Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. Despite the reopening of the debate, there have been no further arguments for deletion. --Core desat  00:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Argumentum ad Jimbonem
subtly packed ad hominem page - it tries to present the idea that quoting Jimbo is in all circumstances a logical fallacy. Or, said otherwise, that Jimbo's opinion would be more negligible than any other Wikipedians' opinion. Many pages (including policy pages like WP:NPOV and WP:V) quote Jimbo Wales, without the least shred of logical fallacy. --Francis Schonken 13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator / keep but with rewritten content, see below for reason. I apologize for the inconvenience. --Francis Schonken 22:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-opening nomination (if anyone thinks this should be on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem (2nd nomination) I'd be happy to oblige).

Reason for re-opening nomination: it appears impossible to keep the ad hominem content out of the essay,
 * 14:19, 17 January 2007
 * 15:33, 17 January 2007
 * 16:42, 17 January 2007

Sorry, should have known this was not going to work.

I have put the previous votes in a colored section below, because the participants at the time all seemed to assume it was possible to write the Argumentum ad Jimbonem essay without personal attacks, which in between has been proven to be incorrect. --Francis Schonken 17:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * delete, as nominator. The current content of the page is ad hominem, and it appears impossible to get that ad hominem content removed from the page. It is my conviction that No personal attacks would better not be superseded by Consensus. In fact this should be a speedy delete (CSD G10) because of the unwillingness to remove personal attacks from the page (which has become apparent since I nominated this at MfD yesterday), but since I started this as MfD yesterday, and since the personal attack is not blatant (but subtly staged), I'm prepared to let it have its course. --Francis Schonken 17:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, WP:POINT nomination. Francis nominated this yesterday, then when it turned out there was no consensus for deletion, closed the nomination and repeatedly blanked about 80% of the page. I have no objection to rewording, but removing nearly all content after a failed deletion nomination is clearly inappropriate. After I offered to discuss changes on the talk page, Francis reopened the debate for deletion. The page is not an attack on Jimbo, it is an admonishment to people who treat Jimbo's word as law.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I reopened after you wrote: "Well, if you think it has to go, nominate it for deletion."Further, it continues to be an attack on Jimbo, while, as I said, it tries to imply that Jimbo's opinion would be more negligible than any other Wikipedians' opinion, and that quoting Jimbo's opinions would (in all circumstances) be a logical fallacy. --Francis Schonken 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - quote taken out of context. Another, WP:POINT violation by Francis Schonken. Addhoc 18:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I linked to the context, here is it in full:"Well, if you think it has to go, nominate it for deletion. Oh wait, you already did, and there was no consensus for it. Blanking most of the content is inappropriate. Radiant!, edit summary, 16:42, 17 January 2007"Note,
 * Radiant's attempt at insulting me (WP:NPA), which is part of the context (second sentence of the edit summary quoted above) - I'd preferred to leave that part of the context out, but since you're asking;
 * Radiant actually performed a revert with that edit, which wasn't mentioned in the Edit summary (while it should). --Francis Schonken 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Conditional keep This is ridiculous! I have preveously expressed my opninion below. We need this page because every once and a while we see a link to a diff from Jimbo along with some coment basically saying "end of discussion". This way of looking at Jimbo is making him into a god and this is bad for any discussion. Common discussion and normally followed by some sort of consensus is vital to Wikipedia.
 * I think we should cancel this deletion nomination since it seems the nominator along with the ones giving votes agree that this article should be here, only the content is not agreed upon. We should then discuss the actual content on the discussion page. --Morten LJ 18:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * re. every once and a while we see a link to a diff from Jimbo along with some coment basically saying "end of discussion" - what's the difference with pasting Argumentum ad Jimbonem, without further comment, in the midst of a discussion where *nobody* tried to force the conclusion of a discussion with a Jimbo quote? I used that example below, maybe click the link. --Francis Schonken 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - unacceptable conduct by Francis Schonken, debate has already been closed. Addhoc 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, and more importantly, WP:NPA. --Francis Schonken 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is that you misunderstand the term "personal attack". Addhoc speaks of your conduct, not of you, so his words are not a personal attack. Likewise, when I said "you already did [nominate it for deletion] and there was no consensus", that was a statement of fact, and not a personal attack. And likewise, you claim this page is a personal attack on Jimbo, but that is really not what it says.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Logical fallacy, the whole point of WP:NPA is to make people stop commenting on behaviour or conduct of other Wikipedians, when that is not a legimate topic of the page (for some strictly regulated pages it is a legitimate topic, e.g. WP:AIV, or WP:RfAr, user conduct RfC's, etc. - it is however *never* a legitimate topic in edit summaries, not even for those pages), and concentrate on the topic of the page (for, e.g., an MfD page behaviour or conduct of users should not be a topic of the page). Re. "Oh wait, you already did, and there was no consensus for it." - I was not very impressed by its ironic (sarcastic?) undertone anyhow, so, I'm determined to give no further attention to that. On content, regarding that expression: Consensus can change (official policy!), so there was few actual relevance in including "Oh wait, you already did, and there was no consensus for it" in an edit summary. The "no consensus" you referred to had also nothing to do with the content of the Argumentum ad Jimbonem page (the quoted no-consensus only related to the existence of that page while at the time this MfD page had a clear *consensus* that some content had no place on that page, which was the content I had tried to remove), nonetheless you used the irrelevant no-consensus regarding deletion of the page as an argument w.r.t. the remaining content of that page, for which you tried to override the relevant content consensus. Which was a logical fallacy. Sorry about that. --Francis Schonken 10:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per Morten LJ below and above; nominator is disagreeing with content of, not existence of, page in question. As said on talk page of article, I think the substitution edit by nominator that was a very literal take on Morten's comment below can easily be merged with extant article text (which at bare minimum should explain the argument to authority connection, etc., or the whole concept won't make any sense at all to users who are not well-versed in formal logic/philosophy/debate.)  This is a tempest in a teacup and does appear to be a flagrant case of WP:POINT.  Not all of nom's concerns are invalid (even if exaggeratory), but this method of attempting to address them certainly is. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This might be a far leap for you, but might you actually consider to take the ad hominem edge out of your contribution above. Thanks! --Francis Schonken 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with the well though out and balanced views expressed by SMcCandlish. Also, I would suggest that Francis withdraws from this discussion. Addhoc 19:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This might be a far leap for you, but might you actually consider to take the ad hominem out of your contribution above. Thanks! --Francis Schonken 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep As the page discusses a very real feature of Wikipedia; i.e., treating things said by Jimbo as the Word of God. The page shouldn't be a personal attack, but fear of vandalism hasn't kept WP from existing. However, I have no doubt in my mind that it should be kept. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pile on speedy keep. The proper thing to do if consensus is against what you wish is not to nominate the page for deletion. -Amarkov blahedits 01:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Difficult choice but I think the existence does raise a very valid point and deletion really brushes the need for a discussion about the point under the carpet.  As Wikipedia seeks to mature in authority and reliability we do need to move away from a culture where Jimbos word is perceived as an instruction.  There is an emergent requirement for some strategic decision making in terms of how the policy and guideline space develops and it is becoming more prevalent as that space grows to see de-contextualised Jimbo quoting as a means of avoiding a mature argument, particularly where these quotations may have been superseded by other statements.  The fact that there is no information content strategy is the issue and whilst this isn't the most appropriate way to raise the point, it is only one f the possible wrong ways to do it.  Given the absence of a right way then it's a reasonable approach.ALR 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Previously archived section

 * Strong keep. No, it presents the idea that quoting Jimbo is not in all circumstances a logical argument. What's with these "I disagree with this essay so I'm going to MfD it" nominations? -Amarkov blahedits 15:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The essay is itself a logical fallacy. It may be repaired, so that it *actually* says: "the idea that quoting Jimbo is not in all circumstances a logical argument". Currently it states: "The "Argumentum ad Jimbonem" is a logical fallacy [...]" (nothing about circumstances where it would not be a logical fallacy). Further, I would like to avoid that the essay would be used in this fashion:, which is an erroneous use of the essay, and which would happen whatever the content of the essay. --Francis Schonken 15:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * An essay being wrong is not a reason to delete it. -Amarkov blahedits 20:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It leading to erroneous use is. I gave an example of that. It being in conflict with the official policy on No personal attacks (however subtly), is also reason to delete. I'd say particularily because the Personal Attack is framed so subtly (as explained above), it should certainly go. --Francis Schonken 21:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... no, leading to erroneous use isn't a reason for deletion, either. And I do not agree at all with your interpretation of what the essay says, so I don't agree there's a personal attack. -Amarkov blahedits 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Amarkov. Strictly speaking an appeal to authority is a potential logical fallacy. However, to call an appeal to authority, in this case Jimbo, a logical fallacy and then qualify what you mean is fine. Addhoc 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ...which is a logical fallacy, Addhoc. Your reasoning is:
 * We usually should say "an appeal to authority is a potential logical fallacy", while it is usually a logical fallacy to say "an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy"
 * This does however not apply in the case of Jimbo Wales (for reasons that elude me - apparently the only reason being that we're talking about Jimbo Wales... hmm... err... Argumentum ad Jimbonem, Q.E.D. by reductio ad absurdum, or in English: your reasoning is circular, it assumes you can take the Argumentum ad Jimbonem as viable argument, in order to prove it should never be used....). --Francis Schonken 16:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea what you are talking about. I suggest you read the appeal to authority article, which explains the issue reasonably well... Addhoc 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea what you're talking about, apart that I know of course the appeal to authority article. What I say is that Argumentum ad Jimbonem is reasonably... bad (for the reasons given above), and not OK with any legitimate "appeal to authority" content. This is not an AfD on the appeal to authority article! This is an MfD on a (alas) poorly written essay, leading to bad use of that essay. Further, if you need to appeal to the "authority" of a Wikipedia article (which can not even be assumed to be a reliable resource for verification) in order to make your point, this quite effectively annihilates any point you might have been intending to make. --Francis Schonken 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, although I think the point about refereing to Jimbo as beeing a logical fallacy is a litle to strong. The policy should simply state that Jimbo's status in Wikipedia when it comes to individual articles is nothing special, he is a user just like everybody else. But we should value his opinion as we value any other good user's opinions. --Morten LJ 21:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, I take that suggestion to the essay, and withdraw MfD nomination. It doesn't solve the possibility of erroneous use of the essay in discussions, but I'm prepared to give it a go. --Francis Schonken 22:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.