User talk:Adraeus/Archive003

Invitations to Inquiry[edit]

I like the idea; give me a day or two to get over to the university campus so I can get the new password for the electronic resources, and then I'll try to help out. Everyking 10:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have indeed joined the Inquiry project - thanks for the invitation! -- BD2412 ^thimkact 13:46, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Hi, I really appreciate your invitation. One snag I see is that I do almost all of my research off-line. Also, despite current appearances, I really cannot afford to make research for Wikipedia a priority. I really like the idea of your project and would like to participate. It is just that right now, I am not sure what, or how much, I could contribute, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I really don't have access to an online research database. Besides, I don't think I want to even attempt cooperation with Sam Spade/Jack Lynch. RickK 19:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, he's not that bad! ;) Think of Inquiry as a Research Taskforce (a la the Cleanup Taskforce). Inquiry acquires, collects, disseminates, and publishes academically credible research for other editors to use in Wikipedia articles. An important point to consider is that not all members are required to have access to an online (or offline) research database. In fact, Inquiry needs people who are willing to add issues to our in-the-works task tracking system, which will probably use BugZilla. So even if you don't want to become an Inquiry reseacher, you can still be a helpful member. Adraeus 21:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adraeus, but my wiki-time is pretty full right now, I'll stick with the things I'm already involved in for now. Regards -- sannse (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man, your dedication blows me away. I see that following a comment you made concerning his vote, Seth Ilys claims the NPOV is a POV [1]. You should know that you are right, see [2], "The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all;"

By the way, if the page is getting too long, you might discuss with others how best to archive old discussion. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever want to talk in private, e-mail me: rubenste (at sign) ohiou dot edu. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Sam is difficult to work with. And now he has decided he wants to be Mel Etitis' arch nemesis, he's also quite distracting. Anyway, the project idea is commendable, let me know what you do offsite. regards, dab (ᛏ) 19:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

in fact, an offsite task force to locate references is a good idea. offsite, so academic standards can be enforced, think Lectiodifficilior's WCD (but keep it GFDL for ocmpatibility). dab (ᛏ) 19:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why you're letting the purpose be subverted or whatever, but I'd be happy to help with an offsite project. Andre (talk) 19:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

hell, what about Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Inquiry, let's see that one hijacked! dab (ᛏ) 21:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult people as we have a policy of no personal attacks at Wikipedia. That includes your naive shout at me at car accident. I suggest you look at the naming convention "common names" page (here). You may also wish to note that I do all the WP:RM moves so I have quite a bit of experience in naming conventions. Finally, to back up my choice, you may want to compare the Google results:

• "Vehicular collision": 815
• "Car accident": 1,550,000

Not that I need to highlight all this to you as the voting and discussion is quite comprehensive and uni-directional. violet/riga (t) 23:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Don't lecture me. I'm well-acquainted with policy. Moreover, my comments would not be considered "personal attacks" by any reasonable person; although, the ArbCom isn't known for its rationality. Ironically, your lecture on policy is accompanied by what would be considered a personal attack. Naivete? Oh, I'm sorry. Does irony offend you?
2. Google counts are useless and irrelevant. "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing." — Bertrand Russell.
3. [3], [4], [5] [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] — Apparently, "collision" (and its derivatives like "automobile collision" and "vehicular collision") is not only the formal name for so-called "accidents" but also a widely used and accepted phrase internationally, governmentally, and academically. Of course, I could provide even more academic references, but for some odd reason, the voters at Talk:Car accident think "vehicular collision" requires an argument. That was sarcasm, by the way. "Vehicular collision" requires no argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, articles like car accident need to be academically credible and NPOV. The voters at Talk:Car accident clearly think "car accident" is an accurate term whereas, in fact, it is conversational English and politically correct. Bottomline: I don't care anymore. I was trying to do something good, but I can't work with people who spit on my proposal and have absolute faith in their ignorance. Adraeus 23:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the voting, and the scepticism, reflects the fact that (despite your assertions) there is no universally accepted "proper name" for car accidents. "Vehicular collision" is actually fairly rarely used. There is definitely a movement to prefer "collision" over "accident" in professional circles, although I would not say it is a strong majority. Some even use the word "incident" instead (e.g. the California Highway Patrol). It's more common to use "automobile collision", "auto collision", or "traffic collision" than "vehicular collision", I find. And there are plenty of professional organisations and institutions using "automobile accident" or "traffic accident".

This isn't "spitting on your proposal" nor the ignorance you so quickly ascribe to those who disagree with you. Frankly, were you willing to engage those who disagree in a friendlier and more equal fashion, your suggestions might be a bit more warmly received. Your removal of other vote options, for instance, was not a very cooperative move. —Morven 23:49, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please. Don't you dare call me a bigot. Describing my proposal as "faintly ridiculous" is "spitting on my proposal". By the way, the voters weren't and aren't willing to discuss; hence, my recent reluctance to explain anything anymore. They're only willing post their opinions, and that's it. Adraeus 23:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accurately, I did not describe your proposal as "faintly ridiculous"; what I described thusly was your assertion that if we kept 'accident' in the title, Newtonian physics and science in general could not be used, and only statistical explanations could be, since it was placing such events in the realm of pure, uncontrollable chance. I apologise if it appeared I was so describing your proposal rather than your defense of it.

As to 'only willing [to] post their opinions, and that's it' - that was not confined to other users, in my view. —Morven 03:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

1. The way you approached the whole thing shows that you may need to refresh yourself on some policies. Of course I spotted the irony of my comments, but mine was a) justified and b) in response to your initial silliness.
2. Google counts are very relevant. "If ten people tell you you're dead, then lie down." — Groucho Marx.
3. I've ruled on the proposal and not moved the article. violet/riga (t) 20:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google counts are wholly irrelevant and completely useless in determining the validity of subjects for inclusion in Wikipedia. There is no rational argument for the relevancy of Google counts; hence, your quote from a comedian. Adraeus 10:24, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

You suggested a name which returns less than a thousand results on a search engine that indexes 8,058,044,651 pages and think that doesn't show it's not in popular use? I think it's clear which name to go for in this case. You seem to miss the point that I have never disputed that your suggestion may be the more PC name, but we have a policy on common names that is particularly relevant to this case. violet/riga (t) 10:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are many esoteric topics on Wikipedia which return less than a single result on Google. See User:Adraeus#Wikipediosophy for my thoughts on esoteric subjects. Vehicular collision, or to appeal to popularity automobile collision, encompasses a wider range of content than the simple conversational car accident. In addition, the argument that because car accident is a popular phrase is conclusive evidence that the article on automobile collisions should remain under its wing is fallacious because of the simple fact that REDIRECTS exist. If someone searches for "car accident", the page they'll ultimately visit is automobile collision or vehicular collision, so on Wikipedia whether the main article's name is popular is irrelevant. What matters, however, is that Wikipedia articles use precise terminology in article names since article names do heavily influence the article's content and how the reader cognitively categorizes the article. The argument for popular phrases as article names is impractical, and in practice, is not held up in other areas of Wikipedia, such as in biographies. Adraeus 10:55, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page of that article, I suggest that you create the vehicular collision as the article you are after, having it as a broader view of the topic. You can then have car accident as a subtopic ("main|main template", if you will). violet/riga (t) 11:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The above-mentioned image lacks a copyright tag. Even though the original work of art is presumably in the public domain due to age, the bidimensional reproduction may very well not be. Please provide a source and tag for the image, or it may be deleted by a sysop.

I notice you're in the habit of answering messages by writing in your own talk page. Please note it is a discouraged practice, as the original poster does not receive notice that his comments have been answered unless he's written to at his or her own talk page.

Best, Taragui 13:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

1. Source provided on Image:Apollonius.jpg.
2. Answering messages to me on my talk page, I think, is far better form than your so-called "encouraged practice" of separating a discussion into two parts. Such a separation increases in absurdity when there exists more than two parties to a discussion. The message sender, if concerned for the status of his/her message, may "watch this page" for reponses. I will continue to answer messages written to me on my talk page regardless of what form is considered the status quo. Adraeus 14:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for your contributions to the discussion in Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. I'm glad I'm not alone in seeing the encyclopedic value of names (and it annoys the hell out of me when people call it genealogy, when there's none of that on the pages up for deletion!) However, it occurs to me that I've opened a discussion without knowing the proper procedure for closing it. On top of that, I'm going to be camping in the woods for the next week (ergo no internet access from the 23rd to the 27th) and will be busy packing between now and then. Could you take over the discussion page, and see that it gets wrapped up appropriately? -- BD2412 ^talk 20:28, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Probably not. Sorry. I'm going to be busy too. Adraeus 00:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adraeus, I too do not support edit wars, even though, like many editors, I have been involved in a few. But I hope you will consider two things. (1) there is a difference between an edit war over substantive content (e.g., what is the definition of fascism; did Jesus exist) — these edit wars express passionate feelings by editors deeply committed to a given article, and if the conflict cannot be resolve don the talk page (although often it is), mediation is possible. However, I do not think that what is going on in the Persian-related articles falls under this category. Jguk, RickK, and Violetriga have made no substantive additions to these articles. They have not expressed a strong interest in Persian topics per se, let alone any expertise. They are not passionately committed to the top, the article, they are simply reacting against people who are passionately interested in the articles and have already demonstrated considerable expertise, and who use BCE/CE. (2) It is well-established that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and a relatively anarchic wiki-community second (for many, though not me, a distant second). What I am doing is motivated by my committment to this project of writing a high-quality encyclopedia, which among other things entails respect and when appropriate deference to editors who know what they are writing about. This has nothing to do with my proposal, I hope you understand. I consider the question of how NPOV BCE/CE is to be open, but also recognize that a slim but nevertheless significant majority of involved editors reject my position about BCE/CE and NPOV. This does not mean that BCE and CE are no longer allowed at Wikipedia. As has always been the case, they should be used when a majority if not consensus of the active editors working on an article feel it is appropriate. This is certainly the case concerning the articles I am following (on Jewish or Persian topics). The people who seem to know the most about, and who have worked the most on, Jewish and Persian topics have a clear and reasonable — and strong — preference for BCE and CE. For people who have previously made no contributions to these articles, and who now change BCE/CE to BC/AD against the consensus of people working on those articles is at best senseless and goes against Wikipedia traditions. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS I know that you are being even-handed and expressing the same views and assessments with Violetriga and RickK. I am not questioning your own sense of fairness, just doing you the courtesy of explaining my motives. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]