criteria as inclusion for an article. Poe's Law does not meet the criteria for an article but that does not exclude it for inclusion as part of a list.

To the second point I would like to know why the fact that say, Roger Ebert, sources urban dictionary is a problem. Where is the policy on wikipedia that governs "sources of sources" so that I can read it and see how it fits in with this dispute? Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Note - link inserted for other readers to save finding it above -- EM

Note: "Elsewhere" is Tmtoulouse's talk page. Please don't brush off other users in this fashion, thanks.

WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made... Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." (emphasis in original)

Ebert does not discuss "Poe's law" in the article. In a postscript, he mentions that his commenters mentioned it, and that he has never heard of it. Only the tiniest amount of common sense and editorial judgment are required to see that this does not directly support anything.

Ebert also links to Urban Dictionary, which is more or less a wiki (let us not nitpick over the site's technical implementation).

The reliable source examples advice says: "Wikis... are not regarded as reliable sources." Especially not Urban Dictionary, which is specifically mentioned in WP:MADEUP.

-- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As a direct source, sure, but what is policy about sources of sources. If a RS quotes an "non-reliable source" is that a problem? Can i see the policy on it? Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't specifically one that I can find to quote, nor does there have to be one. Ebert is linking to an unreliable tertiary source, and even the definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources says "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment".

That shouldn't even come into it, though. The real issue here is that Ebert's piece does not discuss "Poe's law" at all. Your citing of it implies that it does. That is a false citation. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am using Ebert as a hypothetical at the moment, to zero in on what exactly is needed in a source. From what I can tell from wikipedia policy the reliability criteria only applies to the source we use. The choice of sources for information that our source makes is not governed in wikipedia policy. So if a reliable source can be found that defines Poe's Law, where they got that information does not matter. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Tech Digest describes the law while covering the Anti-Spore site [2]. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you produce a single source that is not a blog, wiki, or other self-published medium, and otherwise meets the requirements of WP:RS? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 02:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tech Digest is used as a source through out wikipedia. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That is quite the exaggeration. Out of 2,624,738 articles at the time of writing, there are 13 that link to techdigest.tv. The particular article you are linking to does not even discuss "Poe's law" beyond a copy and paste of the definition from another website. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 04:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It says exactly what Poe's Law is, it is sitting in the article. The fact that it is a copy and paste from another site is meaningless. The fact that it is used as a source in other wikipedia articles means that there is no reason to reject it a priori as a valid source. Add in the other sources that have been discussed I see no reason at all that this does not meet the standards for inclusion in a list. I will be adding it back shortly. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are misrepresenting my words. I did not reject the site a priori, only your untrue statement. Please do no such thing until more editors have contributed opinions to this issue. It is certainly not meaningless that it is a copy and paste from another site; by your logic dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of equally unnotable things become worthy of Wikipedia entries by merit of copy and paste. There is no consensus to restore this material at present, and reinserting it material would be extremely poor behavior. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 05:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove the material in the first place! You do not get your way by default, and so far of the people that have chimed in on this page the majority are for inclusion. If the New York Times publishes something from a website we can site the New York Times and the information that it has published. Pretty basic stuff right there. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the number of persons on this page disagreeing with the inclusion is larger than that of persons insisting that it be kept. Either way, consensus is not needed to remove dubious material. "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed" - WP:BURDEN. Your point about the New York Times is also wrong. Suppose it quotes Wikipedia? What then? "Some news organisations have used Wikipedia articles as the sole source for their work. To avoid this indirect self-referencing, editors should ensure that material from news organisations is not the only existing source outside of Wikipedia." WP:RS. You can't say "a known website quotes a website therefore it must be true regardless of what it is". Also, you're comparing techdigest.tv to the New York Times. I don't think so. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 06:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In order to try and re-focus discussions on the article, may I suggest that everyone try the technique of writing in the third person? Removing the words "you" and "your" from posts, though a bit intellectually challenging at times, can be an excellent way of de-escalating conflict. --Elonka 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be a lot more useful if somebody else actually contributed an opinion to this discussion. No offense meant. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 06:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The post at WP:RSN doesn't seem to have brought anyone in yet. I recommend trying an RfC. Have you ever filed one? Let me know if you'd like help. --Elonka 06:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have actually just filed a user RfC for Tmtoulouse. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 06:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I meant an article content RfC, not a user conduct RfC. --Elonka 06:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I know. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 07:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to let retaliatory abuse of process stifle the discussion...Earle the only other person on this page that seems to support removal is an IP editor that I know has a personal grudge dealing with this issue. Multiple other editors have shown up and said that it should be included. Multiple sources have been provided that seem to meet the bill, you do not want it in the article, therefore yes you do have to get a consensus! The whole "I am above such petty things as consensus building" won't work well on a collaborative wiki project.

As soon as the RFC you have filed against me goes away, which I assume it will for failure of cert, I will set up an RFC about the article. If I am going to be having to invest my time dealing with your RFC against me that will take up what time I do have for wikipedia.

As for avoiding "you", again, I am happy to drop the personal tit for tat, but I will also not just lay down and take it from another user. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not just go ahead with the article RfC now? Do you think you have a sentence descriptor of the dispute, which would satisfy both parties? --Elonka 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple. "Earle Martin contends that there are no reliable sources that merit the inclusion of "Poe's law" into List of eponymous laws. Tmtoulouse contends that blog comments and Google hits are sufficient." -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 16:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, yea, that is a neutral and accurate statement of my opinion.....sure....why don't I worry about the article RFC, you haven't had much luck with RFC lately. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend writing the RfC in a neutral manner, that does not mention editor names. How about: "Are there sufficient reliable sources to merit the inclusion of 'Poe's law' into the List of eponymous laws?" --Elonka 19:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As for doing the RFC now, I feel there are a lot of reasons to wait for the RFC against me to expire, such as the limited time I have to devote here and not wanting to split my resources if somehow it manages to go forward, and that fostering of conversation will go a lot better when it is clear that the content and source issue has to be addressed specifically and misusing various meta wikipedia tools to stifle debate will fail. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A mockery of law

Many of these laws like Brooks' and Linus' laws are not real law according to the rigorous definition of science. They are just mockeries of knowledge to massage the authors' ego and a marketing ploy. These should not be mention in a serious mentioning of laws like Newton's and Kirchoff's laws. --Zoldello (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of a "real law" and others' definitions of the same may vary. Newton and Kirchoff may or may not be sufficiently snooty to dislike Linus or Brooks, but that has no bearings on this page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Poe redux

Found two solid text cites for "Poe's Law." Sorry if it refers to one with no controversy attached thereto. Hope this helps. Collect (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done; but that would be another Poe's Law. There appear to be three distinct laws competing for that namespace. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)