In what way does this remotely violate WP:BLP?:
It simply states that there are elements of the Republican Party that want her to run in 2012, and that she has presently stated she has no interest in that. All of this is non-controversial and cited from verifiable sources. Peter G Werner ( talk) 05:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
It is a conjecture which is contrary to what she has stated herself. Thus it fails under the "conjecture" pare of BLP. Sort of like saying "Some people say John Doe is considering running for Congress, but John Doe is denying it" -- all it is, is speculation. Even from CNN, speculation remains speculation.
Collect (
talk) 12:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
[First evidence of a possible problem. "Thus it fails under the 'conjecture' part of BLP." Here Collect is speaking authoritatively and trying to convince another user that his edit has violated a core policy. But the policy he references does not prohibit conjecture in BLPs.]
[My tactic : Remind Collect of a discussion we have previously had, without getting into details.][My tactic : Assert that Collect is wrong without making accusation of bad faith.]
[Collect tactic : Present text of a Wikipedia policy as final proof that what he is saying is correct, without making any effort to explain how the policy text supports his position.][Collect tactic : Immediately accuse other editor of bad faith or personal attack (i.e. "seeking to intimidate").][Colect tactic : Assert a false and overly broad interpretation of a Wikipedia rule ("Facts are what belong in a BLP, not conjecture.") and then demand other users accept that interpretation as authoritative.]
[My tactic : Attempt to explain, in painstaking detail, why Collect's reading of the rule is substantially mistaken.][My tactic : Offer exasperated reminder of identical discussions we've had on the same subject.]
[Collect tactic : "It's just a difference of opinion. My interpretation of the rules is just as valid as yours." Use of this tactic tends to deny that there is anything objective at all about Wiki policies that two editors could agree upon, based on the plain language.][Collect tactic : Switch to a new basis for a new argument, changing the subject without admitting that the original argument was wrong.][Collect tactic again: Attack the editor rather than his comments.]
[My tactic: Attempt to prevent subject being changed by pointing out that both he and I are discussing a specific policy, and that WP:Crystal is not that policy]
[My tactic: Appeal to plain English meanings of words. If any assertion is unproven, it is a conjecture rather than a fact; if any assertion about someone else's conduct is unproven, it is also a conjecture rather than a fact. And not just ANY conjecture, but a specific type of conjecture known as an ALLEGATION.]
[My tactic: Attempt, quite colorfully, to express to Collect that there may be numerous situations in which there is a correct and an incorrect interpretation of a Wikipedia policy, rather than a vast number of equally valid interpretations.]
[My tactic: Remind Collect of substance of BLP policy, which explicitly allows published opinions in BLPs.]
[My tactic: respond to Collect's accusation of absusive behavior with my own accusation.]
[My tactic: Go tit-for-tat on Collect's smarmy, one-of-a-kind practice of ending venomous, sarcastic comments with a "gracious" Thank-you.]
[Collect tactic : Listing of dictionary definitions, accompanied by an implication that the definitions somehow vindicate a point of argument, without actually demonstrating or even suggesting how.][Tactic : Pointless use of Latin to dress up an otherwise meritless argument.][Tactic : Change the subject, back to previous Tactic (personal attack).]
[My tactic: Another attempt at point by point explanation of my argument.][My tactic: More tit-for-tat on sarcasm.][My tactic: Deny substance of Collect's personal attacks, by saying I was not lying about anything being in the archives. (This points to a larger discussion on Sarah Palin talk page.)]
[Collect tactic : Simply contradict what the other person is saying, entirely without explanation.][Collect tactic : Straw man. Falsely claim that your opponent is trying to argue X, where X is an invalid and easily defeated argument.][Collect tactic : Assert, without explanation, that what the other editor is saying is simply a misunderstanding of what Collect is saying.][Collect tactic again: Accuse the other editor of making a personal attack or acting in bad faith.][Collect tactic: throw in an insult for good measure, telling me I need a dictionary to understand what the words mean.]
[My tactic: reject straw man, again attempt to explain substance of my point.][My tactic: Finally and firmly accuse Collect of acting in bad faith. I stand by this accusation.]
Nor are "allegations" a subset of "conjectures." Nor are any of your logical statements, logical. As for your attempts to misstate my position, that is a matter for your own conscience someday. Try writing without attacking people. Collect ( talk) 23:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
[Collect tactic, again: simply deny what the other person is saying, without explanation.][Collect tactic : Asserting, without any attempt at explanation, that nothing the other person has said makes any sense.][Collect tactic again: Assert without explanation that the other editor is simply suffering from a misunderstanding.][Collect tactic again: Another accusation of personal attack/bad faith.]
[My tactic: One last attempt at explanation, then close dicussion without resolution.]
[Collect tactic: Again simply deny what the other person is saying without once having attempted to substantiate the opposite viewpoint.][Collect tactic: Deny that he has asserted that conjectural material is not allowed by BLP policy, instead claim that he was only asserting the exact text of the policy and not his own interpretation of the policy -- the same interpretation this entire argument has been about. Plainly and visibly false, QED above.][Collect tactic: REASSERT the novel interpretation of the BLP policy WHICH HE HAS JUST DISAVOWED IN THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE BY SAYING HE WAS ONLY ASSERTING THE ORIGINAL POLICY TEXT.][Collect tactic: Use of the word "iteration" to imply that the other person has been engaging in unnecessary repetition of points... even though it is Collect's own unwillingness to either acknowledge or rebut the point that has necessitated repeating it.][Collect tactic: Once more for good measure, deny what the other person is saying outright, without any explanation.]
[My last-gasp tactic: Black is black. Up is up. Some things are simply not subject to multiple interpretations. At some point there is no way to further explain 2+2=4.]
[My tactic: Acknowledge the specific policy as stated in BLP, in preparation for contrasting it to Collect's claim, which is false.]
[My tactic: Make a final note of the substantive difference between "conjectural interpretation of a source", which is what BLP policy prohibits, and "conjectures made by sources", which is what is prohibited under Collect's "unique" interpretation of the policy, which is contradicted by the rest of the policy, e.g. the language regarding use of sourced allegations and facts about sourced opinions.]
[My tactic: Tell Collect he is deluded and that Wikipedia is governed by well-stated policies which ought to be used specifically and correctly.]
[Collect tactic: Mention the dictionary definitions again. STILL not the slightest explanation of how listing definitions from Webster contradicts my position or supports his own.]
In what way does this remotely violate WP:BLP?:
It simply states that there are elements of the Republican Party that want her to run in 2012, and that she has presently stated she has no interest in that. All of this is non-controversial and cited from verifiable sources. Peter G Werner ( talk) 05:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
It is a conjecture which is contrary to what she has stated herself. Thus it fails under the "conjecture" pare of BLP. Sort of like saying "Some people say John Doe is considering running for Congress, but John Doe is denying it" -- all it is, is speculation. Even from CNN, speculation remains speculation.
Collect (
talk) 12:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
[First evidence of a possible problem. "Thus it fails under the 'conjecture' part of BLP." Here Collect is speaking authoritatively and trying to convince another user that his edit has violated a core policy. But the policy he references does not prohibit conjecture in BLPs.]
[My tactic : Remind Collect of a discussion we have previously had, without getting into details.][My tactic : Assert that Collect is wrong without making accusation of bad faith.]
[Collect tactic : Present text of a Wikipedia policy as final proof that what he is saying is correct, without making any effort to explain how the policy text supports his position.][Collect tactic : Immediately accuse other editor of bad faith or personal attack (i.e. "seeking to intimidate").][Colect tactic : Assert a false and overly broad interpretation of a Wikipedia rule ("Facts are what belong in a BLP, not conjecture.") and then demand other users accept that interpretation as authoritative.]
[My tactic : Attempt to explain, in painstaking detail, why Collect's reading of the rule is substantially mistaken.][My tactic : Offer exasperated reminder of identical discussions we've had on the same subject.]
[Collect tactic : "It's just a difference of opinion. My interpretation of the rules is just as valid as yours." Use of this tactic tends to deny that there is anything objective at all about Wiki policies that two editors could agree upon, based on the plain language.][Collect tactic : Switch to a new basis for a new argument, changing the subject without admitting that the original argument was wrong.][Collect tactic again: Attack the editor rather than his comments.]
[My tactic: Attempt to prevent subject being changed by pointing out that both he and I are discussing a specific policy, and that WP:Crystal is not that policy]
[My tactic: Appeal to plain English meanings of words. If any assertion is unproven, it is a conjecture rather than a fact; if any assertion about someone else's conduct is unproven, it is also a conjecture rather than a fact. And not just ANY conjecture, but a specific type of conjecture known as an ALLEGATION.]
[My tactic: Attempt, quite colorfully, to express to Collect that there may be numerous situations in which there is a correct and an incorrect interpretation of a Wikipedia policy, rather than a vast number of equally valid interpretations.]
[My tactic: Remind Collect of substance of BLP policy, which explicitly allows published opinions in BLPs.]
[My tactic: respond to Collect's accusation of absusive behavior with my own accusation.]
[My tactic: Go tit-for-tat on Collect's smarmy, one-of-a-kind practice of ending venomous, sarcastic comments with a "gracious" Thank-you.]
[Collect tactic : Listing of dictionary definitions, accompanied by an implication that the definitions somehow vindicate a point of argument, without actually demonstrating or even suggesting how.][Tactic : Pointless use of Latin to dress up an otherwise meritless argument.][Tactic : Change the subject, back to previous Tactic (personal attack).]
[My tactic: Another attempt at point by point explanation of my argument.][My tactic: More tit-for-tat on sarcasm.][My tactic: Deny substance of Collect's personal attacks, by saying I was not lying about anything being in the archives. (This points to a larger discussion on Sarah Palin talk page.)]
[Collect tactic : Simply contradict what the other person is saying, entirely without explanation.][Collect tactic : Straw man. Falsely claim that your opponent is trying to argue X, where X is an invalid and easily defeated argument.][Collect tactic : Assert, without explanation, that what the other editor is saying is simply a misunderstanding of what Collect is saying.][Collect tactic again: Accuse the other editor of making a personal attack or acting in bad faith.][Collect tactic: throw in an insult for good measure, telling me I need a dictionary to understand what the words mean.]
[My tactic: reject straw man, again attempt to explain substance of my point.][My tactic: Finally and firmly accuse Collect of acting in bad faith. I stand by this accusation.]
Nor are "allegations" a subset of "conjectures." Nor are any of your logical statements, logical. As for your attempts to misstate my position, that is a matter for your own conscience someday. Try writing without attacking people. Collect ( talk) 23:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
[Collect tactic, again: simply deny what the other person is saying, without explanation.][Collect tactic : Asserting, without any attempt at explanation, that nothing the other person has said makes any sense.][Collect tactic again: Assert without explanation that the other editor is simply suffering from a misunderstanding.][Collect tactic again: Another accusation of personal attack/bad faith.]
[My tactic: One last attempt at explanation, then close dicussion without resolution.]
[Collect tactic: Again simply deny what the other person is saying without once having attempted to substantiate the opposite viewpoint.][Collect tactic: Deny that he has asserted that conjectural material is not allowed by BLP policy, instead claim that he was only asserting the exact text of the policy and not his own interpretation of the policy -- the same interpretation this entire argument has been about. Plainly and visibly false, QED above.][Collect tactic: REASSERT the novel interpretation of the BLP policy WHICH HE HAS JUST DISAVOWED IN THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE BY SAYING HE WAS ONLY ASSERTING THE ORIGINAL POLICY TEXT.][Collect tactic: Use of the word "iteration" to imply that the other person has been engaging in unnecessary repetition of points... even though it is Collect's own unwillingness to either acknowledge or rebut the point that has necessitated repeating it.][Collect tactic: Once more for good measure, deny what the other person is saying outright, without any explanation.]
[My last-gasp tactic: Black is black. Up is up. Some things are simply not subject to multiple interpretations. At some point there is no way to further explain 2+2=4.]
[My tactic: Acknowledge the specific policy as stated in BLP, in preparation for contrasting it to Collect's claim, which is false.]
[My tactic: Make a final note of the substantive difference between "conjectural interpretation of a source", which is what BLP policy prohibits, and "conjectures made by sources", which is what is prohibited under Collect's "unique" interpretation of the policy, which is contradicted by the rest of the policy, e.g. the language regarding use of sourced allegations and facts about sourced opinions.]
[My tactic: Tell Collect he is deluded and that Wikipedia is governed by well-stated policies which ought to be used specifically and correctly.]
[Collect tactic: Mention the dictionary definitions again. STILL not the slightest explanation of how listing definitions from Webster contradicts my position or supports his own.]