This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
About the original question:
So, I am for removal.
About the discussion:
Floflei6 09:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm back again. I propose to make a debate for solving this with a defined structure. How can this help? Mainly, we'll know what the other's saying in an ordered way. I don't like to use the pointing system here (thus, there won't be winners and losers), because debates are not used in disputes resolution.
The idea is: there will be two parties a Proposition (pro trivia) and an Opposition (against trivia), with a max. of 3 members. Both parties will have a section devoted for arguments presentation, where the members of the party expose why or why not the trivia should be in the article. Then, the replying process begins, beginning with a member of the opposition being replyed by one of the proposition. Then, it's the turn for the proposition being replyed by one of the opposition, until each party has done three replies.
If you agree with this, I'll search a judge for this, present it to you, and, if you like him/her, we start! -- Neigel von Teighen 17:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No a debate isn't needed - Wikipedia already has an established range of procedures for dealing with article disputes. This issue has already been decided via and WP:RfC on the issue, as well as a vote. The decission is against the inclusion of birthday coincidences (and potentially other trivia). The fact that some editors are ignoring that decision and continuing a revert war means that they are inviting an RfC against themselves with escalation to arbitration and possibly blocking. As it happens I don't believe that Vincent is being deliberately obstructive. If it wasn't for the fact that he is getting increasingly eloquent in his arguments I might have started the RfC against him myself. -- Solipsist 20:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No debate is required. A few vandals here and there whose spraypaint is consistently washed away is trivial. Adraeus 22:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Noisy wrote "All we ask is one more corroborating fact that establishes a linkage between these people".
Please recall that the word "coincidentally" was stressed from the beginning. This means there isn't another linkage, nor did I ever argue there was. However, here's something: Lincoln and Darwin were both against slavery, with Darwin being its more passionate foe and Lincoln its more effective one. Furthermore, Darwin wrote of black slaves in the Americas whom he met while travelling there and was sympathetic to their plight.
Now, I would be the first to agree that creating a section about Darwin's views on slavery simply to add the birthday factoid would be overkill. It's a coincidence, nothing more, but it is an interesting coincidence and it is culturally relevant, as demonstrated by the 4000 Google hits. People out in the world notice the coincidence and mark it. Trivia is a nice bucket for things like this. But if no one wants a Trivia section, a parenthetical mention in the body text is not inappropriate, and because birth is the first public event of one's life (public event I said, so let's not start a life-begins-at-conception debate here!) then it's appropriate to put in in an early life section.
BTW, like Sam Spade I am not so much pro-factoid as I am anti-deletion. The factoid was on Wiki for four months before someone decided to delete it. If I had introduced it into the article myself, I probably would not have made such a case about it.
Concerning other objections, the birthday paradox does not trivialize the coincidence. The paradox refers to finding in a group of people some who share a birth date. There is indeed a high likelihood of this in small groups of people. However, Lincoln and Darwin, two of the most prominent figures of the 19th century, share a birth day. There are 366 dates in a year, but there are 36,524 days in most centuries, making the coincidence more worthy of notice. Vincent 08:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On another note, there is massive oppostion to including the factoid, but no one seems opposed to the Darwin award mention. Now what does that have to do with Darwin? Or is it simply that something should be deleted because I include it? Vincent 08:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vincent there are 21,000 Google hits mentioning that Darwin was an Aquarius, so that would seem to be even more relevant than any coincidence with Lincoln. Perhaps we should put discussion of his star sign into the article - its a fact, its true, its got some Google hits. We could include an infobox with astrology readings on all biography articles, and whilst we are at it, list their estimated Myers-Briggs type too (INTP for Darwin?). User:Floflei6 was saying this is a case where compromise isn't possible, but actually I think compromise is possible. Whilst this factoid doesn't contribute to the Charles Darwin article, it would have a place in an article which discussed birthday coincidences. I've given you another birthday coincidence above, along with a link to the maths problem on the likelihood of shared birthdays. Also I for one am not too keen on linking to the Darwin Awards - again Darwin is relevant to those awards, but the awards aren't that relevant to Darwin's biography. - Solipsist 09:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is the following a common view of Lincoln among UKers?
Do people object to a trivia section or to Lincoln? If Queen Victoria & Darwin were born the same day, would it be worthy of being trivia? -- JimWae 06:41, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
Noisy wrote "There is one more method. That is an RfAr against Vincent himself. "
Actually, it would create no bad feeling on my part. I sought arbitration myself if you'll remember. I would welcome arbitration for the same reason that I find my advocate's proposal a good one: a moderated debate to a third party will have a result, but an Us vs. Them argument doesn't always. (Of course, finding an judge we would both agree on would be difficult.) Vincent 09:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You forget that I voluntarily stayed off a few days over the New Year, hoping that everyone would take a breather. That did not work, so I have had to continue. Sorry. Vincent 03:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think Vincent should be strung up alongside Sam Spade and Neigel; however, arbitration seems to be a standard procedure when dealing with trolls and vandals such as them. Adraeus 23:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well I briefly thought the discussion was heading for an amicable solution, but now it looks like the argument is just starting to repeat elements of the previous archived page. I was going to say that the next step is mediation, but I see that has already been tried. Am I right in thinking that User:GK was the mediator? And given that GK seems to have left Wikipedia, the mediation is now dead?
If so, with the page protected and the argument going in circles, I guess we will reluctantly have to go for Arbitration against Vincent. -- Solipsist 09:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vfp15_and_Charles_Darwin/Evidence Dunno if this is appropriate, but it is a starting place. -- Mrfixter 18:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The first person to come forward as mediator was Mgekelly. He takes a low profile. He has blocked the page once before for 24 hours. Blocking is fine, but when the page is unblocked, I will continue with 3rr, and will do so until an acceptable compromise is reached, or until arbitration results in a decision. As long as this remains a battle between two camps, I refuse recognize the opposition's mob mentality as rightful authority. The opposition is wrong and offended and thus wants to shout me down and bully me into submission. I will accept the result of an impartial board, but the opposition cannot be called impartial, can they? Vincent 00:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So, lets analyze these two so-called "camps", in this exciting new game called "Lets look at the editors in the past month who have taken out or put in a birthday coincidence!":
Taken out:
User:Robert_Pendray - 00:18, 22 Dec 2004 3 times
User:Noisy - 10:02, 22 Dec 2004 5 times
User:William_M._Connolley - 11:46, 22 Dec 2004 4 times
User:Duncharris - 10:24, 24 Dec 2004 2 times
User:81.179.199.87 - 00:02, 29 Dec 2004 1 time
User:Solipsist - 10:03, 29 Dec 2004 3 times
User:Fredrik - 23:57, 29 Dec 2004 4 times
User:Jonathunder - 05:36, 9 Jan 2005 6 times
User:Nunh-huh - 03:24, 10 Jan 2005 3 times
User:Steinsky - 20:26, 10 Jan 2005 1 time
User:Adraeus - 05:19, 11 Jan 2005 4 times
User:Mrfixter - 03:28, 12 Jan 2005 2 times
User:Fvw- 07:45, 17 Jan 2005 7 times
User:Psychonaut - 10:25, 21 Jan 2005 1 time
Put in:
User:Vfp15 - 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 37 times
User:218.176.34.86 - 10:30, 24 Dec 2004 2 times
User:Sam_Spade - 12:37, 29 Dec 2004 3 times
User:Cburnett - 07:42, 14 Jan 2005 1 time
This is a game you can play at home, dear viewer. Which one of the so-called "camps" represent wikipedia community consensus, and which one represents willful and implacable resistance to wikipedia community consensus?
-- Mrfixter 03:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think I've removed the trivia three times too.
Adraeus 04:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
reverts: 18 Fvw, Psychonaut, Mrfixter, Nunh-huh, Jonathunder, Adamsan, Fredrik, Solipsist, aaarrrggh, Robert Pendray, Duncharris, Noisy, William M. Connolley, Adraeus, 80.250.128.5, Mgekelly, gK, PxT
no reverts, but voted against: 15 Floflei6, Cburnett, Curps, Nasrallah, Joe D, BM, Neutrality, Peter O., Zero, Jerzy, Dan100, Morven, Tuf-Kat, Fastfission, PaulHammond
talked against, but no votes or reverts: 9 XmarkX, JamesMLane, Rd232, Cortonin, Janust, dave souza, jguk, Cortonin
Grand total: 42 (or 88%)
Grand total: 5 or 6 (or 12%)
No trivia! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Consensus:
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease [3]
—It looks like there is an overwhelming "majority of opinion", although there to be no "harmony". Should a very small minority obstruct the very clear wishes of the majority in this case?
Hey, I think you did the request in the wrong way! There's no request put in the WP:RfAr but a subpage calling for evidence. I don't care who did the requst, but I'm sure he doesn't know how to perform one. Thus, I'll make the request as it must be done. You surely know that the ArbCom must approve (I think now it's by 7 or 6 votes) the request before. -- Neigel von Teighen 22:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See WP:RfAr. Adraeus 00:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is now a Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case before the Arbitration Committee to investigate the behaviour of the disputants here. If you were not contacted via talk page, you may still wish to add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 03:36, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
I arrived late to this whole dispute, but I have formed a definite opinion as to whether or not the disputed factoid belongs in the article. Since the vote here has already been archived, does it make sense for me to add my opinion to the Arbitration area, or is that really exclusively concerned with user behavior? (I'm wondering to what extent user consensus on the inclusion/exclusion is relevant evidence.) I have no stake whatsoever in either side "winning". Skyraider 01:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I had been under the impression that archived material was to be considered frozen, but if I can still get in on the vote there, that seems like the most appropriate action on my part. Whatever the outcome of the arbitration, I hope all involved will be able to accept it and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. -- Skyraider 02:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Charles Darwin/Abraham Lincoln debate has now made it to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. 4.232.141.25 12:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
About the original question:
So, I am for removal.
About the discussion:
Floflei6 09:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm back again. I propose to make a debate for solving this with a defined structure. How can this help? Mainly, we'll know what the other's saying in an ordered way. I don't like to use the pointing system here (thus, there won't be winners and losers), because debates are not used in disputes resolution.
The idea is: there will be two parties a Proposition (pro trivia) and an Opposition (against trivia), with a max. of 3 members. Both parties will have a section devoted for arguments presentation, where the members of the party expose why or why not the trivia should be in the article. Then, the replying process begins, beginning with a member of the opposition being replyed by one of the proposition. Then, it's the turn for the proposition being replyed by one of the opposition, until each party has done three replies.
If you agree with this, I'll search a judge for this, present it to you, and, if you like him/her, we start! -- Neigel von Teighen 17:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No a debate isn't needed - Wikipedia already has an established range of procedures for dealing with article disputes. This issue has already been decided via and WP:RfC on the issue, as well as a vote. The decission is against the inclusion of birthday coincidences (and potentially other trivia). The fact that some editors are ignoring that decision and continuing a revert war means that they are inviting an RfC against themselves with escalation to arbitration and possibly blocking. As it happens I don't believe that Vincent is being deliberately obstructive. If it wasn't for the fact that he is getting increasingly eloquent in his arguments I might have started the RfC against him myself. -- Solipsist 20:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No debate is required. A few vandals here and there whose spraypaint is consistently washed away is trivial. Adraeus 22:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Noisy wrote "All we ask is one more corroborating fact that establishes a linkage between these people".
Please recall that the word "coincidentally" was stressed from the beginning. This means there isn't another linkage, nor did I ever argue there was. However, here's something: Lincoln and Darwin were both against slavery, with Darwin being its more passionate foe and Lincoln its more effective one. Furthermore, Darwin wrote of black slaves in the Americas whom he met while travelling there and was sympathetic to their plight.
Now, I would be the first to agree that creating a section about Darwin's views on slavery simply to add the birthday factoid would be overkill. It's a coincidence, nothing more, but it is an interesting coincidence and it is culturally relevant, as demonstrated by the 4000 Google hits. People out in the world notice the coincidence and mark it. Trivia is a nice bucket for things like this. But if no one wants a Trivia section, a parenthetical mention in the body text is not inappropriate, and because birth is the first public event of one's life (public event I said, so let's not start a life-begins-at-conception debate here!) then it's appropriate to put in in an early life section.
BTW, like Sam Spade I am not so much pro-factoid as I am anti-deletion. The factoid was on Wiki for four months before someone decided to delete it. If I had introduced it into the article myself, I probably would not have made such a case about it.
Concerning other objections, the birthday paradox does not trivialize the coincidence. The paradox refers to finding in a group of people some who share a birth date. There is indeed a high likelihood of this in small groups of people. However, Lincoln and Darwin, two of the most prominent figures of the 19th century, share a birth day. There are 366 dates in a year, but there are 36,524 days in most centuries, making the coincidence more worthy of notice. Vincent 08:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On another note, there is massive oppostion to including the factoid, but no one seems opposed to the Darwin award mention. Now what does that have to do with Darwin? Or is it simply that something should be deleted because I include it? Vincent 08:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vincent there are 21,000 Google hits mentioning that Darwin was an Aquarius, so that would seem to be even more relevant than any coincidence with Lincoln. Perhaps we should put discussion of his star sign into the article - its a fact, its true, its got some Google hits. We could include an infobox with astrology readings on all biography articles, and whilst we are at it, list their estimated Myers-Briggs type too (INTP for Darwin?). User:Floflei6 was saying this is a case where compromise isn't possible, but actually I think compromise is possible. Whilst this factoid doesn't contribute to the Charles Darwin article, it would have a place in an article which discussed birthday coincidences. I've given you another birthday coincidence above, along with a link to the maths problem on the likelihood of shared birthdays. Also I for one am not too keen on linking to the Darwin Awards - again Darwin is relevant to those awards, but the awards aren't that relevant to Darwin's biography. - Solipsist 09:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is the following a common view of Lincoln among UKers?
Do people object to a trivia section or to Lincoln? If Queen Victoria & Darwin were born the same day, would it be worthy of being trivia? -- JimWae 06:41, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
Noisy wrote "There is one more method. That is an RfAr against Vincent himself. "
Actually, it would create no bad feeling on my part. I sought arbitration myself if you'll remember. I would welcome arbitration for the same reason that I find my advocate's proposal a good one: a moderated debate to a third party will have a result, but an Us vs. Them argument doesn't always. (Of course, finding an judge we would both agree on would be difficult.) Vincent 09:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You forget that I voluntarily stayed off a few days over the New Year, hoping that everyone would take a breather. That did not work, so I have had to continue. Sorry. Vincent 03:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think Vincent should be strung up alongside Sam Spade and Neigel; however, arbitration seems to be a standard procedure when dealing with trolls and vandals such as them. Adraeus 23:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well I briefly thought the discussion was heading for an amicable solution, but now it looks like the argument is just starting to repeat elements of the previous archived page. I was going to say that the next step is mediation, but I see that has already been tried. Am I right in thinking that User:GK was the mediator? And given that GK seems to have left Wikipedia, the mediation is now dead?
If so, with the page protected and the argument going in circles, I guess we will reluctantly have to go for Arbitration against Vincent. -- Solipsist 09:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vfp15_and_Charles_Darwin/Evidence Dunno if this is appropriate, but it is a starting place. -- Mrfixter 18:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The first person to come forward as mediator was Mgekelly. He takes a low profile. He has blocked the page once before for 24 hours. Blocking is fine, but when the page is unblocked, I will continue with 3rr, and will do so until an acceptable compromise is reached, or until arbitration results in a decision. As long as this remains a battle between two camps, I refuse recognize the opposition's mob mentality as rightful authority. The opposition is wrong and offended and thus wants to shout me down and bully me into submission. I will accept the result of an impartial board, but the opposition cannot be called impartial, can they? Vincent 00:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So, lets analyze these two so-called "camps", in this exciting new game called "Lets look at the editors in the past month who have taken out or put in a birthday coincidence!":
Taken out:
User:Robert_Pendray - 00:18, 22 Dec 2004 3 times
User:Noisy - 10:02, 22 Dec 2004 5 times
User:William_M._Connolley - 11:46, 22 Dec 2004 4 times
User:Duncharris - 10:24, 24 Dec 2004 2 times
User:81.179.199.87 - 00:02, 29 Dec 2004 1 time
User:Solipsist - 10:03, 29 Dec 2004 3 times
User:Fredrik - 23:57, 29 Dec 2004 4 times
User:Jonathunder - 05:36, 9 Jan 2005 6 times
User:Nunh-huh - 03:24, 10 Jan 2005 3 times
User:Steinsky - 20:26, 10 Jan 2005 1 time
User:Adraeus - 05:19, 11 Jan 2005 4 times
User:Mrfixter - 03:28, 12 Jan 2005 2 times
User:Fvw- 07:45, 17 Jan 2005 7 times
User:Psychonaut - 10:25, 21 Jan 2005 1 time
Put in:
User:Vfp15 - 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 37 times
User:218.176.34.86 - 10:30, 24 Dec 2004 2 times
User:Sam_Spade - 12:37, 29 Dec 2004 3 times
User:Cburnett - 07:42, 14 Jan 2005 1 time
This is a game you can play at home, dear viewer. Which one of the so-called "camps" represent wikipedia community consensus, and which one represents willful and implacable resistance to wikipedia community consensus?
-- Mrfixter 03:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think I've removed the trivia three times too.
Adraeus 04:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
reverts: 18 Fvw, Psychonaut, Mrfixter, Nunh-huh, Jonathunder, Adamsan, Fredrik, Solipsist, aaarrrggh, Robert Pendray, Duncharris, Noisy, William M. Connolley, Adraeus, 80.250.128.5, Mgekelly, gK, PxT
no reverts, but voted against: 15 Floflei6, Cburnett, Curps, Nasrallah, Joe D, BM, Neutrality, Peter O., Zero, Jerzy, Dan100, Morven, Tuf-Kat, Fastfission, PaulHammond
talked against, but no votes or reverts: 9 XmarkX, JamesMLane, Rd232, Cortonin, Janust, dave souza, jguk, Cortonin
Grand total: 42 (or 88%)
Grand total: 5 or 6 (or 12%)
No trivia! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Consensus:
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease [3]
—It looks like there is an overwhelming "majority of opinion", although there to be no "harmony". Should a very small minority obstruct the very clear wishes of the majority in this case?
Hey, I think you did the request in the wrong way! There's no request put in the WP:RfAr but a subpage calling for evidence. I don't care who did the requst, but I'm sure he doesn't know how to perform one. Thus, I'll make the request as it must be done. You surely know that the ArbCom must approve (I think now it's by 7 or 6 votes) the request before. -- Neigel von Teighen 22:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See WP:RfAr. Adraeus 00:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is now a Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case before the Arbitration Committee to investigate the behaviour of the disputants here. If you were not contacted via talk page, you may still wish to add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 03:36, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
I arrived late to this whole dispute, but I have formed a definite opinion as to whether or not the disputed factoid belongs in the article. Since the vote here has already been archived, does it make sense for me to add my opinion to the Arbitration area, or is that really exclusively concerned with user behavior? (I'm wondering to what extent user consensus on the inclusion/exclusion is relevant evidence.) I have no stake whatsoever in either side "winning". Skyraider 01:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I had been under the impression that archived material was to be considered frozen, but if I can still get in on the vote there, that seems like the most appropriate action on my part. Whatever the outcome of the arbitration, I hope all involved will be able to accept it and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. -- Skyraider 02:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Charles Darwin/Abraham Lincoln debate has now made it to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. 4.232.141.25 12:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)