Talk:Peter principle/Archives/2014

Overview - first paragraph
I believe the recently removed initial paragraph should be restored to the overview section, as I believe it provides important information regarding the wider context of the Peter Principle: "The Peter Principle is a special case of an ubiquitous observation: Anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it fails. This is "The Generalized Peter Principle." Peter observed it applied to hardware, e.g., vacuum cleaners as aspirators, and to administrative devices, such as the "Safety Evaluations" used for managing change. There is much temptation to use what has worked before, even when it may exceed its effective scope. Peter observed this about humans." --HarryHenryGebel (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, except for the specific examples "applied to hardware, e.g., vacuum cleaners as aspirators, and to administrative devices, such as the 'Safety Evaluations' used for managing change." Those specific examples were part of a larger sentence formerly attributed (without a reference) in an earlier version to a specific scientist named William R. Corcoran. In the meantime some idiot evidently "edited" it (screwed it up) it in a way that removed the attribution and misattributed those specific examples to Peter. Since the Corcoran examples were not referenced, we should probably just leave them deleted. But the overall paragraph that you mentioned needs restoring, and I'm about to go do it in a minute. — ¾-10 19:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I restored that paragraph, minus the detailed examples. It's a shame I don't have time to watchlist this article properly (that is, examine the diff for every edit to it that appears on my watchlist). Evidently some of the people who mess with it degrade it rather than improve it. Oh well, we do what we can with volunteering our time. — ¾-10 19:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added some detail to this paragraph, added a citation and also moved it to the end of the section where I think it fits better (I have also trimmed out some uncited content from the section until someone cmoes up with a reference for it - see below). This citation does support the inclusion of William R. Corcoran and the other examples. PeterEastern (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Opps, I have just noticed that the citation I used had a big banner at the top that read 'do not cite' and noted that the content had come from this article in the first place! I have reverted my edits, but have added a 'citation needed' tag to para under discussion. PeterEastern (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Uncited content removed from article
I have removed the following claims from the article until suitable citations are added: PeterEastern (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Staff who find themselves with what they consider to be incompetent superiors may try to "manage upward" and support or manipulate them to be more effective, or may simply devise ways to minimise the damage and influence they have on the organisation."
 * "Peter proposed that systems based on social class (or caste) were more efficient at avoiding incompetence. Lower-level competent workers would not be promoted above their level of competence as the higher jobs were reserved for members of a higher class. "The prospect of starting near the top of the pyramid will attract to the hierarchy a group of brilliant higher class employees who would never have come there at all if they had been forced to start at the bottom". Thus he concludes that the hierarchies were "more efficient than those of a classless or egalitarian society"."

Forerunners Dispute Regarding Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
Three editors deleted the following passage several times from Peter_Principle or contest it; User:Robertgreer and I restored it in vain. Reasons for and against inclusion are stated in the first subsection here. Please append your comments at the end of the chapter. -- Wegner8 10:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a dispute regarding whether the above passage should remain in the article; seeing as it's an on-and-off edit war that's been going on for quite a few months, I feel the need to attempt to turn it into a discussion instead.

May I ask for the main points of the discussion on the German Wikipedia (which seems to be against its inclusion) to be paraphrased here, as well as the arguments for why some might feel it should be included? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for embarking on this dispute. I would regret a lot if this forerunner would be excluded (whether or not the other forerunner remains accepted). – When restoring I had assumed that the reasons given on 25 July 2014‎ by Robertgreer would do: translation is not original research, and the Lessing quotation is apt. – Let me state the main points of the related discussion as I see them. -- Wegner8 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Main points of discussion
Each numbered paragraph in italics reflects an objection against including the passage. The subsequent text is my reply. Indented paragraphs following a reply quote objections from the next section that may not be covered by my reply. – Wegner8 (this paragraph revised and quotations added on 2 October 2014)

1. The passage presents Original Research (WP:OR).

It presents a trivial observation in literature that can easily be made and confirmed by everyone. There is no research at all. (If research were that easy!) Nothing is new or original, except my proposed mention in the article of an obvious fact. WP:OR says: "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." However, if you require such sources even for obvious facts, you may delete much text in many articles asking to present publications. – As an arbitrary example, take the second paragraph of the article Paper. Should I delete it as alleged OR, you might rightly blame me. Likewise, the debated passage should be considered legitimate. – It might help to turn the quoted OR text into "ideas, allegations, and non-obvious facts". – One might argue that those deleting the debated passage have to prove that "no reliable, published sources exist". To prevent such abusage, I propose to turn the OR text into "no reliable, published sources are presented".
 * "Show me a book chapter or an academic article where this Lessing text is put in direkt context with the Peter Principle." Geezer
 * "I do not agree with you, on this matter and I consider the idea purely a figment of your imagination. Lessing was a great writer. However, there is no proven connection between Gotthold Ephraim Lessing and Laurence J. Peter or Raymond Hull. Unless this connection, either out of their own statements, as of what inspired them, or out of the peer-reviewed analysis of a renown literature analyst, there is no reason to believe, that there is more to the assumed connection, than your private theory of the origin of thought." Yotwen

2. The passage is Original Research because it says that Lessing invented the Peter Principle. (Discussion in German, 17 February 2014)

It does not say so. It says that the quoted text is a forerunner, i. e., something that shows part of the properties offered by some later thing, or similar properties. Nothing more is required from a forerunner.

3. The text quoted from Lessing has nothing to do with the Peter principle.

The relation is easy to see and was perfectly stated by Chricho on 6 April 2014: Both authors, Lessing and Peter, treat the experience of "being overstrained as a consequence of promotions" (Überfordertsein durch Beförderungen). – I do not see any advantage in removing hints and links to some related information provided that the relation ist immediately visible, as is the case here. Such links constitute the most charming achievement of hypertext.
 * "... the Peter Principle claims to be a systematic phenomenon, people get promoted till they reach the point where they are not qualified. Lessing only describes that there are occasionally persons who do bad work because of their high rank and that it is not always desirable to get promoted. Neither does he claim to describe a systematic phenomenon, nor is there the notion of the lowest non-suitable rank (instead there is a gradual difference). However, it is enough to state that there are no sources." Chricho
 * "The connection between two unrelated objects (e.g. Lessing's Minna and Hull's Peter) is an idea. And as long as there is no reputable paper trail of the connection, it remains an unproven idea, aka figment or wild guess." Yotwen

4. Peter talks of people who where promoted up to their level of incompetence; Lessing's character refused such promotion.

Learning from (or describing) other people's experience does not require repeating their mistakes. (Please note again that the passage quotes Lessing's text as a forerunner only.)

5. Lessing describes one fictitious case only; Peter states a general principle.

The last phrase in the quotation from Lessing generalizes his example. (Please note again that the passage quotes Lessing's text as a forerunner only.)

6. At Lessing's lifetime the Peter Principle did not yet exist, so you establish a relation into the past. (23 Feb 2014, Ronald)

I mention an early text as a forerunner of a later text about a similar subject. (Every historian establishes relations into the past.)

7. Deleting is no loss because everyone should be aware that people before Peter were irritated by incompetence and hierarchies. (Chricho, 9 Feb 2014)

It is good practice to honour early contributors, and not many such publications before Peter are known.

Again, I invite everyone to suggest objections or to question my replies by writing into the next section. – Should someone wish to delete one of his contributions there as a result of this discussion, he may delete my reply as well. – Whenever one of the critics no longer objects against inclusion of the passage, I invite him to say so. – Wegner8 09:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion continued

 * (1) Show me a book chapter or an academic article where this Lessing text is put in direkt context with the Peter Principle. I can't find one.
 * (2) PP states: "Managers [do] rise to the level of their incompetence." and then the influence on companies is discussed. (so Dilbert is ok, Beetle Bailey not (unless they make direkt ref. to PP)
 * The guy in Lessing's play (a) is not a manager, (b) considers himself competent in his function (is aware of his status) and (c) is not moving up to a level of incompetence.
 * Is there more to say?  GEEZER nil nisi bene 10:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On (1): Obvious facts (in this case Lessing, Ortega and Peter—in this order—all describing incompetence as a consequence of promotions) need no academic articles to be true.
 * On (2) and (a) to (c): A forerunner does not usually match all features of the later improved thing. -- Wegner8 09:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * At least five users in the German Wikipedia have explained Wegner8 correctly, why this is original research. He has not continued the discussion since months. And now he comes to the English Wikipedia and claims I’d vandalise? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, and other users supported me: Hubertl, A1000, Redheadchica (by improving the English article), Robertgreer. And this is not a matter of voting but of good reasons. I apologize for the accusation of vandalism; I did not find another way to call someone else into the conflict. -- Wegner8 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the list of reverts: It might be missleading, since Hubertl and A1000 have never participated in the discussion. I want to add to Geezer that the Peter Principle claims to be a systematic phenomenon, people get promoted till they reach the point where they are not qualified. Lessing only describes that there are occasionally persons who do bad work because of their high rank and that it is not always desirable to get promoted. Neither does he claim to describe a systematic phenomenon, nor is there the notion of the lowest non-suitable rank (instead there is a gradual difference). However, it is enough to state that there are no sources. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, the text quoted does not cover PP, it is a forerunner in describing part of PP as an experience. – Lessings comedy is obviously a forerunner, and obvious facts without sources appear in nearly every article without someone deleting the whole paragraphs containing them. – Please propose here an objection to the present edit summary above if you sustain this contribution. -- Wegner8 19:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * How come, you know that - and Laurence J. Peter didn't? (Because he didn't mention Lessing...) The connecting string is in your head (no problems with that - I have a lot of probable and improbable associations, too... (e.g. The first boygroups were Gregorian monks ?!) but I don't write them into articles - I go to the Café/Village Pump) but in the World of an encyclopedia ... where is the connecting string?  GEEZER nil nisi bene 07:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The connection you miss is the common main point of both (Lessing's text and Peter's Principle) as stated by Chricho on 6 April 2014 quoted in the previous section. Which aspect of this statement do you not understand? Can you please add your objection to the previous section? –
 * Asking for a reference to literature here is hardly covered by the wording of WP:OR, see my revised reply to the first objection in the previous section. -- Wegner8 18:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Using your contributions, I adapted my replies to some objections in the previous section and reworded, in italics, some of my replies here. – Time has come to apply the logical bench-vice. Do the objections and my replies in the previous section reflect all your concerns? If they do not, please state what is left. Does someone still asks for references, in spite of the previous section? Please explain why. Otherwise please state that you no longer object to inclusion of the passage. – Please reply within a fortnight. – Wegner8 03:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with you, on this matter and I consider the idea purely a figment of your imagination. Lessing was a great writer. However, there is no proven connection between Gotthold Ephraim Lessing and Laurence J. Peter or Raymond Hull. Unless this connection, either out of their own statements, as of what inspired them, or out of the peer-reviewed analysis of a renown literature analyst, there is no reason to believe, that there is more to the assumed connection, than your private theory of the origin of thought. Yotwen (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Which idea? Can you please specify which part or aspect of the passage seems a figment of my imagination to you? What is wrong with Chricho's wording of the obvious connection? Are there, in the previous section, any replies of mine which you do not accept? If so, can you please state your objection here? Do you really mean that every mention of an obvious fact would need a reference, perhaps even $$1 + 1 = 2$$ ? – Wegner8 14:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Drawing parallels between independent works of literature is very different from routine calculations, it is original research. Anyways: $$1+1=2$$. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Chricho, Geezer, Yotwen and everyone: Are there any topics not yet covered in the section "Main points of discussion" or not sufficiently dealt with there, any complaints not sorted out – or can we ask JaeDyWolf to submit the case to Mediation Committee for decision? Please reply within a fortnight. – Wegner8 07:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI Idea... usually construed as mental representational images of some object. Ideas can also be abstract concepts that do not present as mental images. The connection between two unrelated objects (e.g. Lessing's Minna and Hull's Peter) is an idea . And as long as there is no reputable paper trail of the connection, it remains an unproven idea, aka figment or wild guess.
 * However, the fanaticism displayed in pursuing your idea lets me believe, that you are a 'C' short in your suggested solution. But since you won't take to reason, you would even less take that. So go ahead, prove to yourself what everybody else already knows by now. Yotwen (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Not everybody: Robertgreer on 25 July 2014‎ restored the deleted text with a concise and convincing Edit summary quoted above in my first contribution here (6 September 2014). -- Wegner8 19:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:JaeDyWolf: Can you please try to resolve the conflict? (See my request of 15 September.) Wegner8 06:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:JaeDyWolf: Your initial contribution was competent and promising, now please continue to help. Wegner8 14:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that including Lessing in the article on the Peter Principle is original research. Until and unless a reliable source is found which mentions the connection, it should be excluded. Since there seems to be a consensus, I suggest that any editor who reintroduces it be prohibited by admins from editing the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please give a reason for your opinion? See Main points of discussion. -- Wegner8 14:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Chricho, @User:Grey Geezer, @User:JaeDyWolf, @User:Willhesucceed @Yotwen and everyone: Are there any reasons against inclusion left (apart from opinions) that are not properly dealt with in the section on Main points? -- Wegner8 12:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wegner8 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment This is original research and this is synth of Minna von Barnhelm. Werner says that he is a good Sergeant, but he's not sure he'd be a better as captain or general so he is uninterested in promotion. This is not an example of Peters principle or forerunner to it. He was not sought a promotion and the person he was talking with wasn't offering a promotion. He is explaining why doesn't wish a promotion in the words you want to quote and stick in here. He's trying to placate he's friend the major so he will take the loan.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * After looking thru again I think we have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * We need not analyzing Lessing to answer this, Wegner8. Not the majority opinion is in question, here. It is YOUR dissident opinion that you need to question. It has already been answered satisfactorily by seven users. Yet you insist on wasting everybody's time on your pet idea. This has taken dimensions beyond any reasonable point. I suggest you put your idea on your personal pile of "The World is not yet ready for this", and walk away. Yotwen (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I was invited here randomly by a bot. This RFC is poorly organized and I see very little chance of reaching consensus here. I strongly recommend initiating a proper RFC (Start with a simple, neutral question with no commentary, no names, no history, etc - simple and neutral. Follow that with a Survey section for position statements with brief explanations. Follow that with a Discussion section for threaded dialog.) Keep discussion separate from survey comments. Then it's possible for everyone to get a sense of the group by reading the survey section. Best wishes. I be checking back... Joja lozzo  15:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)