This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Modus operandi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
M.O.'s are also used to describe non-criminals. An m.o. is simply the way someone does things - it's a habitual action or process.
I concur. Anyone want to add this info? I might do it myself if I get some time. Sycocowz 00:31, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
"Almost always used in abbreviated form MO"????????
That is just not true.
I agree that the term is used more generally (educators, coaches, sports teams, parents, consultants, ...). Consider rewording the second sentence to something like
i.e. remove the phrase "particularly in the context of business or criminal investigations". This also removes the word "habits" as one's modus operandi is generally more conscious. - kt ( talk) 08:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
DreamGuy, you have a lot of nerve to speak so dogmatically without paying the slightest bit of attention to logic and reasoning. Why don't you explain your behavior of just deleting my explanation and putting a simple one liner that has no relevance to the real business of Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia- helping people to understand. Your criticism of the definition given- that it seemed more an argument might have had relevance if that is all it did. I'm not going to keep on changing the definition; you just can't seem to care about what's really important- giving visitors to this page a REALLY clear idea of what an M. O. is - a potentially unclear term. [unsigned, but comments left by anonymous user 129.115.90.5]'
I didn't insult you. You did not produce a single authoritative reference or logical arguement that justified your actions. Hence, I said you were acting dogmatically. Non-encyclopedic style? Content and clarity are the only essential elements to encyclopedic style. Maybe you just didn't like it. Perhaps, Wikipedia is not for YOU if your edits consist of simple deletions and declarations ("...your additions... actually got it wrong"). Yes, M. O. is about frequently used procedures, but it is also used in our english-speaking culture for the purpose of getting an understanding of a person's thinking. That's why one would use the expression, "M. O." outside of the criminal realm instead of that easier to produce word that you keep using to define it. If it's all about habits, would one use the term, M. O. out the simple need for a synonym? I really don't think so. This arguement might emphasize the evolution of the term, but the value of Wikipedia is that it is not limited to the original definitions of terms; it also recognizes current usage. You should know that. If we were to limit ourselves to original definitions, why use Wiki when you could go to a well-respected source like http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=modus+operandi&x=0&y=0 ?
Why do you refuse to use logic or provide documentation? I've done both. Can you at least agree that you haven't done either? You're sorry? Who cares? You're not an authority here! Wiki has a policy against neologisms? No. It is listed as one of the rationales used in deleting something. I quote (something you have yet to do):
"neologism" is a shorthand for "The word or phrase used is not well-established enough to merit a Wikipedia article." This may be either a literal neologism (a new word which is simply not well-established) or a vanity neologism (a word coined in a small community but not used outside it). The article may need to be renamed or simply deleted.
The page continues to explain that it comes to a vote and that, basically, neologisms are considered invalid if they are are simply not popular enough. It comes down to opinion. You may remember the term, sniglet, used in the 80s for invented words. Neologisms can refer to new meanings given to existing terms, and I can see having a problem with that if in the particular situation someone is attempting to impose a truly limited definition of the word or term. I don't think my use of the term is limited to me. I realize that's my opinion, which implies that I realize that my side might not survive a vote, but, on the other hand, I have this concept of M. O. because of all the times I've heard or read it from people who used it to convey a person's inner process. I also don't believe I'd ever use M. O. to replace the word, habits, which is basically what you're proposing. Would you agree that you are proposing that? It would be nice if you answered directly the two questions in which I ask if you agree or not. If you choose to just give your negative opinion of my arguement and my definition without quotation or logic, it would be better if you didn't reply at all. Why are you so close minded? You're acting like such a "NO" person. You don't seem to have even considered the possible widespread use of this definition. You call yourself an all around nice guy? You haven't been nice once. [unsigned, but obviously same as above]
Man, I don't hate you. I'm just trying to get you off that pedestal you seem to have put yourself on and get you to see the validity in this evidently (at least, to me and the folks who have used it as such) helpful use of the term. Why don't you just talk to me? Here's your post:
--> What argument in particular? Open it up. Show me.
--> Are you referring to the Merriam-Webster one? I already acknowledged what it said. I pointed out that it is really useless. There is no reason to bring an expression from a foreign language unless we can add to it something our own language doesn't already convey. I advocate simplicity ALWAYS and the avoidance of big or exotic terms if possible. You already know or have entertained the possibility, perhaps, that the essence of intelligence is not imposing the unintelligible on people.
--> I really think that Wikipedia is open to the evolution of language as long as it is widespread enough. Where does it say that it isn't?
--> Hey, c'mon. You know it isn't fun to keep on changing the definition. You're wise enough to admit to yourself, perhaps, that you don't want to keep on like that. What I wanted you to do or say was to acknowledge that, perhaps, an addendum to the definition is merited in, perhaps, the following form: "The term, M. O., and its current usage, suggests that it might also be used to explain the thinking behind a person's actions. Consider this example:
"Ronny always drove over the trash cans. His M. O. was that they symbolized the shallowness of western culture and that it was his job to make that evident."
I don't know if you'll acknowledge any validity in that, but you can feel secure that the Wiki article, Modus Operandi, is yours; I've got bigger fish to fry, and guess what? You do too. You're obviously way smarter than someone who would worry about something like this little online article. The "evolved" thing to do is to agree to disagree. I wish you peace and a happy Easter or Third Day or whatever you call it if you call it anything at all.
/:)
I don’t know how many might actually read this, but there are several good points here. Concerning Modus Operandi particularly, the original Latin usage may never be known exactly. However the simple breakdown definitions allow one to use this term however deemed necessary if within the confines of the original definition. Of course, it is proper to keep language simple and so if it can be said (or written) in a fashion that is more universally understood, then the more universal terminology should be used. One could say that should be the 'modus operandi' of the effective communicator. I had a thought just moments ago that spawned the notion to add to this text. Regarding the argument above, I feel as though possibly that both sides could win if a little extra effort was put into the ‘article’ page. I propose that following each 'definition' be included a source. In the particular case of my Mid Atlantic friend, I would have liked to see behind his contribution “(source: observed usage, oral and written, US Mid Atlantic Reg.).” This would have allowed the reviewer to see clearly that this definition is (at least until further validation) region specific. I believe that this would have appeased our good friend ‘Dreamguy’ a bit. Overall, I thought the ‘article’ page provided the desired information. I definitely would have liked to know up front the origin (or source) for each input, but I was able to find out through the ‘discussion’ page. I was disappointed, however, about the amount of non-related discussion that is posted on the discussion page (guilty as charged here). Sixty-five percent of this discussion is over proper Wikipedia usage (add/modify/delete) and whose head is bigger instead of constructive discussion about the term in question. BTW: Macro Evolution is a lie. God Bless. -tomtom
Doesn't this article have the plural and singular forms the wrong way around ?-- Ordew 06:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope, but in the plural "Modus operandi" operandi is in nominative, not genitive. This is grammatically incorrect and it should be modi operandorum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.151.34 ( talk) 18:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone include a cite to the OED? I see people arguing about this yet elsewhere on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.48.146 ( talk) 22:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 07:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Dictionary or acronym reference are poor sources. Blogs (ethiopundit) are not good sources per WP:V. Maybe this is just a dictionary word if after nearly five years this is all there is. -- Mattisse 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly confused by the section regarding the distinction between MO and signature. Can this be explained more clearly or simply? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zixor ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The article's definition "Modus operandi (plural modi operandi) is a Latin phrase, approximately translated as 'mode of operation' " uses the word "mode" to define the word "modus. Shouldn't the sentence read "Modus operandi (plural modi operandi) is a Latin phrase, translated as 'manner or way of operation' "? Lestrade ( talk) 00:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Lestrade
Isn't operandi translated to operation. If we are to translate and define it should read "manner of performance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.218.227 ( talk) 23:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why "mode of operation" is a backronym? Roundtheworld ( talk) 11:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn’t “modus operandi” common enough in English that italicization is unnecessary? This doesn’t seem to have been discussed here, so if there are no objections, I’ll take it upon myself to de-italicize it. — 173.199.215.5 ( talk) 02:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Where is the value in having an article about a dictionary definition? — 173.199.215.5 ( talk) 02:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Modus operandi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
M.O.'s are also used to describe non-criminals. An m.o. is simply the way someone does things - it's a habitual action or process.
I concur. Anyone want to add this info? I might do it myself if I get some time. Sycocowz 00:31, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
"Almost always used in abbreviated form MO"????????
That is just not true.
I agree that the term is used more generally (educators, coaches, sports teams, parents, consultants, ...). Consider rewording the second sentence to something like
i.e. remove the phrase "particularly in the context of business or criminal investigations". This also removes the word "habits" as one's modus operandi is generally more conscious. - kt ( talk) 08:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
DreamGuy, you have a lot of nerve to speak so dogmatically without paying the slightest bit of attention to logic and reasoning. Why don't you explain your behavior of just deleting my explanation and putting a simple one liner that has no relevance to the real business of Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia- helping people to understand. Your criticism of the definition given- that it seemed more an argument might have had relevance if that is all it did. I'm not going to keep on changing the definition; you just can't seem to care about what's really important- giving visitors to this page a REALLY clear idea of what an M. O. is - a potentially unclear term. [unsigned, but comments left by anonymous user 129.115.90.5]'
I didn't insult you. You did not produce a single authoritative reference or logical arguement that justified your actions. Hence, I said you were acting dogmatically. Non-encyclopedic style? Content and clarity are the only essential elements to encyclopedic style. Maybe you just didn't like it. Perhaps, Wikipedia is not for YOU if your edits consist of simple deletions and declarations ("...your additions... actually got it wrong"). Yes, M. O. is about frequently used procedures, but it is also used in our english-speaking culture for the purpose of getting an understanding of a person's thinking. That's why one would use the expression, "M. O." outside of the criminal realm instead of that easier to produce word that you keep using to define it. If it's all about habits, would one use the term, M. O. out the simple need for a synonym? I really don't think so. This arguement might emphasize the evolution of the term, but the value of Wikipedia is that it is not limited to the original definitions of terms; it also recognizes current usage. You should know that. If we were to limit ourselves to original definitions, why use Wiki when you could go to a well-respected source like http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=modus+operandi&x=0&y=0 ?
Why do you refuse to use logic or provide documentation? I've done both. Can you at least agree that you haven't done either? You're sorry? Who cares? You're not an authority here! Wiki has a policy against neologisms? No. It is listed as one of the rationales used in deleting something. I quote (something you have yet to do):
"neologism" is a shorthand for "The word or phrase used is not well-established enough to merit a Wikipedia article." This may be either a literal neologism (a new word which is simply not well-established) or a vanity neologism (a word coined in a small community but not used outside it). The article may need to be renamed or simply deleted.
The page continues to explain that it comes to a vote and that, basically, neologisms are considered invalid if they are are simply not popular enough. It comes down to opinion. You may remember the term, sniglet, used in the 80s for invented words. Neologisms can refer to new meanings given to existing terms, and I can see having a problem with that if in the particular situation someone is attempting to impose a truly limited definition of the word or term. I don't think my use of the term is limited to me. I realize that's my opinion, which implies that I realize that my side might not survive a vote, but, on the other hand, I have this concept of M. O. because of all the times I've heard or read it from people who used it to convey a person's inner process. I also don't believe I'd ever use M. O. to replace the word, habits, which is basically what you're proposing. Would you agree that you are proposing that? It would be nice if you answered directly the two questions in which I ask if you agree or not. If you choose to just give your negative opinion of my arguement and my definition without quotation or logic, it would be better if you didn't reply at all. Why are you so close minded? You're acting like such a "NO" person. You don't seem to have even considered the possible widespread use of this definition. You call yourself an all around nice guy? You haven't been nice once. [unsigned, but obviously same as above]
Man, I don't hate you. I'm just trying to get you off that pedestal you seem to have put yourself on and get you to see the validity in this evidently (at least, to me and the folks who have used it as such) helpful use of the term. Why don't you just talk to me? Here's your post:
--> What argument in particular? Open it up. Show me.
--> Are you referring to the Merriam-Webster one? I already acknowledged what it said. I pointed out that it is really useless. There is no reason to bring an expression from a foreign language unless we can add to it something our own language doesn't already convey. I advocate simplicity ALWAYS and the avoidance of big or exotic terms if possible. You already know or have entertained the possibility, perhaps, that the essence of intelligence is not imposing the unintelligible on people.
--> I really think that Wikipedia is open to the evolution of language as long as it is widespread enough. Where does it say that it isn't?
--> Hey, c'mon. You know it isn't fun to keep on changing the definition. You're wise enough to admit to yourself, perhaps, that you don't want to keep on like that. What I wanted you to do or say was to acknowledge that, perhaps, an addendum to the definition is merited in, perhaps, the following form: "The term, M. O., and its current usage, suggests that it might also be used to explain the thinking behind a person's actions. Consider this example:
"Ronny always drove over the trash cans. His M. O. was that they symbolized the shallowness of western culture and that it was his job to make that evident."
I don't know if you'll acknowledge any validity in that, but you can feel secure that the Wiki article, Modus Operandi, is yours; I've got bigger fish to fry, and guess what? You do too. You're obviously way smarter than someone who would worry about something like this little online article. The "evolved" thing to do is to agree to disagree. I wish you peace and a happy Easter or Third Day or whatever you call it if you call it anything at all.
/:)
I don’t know how many might actually read this, but there are several good points here. Concerning Modus Operandi particularly, the original Latin usage may never be known exactly. However the simple breakdown definitions allow one to use this term however deemed necessary if within the confines of the original definition. Of course, it is proper to keep language simple and so if it can be said (or written) in a fashion that is more universally understood, then the more universal terminology should be used. One could say that should be the 'modus operandi' of the effective communicator. I had a thought just moments ago that spawned the notion to add to this text. Regarding the argument above, I feel as though possibly that both sides could win if a little extra effort was put into the ‘article’ page. I propose that following each 'definition' be included a source. In the particular case of my Mid Atlantic friend, I would have liked to see behind his contribution “(source: observed usage, oral and written, US Mid Atlantic Reg.).” This would have allowed the reviewer to see clearly that this definition is (at least until further validation) region specific. I believe that this would have appeased our good friend ‘Dreamguy’ a bit. Overall, I thought the ‘article’ page provided the desired information. I definitely would have liked to know up front the origin (or source) for each input, but I was able to find out through the ‘discussion’ page. I was disappointed, however, about the amount of non-related discussion that is posted on the discussion page (guilty as charged here). Sixty-five percent of this discussion is over proper Wikipedia usage (add/modify/delete) and whose head is bigger instead of constructive discussion about the term in question. BTW: Macro Evolution is a lie. God Bless. -tomtom
Doesn't this article have the plural and singular forms the wrong way around ?-- Ordew 06:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope, but in the plural "Modus operandi" operandi is in nominative, not genitive. This is grammatically incorrect and it should be modi operandorum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.151.34 ( talk) 18:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone include a cite to the OED? I see people arguing about this yet elsewhere on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.48.146 ( talk) 22:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 07:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Dictionary or acronym reference are poor sources. Blogs (ethiopundit) are not good sources per WP:V. Maybe this is just a dictionary word if after nearly five years this is all there is. -- Mattisse 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly confused by the section regarding the distinction between MO and signature. Can this be explained more clearly or simply? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zixor ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The article's definition "Modus operandi (plural modi operandi) is a Latin phrase, approximately translated as 'mode of operation' " uses the word "mode" to define the word "modus. Shouldn't the sentence read "Modus operandi (plural modi operandi) is a Latin phrase, translated as 'manner or way of operation' "? Lestrade ( talk) 00:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Lestrade
Isn't operandi translated to operation. If we are to translate and define it should read "manner of performance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.218.227 ( talk) 23:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why "mode of operation" is a backronym? Roundtheworld ( talk) 11:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn’t “modus operandi” common enough in English that italicization is unnecessary? This doesn’t seem to have been discussed here, so if there are no objections, I’ll take it upon myself to de-italicize it. — 173.199.215.5 ( talk) 02:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Where is the value in having an article about a dictionary definition? — 173.199.215.5 ( talk) 02:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)