User talk:Tautologist/Coatrack Deletions

More examples requested from other editors

 * This essay is based on coatrack arguments made by both sides in debates over Obama’s former church and pastor, and over Palin’s current and former churches and pastors. If there are any editors familiar with coatrack arguments made on both sides in other debates, examples of consensus arguments would be appreciated as additional examples. EricDiesel (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Example from Obama and Palin churches - "Coatrack" deletions

 * Example 1 - An example of the application of the above is the resolved debate regarding presidential candidate Barak Obama's church Trinity United Church of Christ, which had controversial sermons in which Obama might or might not have been present. Consensus was finally reached.  Then a new debate raged over vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's churches, Wasilla Assembly of God and Wasilla Bible Church, as well as for pastor David Brickner, who Wasilla Bible Church sited as being responsible for the creation of Wasilla Bible Church, was invited to give a sermon there, and whose sermon was internationally covered as being very controversial.  Since there was no template abstracting the basis of the consensus in the Obama church situation, many of the identical points were redundantly debated.
 * New section headers were proposed in the United Trinity Church of Christ and Pastor Jeremiah Wright articles. “Coatrack” arguments were made for deletion of material, for United Trinity Church of Christ and Pastor Jeremiah Wright.  Persons arguing for including the material were accused of being partisans of presidential candidate John McCain.  After everyone calmed down, and more importantly, after everyone came to understand what a coatrack was, consensus was finally reached to include sections titled "Controversy", and "Political Controversy".
 * Similarly, Sarah Palin’s former church Wasilla Assembly of God made controversial statements including about Bush critics and Kerry voters not getting into heaven, announced a controversial convention to pray for conversion of gays to straights, and made other controversial statements, covered in the international press. Palin was likely not present for most or all of these.  Similarly, pastor David Brickner, head of Jews for Jesus,  gave a sermon at Wasilla Bible Church asserting that Jews were responsible for deaths in Palestinian terrorist attacks, asserting that the deaths of innocents was "God's punishment" for Jewish failure to convert to Christ.  While Palin was at the sermon, she may or may not have known who Brickner was before attending, and may or may not have made a donation to Brickner.  Wasilla Bible Church, at the beginning of the sermon, stated that Brickner was responsible for the very existence of Wasilla Bible Church, and there is evidence of a past relationship going back to at least 2004.  The content of this sermon was the subject of international controversy, independent of Palin, before Palin's nomination.  A debate ensued as to whether the section “Controversial Statements”, the nominal subject, was a coatrack for statements about Sarah Palin, the coats.  The issue is whether or not there was sufficient information related to controversial statements for a section, when unrelated statements on Sarah Palin obscuring the nominal subject were removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The burden of action...
The main problem I see with this essay so far is that it places the burden of action on the remover, which is contrary to accepted Wikipedia practice. Check out WP:BURDEN. One of the reasons that exists is it should always be easier to keep out bad stuff than put bad stuff in. If the equation is reversed, then the vandals crapping all over wikipedia win, and I don't think Coatracks are a particular exception. If a good faith editor gets a reasonable edit summary or talk page note as part of the process, s/he should be able to take concrete action on that basis. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good point. I should modify things to stress that a reason to do the extra work on making sure the info is in article B is that it might be less of a burden to move the info than to get in an edit war or go back and forth arguing. And that nothing I have written is a requirement, only an etiquette to aim for.  EricDiesel (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A second issue I see is that coats and coatracks aren't as differentiated as you make them out to be. Saying "It's a coat" or "It's a coatrack" are essentially the same argument, and I don't think a consistent and precise usage of "this is a coat" vs "this is a coatrack" has emerged. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed the usage is not consistent as you say. I used the accepted definition, and tried to make things more precise, so that debates can be resolved with precision, consistent with the definition. EricDiesel (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A final point that I believe damages your essay is splitting hairs about policies vs. guidelines vs. essays. The "X is only a guideline!" argument is liable to fall on deaf ears, since guidelines exist as guidelines because of community consensus that they are good ideas. Essays that are widely quoted and agreed upon are likely to be promoted to guidelines in the future, and guidelines that lack consensus for exceptions become policies. I speak from personal experience--I think I've lost every single argument I made with an appeal to the status of a document, such as "WP:FRINGE is a guideline just like WP:RS is!" Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you are right here. It is even worse than splitting hairs, since it assumes that a policy has some godlike status, when in fact policies are just a matter of consensus, too.  I had not really thought of your point, and included that section becase I saw so many people making the argument, and wanted to include everything everyone said.  I think the essay might be better eliminating the section altogether, but I am keeping it in for now only because it was an idea contributed by others.  Do you think I should modify the section to put in a statement that this is not a very good argument, or just delete the sectinos altogether? EricDiesel (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, hope that helps. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)