User talk:FourViolas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to my talk page! Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page, and auto-sign your name by adding four tildes (~~~~ ). I'll respond here unless you request otherwise

DYK for Gavin Buckley[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 22 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gavin Buckley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gavin Buckley, the mayor of Annapolis, Maryland, thinks of himself as Australian? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gavin Buckley. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gavin Buckley), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


Based on comments like one you made here, you appear to be turning Wikipedia into a battleground, to correct what you see as my errant understanding of "ethics" and "morals". See WP:BATTLEGROUND and please be aware that if you continue this inappropriate behavior, it will likely lead to an interaction ban. Please think twice before continuing down that road. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, and sorry to hear you took it that way. Frankly it's all the same to me how you understand words, but where I have reason to believe other editors' terminological usage is nonstandard I sometimes point this out in order to facilitate others' understanding of the discussion—this is a necessary complication of writing an encyclopedia where all the editors have different amounts of technical training in various areas. I'll try to do so more tactfully in the future; hope this won't interfere with our productive collaboration. FourViolas (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, you would do well to think very carefully about what 4V has said in his various posts. EEng 22:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I do listen to them. I don't agree, but i hear them. The purpose of the notice, was that our past disagreement about "ethics" vs "morals" had nothing to do with deleting or keeping that article nor does it have anything to do with the question about what to name the page or what to put in it. I could be wrong but the inappropriate, "not-what-Jytdog-says" approach diff above is pretty good evidence. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Not interested in litigating this further, but responding for the record in case this comes up in the future.
The relevance of the past discussion had to do with the way Jytdog was repeatedly insisting that the phrase "the ethics in the Bible" implies the existence of a singular, coherent ethical system throughout the Bible [1] [2], which of course there isn't. However, this assertion seems to turn on the idea that "ethics" is a singular noun, or else usually used in the strict, unified sense of "doctors should always follow the code of medical ethics". This confused me, because in my experience "ethics" is usually an uncountable and occasionally singular or plural noun, and in humanities writing rarely has the limited "code of medical ethics" connotation.
This reminded me of a similarly confusing past discussion we had had in which Jytdog repeatedly insisted that there is a distinction between the terms "ethics" and "morals", apparently along the lines of academic ethics and moral rationalism vs. theology and possibly moral intuitionism; such a semantic distinction is occasionally made by philosophers (more often to distinguish normative ethics from applied ethics, as Wiktionary notes), but is not standard. I linked to this discussion to give other editors a heads-up that terminological disagreements with Jytdog could be an sticking point in discussion of the ethics in the Bible page, as indeed they have been. FourViolas (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • At the talk page, you remain focused on me rather than on improving the article. I again urge you to disengage from your focus on me. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
You just wrote this, after you wrote the remark above. This is a very clear demonstration of battleground behavior, where you are reading a past disagreement and your concern about some specific confusion you believe I have, onto peripherally related issues. The poor content at "sexual ethics" is unrelated -- to me -- to the distinction (or lack thereof) between ethics and morals, but you are responding solely from the perspective that it is. If you continue, I will bring this to ANI. This is a behavior issue and it is unambiguous. Please reconsider what you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
My belief that it's POV to presume that tumah is a concept belonging to "anthropology, not ethics" is independent of my belief that "ethics" and "morals" are standardly treated as synonyms in modern philosophy. The fact that you're the editor arguing against my belief in each case is a coincidence, and absolutely not the reason I have been opposing your recent deletions based on them. FourViolas (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Please step back and reflect. You are the person who has constantly brought up that very brief discussion at my talk page. That is why this is fairly unambiguous and why if you do not disengage from me and your assumptions about me, there is a reasonable chance that the community will grant me an IBAN. Go look at your own diffs. If you do not stop, the community will be doing so. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
btw, our brief discussion has clearly bothered you. It is also unfortunate that instead of exploring that more with me, you made judgements about it and now feel compelled to police me. That is your deal. The policing behavior has made it my problem. I left academia in part because of petty crap like this. I would be happy to discuss the underlying issues more with you, in some other thread, but your current approach to managing your being bothered, is not OK here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, if ever there was proof that there's no one you can't end up in a tussle with, this thread is it. You sound absolutely nuts spouting off like this at a gentle soul like 4V. You have an uncanny knack for making enemies, but 4V isn't one of them. Not everything's about you. Give it a rest. But if you insist on having the last word yet again, my advice to 4V will be to leave it at that. EEng 19:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I realize everything is not about me. We disagree about this, obviously. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"The authors"[edit]

In hindsight, that wasn't very clear. I'll do better! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem, glad we could clarify! Perhaps if you had capitalized "Author"... FourViolas (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Cox (politician)[edit]

Hey, I was reading over your comments in this deletion discussion, and wanted to ask you to share some thoughts. You said in your comment, "There is no requirement that politicians have to be 'more notable than most other' politicians at the same level, only that they have received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources." This seems to be true, of course, but I have noticed that with regard to politicians, unless the subject has actually been elected to at least a state-level office, it seems like no amount of coverage with regard to politics is usually considered enough to retain an article on such a person, even if the news coverage on the subject includes things like their date of birth, employment, personal history, etc. I can see why this guideline exists: we don't want Wikipedia to become flooded with promotional articles on every person who has ever run for office! But then again, if there is lots of coverage in the news on a person who is a politician (but who has not yet been elected to at least state-level office), it sometimes seems to me like an article on that subject should be retained based on the premise that there is in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent verifiable secondary sources. I have nominated a few politician articles for deletion myself based on the premise that the subject is an unelected politician, and so far all of these have resulted in a consensus to delete, but your comment has made me question the approach I made and the response others have given in support of those nominations. Am interested in knowing your opinion on this so that I can get a better handle myself on what kinds of articles we should and should not host with regard to politicians. Will be watching your talk page here for your response. Thank you! A loose noose (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! In my personal opinion, the plain language of GNG and WP:BASIC mean we should presumptively keep articles on people about whom sufficient sources exist to write decent articles about (unless there are issues relating to WP:AVOIDVICTIM and the rest of that section). "Notability" shouldn't be a value judgement we get to confer or withhold from on high: it's just an answer to the question "is it possible to write a policy-compliant article about this subject?"
I also think Wikipedia should be a place where people can get useful, unbiased information about important topics, and I think that in democracies it's useful and important for people to be able to know the basic biographical information about the people they're voting for without relying on biased campaign websites or combing through old news stories. Therefore, I approve of the standard, only a little higher than BASIC, set by NPOL#2: written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists). I think this is generally enough to make a useful, non-PROMO page out of.
That said, I don't know if this is a majority opinion. There seems to be a consensus among the editors who currently watchlist WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians that these standards are not high enough, and that, as you say, any amount of coverage of a politician as a politician is insufficient to make them notable until they have assumed a state-level office (even if, e.g., they've won a primary and are unopposed in the general), on the grounds that such articles typically violate one of various WP:NOT principles; this is approximately what the essay WP:POLOUTCOMES says, and you can see further discussion following my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Innamorato. There's a case to be made for this standard, but I think it needs to be taken to the community for discussion before becoming the new de facto' NPOL guideline, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I haven't found the motivation or time to push this further, though. FourViolas (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I actually caught your comments on Sara Innamorato before you even mentioned her, and am finding myself agreeing with you the more I consider this perspective. Which now means I am feeling more than a little conflicted (and maybe somewhat guilty for my own recent pursuit of the "unelected politicians must go" angle). I read what you said about there maybe being a need for some real discussion/ consensus on what these apparently contradictory guidelines mean. I don't know that I have the skills set myself to set this up, but I can totally see your point about the practicality of having information on politicians— including unelected ones— which covers their published political views, policy positions, etc., so that voters can make informed decisions about them (actually, now that I think about it, this seems like critical information to provide when we can, and I don't see any reason right now why any of it should be excised as "promotional": if Bob Jones is against abortion or supports coal mining, I want to know this before I go to the polls to vote for him and help GET him elected!). You pointed out that the "routine" coverage which won't get anyone a Wikipedia article is meant to include wedding announcements, and things like obituaries, but it does seem like the discussions about politicians are way more non-routine than these (unless all we have are voter turnout percentages, which I will grant are routine coverage).
So the guidelines for politicians state pretty clearly that unelected persons can qualify of they happen to pass GNG. Those guidelines don't say "we shouldn't have any articles on unelected politicians". But then as you said, POLOUTCOMES (as well as a paragraph in WP:AADD, and probably a few other places) says that in practice, no amount of political coverage will get any unelected politician a Wikipedia article (with, of course, a few exceptions). I am not sure why politicians got so singled out here! But I am feeling uneasy about how all this works. Hm.
I understand you are a college student, and that your time for and interest in futzing with stuff like this is probably limited. But I also feel like I want to do something about this if I knew how to get started creating a discussion, how to notify "the community", and have the outcome (whatever it eventually is) be well-advertised. If you are willing to give me some pointers and support on that, I'd like to maybe give it a try! Let me know what you think, ok? Cheers! A loose noose (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I would start by reading through WP:Centralized discussion, as well as archived discussions on relevant policy pages like WT:Notability (people): the most recent sustained discussion of this issue seems to be here, although that discussion seems to have fizzled out inconclusively. Then if appropriate—i.e. if there hasn't been a centralized discussion with a clear conclusion on this before—I'd start a new section on WT:N(people) called something like "harmonizing guidelines and essays for notability of politicians", using the {{cent}} tag. I'd clearly lay out the ways widely-cited essays seem to differ from deletion guidelines (point to GNG and NPOL#2 vs POLOUTCOMES and AADD, and link to some AfDs that turned on the question at hand—i.e. people agreed that somebody would have passed GNG, but deleted anyway because all coverage was election-related) and ask a clear question, like "Should politicians who have been the subject of multiple feature news articles by journalists be considered notable, regardless of whether they have ever assumed high-level office?" Then put arguments and anticipated counterarguments in a Support !vote below, and let the discussion run its course. We could sandbox a proposal together ahead of time if you'd like. FourViolas (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I would love to sanbox a proposal together with you (that sounds kind of weird, don't take it the wrong way!). Shall we use my sandbox? How about if I do some of this legwork here, bone up on the relevant discussions and policy pages, and put together something for you to look at/ review/ edit at will. I can notify you once I have something worth looking at! Give me a few days here, I'd like to do this right (I have never attempted to create a discussion like this before, and the prospect is a little daunting, but i am up for it). I will be in touch soon. Thank you for being willing to work with me on this! A loose noose (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so I have put together an initial draft of the discussion for you to take a look at here— check it out and let me know what you think! I am concerned it is too annoyingly long for people to read, and I am concerned that the example deletion discussions I chose were not necessarily the "best" examples (if you have alternate ones that you think would be better, just say the word), bu t I do think it brings up the point (and maybe belabors it?). I haven't made a list of which other editors should be pinged, but I doubt that will be hard to compose. I will be eager to hear your thoughts on it. Thank you again! A loose noose (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
...It has now been four days. Am wondering if I have lost you. Was it something I said?? A loose noose (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, sorry! I was really up to my eyeballs in problem sets and lab reports for a while. Thank you for drawing this up! It's very articulate and lays out the issue thoroughly.
I don't have a lot of experience with centralized discussion, but my intuition is that you're right: it's a bit long, and at this length will probably not attract participation from anyone who isn't already pretty invested in the topic—whereas the point is to get the broader community's opinion. I think we should try to get it down to a minute or two's read, following the outline you have:
  • Lay out the apparent conflict as concisely as possible: quote the relevant text from NPOL, GNG, and BASIC (People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below) on the one hand and NPOL and AADD on the other, and in a sentence or two summarize how the "guideline standard" and "essay standard" differ.
  • Assert that this discrepancy matters, because lots of politician AfDs are being closed according to the essay standard. Then provide the examples you've collected and summarized, and the link to the complete archive, in a {{collapse top}}...{{collapse bottom}} section. I think your examples are great, good digging!
  • Pose a clear question, like the one I suggested above (to focus and summarize for skimming people), then offer two answers. Yours look like the right ones, but here especially I think we should aim to be as concise as possible to make it easy for people to grasp what's being proposed: something like 1) No; we should elevate the essay standard, that ordinarily only politicians who have assumed the equivalent of U.S. statewide office should have articles, to guideline status in NPOL. 2) Yes; we should affirm the guideline standard, that political candidates do not require more or different kinds of coverage than other individuals to qualify as notable. Then move your very thoughtful evaluation of arguments and counter-arguments to your !vote, as they're more like useful evaluative guidance than information essential for an editor to form an opinion on the proposal.
I'll still be busy for several days to come, but could try to implement these suggestions so you can see what I mean maybe next Wednesday if you like. Thank you! FourViolas (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
So good to hear back from you! I agree with everything you have stated above, and if you would be willing to implement your suggestions in the sandbox text, that would be amazing. Next Wednesday would be fine with me! A loose noose (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────Hey there! I've been checking my sandbox dutifully but nothing has changed— hope you haven't forgotten about our discussion above, though I certainly understand if you've been busy. I'd still like to make headway, and am anxious to have your assistance doing so (given the scope of it all). It may be starting to seem like old news by now, but are you still in? <Smiley face> 09:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I tried rewriting it to get the point across quickly; let me know what you think! FourViolas (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
A loose noose Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Rutherford (politician) may be worth mentioning. FourViolas (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems like it would be useful to get the discussion started soon, as campaign season is in full swing and this discussion keeps being had over and over in different AfDs. Shall we? FourViolas (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Yay! Absolutely! Give me just a couple of hours (now) to look over what you have done, give a summary of the AfD on Mr. Rutherford, put together what I feel like is a list of people who should be pinged, and then I will (drum roll...) put it into the centralized discussion page (you yourself, of course, will be among those who will be automatically pinged when this happens). Question for you before then: to what extent would you like me to "co-present" this with you? I am happy to be the person who opens the discussion, of course, but would you like me to say it as "Four Violas and I" or would you prefer to just be a respondent within the discussion? I don't want to take any more credit than I am due, and you really were my inspiration for even giving this a shot at all, but I also am aware that you might be happier (?) being a discussant rather than a co-presenter of the discussion. Either way is absolutely fine with me. Am heading over to my sandbox now to putter it around! Thank you!!! A loose noose (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
(...and as I am reading over that text right now, I see you used the word "we" in the examples section, which I am going to take as a sign that you would like to be presented as co-author of the proposal, which actually makes me feel much more comfortable. "It's so much more friendly with two", as Piglet once said! On the other hand, we can't flip back and forth between "we" and "I", which is what the document has in it right now. Maybe I should present this as me/ I/ my and let you take credit in the discussion as you see fit? A loose noose (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC))
So I just created as list of people to notify and put it on the bottom of the sandbox page— do you think this will be considered canvasing? I picked names very indiscriminately, trying hard to make sure that I covered all of the regular recent participants. Just don't want to get a reprimand for it! ALSO: I had a look at the discussion for Mark Rutherford— I am not sure it pivots on our central point here as well as most of the other deletion discussions, given the paucity of sourcing on him generally: if you really think it belongs, though, then please feel free to add it along with a short summary/ analysis in the collapsible section on those discussions. A loose noose (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks good! I tightened it a little further, hope you're okay with that. I think it's a joint effort at this point. FourViolas (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks perfect. I am going to go ahead and put it up for consideration. It is absolutely a joint effort. I hope this goes smoothly! A loose noose (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Holy mackerel, I just posted it and added it to the centralized discussion template. PLEASE double check me and make sure I did this right! New turf is scary turf!!! A loose noose (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So the discussion we started continues. And I find myself getting a little overwrought reading the text, because I remain confident that the assertion we made is the "correct" one (in terms of what it should take for a political candidate to warrant notability) but am disappointed at the degree and intensity of the opposition (It looks like bearcat in particular has spent a LOT of time writing up why we are wrong, almost to the point that it looks desperate). I don't have a sense yet about which way this is going to go, but I am glad we got the discussion started and am still hopeful something meaningful will come out of it. Let me know if you can think of any additional steps we (or I) can take to help other editors" see the light." I am hesitant to get more involved than I already have been so far because I don't want to end up looking like bearcat does there. But a worthy cause is a worthy cause. Fingers crossed, no?? A loose noose (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems we weren't as clear as we could have been—there's a lot of feedback objecting to the way we perceive the problem, or even rejecting the idea that there's a conflict (which seems strange given the plain language of the guidelines, but I guess a lot of people subscribe to the idea that guidelines should be read as vague suggestions rather than literal instructions, a position I admit is defensible according to the WP:DEL-REASON policy).
Nonetheless, I think the questions under consideration are on the table one way or another, and within a few weeks it'll be clear whether there will be a consensus or not. There are good arguments being put forth on various sides—I actually think BC in particular is putting forth a very clear and well-reasoned position, probably the most compelling one for anyone who doesn't share my minimal definition of notability as policy-compliability rather than a more subjective sense of "encyclopedic importance".
Overall, rather than thinking of ways to enlighten other editors, I'm trying to focus on thinking about positive ways we might want to organize our political coverage in the future depending on how this RfC turns out, given what I think is both of our primary concern: maximizing voters' access to high-quality, neutral, politically relevant info about candidates in important elections. If we end up merging candidates' pages to places like United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018, is there a way to revise the template for the target pages to make useful and informative prose more prominent among the heaps of annoying cookie-cutter tables and subsubsections? How should we address the way incumbents' pages are often overstuffed with promotional self-cited material added by campaign interns, while challengers get barebones stubs (compare Phil Scott (politician) to Christine Hallquist)? And so on. I haven't done that much editing in political areas before, so I don't know if WP:POLITICS has tried to address these in the past.
Anyway, Wikipedia works by consensus and is not about winning. I'm hopeful that the RfC will produce a few specific tasks for improving our politics coverage that I can get behind, regardless of how the community wants to partition articles, and then we can work from there. Maybe we can end up on a task force together! FourViolas (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I take your point about "winning", though it does sometimes feel like a battle of sorts! That is a very difficult mindset of which to let go when one feels certainty about certain facts or truths. But therein lies the magic of consensus, I suppose. You and I do share a set of concerns, and a task force assignment sounds interesting to me, though I would settle for some agreement that in-depth coverage of a person in light of their campaign coverage means they warrant an article! Not long ago I nominated an article on a US Navy pontoon boat for deletion: the 30-foot long boat had been involved on nothing notable, but it WAS a Navy boat! The article was eventually merged into another article. Christ, if we can't even delete an article on a 30-foot long piece of wood that the Navy made float in WW II, how can we justify deleting a number of articles on politicians who actually DID things and SAID things worthy of being reported in news sources?? It's stuff like that that makes me sigh. A loose noose (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)