Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 January 12

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 12

President Nixon's pardon

Can someone please clarify the issue of President Nixon's pardon? Doesn't one have to be charged and convicted of a crime first, in order to be pardoned for that crime? So, what exactly was Nixon pardoned for, since he was neither charged nor convicted of any crimes? I understand that this was all politics, smoke and mirrors, rhetoric, and hocus pocus. But, officially, what did Ford claim to be pardoning Nixon for? And how did he (Ford) wiggle his way through this political charade? How is it that Ford was essentially allowed to simply flaunt the legitimate pardon process, just to protect his friend? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The section about this in the Gerald Ford article may answer your questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You can read the pardon here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. President has the power to grant pardons - what other "legitimate pardon process" is there? 75.41.109.190 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, that refers back to my question above: Doesn't one have to be charged and convicted of a crime first, in order to be pardoned for that crime? So, what exactly was Nixon pardoned for, since he was neither charged nor convicted of any crimes?. Ford, to me, seems to have "twisted" the meaning and intent of the legitimate reasons and purposes of the pardon process (i.e., one must have a crime first, in order to be pardoned for said crime). What Ford did was to offer a "blanket pardon" for any crimes that Nixon "may (or may not) have committed". By such reasoning, Ford could pick his best friend (just as an example, let's say, his wife Betty Ford) and use his "twisted version" of the legitimate pardon power and offer that friend of his (Betty Ford, in my example) a pardon for "any crimes that she may have (or may not have) committed in the past, as well as for any crimes that she may (or may not) commit in the future". As such, Betty Ford would have impunity to commit any crime that she wishes, whenever she wishes, with no repercussions whatsoever. In other words, she could murder, rob banks, deal drugs, etc., with complete impunity. Yes, this is an extreme example. But that would be the logic similar to Ford's pardon of Nixon. This is what I mean by Ford subverting the legitimate pardon process (i.e., not using it as it was intended or designed to be used). I am sure it was not designed to provide the President to offer his wife or best friend or political ally impunity to commit any crimes whatsoever. This is the problem with a prospective pardon (to preempt a prospective conviction), as opposed to a retroactive pardon (to "forgive" a crime actually committed and for which a jury found the person guilty). Does my explanation make more sense now, with these examples? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Where in the Ford pardon did it say that he was pardoning possible future crimes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It didn't. My point was that Ford's logic involved hypothetical crimes (in the past) that may (or may not) have occurred. Another president who wanted to abuse the pardon power, using Ford's logic as precedent, could do the same for hypothetical crimes (in the future) that may (or may not) occur. This is so absurd as to suggest that Ford's interpretation of the pardon power (in the Nixon case) is highly flawed. I believe that the pardon power is absolute (i.e., no other branch of government can "overturn" a president's decision). Thus, Ford set a scary precedent. And Ford's actions were against the spirit and intent of the pardon power. In my above post, I was responding to another editor's question about what is (or is not) a "legitimate" pardon process. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason he did it was to put Nixon behind us. It was certainly controversial, as many thought he had made a "deal" with Ford. (Things could be worse - what if Agnew were still in the VP's chair?) That perception, whether true or not, may well have cost him a lot of votes in the 1976 election. As to whether it was a "legitimate" pardon, I don't recall that its legality was challenged, or at least not successfully. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that a pardon can be challenged. (Well, it "can" ... but the case will just be thrown out of court.) I am pretty sure that it is an absolute power of the executive branch, with which neither the judicial nor legislative branch can interfere. Hence, all the more troubling. I know the rationale and reasoning behind the decision (i.e., some variation of "let's get this behind us and allow this country to heal and move forward"). But, I am simply "stuck" on the fact that one must commit a crime to be pardoned for said crime; a pardon for a "hypothetical" crime simply makes no sense. Well, I guess it's just another day in Washington, D.C.: politics at its worst. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The argument is made that by accepting the pardon, Nixon basically admitted guilt. Pardoning some future criminal act could certainly be challenged, for the very reason you stated - it would effectively give someone immunity from a crime not yet committed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 03:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Article Two of the United States Constitution specifies that the president can issue pardons and reprieves for federal offenses except for impeachments. The question would come down to what exactly constitutes a pardon? The high court would have to decide that (if it hasn't already, somewhere along the way). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

All this soap boxing is all very well and good, but the Supreme Court had already ruled back in 1866 in Ex parte Garland, that you don't need a conviction for a pardon. Note that while the law they were ruling on had several serious flaws under the US constitution (being ex post facto and a bill of attainder), if you read their decision [1] they specifically mentioned that the president can pardon without a conviction or even a trial. I'm a unclear whether Ford specifically mentioned Garland in any discussion surrounding the pardon, but it definitely came up when the pardon was challenged [2]. As I presume you knew before the soapbox (since it's mentioned in the Gerald Ford article that was linked for you), and as BB has now also said in this thread, Ford argument was that accepting the pardon implied an admission of guilty and that seems to be a common statement made about anyone accepting such a pardon.

Such preemptive pardons (or some people call prospective pardons) remain rare, but are not completely unheard of [3] [4] [5]. As I understand it per those sources, it wasn't as coincidence that it came up in the Garland case with Andrew Johnson's pardons of those involved in the CSA, as some or many of the pardons were before any conviction as was also the case over 100 years later when Jimmy Carter pardoned draft evaders [6] [7].

While some sources have criticised this power [8], if the presient is definitely going to pardon someone, I'm not completely sure what's the point of going thorough a court case and receiving a conviction considering all the time and money that would cost. The only purpose would seem to be that the attention or whatever happened during the trial may discourage such a pardon or it may throw the timing off i.e. if the president who plans the pardon is no longer president by the time a conviction is obtained or I guess that it will enable the person who may be pardoned to fight the case. But the costs of the court cases is even clearer when we are talking about such mass pardons. Of course the possibility of such a pardon doesn't require that they are used, a president can obviously let the court case proceed if they feel it will help them make a decision or if the person clearly wants to fight any possible case.

Note that from what I can tell, none of these cases have considered the possibility of a pardon for future offences. (The biggest question appears to be over whether a president can pardon themselves, for stuff besides impeachment of course.) There are many obvious differences between such a pardon and a pardon for offences already commited, whether or not those offences have received a conviction, that I don't think this is surprising.

P.S. The plenty of cases [9] including where the Nixon pardon itself was challenged as mentioned earlier, call in to question the idea a pardon can't be challenged. Current intepretation is that the power is wide enough that there's not much to challenge so most challenges will likely not succeeded but that doesn't preclude such a challenge if the president does possibly go beyond their constitutional powers, such as when they pardon for future crimes, as in any case where they do so.

I would note also in the specific case of a hypothetical pardon for future actions, it's not really clear that a challenge would be needed. If president X pardon's person A for future crimes, then president Y is elected and decides president's X pardon is clearly beyond their constitutional mandate, there isn't so magical force that stops president Y from asking their Justice Department to pursue a case against person A or that stops the Justice Department from doing so. If this happens, person A may very well want to ask the court to throw out the case against them based on their alleged pardon for future crimes from president X. (In other words, it's actually the person with the alleged pardon that may need to challenge. And this isn't that uncommon, plenty of the cases surrounding pardon's concern a person challenging something that has happened to them which they consider inconsistent with the pardon.) And there's no magical force which is going to make the Supreme Court automatically rule in favour of person A. As in every case, they will likely consider the arguments put forth, what the constitution actually says etc and decide whether the pardon for future crimes is valid, which as I've said, doesn't seem a given.

P.P.S. Also remember that even a blanket presidential pardon for future crimes will not help a person who wants to commit crimes outside federal land. So even if Betty Ford can rob banks or whatever in Washington D.C., she can't do so in California. And in fact, even in Washington D.C., the bank could still sue her to recover whatever she stole. It may seem technically she could just ignore any court order since depending on the wording, potentially she couldn't be punished for doing so. On the other hand, I'm not totally sure if it would be up to her, if she had the money in another bank, the bank could likely be ordered to transfer the money to the party she owed it to. Even if she was storing it in her house, it's likely it could be forcefully taken from her. She could try to shoot the people taking it from her, but just as in the bank case, they could likely shoot her in self defence if she attempted to do so.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This is all very interesting information ... and exactly the type of information I was seeking with my original posted question. I will have to read your reply more thoroughly later, as I only had time right now to quickly scan it. Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input above; it was very helpful. Also, Nil Einne, I was able to read your post more thoroughly. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What's the Big Apple called?

The Wikipedia page for New York City [Which seems to have a bug when I try to link to it] calls it "'New York City' or 'The City of New York'" and the city's website mentions both names. And I thought I once read that the city is actually just called "New York", the same as the state. So what's it called? Hayttom 18:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

It can get complicated. The totality of New York City is the five boroughs. New York, by itself, typically refers to Manhattan, i.e. New York County. As opposed to the Bronx (Bronx County) and Brooklyn (Kings County), for example. I think the boroughs each have their own street numbering system, too. So a letter or package being sent to Manhattan will say "New York, NY" a mailing to another borough will say "Bronx, NY" or "Brooklyn, NY". Sending mail to an address in the Bronx and saying "New York, NY" would either send it to the wrong address or would be rejected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) New York City refers to the Five Boroughs: Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens. Manhattan is New York County. A letter addressed to 1000 Third Avenue, Bronx will end up on Third Avenue, just north of 149th Street. A letter addressed to 1000 Third Avenue, N.Y., NY will end up on the same avenue around 59th Street, in Manhattan. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• However, I believe the USPS will use the ZIP code, even if it conflicts with the city. So, if the letter has a Bronx ZIP code, they will look for that street address in the Bronx, regardless of whether it says New York, NY on it. StuRat (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to make things even more confusing... when referring or writing to an address in Queens (another borough within the City of New York) it is rare to put "Queens, NY" ... it is more customary to use the neighborhood (as in "Flushing, NY", "Astoria, NY", "Forest Hills, NY")... this may be a mental hold-over from the days before Consolidation, when these neighborhoods were all separate townships within the County of Queens. Being the last borough to be "urbanized", these former townships have retained their individuality to some degree. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The names of post offices are independent, in principle, of the names of cities; of necessity, since some post offices serve areas with no incorporated city. In practice, when a new city is incorporated with a new name (as when parts of Agoura and Las Virgenes became Agoura Hills), the post office will generally conform. Or such are my cumulative impressions. —Tamfang (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Why is there all this focus on where letters will be sent to? Letter addressing is a *very* flexible system. For example, although according to the post office the street I live on is "XYZ Pike", letters addressed to "XYZ Road" have no problem finding me - even though a separate "XYZ Road" also exists in the same city. Likewise, I have no doubt a letter addressed to "Barracks Alabama; 1600 Penninnivaniana Blvd; Washingmachine, BC, 90210" will eventually find it's way to the same person as if it was addressed correctly. - All of this is a side track, though, as the original questioner's request did not have anything to do with letter addressing. Wiktionary, the first link when Googling "new york city offical name", mentions that just "New York" is the official name. The New York city charter, 2004 version [10], in section 1 uses the form "The city of New York". Note the lower case "c" in "city", indicating it's being used descriptively, rather than as part of a proper name. "New York city" also appears in that document. As best I can tell, the only time "City" is capitalized is in title contexts, where things are all-caps or title-cased. For what it's worth, though, the "official" name of things are sometimes hard to come by, as governments don't always bother officially spelling out their names. For example, see this article, which mentions that, at least in 1945, it was somewhat uncertain whether it was "officially" "New York" versus "New-York". -- 162.238.240.55 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I am fairly certain my point was that while NYC includes all five boroughs, N.Y., NY is only Manhattan, so the OP's supposition would be wrong if he thought it was okay to say that a location in any of the other 4 boroughs besides Manhattan was in N.Y., NY. But you can let me know if I confused myself. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• The "CITY OF NEW YORK CITY CHARTER" seems to point to "City of New York" as the name.[11] Also "the corporate name of "the city of new York".[12] Rmhermen (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hence the "New York City Charter" on the title page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that any city in the state of New York will be called "the city of X" (Syracuse, Yonkers, Canandaigua, etc.) in its charter. -- Cam (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Remember that things can have multiple names... "City of New York" is one name... "New York City" and "The Big Apple" are others. It does not really matter which is the "official" name... since it is long standing practice (outlined in places like our WP:Article titles policy), that we don't necessarily use official names (it's not wrong to use them, but we defer to other names if those other names are more commonly used than the official name.) As others have said... by far the most common way to refer to the city as a whole is "New York City". The unadorned "New York" usually refers to New York State. Yes, sometimes the unadorned "New York" is used by locals when specifically referring to Manhattan... but that local usage is not common enough for Wikipedia to use it (and using the unambiguous "Manhattan" prevents confusion). Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Even if the official name of the City of New York is just "New York", readers or listeners will not generally understand that you are referring to the 5 boroughs if you just say or write "New York". To encompass the 5 boroughs and be understood, you have to say "the City of New York" or, more commonly, "New York City". If you say or write just "New York", readers or listeners will understand either the state of New York or the borough of Manhattan, depending on the context. Whenever there is a risk of ambiguity, you want to use a more specific term. Marco polo (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Explaining postal addresses and Wikipedia policy is off-topic. What is the "official name"? 75.41.109.190 (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

According to GNIS (link), the most official name is "New York", with "City of New York", "New York City", "New Amsterdam", "The Big Apple" (yes, really), "Kanón:no", and various other spellings of the above being legitimate variants. Tevildo (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

...with thanks, frankly, more to 75.41.109.190 and Tevildo than the other (well meaning but tangential) contributors.Hayttom 17:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Etruscan questions

1-The Etruscan civilization article says The Etruscans called themselves Rasenna, which was syncopated to Rasna or Raśna. Does this mean that the first syllable of Rasenna was stressed? 2-What did the Etruscans call the land which they lived in? RNealK (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The article on the Etruscan language says it had a "strong word-initial stress", which led to "the loss and then re-establishment of word-internal vowels" (syncope being the loss of internal syllables), so it would appear that the first syllable of Rasenna was indeed stressed. Can't help you with what they called the region - our knowledge of Etruscan vocabulary is patchy, so it could be that it's not known. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I typed too soon. The Etruscan language article says that the Etruscan word for Etruria was "meχl Rasnal". --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the role of wikipedia

Is Wikipedia suppose to be a font of knowledge for the common people? If so then why are so many wikipedia articles for technical subjects written in such a way that you can only understand it if you are already knowledgeable in that particular technical subject. Is truthfullness a higher priority in writing the article than understandability for the naive readers? 202.177.218.59 (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a continuing problem here. Such articles attract PhD's, who are only accustomed to writing for other PhD's in their field, and are incapable of communicating effectively with the common man. One specific problem is that they refuse to allow any model that isn't 100% technically correct according to the latest research, even though such simplified models are absolutely essential to reaching a larger audience. For example, the model of an atom as a nucleus surrounded by electrons in fixed, circular orbits in a single plane, much like the solar system, is far easier to understand than the electrons each being a wave probability function with an indeterminate position. The simpler model works well for explaining many atomic behaviors, too. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That was very well said, Stu. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

True, but then is Wikipedia here to confirm what you learned in high school science, or is it intended to teach you what a nucleus is really like? Ideally it would be written in a way that is understandable to all, but there's no need to repeat the half-truths and simplifications you learn as a kid. (This is true of historical articles as well, and any other subject, I'm sure.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Those simplifications exist for a reason. You can't take somebody with no knowledge of physics and hope to teach them about collapsing the wave function. Imagine if we tossed out all the globes in the world because the Earth isn't really hollow with a metal pole through the center and the names of nations printed on it. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

StuRat -- we have an article on Bohr atom, and I really doubt that anything is going to happen to it, but the Bohr atom only explains a limited number of things. It does great with the lines of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, but most things beyond that aren't explained so well... AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Stu's point doesn't need a but. It's spot on. One can look at the talk and editing of the reptile article to see the endless technical maneuvering over unsettled minutiae that makes no sense unless you've got at least a BA in biology, or the same for the Uralic languages article where it has been argued that mention of Fenno-Ugric should be omitted, regardless of the intellectual history, because, once again, the most recent fashions question its validity as a genetic node. General articles should give a broad, accessible, historically informed view of the topic, not an obscure, narrow, wonky one.

P.S., this thread belongs some place other than the ref desk. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If StuRat could point to an article where quantum mechanics is used for what he thinks could just as easily be explained by the Bohr atom, then other people could evaluate his specific complaint. I understand the general issue, though -- some parts of article Trefoil knot, for example, are very difficult for people without specialized mathematics knowledge to understand, even though the basic topic of the article seems quite simple... AnonMoos (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could introduce the topic of quantum mechanics with the Bohr atom, by pointing out how electrons can only exist in certain orbits, and must jump from one to another, emitting or absorbing the missing energy in the process. That's fairly easy to understand. StuRat (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bohr atom should certainly be discussed in an article on the history and development of quantum mechanics, and if something can be adequately explained by the Bohr atom, then there might not be a need to go into deep quantum-mechanical explanations on the subject. However, I'm not sure that there are very many such somethings beyond the lines of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, and it doesn't make sense to go through the whole Bohr atom thing on every article which discusses quantum mechanics... AnonMoos (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Each article should be tailored towards it's expected audience. Terms like "quantum mechanics" show up in the media regularly, so you can expect novices to look it up here frequently. On the other hand, there are other terms which don't much show up in the general media, so those articles can be tailored for PhD', without turning off as many people. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, we do have a good article on the Old quantum theory which the modern quantum theory of the 20s grew out of, covering AnonMoos's "somethings beyond the lines of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom". It could help someone trying to understand the everpresent question howthehellcouldanybodythinkupthisstuff? We could do with more Old X theory articles. Planck's famous remark about science progressing by funerals reverses the truth more often than most admit. For those cases we could sometimes become very up to date merely by switching "Old" & "New" in article titles.:-)John Z (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The challenge of making technical articles understandable has been recognized for years.

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi? (2008)

and Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable

and Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a problem unique to wikipedia. It's endemic to anyone who tries to span audiences. I believe in 99% of the cases it's completely possible to both provide the overview, and also delve into details, but it's hard, and it takes work. As the number of articles expands the regulars have their work spread more thinly. But the OP has a good point, the only issue is that it's not unique... it's true of every attempt at democracy. Shadowjams (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hugh Kenner noted the problem with regard to the Encyclopaedia Britannica in his book The Stoic Comedians:

Least of all is the contributor talking to the reader, for there is no way in which the contributor can form the least idea of who the reader is. The only entrance requirement is that he be able to use the alphabet; beyond that, his credentials are anybody's guess. Is he the master of his subject, looking for a handy digest of one portion of it? The author of the article on Quaternions prefers to think so. Is his general knowledge extensive, except for the particulars of the subject under discussion? So supposes the expert on the Renaissance. Is he, however, perhaps the veriest tyro, stuffed with just such general notions as will enable him to read a column of moderately undemanding prose, with constant exclamations of astonishment? That is what the authority on Waterfalls has clearly decided.

Clearly, every article can't be written from first principles, in a way that would satisfy the last sort of reader; in some cases, this would require the inclusion of a complete mathemetical (say) education, from elementary school to graduate school, within the articles' compass. The problem is, however, somewhat mitigated in an Internet encyclopedia by the inclusion of hyperlinks, which, if one follows them far enough back, will ideally lead to elementary expositions of the topics discussed in the "advanced" articles without the necessity of repeating them in every single article on the more complex concepts. Only mitigated, though; not eliminated. Deor (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It is an illusion that every field of knowledge can be adequately described to "the common man" without said common man being willing to spend literally years or even longer on the subject. If we want to present "the sum of human knowledge", then we need articles on advanced topics. "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler". There is a reason why advanced math and technical language are used - it's not to keep out outsiders (though it may well be misused that way sometimes), it's because this is the best, and often only, way we know to adequately describe the concepts. There is nothing wrong with also presenting simplified models, as long as we make clear that they are just that - simplified models with shortcomings. We do have articles like Introduction to special relativity, and we could possibly use more. But we should not present half-baked middle-school material as "the truth". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep. The way I see it, a failure to learn by jumping into "deep water" is usually more the reader's fault than the writer's. It would be the same if that reader got into university straight from high school and started with third-year stuff. Wikipedia can (substantially) replace the pricier educational alternatives, but can't replace the student's need for a basic foundation to learn upon. That would take a miracle. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Also remember, Wikipedia includes a Simple English version. It may be too simple for some, but probably just right for others (at least to start). Here's the general Physics page, if anyone cares to try. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

People keep talking about "truth". It's not that truth is not held in high regard, but this is a question about Wikipedia's modus operandi, and our guiding principle is WP:Verifiability, not truth. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, In my view more "introduction to" articles would be a great idea, and this probably represents the best way to solve this issue. Is there a wikiproject on this? If not there probably should be (maybe I'll start one when I have a little more free time). Equisetum (talk | contributions) 11:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Or essays. An essay could dumb it down in ways reliable sources don't (can't or won't). Less restrictive that way, when not held to article standards. A Wikiproject could coordinate putting them in the relevant See Also sections. Or as hatnotes, since those who need them, need them first.

Until then, a good way to find one's starting point is following the lead's Wikilinks. The first sentence usually gives the more general topic. If you run into Cantor's diagonal argument, you might want to click set theory, then Set (mathematics)...whenever you reach one you feel you grasp, start there and work your way back. A little tedious, but that's learning. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly it, and it's the power of Wikipedia - the quick linking to another topic. If you know nothing about math, you can't start with calculus - you've got to study the fundamentals. The linking makes it unnecessary to re-explain everything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia remains a work in progress. What you see is not a final product. Our hope is that someday editors will show up who are both subject specialists (ie someone who understands all the technical details that are important to the topic)... and also really great writers (ie someone who can explain all those technical details in a way that is accessible to the average non-specialist). Until such a person shows up, we can err on the side of "include the information ... even if the writing is not all that great". Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)