Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This project page was nominated for deletion on January 16, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
See Jimbo's "just me, not The Jimbo" edit summary comment at WP:FAME; I quote it on WP:NHIST.
See also [1] (sorry, I'm too tired to wikifiy that right now.)
Very amusing stuff! — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 12:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This argument is reealy annoying, especially when people are misinterpreting what he said. - Amarkov blah edits 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Francis, this is getting silly. I'd be happy to reword the page or remove parts you find objectionable, but what you're now doing amounts pretty much to blanking the essay. Cutting the relevant parts off a page after your nomination for deletion failed to get consensus is rather inappropriate. >Radiant< 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is what I think should be in this page:
Is this something we can work from? I think this is the main point but it could of course be a lot better, eg. referencing other policys to support the point. -- Morten LJ 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The editwarring is definitely getting silly. Francis, I think your #New text has some merits, but it's not a drop-in replacement for the entire content of the article. For one thing, at bare minimum the article has to explain that it is a reference to a widely-recognized class of logic fallacies, or even the name of the article will not make sense to most people who have not taken a university-level class in logic or philosophy or weren't on a debate team. I think the message Francis is trying to get across can be merged into the extant text (though I'd use "Wikipedian" and "editor" in place of the two occurrences of "user", in the text you actually replaced the article with, which is different from the version immediately above). Perhaps if you explained your concern that the article is an ad hominem attack on Jimbo, here, that would be conducive to consensus-building. I personally think that the pre-Francis version does need some work, as it can easily be misinterpreted to mean that any citation to statements by J. Wales are necessarily argumentum ad Jimbonem, which is clearly not actually true. But I also don't think the article is a direct attack on Jimbo either; it can simply be similarly misinterpreted that way. A rather simple merge of the two widely divergent versions, and some copyediting, ought to be enough to make everyone happy. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
.....opening the essay with a comment undermine it any more than making the content into a bland parody of itself? ALR 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is better, the current quote, or the following?
“ | I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think. | ” |
— Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 07:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[...] the nominator along with the ones giving votes agree that this article should be here, only the content is not agreed upon. We should then discuss the actual content on the discussion page. (Morten LJ)
[...] nominator is disagreeing with content of, not existence of, page in question. [...] article text (which at bare minimum should explain the argument to authority connection, etc., or the whole concept won't make any sense at all to users who are not well-versed in formal logic/philosophy/debate.) [...] Not all of nom's concerns are invalid [...] (SMcCandlish)
The page shouldn't be a personal attack [...] (Disavian)
I'm quite sure we can treat the content of this page in a grown-up way.I think the existence does raise a very valid point and deletion really brushes the need for a discussion about the point under the carpet. [...] (ALR)
...can only be described as a complete and utter logical fallacy, and should consequently be removed from the page without delay. For the time being, until a more comprehensive treatement without internal logical fallacies is agreed upon, I revert to the version constituted of a combination of Morten's proposal above, and Radiant's valid "dont't claim that what Jimbo says is The Truth" observation. If there are better ways to express this, without falling in logical fallacies, I'd very much welcome that. -- Francis Schonken 10:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)The "Argumentum ad Jimbonem" is a logical fallacy (etc)
My Latin is quite rusty, but while many famous fallacies end with "ad [accusative]", it seems to me that an "Argumentum ad Jimbonem" would actually either be an argument with Jimbo on his talk page about something, or against Jimbo in some way. Rather, it seems to me that we need an "ab [ablative]" here, so that "Argumentum ab Jimbo" (Argument from Jimbo) would be a better title. This would, however, imply that the Latinization of "Jimbo" is "Jimbus." The current version implies an equally crazy nom. of something like "Jimbonēs" - RedWordSmith 06:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I do hope opening this essay with a quote from The Founder was done with a smile, as it gave me reason to. I very much like the message behind this, in aid of preventing editors from getting anywhere near reverence let alone worship for Mr. Wales. So thank you, |→ Spaully° τ 22:48, 6 April 2007 ( GMT)
What does the quote
“ | [Unsuspecting Wikipedian:] I thought that I had heard that you were [...] [Jimbo's reply:] Good grief. I know this will sound harsh, but I think you should perhaps consider finding another hobby if you think "I thought I heard that..." is a valid basis for inclusion of a claim in an encyclopedia!--Jimbo Wales [...] |
” |
have to do with this argumentation? The "unsuspecting" Wikipedian doesn't refer to Jimbo's statement in a discussion, after all. Sala Skan 14:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that people aren't getting it. I've just created a new essay at Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. Enjoy! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Argumentum Jimbini seems wrong to me, since the o > i sound law in intermediate unstressed vowels would only be motivated if Jimbo be a genuinely Latin name, which it isn't. I think that Argumentum Jimboni and (the formally erroneous) Argumentum ad Jimbonem are the more "correct forms", and that Argumentum Jimbini is superfluous, since few will come to use it, yet fewer to understand it. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This project page was nominated for deletion on January 16, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
See Jimbo's "just me, not The Jimbo" edit summary comment at WP:FAME; I quote it on WP:NHIST.
See also [1] (sorry, I'm too tired to wikifiy that right now.)
Very amusing stuff! — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 12:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This argument is reealy annoying, especially when people are misinterpreting what he said. - Amarkov blah edits 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Francis, this is getting silly. I'd be happy to reword the page or remove parts you find objectionable, but what you're now doing amounts pretty much to blanking the essay. Cutting the relevant parts off a page after your nomination for deletion failed to get consensus is rather inappropriate. >Radiant< 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is what I think should be in this page:
Is this something we can work from? I think this is the main point but it could of course be a lot better, eg. referencing other policys to support the point. -- Morten LJ 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The editwarring is definitely getting silly. Francis, I think your #New text has some merits, but it's not a drop-in replacement for the entire content of the article. For one thing, at bare minimum the article has to explain that it is a reference to a widely-recognized class of logic fallacies, or even the name of the article will not make sense to most people who have not taken a university-level class in logic or philosophy or weren't on a debate team. I think the message Francis is trying to get across can be merged into the extant text (though I'd use "Wikipedian" and "editor" in place of the two occurrences of "user", in the text you actually replaced the article with, which is different from the version immediately above). Perhaps if you explained your concern that the article is an ad hominem attack on Jimbo, here, that would be conducive to consensus-building. I personally think that the pre-Francis version does need some work, as it can easily be misinterpreted to mean that any citation to statements by J. Wales are necessarily argumentum ad Jimbonem, which is clearly not actually true. But I also don't think the article is a direct attack on Jimbo either; it can simply be similarly misinterpreted that way. A rather simple merge of the two widely divergent versions, and some copyediting, ought to be enough to make everyone happy. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
.....opening the essay with a comment undermine it any more than making the content into a bland parody of itself? ALR 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is better, the current quote, or the following?
“ | I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think. | ” |
— Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 07:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[...] the nominator along with the ones giving votes agree that this article should be here, only the content is not agreed upon. We should then discuss the actual content on the discussion page. (Morten LJ)
[...] nominator is disagreeing with content of, not existence of, page in question. [...] article text (which at bare minimum should explain the argument to authority connection, etc., or the whole concept won't make any sense at all to users who are not well-versed in formal logic/philosophy/debate.) [...] Not all of nom's concerns are invalid [...] (SMcCandlish)
The page shouldn't be a personal attack [...] (Disavian)
I'm quite sure we can treat the content of this page in a grown-up way.I think the existence does raise a very valid point and deletion really brushes the need for a discussion about the point under the carpet. [...] (ALR)
...can only be described as a complete and utter logical fallacy, and should consequently be removed from the page without delay. For the time being, until a more comprehensive treatement without internal logical fallacies is agreed upon, I revert to the version constituted of a combination of Morten's proposal above, and Radiant's valid "dont't claim that what Jimbo says is The Truth" observation. If there are better ways to express this, without falling in logical fallacies, I'd very much welcome that. -- Francis Schonken 10:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)The "Argumentum ad Jimbonem" is a logical fallacy (etc)
My Latin is quite rusty, but while many famous fallacies end with "ad [accusative]", it seems to me that an "Argumentum ad Jimbonem" would actually either be an argument with Jimbo on his talk page about something, or against Jimbo in some way. Rather, it seems to me that we need an "ab [ablative]" here, so that "Argumentum ab Jimbo" (Argument from Jimbo) would be a better title. This would, however, imply that the Latinization of "Jimbo" is "Jimbus." The current version implies an equally crazy nom. of something like "Jimbonēs" - RedWordSmith 06:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I do hope opening this essay with a quote from The Founder was done with a smile, as it gave me reason to. I very much like the message behind this, in aid of preventing editors from getting anywhere near reverence let alone worship for Mr. Wales. So thank you, |→ Spaully° τ 22:48, 6 April 2007 ( GMT)
What does the quote
“ | [Unsuspecting Wikipedian:] I thought that I had heard that you were [...] [Jimbo's reply:] Good grief. I know this will sound harsh, but I think you should perhaps consider finding another hobby if you think "I thought I heard that..." is a valid basis for inclusion of a claim in an encyclopedia!--Jimbo Wales [...] |
” |
have to do with this argumentation? The "unsuspecting" Wikipedian doesn't refer to Jimbo's statement in a discussion, after all. Sala Skan 14:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that people aren't getting it. I've just created a new essay at Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. Enjoy! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Argumentum Jimbini seems wrong to me, since the o > i sound law in intermediate unstressed vowels would only be motivated if Jimbo be a genuinely Latin name, which it isn't. I think that Argumentum Jimboni and (the formally erroneous) Argumentum ad Jimbonem are the more "correct forms", and that Argumentum Jimbini is superfluous, since few will come to use it, yet fewer to understand it. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)