Talk:Hypotheticals

Cleanup & merger proposal
Hi Alistair: The main template is essentially about cleaning up the article, so unexplained removal by the article's author presents as especially inappropriate. I am open on the merger proposal, and in fact will remove it right after posting this, although longer term the article could very usefully be expanded and contrasted with the concepts raised by Imaginary world and Thought experiment. Further, I will consider taking down the main template myself if you can have another go at (say) the 3rd and 6th paragraphs, and rework at least these so that they read with a tone more appropriate for an encyclopedia. The main thing to deal with is the essay-like (hence the template) /personal opinion / "original research" character of parts of the article. Thanks. Hanse 04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for following Wiki convention, this time, and using the talk page for the purpose it is there. Look at the Lewis reference cited and you will be in a better position to evaluate the article. Counterfactual conditional will also give you a brief overview. Likewise Subjunctive mood and the other articles will give you enough information to get a start on the topic.
 * If you think the article can be improved, try doing that. If you can't, leave it for someone who knows something about the topic. I don't have time to expand it at the moment, but will do so in time, if necessary. I will also happily evaluate any specific text you may contribute.
 * There are no unverifiable statements in the text. Apparantly, though, you missed the stub marker which invites expansion. I am moving it to the top, so it is less likely to be missed. Cheers. Alastair Haines 05:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some content reads like essay according to the guidelines and the template will remain until the issue (primarily regarding form, not substance) is addressed &mdash; whether by you, me or whoever. Alternatively, would you feel more comfortable with template ? ie:  Note also that the way this unfortnately appears to be going, we will shortly be coming up against our 3RR limits. The certain tone in some of your comments: can we skip that from here on in.Hanse 08:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in putting content into Wikipedia, not asserting opinions regarding style. You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it. If you are serious, try providing an example of better style. If you cannot rework three sentences, how can I take you seriously. We are equals, you are not my boss. You need to provide an argument to support your opinion. You have not showed any evidence of engagement with the sources I pointed out to you. My only aim is to make constructive criticism of your approach, so you can be more constructive in yours. Constructive criticism is as much an asset to Wiki as is content. As things stand, however, just as you can make comments, so can I. Comment reverted. I will conceed that I have deliberately chosen to make the explanation simple enough that high school students can understand it. Try reading it as what a high school teacher or English Second Language teacher might write in a text-book. (I am both.) Then we can wrangle over whether the difference between this and Wiki is a substantial one. Alastair Haines 09:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ...Res ipsa. If you remove the template again you may breach 3RR; such action will be submitted as an incident, and blocking will be requested. Hanse 14:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that in the space of editing the article and posting my above comment that user:Alistair Haines has breached 3RR; blocking will now be requested. Hanse 14:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that Hanse made three revisions first. But I decline to make any attempt interfere with his contributions to Wiki. Alastair Haines 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You've made your share of snide references to how I should do things on Wikipedia. Why don't you go look up 3RR for yourself: in short, its the 4th reversion that contravenes the policy. Hanse 08:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made no "snide" comments. I have spoken simply, directly and without personal attacks on other people's motivations. I have told people where I think they are wrong, how I think they can improve, and provided reasoning for those comments. I do not guess at motivations and use those guesses as a basis for criticism. I wish that were true of others. Also, I have not attempted to restrict other peoples' freedoms to get on with making contributions, nor troubled others to spend time on a tiny issue. Your very first sentence on this page includes an unfounded and illogical personal attack. I have now included a talk header to clarify Wiki policy on such things.
 * I note that I did not dealt with your "essay" tag explicitly. The point of an essay tag is that an article makes an argument. For example, an article on "The United Nations" would read like an essay if it argued that the United Nations are effective (or to the contrary, ineffective). It is subtly different to a POV tag, in that POV may consist of assertions without argument. All essays are POV, not all POV will be presented as essays. Sometimes NPOV will require presenting the arguments of competing POV, such articles will be encyclopedic, not essays, because the article will make no final judgement.
 * Please get over this dispute and enjoy contributing to Wiki. Alastair Haines 16:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (sigh) Yes, we get how no else has demonstrated as much grace, good nature, and superior knowledge of Wikipedia policy and etiquette as yourself. If you are genuinely open to constructively responding to other users' suggestions, please indeed just get on with it and revise the essay-like (non-encyclopedic) tone of the article, which is amply demonstrated in paras 3, 4 and 6. I've already suggested that the article should actually be merged, but instead leave you, as "someone who knows something about the topic" to step up whenever you're ready. Hanse 03:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice of removal of essay tag

 * Wiki definition of essay, from link on tag, reproduced below.
 * Unless it can be demonstrated that the text in the article fits the description, the essay tag will be removed in 24 hours.
 * If no such demonstration can be made, this tag reflects only a personal feeling about the page, it should be researched before being restored.
 * Repeated petty interference with this page will now be reported.
 * Alastair Haines 01:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Shortcut: WP:NOT#OR WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT WP:NOT#PUBLISHER WP:NOT#FORUM Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:


 * 1) Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.
 * 2) Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day!
 * 3) Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
 * 4) Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
 * 5) Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.
 * 6) News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information.
 * I've been somewhat sick over the last couple of days and have been slow to follow through on my promise. No answer to the above comment has been received, so I'm removing the tag. If anyone does wish to address the issues noted above, please have the courtesy to address the history of the matter on this talk page before restoring the tag. Cheers. Alastair Haines 09:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your posting of the above creates no obligation to enter a discussion on the merits of the cleanup template in itself (it seems rather disingenuous to do this, only to revert out the template when no one responds to your "challenge"). On the other hand, as you have not made any attempt to constructively respond to the issues flagged by the cleanup template, it will need to go back in. Hanse 11:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleanup performed; template removed. Hanse 12:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing what I asked in the first place. Not a bad job either.
 * Like you, I personally prefer theory first, followed by examples. Teaching experience has taught me you and I are in a minority and most people prefer examples first, followed by theory. That's no big deal at this stage of an article, though. As it expands people will express their opinions and the majority taste will become apparant.
 * The only things I felt worth editing were a minor simplification to the grammatical description, and more importantly, returning the sentence regarding possible worlds. Possible worlds is what Lewis is famous for, they are relevant to physics and other areas and have generated a lot of discussion in academic literature.
 * It is probably worth returning the fact that Lewis specializes in logic at some stage, because this field of philosophy is even more foundational and better understood than mathematics. This is not what an average reader might associate with philosophy, unless it is made explicit. If you don't return that yourself, it will naturally grab my attention when I return to this article at some point. Alastair Haines 12:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)