Talk:Perfect is the enemy of good

Picture
96.226.161.157 (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)shilpanicodemus
 * What's up with the picture? I somewhat understand the connection, but it's not really clarifying anything on the page.


 * I have added a quotation to make this clearer. Andrew (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While that is a very interesting quote, I don't see the connection between it and the article subject. The aphorism is not saying that the good is better than the perfect, just that insisting on something perfect prevents one from obtaining something good.  Confucius' point seems to be that a diamond is so inherently superior to a pebble that its flaws don't matter; that doesn't really line up with the article subject. Miraculouschaos (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above editors questioning the photo, even with the caption. I'm going to remove unless someone can justify its inclusion in this article. Dohn joe (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Miraculouschaos and Dohn joe. I removed the picture. It would have been more appropriate without the quote, as per Miraculouschaos. You could have kept the explanation about rarity, and it should have said that finding and accepting a flawed diamond is better than searching in vain, or with minuscule odds of success, for a flawless diamond. I am fine with the image returning, if something like that is used for the caption. -- Kjkolb (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Robert Watson-Watt
Supposedly a ban-evading user keeps changing the Watson-Watt link to Robert Watson-Watt. I don't know much about this user, but why isn't the link Robert Watson-Watt? Mgnbar (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Best or perfect or better is the enemy of good
I didn't understand the concept behind this aphorism until I read this article. I think that another way to say part of the concept is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The remainder of the concept is covered by the expression "At some point in the design process we must kill the engineers and go to production". Jimb101 (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Shakespearean sentiment
Yes I can't think of a closer saying in English however this is not really the same sentiment but more of a related concept. The King Lear quote is closer to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" or "Leave well enough alone" which is related be not the same meaning. The Duke of Albany's quote concerns something that is already good howwever "il meglio è nemico del bene" includes works in progress that are not already good enough as they are not finished. For example in undertaking a simple task or project but try to include everything one can think of in the scope of the task or project and never finish. Whereas limiting the scope of the task would have resulted in a good finished outcome. The subject was not "well enough" without taking any action. I think the King Lear reference would be meglio in the Related Concepts section. But it could also be left where it is instead of trying to be too perfect. Also another related concept is Ecclesiastes 7:16 "Be not overly righteous, and do not make yourself too wise. Why should you destroy yourself?"Halconen (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the Shakespeare quotes and have removed them. Colintedford (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Chinese proverb
there's a Chinese idiom which matches this fairly closely as well: 画蛇添足 huà shé tiān zú ‘to draw a snake and add feet’, that is, to continue embellishing on something until you end up adding superfluous detail that ends up being detrimental rather than useful

source: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/100500/best-is-enemy-of-the-good-russian-idiom-saying

178.140.89.185 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That story checks out but seems to belong at gilding the lily rather than here.  A snake with feet is not perfect; it is excess.  Andrew D. (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I added the following:
 * The Chinese idiom: Draw a Snake and Add Feet to It（畫蛇添足） was developed during the Warring States period (476–221 B.C.). There was a devout official in the state of Chu. One day he wanted to give a pot of wine to his attending servants, but one pot of wine was not enough for all of them. One servant said: “We have just one pot of wine and it’s only enough for one of us. So, let’s compete for it. The first one to finish drawing a snake on the ground will have the wine.”  The official liked the idea and everyone agreed. Using tree branches as drawing tools, all of the servants began to draw snakes in the dirt.  A man finished his snake first. As the winner, he could claim the pot of wine. However, noticing that the others still hadn’t finished drawing, he became very arrogant and said: “How slow you are! I can even give my snake feet!” So, he started to add feet to his snake.  Before he could finish, a second man finished his snake and immediately took possession of the pot of wine, saying: “Have you ever seen such a snake? Snakes don’t have feet. How can you add feet to a snake? You are not the first one to finish drawing after all! I win.” The winner then drank the wine with great joy and the first man could do nothing but watch him enjoy the prize. The idiom “draw a snake and add feet to it” has now come to mean that doing extra work after one has already satisfactorily completed a task is unnecessary and can ruin the effect of the work. It suggests that added effort can be superfluous and detract from the goal.
 * 178.140.89.185 (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Gilding the lily redirects to a non-existing article. 178.140.89.185 (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

entry about this phrase
See: https://books.google.ru/books?id=fgaUQc8NbTYC&pg=PA21&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false 178.140.89.185 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Dicey translation
Voltaire's « le mieux est l'ennemi du bien » more accurately translates "better is the enemy of well-being", which is much deeper insight than "better is the enemy of good". (C.f. the difference between « bon », good, and « bien », welfare, metaphysical Good as opposed to Evil, or kindness/generosity.) It further suggests that when this aphorism was translated into English, "good" actually meant the general, public, or theoretical good, which would have been consistent with 18th century English usage. (Note that « le mieux » translates as "the best" in modern English, but again, was translated as "the better", meaning the best in 18th century English.) Laodah 05:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And on the seventh day...
It's interesting to note that the readership statistics have a strong weekly cycle -- it's about 500/day from Monday to Friday but only about 250/day at the weekend. Maybe the stress and pressure of work causes a focus on this issue during normal business days which goes away when domestic and leisure activities dominate. Or maybe it's the sort of page that people read when they are goofing off... Andrew D. (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggested link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story)

Suggesting the idea of having a link between this article and the Arthur C Clarke short story Superiority, at one or both of the articles. The plot involved a war where the side with the superior technology lost the war because they kept delaying building weapons until they were perfect - which never happened. Silversplash (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , Good idea to work into this, perhaps in a new section related to connecting to literature or culture? FULBERT (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Confucius?
The quote in the image caption seems to be fake, actually coming from someone else who lived two millennia after Confucius (and arguably also mistranslated). Googling the apparent original (宁为有瑕玉不作无瑕石) makes this pretty clear. (There's also a similar Japanese saying, tama ni kizu, which may be of Chinese origin, is definitely older, and actually means something completely different.)

Is propounded the principle of the golden mean which counsels against extremism in general referring to the same quotation? Whether or not this is the case, a better source, written by a professional sinologist (or other specialist) should be used.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So, it turns out that not only is the quotation not from Confucius and not about diamonds, but its incidental/off-topic gemological information is also wrong, or at least misleading: flawless diamonds are not only "rare" but very rare—so rare, in fact, that it’s possible to spend a lifetime in the jewelry industry without ever seeing one The claim that the term "paragon" refers to flawless diamonds is also wrong: the term doesn't appear on the GIA's website, but according to Joan Younger Dickinson's 2001 The Book of Diamonds it has been used at different times (rarely?) to refer to either any diamond weighing more than 12 carats or a perfect or flawless diamond of more than 99 carats, i.e., it refers first and foremost, if not exclusively, to carat weight, and not to diamond clarity or even to some non-specialist meaning of "flawlessness". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for leaving out the false attribution and incorrect information on diamond clarity and carat weight in your recent partial revert. I do, however, have a few remaining problems:
 * (i) the Jiao Hong quotation is apparently mistranslated, as classical Chinese does have a word for "diamond" (Classical Chinese Wikipedia has an article on diamonds, and we cite it four times in our article on the Diamond Sutra) and the quote is rather about gemstones (玉);
 * (ii) even if correctly translated, it seems to have little relation to the topic of this article; and
 * (iii) the image itself is closely tied to the original bad gemological information, which referred to its inclusions.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (1) The current text does not have an attribution to Jiao Hong or anyone else. I thought about adding an attribution to "Parable" (or maybe "Anonymous") but, as you can see, decided against it. Feel free to add an attribution yourself or, perhaps, simply remove the quote marks. (2) To me, the connection is that a flawed diamond is "good" and the pebble is what you are left with if you stick with the pebble because the diamond isn't "perfect." (3) The surviving text refers to a diamond and this is a picture of a diamond. I have no objection to substituting in a picture of a different diamond. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (1) I don't think Wikipedia should included unattributed quotations, and I could have sworn that such was a violation of explicit policy, although I cannot now find where I read that. Maybe in the four years since I was last highly active on Wikipedia the policy has been amended or erased without my knowledge. Anyway, attributing the quotation to "Parable" or "Anonymous" would be most inappropriate when we know the author of the quotation was certainly not someone writing anonymously but rather very likely either Jiao Hong or, per this, the roughly contemporaneous Xiang Dushou (项笃寿) or maybe the somewhat earlier Xie Jin. I certainly will not be removing the quotation marks to put the quote in Wikipedia's own words, and if you believe such behaviour would be acceptable on my part that makes me strongly doubt your understanding of the relevant policy. (2) Your original interpretation is not an acceptable justification for inclusion. (3) Well, if you're not going to make the required amendments to address my policy- and RS-based concerns, then I will simply remove the image per my own rationale stated 10 months ago. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not the exact policy I was thinking of, but WP:V says All quotations ... must include an inline citation to a reliable source. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, let's start with your issue (1). Here is a source to support the sentence being a Chinese proverb (here is the entry). Is that attribution sufficient for you? If not, please provide a source showing that it should, instead, be be attributed to a specific author. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is not sufficient. I asked, last November, for a better source, written by a professional sinologist (or other specialist); a dictionary of quotations compiled more than a century ago by a 19th-century churchman (and inaccurately attributed by your link to a contemporary "English literary critic, essayist and novelist") is not that. It may indeed be that "Better a [gemstone] with a flaw than a pebble without" is a bona fide Chinese proverb attributed to one or more of the three people I named above, but in order to say that you will need a much better source, written by someone with at least a bare minimum of knowledge of literary Sinitic. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you really want to include this supposed "Chinese proverb" in the article, then perhaps we could add to the body of the article the text The 1893 Dictionary of Quotations from Ancient and Modern, English and Foreign Sources cites a similar proverb, which it claims to be of Chinese provenance: "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without one." But it would technically violate NOR to cite the 1893 text itself for the claim that this article's title is similar to that quote; you'd need a secondary source that explicitly makes the connection. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That brings us to your issue (2). Two questions: (a) It seems to me that your reading of NOR would lead us to remove the first sentence of this article (which contains an unsourced meaning of "perfect is the enemy of good"). Or am I misunderstanding your position? (b) What do you think is the meaning of "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without one."? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (a) The lead is supposed to summarize the content of the article proper rather than that of external sources. Some editors like WP:LEDECITEs, but I am not one of them, no. Why do you ask?
 * (b) Why does that matter? You have been unable to find a source to demonstrate that it is not a mistranslation.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I will respond to your comments but, first, I'd like to understand your mistranslation concern. What do you believe is the proper translation of this parable/aphorism? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said above, since 玉 means "gemstone" or "precious stone" ("diamond" would be 金剛[石]), the Chinese actually seems to translate to Better a gemstone with a flaw than a pebble without. "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without." may be a better (more idiomatic) translation, but it is not (as far as I am aware) what the Chinese says. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's talk about "Better a gemstone with a flaw than a pebble without." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (a) Whether the first sentence summarizes the article or not, it isn't supported by a citation showing that the meaning of the phrase is as stated. That, as I understand it, is your primary objection to to including "Better a gemstone ..." in this article. I raise this point because I think we need to be consistent.
 * (b) Is your mistranslation issue resolved if we go with the "Better a gemstone ..." text? If so, I renew my request for your understanding of that text. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (a) No, it isn't. Please do not put words in my mouth. I never mentioned the article's opening sentence. I am interested in sinology and gemology, and I don't frankly have the time or inclination to care what you or others do with the rest of this article (or our millions of others) otherwise.
 * (b) Yes. But do you have a source that gives that translation? My knowledge of literary sinitic is that of a hobbyist, of European ethnic/national origin, who took up said hobby in his twenties, but even if I were a well-regarded expert on the topic, I would still need to cite an existing, published RS to include my translation on Wikipedia. I have no idea what If so, I renew my request for your understanding of that text. means -- did you mean "If not..."?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As preliminary matter, I apologize for giving you the impression that I was putting words in your mouth. I had hoped the phrase "my understanding" would have conveyed that I was not quoting you. Clearly, I failed.
 * (a) Let me try again: Whether the first sentence summarizes the article or not, it isn't supported by a citation showing that the meaning of the phrase is as stated. That (the lack of a citation to its meaning), as I understand it, is your primary objection to to including "Better a gemstone ..." in this article. Please correct me if I am wrong. I raise this point because I think we need to be consistent: if the meaning of "Better a gemstone ..." should be removed due to a lack of citation to its meaning then the first sentence of the article should be removed for the same reason.
 * (b) I have provided a cite that gives the "Better a diamond ..." translation. You oppose that cite based on your personal translation. Now you oppose your own translation because it is not supported by a cite. To me, this looks like a "heads you win, tails I lose" argument. Or am I again misunderstanding what you are saying? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (a) Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have told you many times that I don't care what you or others do with parts of this article that do not relate to my areas of interest. If I have to tell you again, my assumption of your good faith will be exhausted.
 * (b) That book was written more than 120 years ago by someone who definitely knew less Classical Chinese than I do. It would violate Wikipedia policy to incorporate my translation without a reliable source, and I don't want to include it to begin with (as it seems irrelevant to the topic of the article). You, meanwhile, seem unwilling to cite a modern reliable source written by a scholar of Classical Chinese.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hijiri, I want to remind you that injecting good faith into a Wikipedia discussion is playing with dynamite.
 * (a) Ignoring the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to article deletion (not article content), and without challenging the accuracy of your "I have told you many times" assertion, I now acknowledge that you do not want to consider whether your "you must have a source for the meaning of an aphorism" rule applies to any circumstance other than the particular aphorism that we are discussing.
 * (b) I began discussing the meaning (which relates to relevance) because I thought we had resolved the translation issue. Clearly, we have not. Which do you want to discuss first, translation or relevance? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC) :::::: @Hijiri 88, I look forward to your reply to my question. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

First appearance of proverb in Voltaire's works: correction
Many sources claim that Voltaire's proverb first appeared in the 1770 edition of his Dictionnaire Philosophique.

It appears, however, that no one has ever bothered to examine the 1770 edition of Voltaire's Dictionnaire Philosophique. For although it's claimed that the proverb appeared in the article that's titled "Art Dramatique", no such article appeared in editions of the Dictionnaire Philosophique that are dated 1764, 1769, or 1770. However, an article on "Art Dramatique" did appear in his Questions sur l’Encyclopédie of 1770, and the proverb appears there on p. 250. Subsequently, publishers incorporated, into the Dictionnaire Philosophique, articles from the Questions sur l’Encyclopédie (which itself included some articles from the Dictionnaire Philosophique), and publishers continued to call the resulting combination the Dictionnaire Philosophique. (See, for example, an edition of 1838, where the proverb appears on p. 162. See also this edition of 1878, which cites, in footnote 1, Questions sur l’Encyclopédie of 1770 as the source of the article "Art Dramatique".)

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

‘Good improvement’?
Um… is that not a tautology? 61.68.176.248 (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Why the Pareto principle?
I find the inclusion of the Pareto principle example somewhat confusing when it is, at best, only tangentially related to to the subject. The quote itself says nothing about a distribution of effort, nor does it make a claim about when sufficient effort is reached, and on the other hand the Pareto principle does not inherently imply that any effort beyond the 80% completion is 'excessive' or 'the enemy of good'. The relationship seems forced. By contrast, the general reference to diminishing returns seems much more apt, but is relegated to the end of the top line summary.

Suggesting to remove the Pareto principle example from the summary. 86.84.65.23 (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)