User talk:Ramsey2006/Parable

A parable
Once upon a time, in the land of magical realism, there was a South American country named Colombia. Or was it Columbia? The confusion on the name of the South American country was explained in the first sentence of the wikipedia article on Colombia, where it was explained that "Columbia" was simply the english spelling of the name of the country.


 * Colombia (Columbia) officially the Republic of Colombia (República de Colombia ), is a country located in the northwestern region of South America.

One editor found the information rather astonishing, and removed the information from the article , and a second editor agreed that the removed information was false. And everybody was happy and in agreement that the name of the South American country did not contain a "u". 

It is at that point that a wise and benevolent editor happened along, and in the interest of fairness and NPOV, pointed out that some sources use the term "Columbia" for the South American country. This wise and benovelent editor even used the word "misspell" in his comment to indicate to everybody that he would never personally use the term "Columbia" in reference to the South American country, but that he was only trying to make sure that wikipedia presented both sides of the controversey fairly, since although most sources do not, there do indeed exist sources that use the word "Columbia" descriptively, in a neutral fashion, without saying that it is not the proper manner in which to refer to the South American country. You see, this editor was acting out of benevolence (have I mentioned that the editor was benevolent?), to insure neutrality by insuring that the position that the proper way to refer to the South American country being "Columbia" was given equal weight in the article, even though his own personal POV was that it was improper.

It didn't take long for another editor, representing the forces of evil, to rudely insert his own personal bias and POV into the mix, claiming that any source that would use a "u" in referring to the South American country was just that much less reliable. 

So the wise and benevolent editor did a google search, and came up with several reliable sources that used the term "Columbia" to refer to the South American country, and which did so in a neutral fashion, without calling it an error. This wise and benevolent editor posted a link to one such neutral use of the term "Columbia", used descriptively and without qualification to refer to the South American country. The reliable source in question was the New York Times. 


 * A handsome account executive living in Miami, Florida finds love with a beautiful management executive living in Bogota, Columbia, and no one quite knows what to make the of the pair's romance in this romantic comedy from director Tas Salini.

Then this wise and benevolent editor considered his options, and his position. Because, you see, in addition to being benevolent, this editor was also wise. He realized that although the New York Times reviewer had used the term "Columbia" in reference to the South American country, and had done so in a purely descriptive and neutral fashion, without characterizing it as an error, the New York Times had not really stuck its neck out very far in supporting its position. The wise and benevolent editor realized that if he added a sentence to the article claiming that the term "Columbia" was sometimes used descriptively without qualification to refer to the South American country, he would be sticking out his own wise and benevolent neck, even if he included the reference to the New York Times article that seemed to him to be just such an example.

This wise and benevolent editor realized through his web searches that the other editors who represented the forces of evil could find reliable sources to back up their claim that the proper way to refer to the South American country was "Colombia". And what was worse, these other editors could do so without sticking their necks out at all. They had merely to report, in a factual manner, the position of the necks of the reliable sources that they found, because the sources that the forces of evil would come up with would be statements explicitly addressing the proper way to refer to the South American country.

So the wise and benevolent editor searched the internet far and wide, in his quest for a statement from a reliable source like the New York Times that explicitly said something like "The proper way to spell the name of the South American country is Columbia, with a "u"". And search he did. For 30 days and 30 nights. But all was for naught.

The wise and benevolent editor could not find a source with its neck already stuck out. The option of factually reporting on the position of the neck of a reliable source was simply not there. If he added his claim, it would be his own neck that would be left sticking out in the article. Because although the article in his reference used the term "Columbia" in a descriptive and neutral manner without qualification, the newspaper had refused to stick its own neck out on the issue and make an explicit statement, instead leaving it to unwise wikipedia editors (however benevolent and well intentioned) to risk their own necks.

The wise and benevolent editor, due to his benevolence, wished that he could edit the article in such a way as to give the article balance and fairness by reporting on instances of the South American country being referred to by reliable sources with the term "Columbia" in what he felt was a neutral and discriptive manner without qualifications. But since he was unable to find reliable sources explicitly backing up his claim, the wise and benevolent editor decided in the end to opt for wisdom over benevolence.

And to this day, that wise and benevolent editor (despite the fact that he personally would never use the term "Columbia" to refer to the South American country) keeps his eye open for a reliable source...any reliable source...that explicitly says that the South American country is sometimes referred to as "Columbia". --Ramsey2006 19:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Many years later, the editor remembered the first time he'd been in an edit dispute. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, he wasn't facing a firing squad at the time... --Ramsey2006 01:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The above is not only mean spirited, but not proper for a article talk page. It's an indirect personal attack. Willbeback should know this being an admin. I expect a full apology from the both of you for your actions and for the deletion of the above commentary as a violation of Wikipedia rules of civility. This is conduct unbecoming of serious well intentioned editors. --Northmeister 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lighten up, already. If you really feel the need to be nasty, you could have at least made some snide remark about how many times I edited a parable about a misspelling to correct for spelling errors...now that would have been funny! --Ramsey2006 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the point. My intentions here are not to be 'nasty' but to engage in civil discouse over issues concerning the NPOV of this article. The above should be removed from this talk page - it has no place here. --Northmeister 00:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The parable seems highly relevant to discussion here. In the parable, the benevolent editor (who we can see is actually Ramsey2006), assumed that since "Columbia" has been used on occasion that we should mention the alternate spelling. However when challenged by other editors he realized he couldn't find any source that asserted it was the correct spelling, or that the use wasn't an editorial mistake or sloppiness. And so he agreed to omit the spelling from the article, at least until the day he can find a source that asserts "Columbia" is the right spelling. I think any editor who's been around long enough has probably done the same thing: had a fact they knew was true but for which no proper source is available. The best Wikipeia editors eventually realize that we have to work from our sources up, not from our beliefs down. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your misreading the parable - it is a commentary on the 'anchor baby' - at best a satire. It directly corresponds with the debate over the term my assertions that 'anchor baby' should contain both usages. Its an indirect, demeaning, attack on myself and my concerns over this article and gives false impressions by assuming the nature of the 'benevolent' (used in a manner similar to the stirring speach of Mark Atony over Caesars dead body concerining 'noble men') editors thoughts of the those holding 'opposite' views as 'evil'. Please remove the personal attack as an admin. --Northmeister 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who Mark Atony is (I am a mathematician), but I will be moving this parable shortly and deleting this section, at Will's request, except for a brief explanatory link (with a suggestion to click on a link to the parable for an explanation of my use of certain expressions such as "sticking one's neck out" or other phrases that I might use from it on this talk page) shortly. Maybe I'll check out the stirring speech that you refer to and incorperate it into the parable somehow. Thanks for the suggestion. I hope that the copyright has expired... --Ramsey2006 01:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)