- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: keep. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Pearl-clutching
I believe this needs to be nipped in the bud before any genuine harm is done. I could only imagine the content disputes that would be exacerbated in the future by linking to this essay, which directly calls users "pearl-clutchers", "POV-pushers" and "bad faith" editors. Looking at the content of the essay, there are no genuine tips on how to combat this supposed activity, of which I doubt there is sufficient problem on-site to warrant this essay's existance. Not every trope currently used on Twitter requires a corresponding Wikipedia essay.
Looking at its history, it seems the essay was moved to mainspace as a result of this discussion on the essay creator's talk page, in which the creator has been criticised for their conduct at another talk page. Creator repeated much of the content of the essay (per here and here). The user – who I've never come in to contact with, as far as I know – is now demanding an apology and threatening to go to ANI. Not a good start for the essay, but indicative of the kind of reaction I believe most users would have when accused of being a "bad faith" editor, which this essay does repeatedly.
Disruption to the site is a serious problem, but there are sufficient policies and guidelines that can be linked to when needed. There is no need for inflammatory essays that would only ever serve to enflame content disputes. Homeostasis07 ( talk/ contributions) 20:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- @
Homeostasis07: This essay was created by me five months ago and is not at all related to any discussions on my talk page. If you look at the
essay's talk page, I've been drafting this essay with some feedback from another editor for quite a while. This essay, as far as I know, has never been invoked anywhere yet. So your statement that I used it to cast aspersions about another editor is completely untrue. ––
FormalDude
talk 21:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Homeostasis has reworded their nomination, but is still falsely claiming that I
repeated much of the content of the essay
and falsely implying that I accused another editor of bad faith contributions. They're backing this up with diffs not of my alleged repetitions of the essay, but of another editor's interpretation of my comment. –– FormalDude talk 22:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)- The highlighted diffs show the other user complaining that you said they were "civil POV pushing" and "not getting the point", and them responding that you had been "casting aspersions" about them elsewhere. These are the key points – "buzzwords", if you will – of the essay, which is why I highlighted that exchange in the first place. In such, that exchange can be considered indicative of the reaction any well-meaning user could expect when being accused of "
WP:PEARLCLUTCHING", an essay that goes on to say users are "dishonest", "malicious", "bad faith" editors, of "tone policing" (an "anti-debate tactic"), "not getting the point", "civil POV pushing", and numerous other
incivilities. I apologize for not making this clearer in the initial nomination statement. I'd also like to note that FormalDude
added the "humorous" tag to the esssay a few minutes ago, which goes some way to assuaging some of the concerns raised. But I'm unfortunately unconvinced that the essay will remain "humorous" indefinitely.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions) 23:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- The thing is nobody has been accused of pearl-clutching, and I'm fairly certain the other user was not (and probably is still not) even aware of this essay or the term pearl-clutching. Civil POV pushing is not at all the same concept as what this essay is about, so it's very strange that you're conflating the two.
- And I'm fine with keeping the humorous tag indefinetly. ––
FormalDude
talk 23:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- You didn't repeat the specific term "pearl-clutching", but you repeated several of the aforementioned "buzzwords" contained in the essay in regard to that user, who I'm sure isn't aware of the essay and is probably too afraid to go to ANI. The essay may now be labelled "humorous", but the issue of the tone, language, and generally insulting nature of its content still remains.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions) 23:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- So if you admit they're not aware of this essay, how can you argue that their
exchange can be considered indicative of the reaction any well-meaning user could expect when being accused of "WP:PEARLCLUTCHING"
? I didn't accuse anyone of pearl-clutching, unless Civil POV pushing and NOTGETTINGIT combined means pearl-clutching. This essay has fourteen wikilinks to other essays, all of which are established, and are cited by other editors frequently. Ridiculous to think that implicates them in this essay somehow. –– FormalDude talk 00:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)- Because you created the essay, and were involved in that dispute with the other editor, where you accused that editor of "civil POV pushing" and "not getting the point", all springboard points that were derived from this essay you wrote. An essay which goes on to call other users "dishonest", "malicious", "anti-debate", "bad faith" editors, and countless other
incivilities. Those facts remain. This is not a "humorous" essay by any stretch of the imagination.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions) 00:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- At least it's clear that you're operating on pure speculation and coincidence. –– FormalDude talk 00:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Because you created the essay, and were involved in that dispute with the other editor, where you accused that editor of "civil POV pushing" and "not getting the point", all springboard points that were derived from this essay you wrote. An essay which goes on to call other users "dishonest", "malicious", "anti-debate", "bad faith" editors, and countless other
incivilities. Those facts remain. This is not a "humorous" essay by any stretch of the imagination.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions) 00:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- So if you admit they're not aware of this essay, how can you argue that their
- You didn't repeat the specific term "pearl-clutching", but you repeated several of the aforementioned "buzzwords" contained in the essay in regard to that user, who I'm sure isn't aware of the essay and is probably too afraid to go to ANI. The essay may now be labelled "humorous", but the issue of the tone, language, and generally insulting nature of its content still remains.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions) 23:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- The highlighted diffs show the other user complaining that you said they were "civil POV pushing" and "not getting the point", and them responding that you had been "casting aspersions" about them elsewhere. These are the key points – "buzzwords", if you will – of the essay, which is why I highlighted that exchange in the first place. In such, that exchange can be considered indicative of the reaction any well-meaning user could expect when being accused of "
WP:PEARLCLUTCHING", an essay that goes on to say users are "dishonest", "malicious", "bad faith" editors, of "tone policing" (an "anti-debate tactic"), "not getting the point", "civil POV pushing", and numerous other
incivilities. I apologize for not making this clearer in the initial nomination statement. I'd also like to note that FormalDude
added the "humorous" tag to the esssay a few minutes ago, which goes some way to assuaging some of the concerns raised. But I'm unfortunately unconvinced that the essay will remain "humorous" indefinitely.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions) 23:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Homeostasis has reworded their nomination, but is still falsely claiming that I
- Keep: Odd and baseless claims in the nomination. The essay is fine for goodness sake. -- TNT ( talk • she/her) 22:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like just another humorous essay. Given that, it seems like it would be unlikely to inflame disputes. Also, the essay has not been cited anywhere yet. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:A020:46E3:8F5E:7B7 ( talk) 23:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Important project-related essay. This essay is an important perspective in ongoing discussions on WikiPedia & WikiMedia civility policy. I don't know that it will be of great impact, but it is important in defining a term addressing perceivable over-reach. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't see any problems with this essay. It has a humorous edge, but also addresses with seriousness a specific type of behavior here that we all have probably encountered or observed. I think it is useful for the community. Netherzone ( talk) 16:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Hard to see why the nominator thinks this essay is problematic. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- comment very clearly a case of WP:SNOW, should have been closed by now. Dronebogus ( talk) 15:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: keep. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Pearl-clutching
I believe this needs to be nipped in the bud before any genuine harm is done. I could only imagine the content disputes that would be exacerbated in the future by linking to this essay, which directly calls users "pearl-clutchers", "POV-pushers" and "bad faith" editors. Looking at the content of the essay, there are no genuine tips on how to combat this supposed activity, of which I doubt there is sufficient problem on-site to warrant this essay's existance. Not every trope currently used on Twitter requires a corresponding Wikipedia essay.
Looking at its history, it seems the essay was moved to mainspace as a result of this discussion on the essay creator's talk page, in which the creator has been criticised for their conduct at another talk page. Creator repeated much of the content of the essay (per here and here). The user – who I've never come in to contact with, as far as I know – is now demanding an apology and threatening to go to ANI. Not a good start for the essay, but indicative of the kind of reaction I believe most users would have when accused of being a "bad faith" editor, which this essay does repeatedly.
Disruption to the site is a serious problem, but there are sufficient policies and guidelines that can be linked to when needed. There is no need for inflammatory essays that would only ever serve to enflame content disputes. Homeostasis07 ( talk/ contributions) 20:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- @
Homeostasis07: This essay was created by me five months ago and is not at all related to any discussions on my talk page. If you look at the
essay's talk page, I've been drafting this essay with some feedback from another editor for quite a while. This essay, as far as I know, has never been invoked anywhere yet. So your statement that I used it to cast aspersions about another editor is completely untrue. ––
FormalDude
talk 21:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Homeostasis has reworded their nomination, but is still falsely claiming that I
repeated much of the content of the essay
and falsely implying that I accused another editor of bad faith contributions. They're backing this up with diffs not of my alleged repetitions of the essay, but of another editor's interpretation of my comment. –– FormalDude talk 22:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)- The highlighted diffs show the other user complaining that you said they were "civil POV pushing" and "not getting the point", and them responding that you had been "casting aspersions" about them elsewhere. These are the key points – "buzzwords", if you will – of the essay, which is why I highlighted that exchange in the first place. In such, that exchange can be considered indicative of the reaction any well-meaning user could expect when being accused of "
WP:PEARLCLUTCHING", an essay that goes on to say users are "dishonest", "malicious", "bad faith" editors, of "tone policing" (an "anti-debate tactic"), "not getting the point", "civil POV pushing", and numerous other
incivilities. I apologize for not making this clearer in the initial nomination statement. I'd also like to note that FormalDude
added the "humorous" tag to the esssay a few minutes ago, which goes some way to assuaging some of the concerns raised. But I'm unfortunately unconvinced that the essay will remain "humorous" indefinitely.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions) 23:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- The thing is nobody has been accused of pearl-clutching, and I'm fairly certain the other user was not (and probably is still not) even aware of this essay or the term pearl-clutching. Civil POV pushing is not at all the same concept as what this essay is about, so it's very strange that you're conflating the two.
- And I'm fine with keeping the humorous tag indefinetly. ––
FormalDude
talk 23:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- You didn't repeat the specific term "pearl-clutching", but you repeated several of the aforementioned "buzzwords" contained in the essay in regard to that user, who I'm sure isn't aware of the essay and is probably too afraid to go to ANI. The essay may now be labelled "humorous", but the issue of the tone, language, and generally insulting nature of its content still remains.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions) 23:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- So if you admit they're not aware of this essay, how can you argue that their
exchange can be considered indicative of the reaction any well-meaning user could expect when being accused of "WP:PEARLCLUTCHING"
? I didn't accuse anyone of pearl-clutching, unless Civil POV pushing and NOTGETTINGIT combined means pearl-clutching. This essay has fourteen wikilinks to other essays, all of which are established, and are cited by other editors frequently. Ridiculous to think that implicates them in this essay somehow. –– FormalDude talk 00:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)- Because you created the essay, and were involved in that dispute with the other editor, where you accused that editor of "civil POV pushing" and "not getting the point", all springboard points that were derived from this essay you wrote. An essay which goes on to call other users "dishonest", "malicious", "anti-debate", "bad faith" editors, and countless other
incivilities. Those facts remain. This is not a "humorous" essay by any stretch of the imagination.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions) 00:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- At least it's clear that you're operating on pure speculation and coincidence. –– FormalDude talk 00:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Because you created the essay, and were involved in that dispute with the other editor, where you accused that editor of "civil POV pushing" and "not getting the point", all springboard points that were derived from this essay you wrote. An essay which goes on to call other users "dishonest", "malicious", "anti-debate", "bad faith" editors, and countless other
incivilities. Those facts remain. This is not a "humorous" essay by any stretch of the imagination.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions) 00:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- So if you admit they're not aware of this essay, how can you argue that their
- You didn't repeat the specific term "pearl-clutching", but you repeated several of the aforementioned "buzzwords" contained in the essay in regard to that user, who I'm sure isn't aware of the essay and is probably too afraid to go to ANI. The essay may now be labelled "humorous", but the issue of the tone, language, and generally insulting nature of its content still remains.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions) 23:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- The highlighted diffs show the other user complaining that you said they were "civil POV pushing" and "not getting the point", and them responding that you had been "casting aspersions" about them elsewhere. These are the key points – "buzzwords", if you will – of the essay, which is why I highlighted that exchange in the first place. In such, that exchange can be considered indicative of the reaction any well-meaning user could expect when being accused of "
WP:PEARLCLUTCHING", an essay that goes on to say users are "dishonest", "malicious", "bad faith" editors, of "tone policing" (an "anti-debate tactic"), "not getting the point", "civil POV pushing", and numerous other
incivilities. I apologize for not making this clearer in the initial nomination statement. I'd also like to note that FormalDude
added the "humorous" tag to the esssay a few minutes ago, which goes some way to assuaging some of the concerns raised. But I'm unfortunately unconvinced that the essay will remain "humorous" indefinitely.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions) 23:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Homeostasis has reworded their nomination, but is still falsely claiming that I
- Keep: Odd and baseless claims in the nomination. The essay is fine for goodness sake. -- TNT ( talk • she/her) 22:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like just another humorous essay. Given that, it seems like it would be unlikely to inflame disputes. Also, the essay has not been cited anywhere yet. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:A020:46E3:8F5E:7B7 ( talk) 23:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Important project-related essay. This essay is an important perspective in ongoing discussions on WikiPedia & WikiMedia civility policy. I don't know that it will be of great impact, but it is important in defining a term addressing perceivable over-reach. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't see any problems with this essay. It has a humorous edge, but also addresses with seriousness a specific type of behavior here that we all have probably encountered or observed. I think it is useful for the community. Netherzone ( talk) 16:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Hard to see why the nominator thinks this essay is problematic. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- comment very clearly a case of WP:SNOW, should have been closed by now. Dronebogus ( talk) 15:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.