Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:18, 10 May 2008

Archives

Misplaced Pages talk:Call a spade a spade/Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

...

What kind of namby-pamby foolishness turned an essay on calling a spade a spade into an essay that says that if you call a spade a spade, you'll probably be blocked, so best to be ever-so-civil and NEVER, EVER dare say anything that will ever offend anyone? Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or practice before we have tea with the queen? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, calling a spade a spade when it comews to discussing article content is important and productive. It's NECESSARY to call, say, a problematic source a problematic source. It's necessary to be able to point out problems with a suggested addition. And, if someone's edits are truly egregious, over many months... well, dammit, call a spade a spade and do something about it =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an example would help: Here's me calling a spade a spade on an article talk page, deconstructing why I find a suggested wording inappropriate. . This does not mean I do not respect Dave souza, the creator of the content I'm criticising. But calling a spade a spade makes points clear, prevents miscommunication, and allows for productive discussion on how to move forwards. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your viewpoint is expressed in a refreshingly forthright manner. Call a spade a spade was the original gist of this essay; a companion piece Misplaced Pages:Don't call a spade a spade was got under way. If you examine the "Merge Discussion" above, and the revision history, you will see how these two essays have now seemingly come together. There have been some suggestions as to how to proceed, so how would you proceed, Thanks --NewbyG (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the sensible part of calling a spade a spade comes to dealing with content issues and arguments. If a source doesn't really support the comment, say so. If yu've looked at a study that someone has used, and find major problems with it, tell them so on the talk page. If it seems a suggested wording would confuse rather than assist, then by all means say so. So long as you're dealing with content and arguments, but stay polite when discussing with the person making them, calling a spade a spade makes discussions clearer and helps solve problems much more quickly.

What you don't want to do is call a spade "the sorriest excuse for a spade you ever saw". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're totally right. Haven't read it recently, but has this essay really come to the point where you can't say a spade is a spade, like "That's a really bad source for the statement"? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well no it hasn't come to that. Or, yes it has come to that. It depends which way you look at it. --NewbyG (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think this essay goes just a little too far. It should be modified basically to say that this is usually the best policy, but, for example, sometimes you do use the term "POV pushing" about certain edits, or whatever. In other words, I've never been at a loss to express myself within the CIV policy, but I do feel that sometimes saying exactly what the situation is, is the correct way to proceed. Even if that means you say that an edit is POV pushing. It almost never comes to that point. At that point, for me, it is a warning that I'm going to do something, like get mediation or report. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think that a source or an edit is a "spade", call it that. If you think that a contributor is a "spade", keep your judgment to yourself, and proceed based on encyclopedic grounds, not based on your conclusions about someone else's motivations. Right?

Should the essay say that trying to be diplomatic is a bad idea, when dealing with people whom you consider to be sufficiently wrong? -GTBacchus 10:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If the point of this and the Don't call a spade... essays is to play advocates for the opposing viewpoints, then yes, probably. And, certainly, if noone expresses concern with the trends in a user's behaviour, then why would they change? So politely expressing concern does have its place, and we should explain how to politely do so. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that the point of this and the other essay are to oppose each other. If one of the two opposing viewpoints is destructive or wrong, then I hope we would avoid endorsing that one. as for politely expressing concern with an editor's behavior, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever been against that. -GTBacchus 14:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a good idea that these would be two essays espousing opposing viewpoints; perhaps it could be thought of as having different strategies for different occasions, and that that difference concerns a sanction against the labelling of editors with disparaging names, which can be made clear by considering both essays, or merging them. As has been previously discussed in preceding sections . The current state of both essays is , I think, a little unclear. --NewbyG (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Honesty

I find this edit by Raymond Arritt somewhat troubling. Is asking editors to be honest really "jarringly inconsistent with the preceding material"? Is there anything on this page that says "be dishonest"? What's going on there? -GTBacchus 01:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a disconnect with the rest of the paragraph, which discusses how one should avoid giving an opening for accusations of incivility and such. Out of nowhere suddenly comes "always practice honesty." So yes, it's jarring. If you want to say that none of the preceding discussion implies that we can't be honest, it would be better to build it into a coherent paragraph on its own. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wanting to say anything, so much as asking whether this page currently advocates dishonesty, in your opinion, or in anyone's? -GTBacchus 01:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it advocates dishonesty as such. But it doesn't advocate complete honesty, either. There's not always a dichotomy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I added 'And always ... honesty' in response to a previous good edit. The essay Misplaced Pages:Honesty is good. Actually, And to always practise honesty -- it was meant to jar a little, as a stylistic measure, but maybe it just doesn't fit precisely there anyway. It was meant to suggest that maybe both or either of the editors might make an honest mistake, I was reflecting on that, and trying to round out the paragraph. --NewbyG (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with what Raymond said. The sentence fragment about honesty was jarring and not well integrated into the preceding material; it didn't fit with the rest of the essay. If you really want the essay to say something about frankness and honesty, then as Raymond says, it would be better to build at least a coherent paragraph on the subject, rather than just suddenly sticking "And always be honest" at the end of a paragraph that seems to be about something else; it's a question of composition. It's not that the rest of the essay advocates dishonesty and then the sentence fragment about honesty is jarring in contrast; it's more that the essay seems to be about something else entirely (being nice, I guess), and then the sentence fragment about honesty seems to be tacked on out of nowhere.

It seems to me that last time I read this essay, it advocated frankness and honesty, within reason; I found it very intelligent and refreshing. But now I can't see a great differentiation between this page, WP:CIVIL as it now reads, and Don't Call a Spade a Spade. All of these now kind of say the same thing (be nice) and I'm not sure why they even need to be different pages. I'm curious what the section on the duck test said before it turned into a children's story about how if you shout at the duck the duck will quack at you and if you're nice to the duck, the duck will turn into a swan. Surely it didn't always read that way? Woonpton (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the essay advocates dishonesty - indeed, if it does, we should fix that. I think what the essay advocates is staying on topic, which doesn't really have anything to do with honesty or dishonesty.

This essay has converged with WP:NOSPADE, which is a bit odd. The trouble is, this essay had been used far too much as a justification for making personal attacks, on the grounds that the person being attacked is a "spade". The essay has been drifting away from that idea, and in the direction of not calling people names after all. Making this into an essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy. Like I said in another section above: if an edit or a source is bad, call it bad. If you think a person is bad, keep it to yourself.

One small point - it doesn't say the duck will turn into a swan; it says he might turn out to have always been one. That's rather different. What the duck test used to look like can be found in the history; see this version for example. As you can see, it didn't really say much. -GTBacchus 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said they think the essay advocates dishonesty; I certainly haven't. My point was that the essay as it stands now doesn't advocate honesty or dishonesty, so why suddenly stick in an exhortation to be honest? Your question was: does the essay advocate dishonesty? My answer: no, I don't think so. But neither does it really say anything that's not said as well elsewhere, say on WP:CIVIL. Ducks are ducks and swans are swans, its unlikely that what looks like a duck could turn out to have always been a swan. Having never shouted "It's a duck" at ducks or swans, I guess I'll have to take it on faith that this story will make people stop doing that. Woonpton (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say here. The reason I thought someone might perceive that the essay advocates dishonesty is that Raymond didn't say in his edit summary, "this is jarringly off-topic", he said "this is jarringly inconsistent". I was trying to get at why he said "inconsistent".

As far as the likelihood of mistaking a swan for a duck... I've seen it done enough times to make it worth writing down. -GTBacchus 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that the edit in question was jarringly inconsistent, stylistically with the text that it followed. lol --NewbyG (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But it startled us into realizing, because this little bit about honesty didn't fit with the rest of the essay, that the essay was no longer about honesty or frankness or clear expression, and that we wanted some of that back. So it was a good thing.Woonpton (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

From ducks to swans

No doubt I'm belaboring a vanishingly trivial point, especially since I think the whole page as it stands now is redundant to other pages that also advocate politeness and niceness and giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt, but this little duck analogy annoys me, because I like things to make sense, and it makes no sense. Even children like their stories to make sense. The Ugly Duckling story works because there was something from the beginning that didn't fit about this little duck. He didn't look like the other ducklings, didn't walk like the other ducklings, didn't feel like he belonged with the other ducklings; the other ducklings pecked at him and wouldn't let him play. He was a lonely and unhappy little duck. It was only when he grew up that everyone realized that there was a good reason for his differentness: he hadn't ever been a duck, and trying to be a duck had only made him unhappy, and now he could go and find the swans and be who he was and feel at home. The moral of the story: don't be afraid to be and celebrate who you are, even if you're different from those around you; maybe there's another group somewhere that you fit with better.

This story here tries to make the Ugly Duckling plot fit an entirely different moral: Don't assume someone fits in category x just because they have qualities you've decided are associated with category x. (An example: the apparently widespread assumption that anyone who comes into Misplaced Pages and figures out things quickly must be a sock puppet, because no one who is really new could possibly figure Misplaced Pages out so fast. That assumption, BTW, has never any made sense to me. They want no smart people in Misplaced Pages? They have engineered Misplaced Pages to be so incomprehensible that new people can't possibly figure out how it works, and if someone manages to figure it out anyway, there's got to be something subversive going on? I don't get it. But I digress). The Ugly Duckling story works because the duck was always recognizably different from the other ducks, and the reason for his differentness eventually became apparent; he belonged to another species altogether. Being nice to him, being mean to him, positive reinforcement, etc is irrelevant; either way, he's still a swan, and to tell the truth, anyone who ever took a clear-eyed objective look at him would never have mistaken him for a duck. A biologist certainly wouldn't have mistaken him for a duck. It was just that everyone assumed without thinking about it very much, that because he was in the duckling flock, he must be a duck, so they tried to make him conform to the norm of duckness even though he didn't look like a duck or act like a duck.

So what's that got to do with the essay at hand? Not much that I can think of. The principles underlying this section appear to be (1) the characteristics that are commonly associated with categories are often poorly drawn, not overly characteristic of all members of the category, can be characteristic of many that aren't members of the category, or are simply mistaken, so be careful about putting people into categories; you could be wrong. (2) it's not productive to call people names. These are both good principles that I would endorse. The duck thing is apparently here because in the old days it seemed to be arguing for a cursory look and quick judgment: if it acts like a duck, it must be a duck. We want to say that's no longer a good practice to follow, if it ever was. But in order to make that point, maybe you should just say: Let's not be so quick to judge people, and even if you're sure someone is a duck, you shouldn't ever call ducks ducks in the course of normal discussion or in edit summaries; it's not helpful. Just take it to COI or the sock place or ArbComm or whatever venue is appropriate. At any rate, why not just keep it to ducks and leave the swans out of it.

I agree with "Making this into an essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy." I would endorse that effort wholeheartedly. I still think there is room for calling a spade a spade (meaning concepts, not people) and the essay WP:HONESTY doesn't serve the same purpose; it's about how lying is bad for the encyclopedia. This essay should be about not beating around the bush, saying straightforwardly what you mean, which is what it used to be about, and I don't think it should just be rolled into Don't Call a Spade a Spade or some other "niceness" essay. I'm sorry that the essay has been misconstrued by some to excuse calling names, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to advocate frankness and speaking your mind about issues, just because the basic idea has been sometimes misapplied to excuse insulting comments about people under the guise of honesty. I suppose this should probably win a prize for the longest post about the most trivial issue. Woonpton (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly welcome rewrites to that effect. The whole duck business could go away, as far as I'm concerned. As you point out, the adage about "if it walks like a duck" doesn't hybridize all that well with the Ugly Duckling story. -GTBacchus 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing

Most of these arguments User:Woonpton makes make good sense to me also, particularly essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy. - This essay should be about not beating around the bush, saying straightforwardly what you mean, which is what it used to be about - be careful about putting people into categories; you could be wrong. - it's not productive to call people names. Yes, that post deserves a prize. --

To me, the point of WP:Honesty is to be honest not only with others, but with yourself also; acknowledge that one can be wrong, and make mistakes, and therefore refrain from making hasty judgements about others (even if others share the same characteristics) --

There is very much a case for retaining the idea of the Duck test, and determining where that would be useful (Hint, it is appropriate for investigations of sock-puppetry, it is not appropriate for people to get called names, that is really tiresome). --

The Ugly Duckling section belongs in Misplaced Pages:Don't call a spade a spade, obviously, I think it should be moved over there. --

Is no-one interested in pursuing a merge debate, is that just another false trail? --NewbyG (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we're agreed (no?) that the duck section belongs in Don't Call a Spade a Spade; could someone move it there, please? Every time I look at it, it annoys me for a different reason. Today it annoys me because Anatidaean is the group that ducks, swans and geese all belong to, so what are we saying exactly, when we say "If you believe that a duck is an Anatidaean, you should inform it of its duck-like behavior."? I can't make that mean anything informative But at any rate, it belongs in that other essay.Woonpton (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Yeah, there seems to be some support for keeping SPADE and NOSPADE as separate essays, dealing with different questions. -GTBacchus 01:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Newby, but just to give credit where it belongs, the statement "Making this into an essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy." was a quote from GTBacchus; I was just agreeing with it.

I take your point that the duck test may have its uses, but seems problematic here, as it does seem to encourage labeling individuals >calling names, and as such it may not serve the goal of advocating "frank honesty that doesn't disparage other editors." Woonpton (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all good, thanks. I am wondering now, maybe what WP:Spade is about is the difference between clear thought and direct speech, as opposed to hastily jumping to conclusions and expressing them indelicately? --

Jumping to dangerous conclusions without considering carefully, is that a way of acting dis-honestly? If an editor was always jumping to conclusions that were wromg and potentially harmful, their incivility would be causing problems. --

Maybe I am saying that being wrong about other people in such an incivil manner is a way of being dis-honest with oneself. --

Being wrong about facts is unfortunate; being wrong in making inferences about other people's motives, or mis-representing one's own motives, is uncivil, or perhaps dishonest in the sense I am construing here. --

The newer material in the essay does not gel fully with the old, but that is a normal part of the editing process. --NewbyG (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you've just lifted my spirits considerably; after reading that previous discussion I was feeling like this is just an exercise in futility, like the people in prison camps who are kept busy moving a big pile of rocks one way one day and back the next day. But here I see a possible way forward, and I am going to think about this while I take a walk. Woonpton (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. The other thing about facts is, that you could just as likely be correct! That is the time to speak clearly, and call a spade a spade, when you have looked in to the matter reasonably thoroughly. Cheers! --NewbyG (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Drafted

Okay, I like the idea of valuing clear thought and direct speech, but I'm not sure I entirely agree with making the crucial distinction one between clear expression and jumping to unwarranted conclusions; I think maybe those two things are on different vectors. I'm still thinking about that.

What the people who rewrote this essay apparently wanted to say is that it's bad to call people names, but in the process, they threw out clear thinking and honest discrimination along with name-calling. There has to be a way to split clear-thinking from name-calling so as not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I've lost track of who the ducks and who the swans were supposed to represent, but there really are different species of individuals here, whose approach to building an encyclopedia, whose style of thinking and approaching information, and whose communication styles are quite different from each other. One group tends to a direct, forthright style; the other to an indirect, less straightforward style. I prefer the direct style myself; it makes communication straightfoward and uncomplicated and easy to understand. While we don't want name-calling, I also don't think we want an essay that suggests that a direct style of communication is bad, just because people who prefer a more oblique style don't like it or are inclined to misinterpret it as rude or abrasive or personally intended. (Again, let me stress that I'm not condoning name-calling here.) I hope those who want to get rid of name-calling don't mean to go further than that, to say that a direct, straightforward communication style should be discouraged.

Being so oversensitive that you see personal attacks where there are none, seems to me about as incivil as actually attacking someone. I would put that into Newby's category of a kind of jumping to conclusions that qualifies as dishonest. If the emerging civility policy encourages this kind of incivility while outlawing its inverse, I would have a problem with that, and this is where I take issue with this essay as re-written; it could be interpreted to mean that any direct or straightforward assessment of a situation should be avoided, because someone might take it personally and be offended. This attitude was apparent in the earlier discussion now archived, where people argued not only against calling names, but against saying negative things about anything, which taken to extreme could lead to, say, the position that giving a fringe viewpoint its proper (very small to nonexistent) weight is uncivil because it could make the fringe idea's proponents feel unwanted and devalued. It sounds ridiculous, but it's not more ridiculous than arguments I've seen on many fringe article talk pages, such as that it's uncivil to call an idea "pseudoscientific" because that's pejorative and disrespectful to the people who hold the idea. Again, way too much text, sorry. Woonpton (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking to see where I could start to move this in the direction we want it to go, and I personally think we should just start over.

I really have a problem with this passage: "Certain editors will take a statement, detached in tone, that negatively evaluates their work as a personal insult, no matter what. You should take this into consideration; it will often be the case that you can make a more positive suggestion, concerning improvements or modifications to the text that editor introduced." This seems overly solicitous. If there are editors who can't accept a neutral, detached observation about their work without seeing it as a personal insult, they don't belong in any kind of collaborative environment where they have to work with other people. It's possible this may fit somewhere, but surely not in an essay titled "Call a Spade a Spade" unless it's covered as an example of the incivility=dishonesty of jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Oh, Newby, I think I see how this can go, I think your idea will work. If I have time this weekend, I'll start a draft for your consideration. Maybe you're already writing one. Woonpton (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've started a draft and have taken it as far as I have time for just now. The ideas are somewhat disjointed and incomplete, but wanted to see if this is remotely in the direction of what you had in mind. Many of the sentences in there are directly lifted out of your posts, but of course you're not responsible for what I've done with them; feel free to delete or re-arrange. I've tried to incorporate your thoughts with some of my own.Woonpton (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this draft is off in entirely the right direction, I would say, for the lead section. Up to that point no "jargon" or adversarial infighting stuff is even mentioned. It's good, I think it should be suggested as a draft down below in a new thread. I want to see where those other conversations get to, though, there seems a lot going on, doesn't there. --NewbyG (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing if...

I think the important distinction to make is not between communicating directly and indirectly. It's about commenting on content versus commenting on contributors. If you're talking about content, then nobody is arguing that you have to be indirect. If you're talking about contributors, then no amount of directness or indirectness will make that productive.

If there are going to be two essays, which I think sounds great, then WP:SPADE could be about the virtues of communicating directly and frankly - bluntly even. It could help people who tend towards bluntness to understand that their way is valid and valued, and to avoid unnecessary conflict with differing ways, and conversely, it could help people who tend towards indirectness to understand and work better with more straightforward styles. That's an essay worth writing, but it should be clear that we're not suggesting that we label people as "spades" and call them out accordingly.

A separate essay, WP:NOSPADE could point out that being plain-spoken and direct does not imply name-calling. That essay could focus on how questions of motivation are irrelevant to the project of improving articles, and that trolls and POV-pushers are best dealt with in a dispassionate and professional manner. -GTBacchus 08:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, GTB, that's what everyone's been saying. The NoSpade essay has already been written, and it's fine as far as I can see, although of course if you think it can be improved, you're welcome. No one who has been arguing to return Call a Spade a Spade to some shadow of its original meaning has been arguing for advocating name-calling; I think to continue belaboring that point is beating a dead horse. Also, I don't think anyone has argued for making the essay about communicating directly vs indirectly; that part of my musings was simply to help me understand why the essay had reversed direction from frankness to niceness rather than just being tweaked to be about frankness without name-calling which is what I gather most people think it should be. It ended up disparaging frankness altogether, which went too far, and I was just wondering if a possible reason for that might be a distaste for frankness, even without name-calling. But that was a meta-discussion; I wasn't suggesting that it be part of the essay.

I just re-read your post, and I see that after beginning with the idea that the distinction to make isn't between communicating directly and indirectly, you go on to suggest that the essay be about telling people who communicate directly and people who communicate indirectly how to communicate more effectively with each other, in other words, making the distinction between people who communicate directly and those who communicate indirectly. That might be an interesting essay, but it doesn't belong under Call a Spade a Spade; it belongs somewhere else. Communicating Effectively with Others, maybe. The duck story might fit well there. If there is to be an essay Call a Spade a Spade (I get the impression some would like it to just be eliminated altogether) it should be about clear thought and direct speech. And no, I don't mean you should be able to call people names, and, frankly, :--) it rankles me a bit that I have to keep saying that. Five times should really be enough to be taken at my word. Woonpton (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I imply that you are in favor of name-calling? I hope not; I certainly am taking you at your word. I'm sorry for not being clearer about that. When I said we should be clear about not calling people spades, I just meant that it should be explicitly in the essay, and not assumed to be understood.

Mostly I was just thinking aloud about what an essay about direct speaking would look like. I don't think it would be about telling people how to communicate more effectively; I think it would be about the virtues of direct communication, as I said above. The part about helping people understand each other better would be a welcome side-effect. That was the intended substance of my comment above. -GTBacchus 17:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ducking the merge question

For why these two essays have converged, you might want to look back in the archives as far, or further, than October 2007 at Misplaced Pages talk:Call a spade a spade/Archives#Hijacking essay and other sections. The merge question, and the Duck question have been discussed there, without resolution. --NewbyG (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just read that, or as much of it as I could manage, enough to see I'm following well-worn footprints of those who have trudged the same circular path before me. SorryWoonpton (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We may be heading in the direction of reverting to an old version. The current incarnation just spits back policy. We have the policies themselves for that; not every essay must parrot them. (Bird reference completely intended.) Antelan 15:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delineation: Spade and No Spade

Given the distinctions GTB is making could WP:Spade be more about content rather than behaviour, and if so, being direct would not imply any actions towards an editor but rather towards the content/edits, and strong, direct language could be more acceptable, although many editors are subjectively attached to their edits so care would have to be taken here too. WP:No Spade would possibly apply to behaviour towards other editors and could be described as that kind of behaviour that although problematic, is best dealt with not condemning the editor in any way but by dealing with the editor in a civil manner so as not to further support an already less than opimal working environment. Spade then becomes a more objective note, No Spade the more subjective one.(olive (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

You could make this into an essay about content, but then you might as well write a totally different essay; this has always been an essay about editors. Antelan 15:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was not so much suggesting a shift in the actual content but rather a shift in the focus. There has already been much discussion here on whether reference is to edits or ccontent or the editors themselves. They are at this point tangled up together. I guess I wondering if its possible to delineate them or untangle them to more cleary be able to react or act in a manner appropriate to either situation.(olive (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

I think with the version I've posted, it's now much more clear. Antelan 16:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see so much confusion; I see a consensus for an essay that advocates for clear thought and clear expression without disparaging other editors personally. I don't see what's confusing about that. Maybe if I could write this draft you would see what I mean. I'm intrigued by Antelan's comment that the essay has always been about editors; I hadn't read it that way before.

To respond to olive's comment about supporting an optimal working environment: I've been thinking about what it is that makes Misplaced Pages feel disagreeable and unpleasant to me, and has kept me postponing the decision whether to stay and become involved or decide it's not for me (though I seem to be getting in over my ankles already, while I'm thinking about it). I don't know how typical I am (if unique, of course, it just means I don't fit here and my decision should be to exit rather than stay and be frustrated) but for me, it's not name-calling or frank speech that makes Misplaced Pages an unpleasant working environment. I don't like name-calling, don't think it furthers discussion, but it doesn't upset me to the point of making me unhappy.

What makes me unhappy, and makes me think I can't possibly stay and work here without tearing my hair out, is something else: an oh-so-civil obstructionism that ignores or distorts policy in the service of promoting fringe ideas, that picks out trivial side issues to argue with rather than engaging in honest debate on the important issues, that subtly provokes and provokes until someone loses their temper, like the kid in the back seat who keeps poking her brother, again and again and again, until finally he's had enough and hauls off and whaps her. That's the kind of stuff that really makes me dislike working in Misplaced Pages. The poking is just as uncivil as the whapping, but the current emphasis on civility seems to consider that only the whapping is a problem, which IMO will just encourage the poking. This has little to do with this essay per se, but I think it's germane to the discussion since the purpose of rewriting the essay seems to have been to discourage incivility "so as not to further support an already less than optimal working environment," in olive's words. My point is that name-calling is only one of many ways to create an unpleasant working environment, and should not be addressed in isolation. Woonpton (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the very first version of this essay, which makes it clear that this is about editors. Antelan 20:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and that's a terrible essay, giving terrible advice. An essay that says that should be deleted, IMO. If it serves any practical benefit, then I hope that someone supporting this kind of wording will explain how. -GTBacchus 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I could have looked that up myself, but thanks for making it easy for me. Gosh, it's even shorter than my first effort that I was afraid was pretty lame.

I'm really thinking a lot about this; I'm conflicted about whether there are times when it might be useful to just flat out call a person a spade, so to speak. As I've said elsewhere, there really are ducks who are disrupting the encyclopedia, and I don't think it's useful to continue endlessly to extend the assumption of good faith when it's not warranted. But at the same time, as I've said, I don't think it's productive to call people names either (although I'm not at all sure I understand why "POV pusher" should be considered an unacceptably vile description of someone who is in fact a POV pusher). I go back and forth on it. If you could expand on your thoughts about this, it might help me resolve my dilemma.Woonpton (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the choice is between calling them a spade and endlessly extending an assumption of good faith. Those are unrelated. It's entirely possible to block and ban an editor for POV-pushing, effectively and decisively, without ever calling them a spade.

As for "POV-pusher", it's not that it's a vile insult - I hope I've not given the impression that I'm trying to protect people from insults. I don't really care about that. The problem with calling someone a POV-pusher is that it doesn't help. A genuine POV-pusher doesn't see themselves as a POV-pusher; they see themselves as being neutral and correct, and they see those who oppose them as POV-pushers. If someone who is opposing them in some content dispute calls them a POV-pusher, what will that accomplish? Will they say "oh, gee, you're right. I'll stop pushing my fringe POV, now that you've shown me the light!" Of course not. They'll simply defend themselves - with full sincerity - against the accusation, and the conversation will go further and further off-topic.

That is the reason to avoid name-calling: it isn't helpful. If it were helpful, I'd be all for it, but in an actual content dispute, it doesn't get us where we need to go. -GTBacchus 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

" It's entirely possible to block and ban an editor for POV-pushing, effectively and decisively..." Where, exactly, is it possible to do that? Have you ever actually seen it happen? POV-pushing dealt with summarily, effectively, decisively? Goodness, how long did it take (2 years, I think I read somewhere) before someone finally did something about Xietwel on the 9/11 articles; even ArbCom didn't have whatever it takes to block or ban them effectively, but left it to some poor administrator to do later, and it's kind of hard to imagine a more blatant case of tendentious, disruptive, POV pushing. This is why I've held back from editing here, because the articles where I think I could make a contribution are populated with such folks, not all as blatant as that, but all tirelessly determined to present the topic with a slant that's biased positively toward misinformation in violation of NPOV; I've been watching and waiting to see if the community is going to recognize the problem and take some action, but so far all Ive seen is that they recognize there's a problem, but not that they have identified it accurately or that what they decide to do about it will be likely to make the situation better rather than worse. Woonpton (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I've seen it happen. We're not very good at it yet, and the POV-pushers who are at all good at surfing the wiki are able to stick around for a long time, but I maintain that it's entirely possible; we just need to get better at it. I think there's some good work in that direction going on at a couple of pages around here. (such as here and here. -GTBacchus 22:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't have it both ways; you can't here point to those discussions as "good work" when at the discussions themselves, you're telling the discussants they're barking up the wrong tree. At any rate, I'm quite aware of those discussions and have taken part in both of them. But these are the people who are already well aware of the problem and hoping for a solution, these aren't the people who can implement a solution, that recognition and action has to come from higher up. But at any rate I didn't ask whether people are talking about the problem, I asked, and will ask again: where, when, have you seen it happen, POV-pushing dealt with immediately, effectively and decisively? I don't mean after months or years, I mean right away, long before it starts burning out editors. Woonpton (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's a fine, laudable approach that you take. Really, it's an exemplary model of behavior. That said, it's not the only model of behavior. The lovely thing about communities is that they are composed of people with different ideas. I'm simply saying that the ideas in this essay, though you disagree with them, are not harmful, especially when taken in the whole rather than in parts taken out of context. Antelan 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why it is harmful and counter productive. Name calling (POV-pusher, truther, anti-science, troll, bigot and so on), discredits the editor and their views without substantiation. If an editor is not what they are called (already stated, if they are, who does think they are?) they must submit their edit history to prove it (and it is unlikely anyone will read it to check), otherwise plead their case, or they can reciprocally attack as GBT states. Conversely, if a person is said to make a (describe name here) edit, then the next question, "diffs please", will usually resolve the matter. IMO name calling is mostly an easy and often dubious way to put an editor at a disadvantage. If an editor deserves a name, the best way to illustrate it is not to call them that name, but to describe the editors relevant edits with diffs.Ward20 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and write a new essay

This is an essay, not a policy document. Recent edits have flipped this essay entirely on its head, and I have undone those edits. If what you are trying to say is "don't call a spade a spade because doing so may be uncivil", consider writing a new essay. Antelan 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages essays are not articles describing a subject, they are editor-created pages that typically address some aspect of creating and managing an online encyclopedia. They describe a way to handle situations, and WP:SPADE is too often used to justify uncivil conduct. We've gone over this and this essay needs to make it clear that Misplaced Pages policy needs to be followed. Dreadstar † 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there consensus for Antelan's reversion back to the version that allows for name calling and uncivil behavior? Dreadstar † 16:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, ask loaded questions much? It's an essay, not a policy. As such, it expresses a private sentiment publicly. It doesn't purport to be policy, and as such it can't be construed to "allow" anything. That's purely a rhetorical flourish on your part.Antelan 16:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy helping you do that without twisting the text of the essay. For example, a big box at the top of the page could emphasize that this is not policy, and that policies must always be followed. Oh wait, that's already there. But we can make it brighter or more bold if that would help. I see no reason to censor the text itself. Antelan 16:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "loaded question," it's a fact. The box may be at the top, the but the text in the body contradicts the statement in the box - and that's what's being used to justify uncivil comments. Dreadstar † 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a fact; it's incorrect. If a document doesn't have any power to allow a behavior, then it is not a fact that it allows any such behavior. Now, if people are using this to justify acting against policies, then all that is necessary is to tell them that they are wrong. That's a user behavior problem, not a problem with this essay. Antelan 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Please post your proposed changes here on the talk page or in a sandbox. Your good faith bold edit has been disputed and we've all been working toward a resolution to the conflict between this essay and the civility policy. Let's continue that and find an acceptable resolution. Dreadstar † 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, that's an unnecessary lecture. Like me, you also made edits without posting here or a sandbox. It's perfectly acceptable to do so. And my suggestion was to put a box at the top of the page. It's already there, and I don't see what more is needed. What do you think? Antelan 16:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, essays are not policies. Claiming that an essay is in tension with a policy is like claiming that a letter to the editor is in tension with the Constitution. Antelan 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Let's see what the other editors think. Dreadstar † 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you heart-set on sanitizing the body of this essay, or are there alternatives (such as brighter boxes at the top, more clearcut warnings about it not being policy, etc) that you would be willing to try? Antelan 16:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing, robust discussion of this essay, and many changes made to the body of the essay. I only objected to your reversion to a version that I believe is problematic. I'm not for "sanitizing" the essay, I'm for clarifying how one should actually be calling a spade a spade on Misplaced Pages. Dreadstar † 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sanitizing by any other name is still sanitizing. And this is "call a spade a spade", not "a spade is a spade, but don't say it." I look forward to a direct response to my question about alternatives.Antelan 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As I already stated, I don't think the boxes are sufficient. The text that says a "pov-pusher is a pov-pusher" and then follows up by saying that an editor has "no need to dress up the way we address such users." is problematic in that it seems to allow for name calling based on nothing more than an opinion. This needs to be addressed so that it is undeniably clear that such name calling is not civil. Discuss the edits, calling them spades, not the editors. If you want to call an editor a "disruptive pov-pushing troll," do it in an RfC, Mediation or RfARB, but not in edit summaries or in talk page discussions. Dreadstar † 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So boxes aren't sufficient for you. Instead of sanitizing the text, what are other options that you would consider?Antelan 17:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Antelan. Many Misplaced Pages policies, guidleines, essays intersect, as a matter of fact most of them do, so that seems a moot argument and you are maybe dealing with a Dead Parrot:0) on that comment. The recent edits are more general and all-ecompassing in their scope and importantly more neutral. I would have to support them over a less neutral version.(olive (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

So you think all essays must simply restate and explain policy, albeit in different words? Also, if the essays currently intersect with policy, then it's anything but a "moot" point, from the definition of moot. Antelan 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, actually what I said was, that Misplaced Pages policies guidelines often intersect, that is a given , and to argue that we here should try to create an essay that does not or cannot intersect is not an legitimate argument given that very fact. The version in place now,with Dreadsatr's edits, I believe, more clearly without bias, outlines the metaphor in my mind, bearing in mind that the metaphor itself is just another way of approaching the civilty issue.(olive (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

I thought there was some agreement that the current version (as of a couple of days ago) went too far toward disparaging frankness, didn't say what we wanted it to say, and was redundant with several other pages. The essay had come to mean "Don't call a spade a spade" and (speaking of birds of a feather) was redundant with the essay "Don't call a spade a spade." I agree with Atelan; what's the point of an essay that just repeats policy? the purpose of an essay would be to say something new that's not already said elsewhere. I'm not so sure I agree that the essay should go back to saying it's all right to label people in general discussion or edit summaries, as I don't think that's particularly productive. But if people actually are POV pushers rather than productive editors (and make no mistake, there are such ducks about) there should be a better way to deal with them that actually confronts the disruption they cause and eliminates it before it develops into festering chaos. Woonpton (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say that "Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines often intersect"? That point is not very clear. Antelan 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Few exist in isolation in terms of what they are saying. Spade deals with civility. Civility deals with civility. Reliablity deals with or supports NPOV. Verifiable deals in some senses with NPOV and Reliablity. Isolating them, delineating them them only happens on the computer screen in attempts to explain. They are not truly separate in meaning.(olive (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, but would you agree that essays and policies are different entities entirely? That they are two different types of documents that fulfill different roles? Antelan 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In actuality, no. This is a community - written encyclopedia. Essays, policy, guidelines should all somehow support that focus in some way or other. I see essays as a collecting place for ideas, and policy and guidlelines as further crysatallized versions of one-time ideas. Rather than serving different purposes I see them as progressively more formal steps in formulating ways to write and collaborate on an encyclopedia. One simply becomes the other eventually or bleeds into the other. They intersect even if subtly because they must all be about the community and the encyclopedia, otherwise the writer is probably in the wrong place.(olive (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

I disagree with that view, but for sake of argument, why should this essay be any exception? Who is to say that it wouldn't ultimately rise to the level of a guideline or a policy as the community matures going into the future? Who is the arbiter of that? Antelan 23:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any point in this side discussion, but I would think that this essay could very well become a guideline or merge in to a policy at some time. My point is that what begins as an essay could become a policy eventually, if the community finds that it needs it.I would think the community would decide through some form of agreement or consensus. I'm not sure if I'm addressing your point or what the point is about ... not because of anything you're saying, but just because of miscommunication. I may not be understanding you.(olive (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

Antelan, do you think it's appropriate to call editors "POV-pushers", "vandals", "trolls", etc, if you believe them to be so? That seems to be the thrust of the version of this page to which you're reverting, but please correct me if I'm wrong. -GTBacchus 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how my personal preferences would move us forward in this discussion, so I'll answer a different question. To wit, "Antelan, do you think it's appropriate for essays to diverge from policy?" In response to that question, I offer an equivocal yes. No, I do not think that essays that are themselves in violation of policies (i.e., essays that themselves attack a user, a living person, etc.) should be permitted. Yes, I do think that essays can treat the same topics that are definitively covered by policies. I would be interested in hearing your response to the same question that I have asked myself. Antelan 17:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think there's an extent to which it's ok for essays to diverge from policy, and I think there's a line that can be crossed. I don't think we would keep an essay that explicitly encourages vandalism, or edit-warring, or inserting propaganda disguised as fact. I think an essay that diverges sufficiently from policy would be deleted by the community.

If this essay is going to say that calling people names is appropriate, then I would support its deletion, as sufficiently opposed to our fundamental policies, and inimical to the project of collaboratively writing an encyclopedia.

The reason I asked your personal opinion about spade-calling is that, if you don't think it's appropriate, then I wouldn't bother to ask you why you think it's appropriate. If you, or someone else, can explain that it makes sense to have an essay advocating calling editors "spades", then maybe you'd change my mind about this essay. As it is, I think it should either be about calling edits and sources "spades", and not editors, or else it should be deleted. -GTBacchus 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus, we know you think that it is unhelpful for us to refer to people who persistently insert vandalistic edits "vandals," or to refer to those who persistently and aggressively use dubious sources to advocate a particular viewpoint "POV pushers," and so on. I think that's a helpful perspective. But my question for the present is, do you think that people who disagree with you on those points should be allowed to express their views in an essay? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the question, and that's why I'm trying to find out why those who disagree with me hold the views they do. I'm honestly trying to see what the best arguments are for the other side. I think that it makes sense to get rid of essays that fly in the face of policies with seemingly no advantage. I hope that someone will show me the advantage of saying "Users who consistently push a POV are POV pushers... there is no need to dress up the way we address such users."

To give you a direct answer to the question of whether those who disagree should be allowed their essay: If there is any worthwhile substance behind the disagreement, then yes, put it in the essay and keep it; if there is nothing other than a preference for name-calling, then no, delete it, just as we would a pro-vandalism essay. -GTBacchus 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Who would be the judge of "worthwhile substance"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Us, the community, consensus. Same as for anything. I'm not trying to appoint myself judge of others' opinions, if that's what you're implying. I'm trying to see the best arguments for the perspective presented on this page. So far I don't think I've seen any argument advanced as to why calling people "spades" is a good idea. I've just seen people say "there is no need to dress up the way we address such users," but I haven't seen the underlying arguments. Am I wrong to ask for them? -GTBacchus 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right to ask for them. But the question I'm asking here is, are people who in good faith disagree with WP:NOTSPADE permitted to have a different essay that expresses their opinion? Or must every attempt to write such an essay be altered so that is for all practical purposes equal to WP:NOTSPADE? Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought my answer was clear: "It depends". If the essay is simply going to assert that name-calling is helpful, without offering any explanation of how, then it's equivalent to an essay advocating vandalism, as far as I can tell. Those who disagree with NOSPADE (of course in good faith, who ever questioned that?) are permitted to have an essay that expresses their position, if they actually have a position to express other than "I'd rather call people names". That essay should actually express a coherent position, and somehow argue that it is not directly inimical to our project. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the difference is between it and a pro-vandalism essay. -GTBacchus 21:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd hope our discussion could have a little bit more nuance. Name calling is used to mislead - it is ad hominem that is meant to avoid discussion of the facts. One might argue that this essay, far from advocating name calling, advocates for summarizing the facts succinctly, even when these facts are about editors. Without going into my own personal positions on the ideas within this essay, I will still tell you that it clearly does not advocate name-calling. Antelan 22:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I see a big difference between "You're a $&%ing pile of mother@#3ing @#&%$" and "I blocked the vandal." Subsuming both into an over-broad definition of "name calling" risks trivializing the former. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(after ec, reply to Antelan) I find this conversation a bit odd.... you seem to want to defend this essay without actually defending its contents.

I would point out that the essay historically has been used to justify name-calling, so it's not totally off-the-wall for me to suggest that it supports that behavior. People really do take it that way. The current text certainly doesn't advocate name-calling, but the original text did; or would you disagree about that?

I'm very sorry that you're unwilling to say what you think about the essay. I think you could help me understand another perspective here, but you seem unwilling to do that, and I don't know why :( . Would it be bad for me to understand where you're coming from? -GTBacchus 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

First I'd like to get the terms of reference clear, because I think that's where much of the disagreement lies. Can you define in one simple declarative sentence what you mean by "name calling"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. Name-calling is applying, to another editor, labels that they do not self-apply, and which purport to categorize the editor or their intentions. In particular, name-calling often means calling other editors "trolls", "POV-pushers", and other such epithets. Is that clear? -GTBacchus 22:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that your personal definition doesn't jibe with more... official definitions, which generally require that language be abusive or misleading for it to qualify as name calling. SPADE has never been about the use of abusive or misleading language. Antelan 23:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting) Which "official" definition of name-calling have you got in mind?

At any rate, if it was always clear whether a label was accurate or misleading, then we wouldn't need essays like this, would we? However, calling a spade a spade, and then turning out to be mistaken - that is misleading, even though it's not meant to be.

At any rate, I'm interested in hearing why applying labels to other editors is a good idea. I'm travelling this weekend, but I'll be certain to check back in here, because I'm very interested in this conversation. -GTBacchus 23:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well usually I go to dictionaries for official definitions. For example, "the use of abusive names to belittle or humiliate another person in a political campaign, an argument, etc." from Random House. This essay explicitly rejects that approach, as it explicitly embraces WP:civil. Thus, a discussion of name calling is off-topic here. Antelan 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, except that this essay has been used a lot to justify name-calling, both the abusive kind and the simply useless and distracting kind. I don't really care whether we call it "name-calling" or "ad hominem remarks" or "labeling others"; the point is that this essay, in certain versions (not so much the current one), encourages it, and it's actively destructive. Just as one can remain superficially civil while being extremely disruptive with one's edits, one can remain superficially civil while utterly derailing a discussion by making it personal. The fact that one can be superficially civil while doing something doesn't mean that what they're doing is helpful, or a good idea to encourage. -GTBacchus 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Tentative draft

Newby suggested I should make a new section for this; I've made a rough beginning on a for a rewrite of the essay, so far incorporating some thoughts of Newby's and some thoughts of mine along with what I think are consensus ideas. Woonpton (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that a draft for NOTSPADE? It seems better suited for that page. Antelan 20:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific about what you'd like to see that's not there, or what you'd not like to see that is there. The previous rewrite, in an effort to discourage namecalling, ended up throwing out frank and honest speech along with namecalling. This is an effort toward an essay advocating for frank and honest expression without namecalling. What am I missing? Woonpton (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what we're running into is that some people really want to have an essay that says, "if you decide someone is a POV-pusher or a troll, call them that." That's precisely how people have often cited WP:SPADE in the field. Others would like to have an essay that says "speak frankly and honestly, but stay on topic, i.e., don't talk about the other guy's motives, personality, etc."

I'm hoping someone will explain why it would ever be a good idea to talk about the other guy's motives, personality, etc., but when I ask that question, I don't seem to get many answers. -GTBacchus 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If this were a policy, I'd be more sympathetic to that concern, but it's just an essay. At issue is that those of us who support the existence of this essay need not support its contents. I'll invoke Evelyn Beatrice Hall and all that. In truth, if I felt that, in answering your question about the utility of this essay, I would, in doing so, answer the question of whether or not it should continue to exist, I would gladly respond. However, I don't, so it makes no sense for me to do so. Whether it is a "good idea" or not is inconsequential to whether or not this essay ought to be allowed to represent ideas with which you disagree. Antelan 21:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether I disagree with the essay. I mean nothing; who or what am I? I just care that it flies directly in the face of our mission here. Would you support the existence of an essay that advocates vandalism? What's the difference between that and an essay that supports counterproductive dispute resolution? The only way there's a difference is if the message of WP:SPADE is somehow useful. Therefore, I ask again, for anyone to answer: "What's the use in calling people spades?" -GTBacchus 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're the one saying this is an essay describing counterproductive dispute resolution. I'm saying it explores an idea that is neither purely anti-policy nor purely pro-policy. As such, it explores a gray area. You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but this doesn't warrant removal of the idea. Antelan 21:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm trying desperately to find out how the idea in the essay is not purely anti-policy. I've seen nobody explain that. I think it is purely anti-policy to the extent that it advocates name-calling. If it isn't, someone show me that, please!

Keep the pro-vandalism essay in mind - I can claim that it's not purely anti-policy, and that it explores a gray area... but will you believe me, if I don't explain how that's true? -GTBacchus 21:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

For example, this essay explicitly states that you should be WP:civil when calling a spade a spade. Now that we have established it's not purely antithetical, are you willing to let ideas which conflict with your own, though not with policy, remain on Misplaced Pages? Antelan 21:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always been willing to let ideas that conflict with my own remain on Misplaced Pages, and I don't appreciate the suggestion that I'm against letting people disagree with me. That's not what we're talking about here.

That said "we" have not "established" that the essay you advocate is not purely antithetical to policy. Simply saying that you, "should be WP:civil when calling a spade a spade," is kind of like saying you should have an eye to improving the encyclopedia when vandalizing. If my pro-vandalism essay said that, would you oppose it, or would you be willing to let ideas that conflict with your own remain of Misplaced Pages? See how that's a rhetorical cheap shot? -GTBacchus 22:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I would agree that your example is a rhetorical cheap shot. This, however, isn't an essay on "Don't be civil," making that example impertinent to the discussion at hand. If you want to get this focused on policy, it would help you to demonstrate specifically which section of policy this essay's contents are violating. Antelan 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My point was that it's the same cheap shot you threw at me. This is not a conversation about whether I'm willing to tolerate disagreement. It's a conversation about how to improve the essay "Call a spade a spade". As to whether this is an essay on "don't be civil", I would contend that the original version of this essay was precisely that.

As for violating policy, I don't really care whether the essay "violates" whatever "rule"; I don't think of Misplaced Pages that way. I care about whether it might be a really bad idea to have an essay that encourages (intentionally or not) destructive behavior. -GTBacchus 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I clarified why my example (this article) should be distinguished from a cheap shot. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at how differently we're reading the same text. Antelan 23:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh. The cheap shot I was referring to was your asking me, "are you willing to let ideas which conflict with your own, though not with policy, remain on Misplaced Pages?" The answer to that question is clearly "yes, I am", and it's clearly my position that this essay, in certain versions, does conflict with policy. Framing the discussion as if it's about me "allowing" people do disagree with me is inaccurate.

This discussion is about whether it's consistent with policy or with good sense to encourage editors to label others while simultaneously (and contradictorily) mentioning that they should remain civil while doing something fundamentally unhelpful. I think an essay that says "Someone pushing a POV is a POV-pusher, and it's somehow useful to call them that," but then turns around and says, "be civil while doing it," is absurd. If the community thinks that such an essay is a good thing, then of course I'll go along with consensus, but I'd like to see some evidence of that consensus first. Does that seem fair? -GTBacchus 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the above reads an awful lot like "It has to agree with policy and good sense, and only my interpretation of policy and good sense is the right one." Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that come across in the part where I say "of course I'll go along with consensus"? Do you object to even asking these questions? Do you object to my arguing for what I genuinely believe is right? Am I forcing the essay to be any particular way; have I nominated it for deletion? What would you have me do differently here, Raymond? If there were an essay that you honestly believe to directly damage the project, would you keep your opinion to yourself, instead of stating it? Am I wrong to ask how "calling a spade a spade" is helpful, or to point out that nobody seems to be answering that question? Is it an unfair question? -GTBacchus 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This of 5 paragraphs, 3 of them go by without ever calling an editor an anything, or a spade or a platinum sputnik. Isn't that a better approach then, for the lead section of this essay? --NewbyG (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

. This is a pretty good version, perhaps it is slightly over-hedged just a touch in parts, and a little polishing if necessary. --NewbyG (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nutshell

Raymond edited the nutshell to say: "It's okay to call a spade a spade, to speak plainly, except when referring to other editors."

Does anyone agree with this sentiment? I can agree with it on a very superficial level, but ultimately, it seems wrong. It's okay to speak plainly and directly about what we're doing, full stop. Also true, but unrelated: straying off-topic is counterproductive.

Talking about other editors is simply off-topic. It's not very cool or helpful to jump to conclusions about others' motives based on incomplete information - but even that is harmless if the person jumping can keep their judgment to themselves. What's really not okay is dropping the topic of improving the encyclopedia to instead talk about how rotten you think someone is. I'm not okay with having a page that encourages that. -GTBacchus 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is, essentially, trying to have your cake and eat it, too. The original essay expanded on the notion of calling a spade a spade (as it relates to editors). The modern incarnation of the essay backs away from a core part of "calling a spade a spade" (namely, the "call" part), making Raymond's change true to the text of the essay. Antelan 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

An essay undergoing a personality change in public, it's getting a little forensic here. Can we back off a bit from pscho-analyzing editors and their motives in this essay? And just, you know - (why can't we all get along?) --NewbyG (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Antelan, I think you're missing my point. I'm asking whether anyone agrees with the sentence "It's okay to call a spade a spade, to speak plainly, except when referring to other editors." I'm not asking whether it's true to the text of the essay; I'm still trying to get at what ideas people actually agree with.

I'm not sure how I'm trying to have my cake and eat it, because I'm not sure what you see me as "trying" to do here. I'm trying to suggest that people stay on-topic when working on the project. Is that unreasonable? Is name-calling on-topic? Is a request to stay on-topic the same as a stance against frankness? Going off-topic isn't wrong because it's done bluntly; it's wrong because it's off-topic. The two issues are orthogonal. -GTBacchus 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The "cake and eat it too" refers to this: There are two strong options: (1) The essay can be about editors, and then the box wouldn't need the caveat. (2) The essay can be about anything except editors, and then should have the caveat. Having your cake and eating it, too, involves changing the essay to be about anything but editors (reverse of what it originally was) while not changing the summary box to reflect this change. I don't mean "you" personally, by the way. Antelan 21:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with having the caveat; I disagree with the way it's phrased. It implies that, when talking about other editors, we should somehow not speak plainly. That's not anybody's position that I'm aware of, and it's certainly very different from "stay on topic". -GTBacchus 21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since "calling a spade a spade" is synonymous with "speaking plainly", what would you propose? Antelan 22:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The current nutshell is like saying "speak plainly - except when talking about stuff unrelated to the project". The part after the comma is kind of random. Would you support that as a nutshell summary?

I would prefer something like "It's okay to call a spade a spade - to speak plainly - but remember to remain civil and on-topic." -GTBacchus 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but on topic? Antelan 23:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right. What's the sense in a nutshell that says "It's okay to call a spade a spade - to speak plainly - except when you're talking about something that's got nothing to do with the project here"? -GTBacchus 18:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, this is all beside the point that there seemed to be a general agreement a couple of days ago that this essay as now framed is redundant with Don't Call a Spade a Spade, and with WP:CIVIL, and that we wanted something that advocated for more frank expression, with the exception of name calling. I haven't seen any change in the wind that would suddenly justify adopting it essentially as it is. I'm not wedded to the draft I started in response to those concerns, but I'm very much against keeping it in its present form. I think it needs to be rewritten, or renamed, or deleted.Woonpton (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm in complete agreement. My point is merely that as long as the essay remains a misnamed version of "don't call a spade a spade", that summary was perfectly fine. The goal should be to bring the essay back to its original meaning (which, yes, did include cautions about civility). Antelan 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I wasn't responding to yours so much as the whole discussion above. I agree with you.Woonpton (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture of spade

I agree with Newby that since the essay no longer has much to do with spades, it doesn't make sense to keep a picture of a spade in it. Shoemaker is right that the picture still relates to the title of the essay, but nothing in the essay relates to the title.Woonpton (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

After you raised a similar point a few minutes ago, I was reminded that we should probably instead try to bring the essay back in line with its original purpose. I tried to do this earlier today but was partially reverted. I still think the essay is better now than it has been in a few weeks. Antelan 00:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're right; at least the duck fable is gone and it no longer says we should be aware that some people will take even the most neutral, detached statements about their work as personal insults and be extra kind and super polite so as not to offend those people. So I suppose we can count some progress, but even at that, we've made little progress toward steering it back to an essay about calling a spade a spade. I didn't think it could be worked with at all as it was and needed to be started over from scratch. Woonpton (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What would you call it if it didn't have a name?

There is nothing other than the title which has anything to do with spades in this revision.. --

What would the essay best be re-named -? --NewbyG (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The version of a few days ago would have been "Comment on edits, not on editors." The version as of this moment is actually relevant to calling a spade a spade, but I have no idea how long it will stay that way. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks. - Taken in the context of the current text, that looks reasonable to me. Maybe I was hasty with the rename suggestion, but really there is a lot of re-thinking going on here. --NewbyG (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also taken the liberty of jumping over to Misplaced Pages:Don't call a spade a spade to try and add some sanity there - I think that that essay had gone beyond advocating civility, to advocating civility above all else, even if you get hurt. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to let the civility-above-all crowd have their version, and the call-a-spade-a-spade crowd have theirs. I'm more troubled by what's going on at WP:CIV -- it doesn't take paranormal abilities to divine the agenda there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no "civility-above-all crowd". Characterizing anybody's position as that tends to obscure the issue, and doesn't move us closer to understanding. The dichotomy between "call-a-spade-a-spade" and "civility-above-all" is a false one. The rejection of "call-a-spade-a-spade" does not imply that civility trumps everything else, and I object to the portrayal of my position with those words. -GTBacchus 23:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The glory of essays is that there is room for even wildly divergent viewpoints being expressed in different essays. If some think that WP:CIV trumps literally everything else, then hey, that's great. I'd read an essay about that. Antelan 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure nobody thinks that. -GTBacchus 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The dichotomy between "call-a-spade-a-spade" and "civility-above-all" is a false one. Also, reflexively characterizing positions in that way is intellectually lazy, and cannot be fruitful, and tends to obscure the issues, turn discussion into disagreement, and create a combative atmosphere to no good purpose. --NewbyG (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My question

My question is this: Why call a spade a spade (regarding people, not edits)? How does it help? In what circumstances is labeling another editor more useful/beneficial/productive than refraining from doing so?

I think this question is worth asking, because ultimately it's an empirical matter. "Calling a spade" is either sometimes helpful, or it's not, and if it is helpful, then I'd like to know, so I can do it. If it's not, that would be good to know, too, it seems.

Can anyone help me with this? -GTBacchus 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never yet made a post that looked like this - "Example-editor changed civility to read reasonable civility. That is just horrible. How dare they! Example-editor is a POV-pusher or a troll, or a commie, and they shouldn't be allowed to edit wikipedia." And I hope I never do make such a cruddy post. But that doesn't stop me from calling a spade a spade. --NewbyG (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean. Can you clarify that? If the point of this page is to help people understand something, could we maybe explain it? In what cases do you "call a spade a spade" (applied to people)? How do you do it, and what is the benefit that derives from it? These seem to be questions we should answer, no? -GTBacchus 21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't know what you mean. in what cases do you call a spade a spade "applied to people"? That would be never. No cases. I already musta said that about a thousand times in these threads, do I have to tattoo it on my forehead? (That being said, given enough time and aggravation, anything is possible, lol.) --

I don't see any benefit in such a behaviour, I am in no position to explain something that doesn't make sense to me; and I am not even sure that it is a sensible question to be asking of me. I am not sure what questions need answering, but I don't think these ones are the right ones. Are you a POVpusher who has yet to stop beating your wife? Sure, such questions can be asked, but where does it get us? While our debates follow that style, progress will be hard. --

What I really meant to say, is that I don't have any answers at this time, sorry. And good questions are a bit thin on the ground to date, also my fault as much as anyone's. We have no alternative but to keep trying to understand, and hope understanding comes in time. Thanks. -- --NewbyG (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that you're not really the person to whom my question is directed. You don't have to tattoo anything on your forehead, because I never suspected that you were in favor of calling "people" spades. However, Raymond, Antelan, and others here have been very clear that they do want to call people spades, and that they think it's a good idea. I really want someone who believes that to explain to me why it's a good idea, according to them. You can't help me with that, NewbyG, because you and I already agree that it isn't a good idea. Nobody in favor of it seems willing to say anything in its defense, which I find slightly troubling. -GTBacchus 00:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great in theory, but how about these, all of which are based on things that have come up in my recent experience and been relevant. "I'm sorry, but you've been caught out time and time again misrepresenting and selectively quoting from studies in order to support your point of view. At this point, we really can't trust you to present a study neutrally" (And many other things in that line. The user had been caught out about 5 times already, and had a habit of going back to studies that had been rejected after a week or two. At the moment, he's under a three-month topic ban after he tried to quotemine another user's statements to make the user appear to back him, while the user was right there, strenuously objecting to same.

In situations like that - extreme, but depressingly, not uncommon in the most contentious parts of Misplaced Pages, if no admin will step in - and there's certainly some reason for the popular meme that the best way to avoid administrator sanction is to promote a fringe viewpoint - If you don't call a spade a spade, then certain disputes never end.

Yes, there are better ways to deal with that. Sending more neutral admins into Alternative medicine, nationalism, and other such disputes would help. But until Misplaced Pages gets a reasonable number of admins willing to deal with its lawless backwaters, calling a spade a spade is about the only defense against POV-pushing editors with no respect for Misplaced Pages rules, since they've broken them without sanction over and over again, and who migrate from article to article, trying to get information that supports their POV added there.

And if you think my description is nonsense, why don't you go manage, oh, any of the article topics that have had recent arbcom cases for a few months, then see if I'm incorrect. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you imagine that I take your sensible words to be nonsense? I didn't ask for a reply so I could take it less than 100% seriously. I have edited controversial articles (though not much recently), and I don't pretend that it's easy. It's very difficult, and stressful. All the more reason to improve how we do it, and make it less stressful.

You mention a couple of things that I'm very interested in. First of all, "Sending more neutral admins... would help". I'm interested in finding a systematic way to do this. I imagine a kind of group that keeps track of edit wars and applies conflict resolution strategies in a mindful way, documenting what works, and getting better at bringing edit wars to a resolution that accords with neutrality. Does that seem to be a good suggestion?

Another question I have regards, "If you don't call a spade a spade, then certain disputes never end...," and, "...calling a spade a spade is about the only defense..." So, does it work? If you call a spade editor a spade, does the dispute therefore end in a satisfactory way? Is it an effective defense? How does that work? What's the best way to do it? What kind of editor is best at it? How do you avoid false positives?

If we're going to get good at managing controversial articles — which we must — we might as well document what works, right? I don't know what the page currently looks like, and by the time you read this it may be different, but the original version of the page documents something that, as far as I know, doesn't work. That's an empirical question, right? So let's answer it, and let's show people. -GTBacchus 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't see a problem. Le's not go into specifics, but the user was caught out fabricating stuff, and is now topic-banned. Problem solved. I don't think what you're saying is nonsense. If editors cause problems and break rules we have to apply rules to fix the problems. Editors get blocked or topic-banned when enough DIFFs are produced which show disruptive editing or incivil posts as evidence of the problem. --NewbyG (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit aggressive in my description, but... Well, basically, the editor in question went about to a lot of articles, and took a very long time before anyone did anything about him. The information put before the arbcom was up at the probation page for a couple months while he, basically, continued as always. I really think the disruption would have been much greater if, once he was caught out, the other editors had not been warned, simply and clearlyu, tat his quotes from sources could not be trusted. Not exactly calling a spade a spade in conversation with them, but with others, when the editor in question is truly disruptive, they need to know to look out, and pussyfooting around it isn't going to help. I'd probably say that well-judged and evidenced labels are also useful at WP:ANI and WP:RFAR, as they do serve to communicate a set of behavioural problems clearly. Now, in resposse to GTBacchus - If you can get a group of neutral admins able and ready to be called in and investigate problems in any article probation, that would be great. It would take a reasonable number of them, though, and there would have to be methods in place to make sure there were always at least X of them active and willing to step in. On the Homeopathy probation, for instance, there were a lot of admins who stepped up at first. But at least by March or so, they seem to have all burned out, and were unwilling to deal further. There's also the problem of who's doing it. If you get a couple admins in ready and willing to block for a single act of incivility, given a diff, but unwilling to look at anything more complex - well, you get the backlash against WP:CIVIL you see happening right now, where civility has been turned into a weapon, because in some areas there's at least a perception that it's the only thing people are reliably getting blocked for. There is one problem that would be really, really bad: In the end, policy more-or-less says some disputes only really have one side in the "right". WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, for instance, privileges mainstream science over fringe theories and pseudoscience. Having a "neutral" admin who was neutral in the "equal weight to all views" sense (You know, "They have sources too! They can use their sources to write their sections, you can use yours to write your sections, what's the problem?") would seriously risk putting Misplaced Pages in disrepute. I don't think it's worth saying more on that subject, though, barring confusion from me not really wanting to call a spade a spade in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for that reply, but you didn't address the question I care the most about; the purpose for which this section is written. Does "calling a spade a spade" work, and if so, how? Can we please document that better? My paragraph above full of question marks is very important to me. Can you please reply to that part? -GTBacchus 05:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Versions

Take a moment to read the current version, GTB. It has been up a little while, and is quite different from the version from back in 2007. --NewbyG (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(I hope you don't mind me refactoring for a new subheader. If so... rvt plz.:/) The current version's pretty good. It was also described a few days ago as "maundering obfuscation... a tangle of words that basically says nothing..." The commenter hasn't responded to replies. That's a little bit like consensus. I'd like to have a conversation with someone who agrees with Raymond.

I'm also genuinely interested in those questions I asked Shoemaker's Holiday up there. I mean, if we're going to get good at DR, why not document strategies that people say work? Maybe that's for another essay. If so, can someone who knows what it should say please help me write it? -GTBacchus 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What if this page was a collecting place for strategies that those in trouble in dispute situations could come to or be directed to. It could include strategies that have been successful here but also other strategies... for example , I know someone who has expertise in this area who might have suggestions? What if initially, the essay contains some background on why dispute occurs in groups, for example, but then just is an open doorway for additions as editors come up with them. Patterns may begin to emerge as information is added or later on, that would allow the essay to be organized. A thought... but I do really like the initial idea. (olive (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Oops . When I say "this page" I mean this new essay for dispute resolution not the page we are on presently.(olive (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

The return of the Duck

The Duck is back, and WP:DUCK now redirects to thispage. --NewbyG (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarificationalize maundering obfuscation

The present version of the page is a tangle of words that basically says nothing. Is it time to delete the whole thing and start over? The version of a couple of days ago was OK. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this version? I guess I no longer have any objection. I thought there was some feeling that the group of people here around that time wanted the article to be more about clear thought and clear expression without disparaging other editors, but my thought about the essay has undergone some change since then. Two things have exerted opposite pressure on my thinking: Antelan's case for leaving the essay alone (reverting it back to an even earlier version) and letting it stand as one of many different points of view on the subject, and on the other hand, olive's countering suggestion that essays often grow up to be policy, to which my reaction is, eek, if that's a real possibility, we should strangle the "always be nice" version in its crib. But I think the version pointed to above is a reasonable-enough compromise, though it doesn't say much about calling a spade a spade. It sort of argues for being honest and civil at the same time, and at least recognizes the real problem that accusing other editors of incivility is often used by editors as a red herring to "protect their edits from review."Woonpton (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This version explains what To call a spade a spade means. What this version lacks is ammunition for one set of supposed partisan editors to throw at another set with a different point of view. I think that is a good thing. --

This version was fair enough, up to a point, but it has nothing to do with "calling a spade a spade" except the title, and it focuses on putting editors in little named boxes so they can fight over points of view. --

Of this version, there is only one sentence that is worth saying, and I would not like to see any of the rest restored, it is not helpful. --

While we must remain civil, calling a spade a spade is part of a reliable editors job. --NewbyG (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I presume that 's good sentence is the first one, as that's the only one I'd agree with. I suppose one of the problems is that calling a spade a spade, as it applies to editors, is only really defensible in some of the more extreme parts of Misplaced Pages:

• Evolution and related: The strong opposition of some American churches to evolution, and the propoganda efforts they back assures that plenty of new, problematic editors will always be coming in and causing problems. How bad are things there? It's the only page on Misplaced Pages that has administrator review (of a draft page) before edits get added to the main article as the permanent solution to ridiculously persistant vandalism. Oh, and did I mention that most of the edits to the draft article are still vandalism anyway, thanks to the most persistent vandal (and probably the most prolific sockmaster) on Misplaced Pages jumping over there?
• Fringe theories/Pseudoscience/Conspiracy theories - e.g. the lawless regions. I think Misplaced Pages dropped the ball on handling these, and the ___ were completely unchallenged for years, leading to massive violations of NPOV or NOR. The Augean stables, without a river in sight, are going to have to be forked out by hand, and very entrenched editors who like things as they were, are going to be difficult to deal with.

Symptoms of these problems can remain even after (most of?) the problematic editors are mostly rooted out. Ridiculous over-referencing, caused by people challenging every word. A strong reluctance to remove mainstream material, caused by so many attempts to remove all criticism from the article - this leads to anything from a little too much repetition of the key mainstream points, to ENDLESS repetition of the key mainstream points. (see, e.g Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It can be hoped that once the controversy dies down that article will look a bit saner, though this is the article after strong consious attempts were made to fix it up.) For that matter, an FA of this type will show a strong resistance to change - Compare, say, Intelligent design to the verson that got featured. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)