Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 94

Is "seek medical/legal advice" not medical/legal advice?
The Help Desk folks evaded the logical pulp of this question, so I put it here (hopefully, this is the place it cannot be passed off to another). Is "Ask a doctor/lawyer; seek professional medical/legal advice" not itself medical/legal advice? It seems equivalent to the statement "On the medical/legal topic you just mentioned, I advise you to speak to a professional." Though you didn't touch the technical content, you directed them in the direction of someone who would, and for all practical purposes, cannot deny that if said person did go to a professional and get content advice, you were a part of their getting there. If somebody asked me what's going on with their transmission, and I told them to go to a mechanic, I wouldn't say that in no way whatsoever did I give them auto care advice. Not very specific auto care advice, but nonetheless advice definitely on the subject of auto care. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't, except in the most pedantic sense. That is, our guidelines tell us the only advice we can give is to ask a doctor or lawyer.  So, yes, I suppose if you want to consider it to be advice (because, I guess, strictly speaking, we are advising people to do something).  But so what?  Recognizing that it does has no functional or practical bearing on the policy.  If someone asks us a question that they should be asking a doctor or lawyer instead, we tell them to ask a doctor or a lawyer.  If you want to call that "medical or legal advice", then feel free to think that.  But nothing is going to change because of that little bit of pedantry.  -- Jayron  32  17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Medical advice" in the Ref Desk sense means a number of specific things about offering information that would only be responsibly given by a professional in close communication with the question asker. Under no sensible interpretation can "go seek a doctor" be construed as being synonymous with that kind of information. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Until some poster says "I have acute iatrophobia, what should I do?" And someone tells them to go see a doctor. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we'll burn that bridge when we get to it. Until that happens, we'll just keep removing such questions and recommend that people talk to doctors instead of us.  -- Jayron  32  18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll send 'em to a shrink instead. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "We don't give medical/legal advice" is just shorthand for what otherwise would be a long explanation about exactly what categories of answers we considered prohibited. The policy is only self-contradictory if you misunderstand the policy, or if you don't recognize that the policy itself was created with the idea of prohibiting certain kinds of answers to those questions, not all answers. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with this, and have said so before. Medical or legal advice can be very expensive, and advising people to seek it may be advising them to waste their money.  It is better, I believe, just to say that we can't give medical or legal advice. Looie496 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much like the non-committal response along the lines of: "if you need medical assistance, seek a medical professional..." It allows the user to decide for themselves whether they need medical advice.  And it allows the user to define "medical professional" for themselves.  It absolves me of culpability.  Have I mentioned that I used to live in a building full of attorneys?  Every word they ever say is meant to reduce their exposure to liability.  Nimur (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I always knew it was CYA and not do no harm. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Telling someone to go to a doctor is not medical advice. Telling them NOT to go to a doctor IS medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not telling them to is not telling them not to. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Would that it were that simple. Even on this page, you've got folks arguing for explicitly telling people NOT to see a doctor. That's irresponsible and unethical. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you on that, which is why I'd say say nothing of doctors at all. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with suggesting someone seek professional medical advice, worst case, they get a bill they didn't need. Telling them they don't need to see a doctor is quite different, and could result in serious injury or death depending on the circumstances. Certainly it is reasonable to say "we don't offer medical advice" and leave it at that, but suggesting someone seek it from a professional is usually acceptable as well. Monty  845  00:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Telling someone to see a doctor is NOT medical advice. It's telling them who to seek medical advice from. That seems like plain common sense, but since only someone lacking in common sense would ask for medical advice from strangers on the internet, they need a little nudge in the right direction. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the wide variety of health treatments now generally available, it's not even up to us to decide that what they need is medical treatment/advice from a doctor per se. Maybe they need dietary advice from a dietitian, or chiropractic treatment from a chiropractor, or Bowen therapy, or acupuncture, or hypnotherapy, or physiotherapy, or podiatric treatment, or lots of other possibilities that are not "medical" treatment.  If we're going to go beyond the "we can't help you" disclaimer, maybe we should suggest they see "an appropriate healthcare professional", and leave it up to them to work out what's the most appropriate for their own circumstances.  -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  00:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be a reasonable alternative. For both medical and legal, to simply say, "See a professional." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c, should have saved first! :) It's not medical advice, but it is still advice, aka opinion - which, ummm. I agree somewhat that a blanket response to see a doctor could result in someone spending unnecessary money (not in my country, but still). Instead, the message should be in neutral terms as mentioned above, on the lines of "we are unable to offer medical advice, if you have a personal health concern contact a medical professional in your area", which leaves open the possibility of calling nursing lines (province-wide in parts of Canada, I think it's 3-1-1) or whatever other health resources may be open to the respondent. "See a doctor" may be an insuperable obstacle for many of our readers. Franamax (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In what part of the world? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of your question? Do you wish to judge some parts of the world as more worthy of wiki-consideration than others, or do you deny that the cost of seeking out an M.D. can be significant for some people? Franamax (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether we might happen to imagine that an editor "can't afford" to go to a doctor does not give us the excuse to not tell him to, nor to try to diagnose him over the internet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Are we seriously discussing this as a serious issue? In what way is asking people to see a doctor rather than asking us a bad thing?  It neither a legal liability or an ethical one. Yes, as Jack noted, there are many types of medical and health professionals, but that's not our role to decide which one.  GPs, family doctors and clinics should all be able to make the call to direct them to the right place once the OP goes there.  I won't argue too much about using the term "medical professional" in the place of doctor, but really... Mingmingla (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. It has nothing to do with the cost of health services or whether the OP can afford them or not or whether they're geographically isolated or any other issue they may have. It is about us saying "You've come to us with a health problem, but we cannot help you.  We think it's probably something a health professional is best placed to help you with".  That's as far as our duty of care should go. From then on, it's for them to sort out.  We are not responsible for their lives, they are.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  04:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The standard language that we do not give medical and legal advice, and that one should seek out a doctor or lawyer for this, is only really advice if we doubt that doctors and lawyers are the best source of medical and legal guidance. If we accept that doctors and lawyers are the best source of medical and legal guidance, then we are not really advising, but merely recycling standard opinions on this subject. Bus stop (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe in some cases it would be more appropriate to refer them to a website where such questions are being answered. Giving no alternatives does not serve the best interests of the individual; basic example: patient information leaflets list side effects that are common and do not warrant medical attention. Telling him/her to go see a doctor would not be beneficial and could even be harmful, because of physical exertion and the risk of infection. Let's not forget that the medical profession itself is one of the leading causes of death, disease and injury. Ssscienccce (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Referring them to a website where such questions are being answered - isn't that tantamount to endorsing that website? Or to suggesting they see a particular doctor that we nominate?  That seems to be in the same league of inappropriateness as diagnosing the condition ourselves.  And can you please clarify your last statement?  It's hard to forget something we're not aware of in the first place.   --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  11:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In 2000, the Report to the President on Medical Errors was published. They estimated between 45,000 and 98,000 Americans died each year due to medical errors. the lower estimate would make it the eight leading cause of mortality in the United States. they estimated that medical errors cost the US about $37.6 billion each year. More recent news: Medicalnewstoday: Medical Error Is The Fifth-Leading Cause Of Death In The U.S.; NY Times: More Treatment, More Mistakes: "According to a 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine, as many as 98,000 Americans were dying every year because of medical mistakes. .. a reasonable estimate is that medical mistakes now kill around 200,000 Americans every year. "
 * Injuries: In 2006 an estimated 1.5 million.
 * cdph.ca.gov: California department of public health: Hospital acquired infections are the most common complication of hospital care and are listed among the top ten leading causes of death in the United States. It is estimated that each year there are more than 1.7 million infections, 99,000 deaths, and $3.1 billion dollars in excess healthcare costs in acute care hospitals alone.
 * And i see that medical error has most of the info... Ssscienccce (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * But one thing I do have to take issue with, Ssscienccce, though it might be a relatively minor quibble, as you probably chose your words quickly—I have to question that "patient information leaflets list side effects that are common and do not warrant medical attention" insofar as occasionally the "side effects" could warrant "medical attention". I don't think you mean to make a blanket statement that side effects of for instance medications do not sometimes warrant medical intervention. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I lost part of my argument along the way it seems. What I meant to say was, they have a list of common, uncommon and rare side effects, and then they have the "if you experience ... consult a doctor" section. With the "normal" side effects, there's no reason for concern.
 * But anyway, the whole argument is just a reaction to the far-fetched arguments I read before, like the hearing loss - age topic being interpreted as medical advice. Coming from an editor who removes the statement (amphetamines) if they are injected they become Class A drugs. that was referenced with an archived page of the home office website (here's the current one) because "This kind of information needs to cite a reliable source. See WP:RS"...    Ssscienccce (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've seen some problematic examples of this recently. Someone requested advice for sleeping problems that from reading his account were clearly anxiety related. The person was afraid of going to sleep and as a result was severly sleep deprived. The advice he got was to seek immediate medial attention. But in his case, that is the worst sort of medical advice you could give the person, as it would make him stay awake for even longer. You end up confirming the mistaken beliefs that makes this person afraid to go to sleep. Also the longer you stay awake the more prone to anxiety you tend to become. Count Iblis (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think everyone has made an Everest-sized mountain out of a molehill here. The policy is "we don't answer questions that you should be getting the answer from somewhere else, if that somewhere else is from a medical or legal professional".  The fact that the best objections we can come up with to this policy revolves around the current wording, and not to the general sentiment, speaks volumes to how trivial this debate is.  From the above, these are the major objections: 1) people might not be able to afford a doctor or lawyer 2) people might be better served seing a different professional like a nurse or a paralegal 3) Some people have unusual and rare psychological conditions that might be exacerbated by us telling them to see a doctor or 4) Doctors sometimes screw up and kill people, so we shouldn't be telling people to seek help from them.  Seriously?  These are the objections?  Let's get this clear.  We have several major objectives when dealing with questions that ask for unambiguous advice of this nature.  First, we do not provide that advice.  Second, we don't want to be rude and ignore or delete the question without explanation.  Third, we need to explain why we don't directly answer their question, and give some sort of blanket advice where they should go instead of Wikipedia.  The objections to the policy seem quite trivial in that they don't address the major need for the policy.  If we need to play around with the wording, that's fine, but none of the objections above amounts to a major challenge to the rationale behind the policy in the first place.  -- Jayron  32  18:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the "Please consult a professional" line is just a polite version of: "Get lost you illiterate idiot! You should have read the disclaimer prominently placed at the top on this page before posting this question!". Roger (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We should use your version instead? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "No answer for you!" 67.163.109.173 (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Jayron  32  05:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

An alternative to "no medical advice"?
Hi. This question is basically a very simple scenario and does not seek to undermine Wikipedia's overall policy related to its medical/legal disclaimers. In one scenario, suppose that a questioneer asks what topical antibiotic antiseptics are out there as an alternative to seeking medical or first aid attention, and does not disclose any details of personal injury, but suggests that he/she would like to know how to treat a cut. Would it be appropriate to tell the OP that honey has anti-bacterial and anti-viral properties, with the caveat that Wikipedia does not provide medical advice?

Scenario Two: Suppose that a questioneer may or may not be facing legal charges, and cannot afford a lawyer. He/she would like to know the applicable copyright law in said user's country, and explore whether any loopholes exist, as well as more background on fair use, free use and copyright legislation. The OP does not ask for specific arguments to make during the case, which may or may not exist according to an upcoming trial. Is it permissible for us Wikipedians to pull up legal documents from the Internet on said country's copyright? Further, what happens if a user asks a list of 200 items, inquiring whether each one would be a copyright infringement?

In each case, would Wikipedian feedback be "pushing the line" in terms of our general and legal/medical disclaimers? ~ AH1 (discuss!) 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, in both cases, pushing the line and over it. Bielle (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both clearly over the line. The ref desks should not be telling people what to do to treat conditions that are normally treated by medical professionals.  Providing people with alternatives to standard medical treatments amounts to an endorsement of those specific treatments (and by contrast, an endorsement against those treatments that aren't mentioned).  People shouldn't be getting such advice from Wikipedia.  We can't stop people from finding Wikipedia articles on a subject and acting of their own volition, but we can stop providing people with what could be easily construed as advice or endorsement of a specific course of action.  A disclaimer is meaningless; it means nothing to give what amounts to medical advice, and then say "this wasn't medical advice".  The same applies to the legal scenario also.  There are people who's job it is to retrieve relevent legal documents and precedents, and to organize and present that evidence to build a case for a particular viewpoint on a matter of contention.  Those people are called lawyers.  The specific scenario #2 laid out by AstroHurricane would pretty much read like a job description for what a lawyer does.  Deciding if any individual item meets the legal definition of what a copyright infringement is (or even citing Wikipedia articles or other documents which amounts to an endorsement of the viewpoint that there is (or isn't) a violation) would be over the line.  We do answer general questions regarding medicine and law (i.e. "What is the difference between Type I and Type II diabetes?" or "What does "freedom of panorama" mean in layman's terms?"), however we should not provide direct advice in any form that a questioner has made clear they need to make a decision regarding their own situation (i.e. "I have diabetes, but I find my insulin treatment to be very expensive.  How can I modify my lifestyle to become less insulin dependent" or "I have some pictures here, and I want to know if I will be sued if I publish them in a book I am producing").  That's my perspective anyways.  -- Jayron  32  19:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that those are over the line:


 * In the 1st case, it's the "as an alternative to seeking medical or first aid attention" part that makes it so. If they just asked for a list of over-the-counter products with antibacterial properties, we could provide that.


 * In the second case, it's over the line if it may be about a real case. General questions about copyright law are OK, and a question with 200 instances is not technically forbidden, but I don't see anyone spending that kind of time on a single Q.  I'd also hat that portion, so it doesn't take up the entire Desk. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can't even figure out its own copyright rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it can, but stopping the torrent of violations is a bit like trying to take a urine sample with a thimble, with roughly the same results. -- Jayron  32  05:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A monopoly? Yet Wikipedia has already ended the de facto monopoly on knowledge. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 20:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we please stop being grossly inconsistent?
There's a very widespread schizoid grossly inconsistent element of this ref desk. We get all righteously severe about certain rules ("no homework" and "no legal/medical advice" are the biggies), but others are broken every minute of the day, every day of the week.

I refer particularly to the rules that say (all these are direct quotes from the rules on the Ref Desk page itself or the Guidelines):
 * If you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere.
 * The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events.
 * Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.
 * We expect responses … to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork.
 * We … work to find information relevant to questions posted by others.
 * The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. 
 * The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects. Respondents should direct questioners to relevant information and discussions, but should refrain from participating in any extended, heated debate.
 * Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate.

The truth is most people here welcome opportunities for debate, speculation, opinionising, prognostication, philosophisation, oneupmanship, and what have you.

For example, the first response when the question headed "Can't the U.S. send drones to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities?" was asked was: not : but
 * "We don't engage in debate here on the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Please find a suitable online forum",
 * to take the baton and run with it as far and as fast as possible. After that, it was a free-for-all.

Why not cut to the chase and remove the prohibition on such things from the guidelines? It is a constant source of frustration and tension and irritation and confusion for me to live or work in any system or environment where the rules about what is and is not OK vary  so markedly  from what is actually practised on a daily basis. I'm no paragon of virtue, but this sort of thing really offends my sense of integrity. It finally got to me last week, and I spat the dummy. OK, that wasn't very successful, and I didn't stay away as long as I expected. Now that I'm back, can we not please address this issue?

Seems to me that when a policy and a practice are in conflict, either or both of them has to change. Realistically, we're never going to stop anyone from engaging in the debates we officially frown on, particularly when the guardians of the rules are doing the debating, so let's just stop officially frowning. -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Case in point, Can runners prevent knee pain by injecting motor oil in their knees? I like debate as much as the next guy, but I do try to aim it towards answering an academic question, not telling people how to get themselves killt. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since, as you, Jack, say, the guardians of the rules are the ones breaking them, they should not be offended when their responses are hatted or deleted or whatever since they should know the name of the game here. The rule is not well adhered to, but at least it's there when we need it. Mingmingla (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC) This came out angry or snippy.  I didn't mean it that way... Mingmingla (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The rules then won't do much more than provide the sticks to fight disputes with. In such disputes, the people who are the most serous about sticking to discussing the relevant scientific topic end up losing out, because they will tend to not engage in any political dispute about the rules. Count Iblis (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand Jack's point, and I LOVE a debate, but I think we must hold back. Many here are not great debaters, tending to come at it from ideological positions (please don't debate that), so inevitably we would have some quite illogical discussions. We seem to have a just OK balance right now, but should probably remind ourselves of the rules more often. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It might help a little if we copyedited all those rules, some of which overlap. A shorter list of rules would be better. --93.96.36.99 (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To begin with, I think that "predictions of future events" should be thrown out. There's very little difference between asking for a prediction of a future event and asking what the probability of an event is now, and we should answer probability questions.  For example, "what are the odds of the Earth being hit by an asteroid?" is core Refdesk content; saying, "more likely than not, the Earth will be hit by an asteroid that size within X years" should be also. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of those rules do seem overly strict:


 * If you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere.


 * How about advice on how to eliminate interference on their TV ? This seems perfectly fine to me. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events.


 * What's wrong with predicting, say, when (apparent) sunrise will be tomorrow at a certain location ? StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.


 * Of course here the problem is that responses not intended to start a debate often do. What seem to be simple statements of fact can even do so. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We expect responses … to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork.


 * A certain amount of guesswork is often required, since the Q is not specific as to the details. Like the recent Q of what a croquet ball would weight if it was a singe atom.  There we have to guess at which atom they might have meant and if the subatomic particles will scale up, as well. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We … work to find information relevant to questions posted by others.


 * This can always lead to our own Q's. I try to either add those as a sublevel on that Q or as a separate Q. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions.


 * But, of course, if you post a factual response, and somebody challenges it, it's entirely reasonable to defend it with links and such. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects. Respondents should direct questioners to relevant information and discussions, but should refrain from participating in any extended, heated debate.


 * However, none of this means we should avoid controversial Q's. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing about "advice or opinions" could be clearer, but it is appropriate. We should give factual information about how to improve the reception on a TV.  We can tell the OP, say, that a different location for his antenna or a better digital converter or buying cable or browsing YouTube and such "pirate" sites on the Internet are things that people do in this situation, but should we tell him what he should do?  No.  The Refdesk is about giving information, not advice.  But banning advice does not mean banning information. Wnt (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see the distinction. For example, with many computer problems, the first bit of advice I give is "try a reboot first".  I suppose I could provide a link on the potential values of reboots, but this seems silly.  It would take less time to try it than it would to read the info at the link. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No no no NO! The last thing you want to do is try a reboot first, because you might never see your system running again!  The first thing to do is you get your flash drives and DVDs and CDs and anything else that can store a byte and you back up your e-mail and browser bookmarks and the newest versions of your short stories and your saved games and whatever else you ever want to see again, THEN you reboot.   --  You see why providing advice is dubious?  We can provide information, but that's all. Wnt (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, for a few problems that may be true, like "my hard disk is making strange sounds", but more common problems like "my fonts are all messed up" can always do with a reboot. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A big problem is with questions of the form "Why is Lilliput so mean to Brobdingnag?" The question includes a very arguable opinion to start with. To answer such a question either involves ignoring the included assumption, which effectively means agreeing with it, or arguing with it. Either way, it breaks the rules. Should we ban all questions based on opinion? HiLo48 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is far better, for the readers and those that ask questions at this desk, to explain exactly why the question is so hard to answer. That is, explain the inadequacies in the question itself.  People are asking questions in good faith, and we do them no service if we ignore them, or worse, if we put a foot in their ass and kick them out or delete their question.  To answer this question, I might say something like "Actually, it is hard to answer the question easily because it assumes that Lilliput is being mean to Brobdingnag.  I'm not sure we could give you any links to reasonable answers to that question.  Could you rephrase the question so we can provide factual answers and references?  Because as it stands right now, it isn't answerable."  Short, easy to say, and most of all it respects the person who asked the question in good faith.  It explains why we can't answer the question, and it isn't unnecessarily rude and also doesn't require a heavy-handed policy-based and sanctions-enforced solution, which I don't think would be a good idea at all.  It only takes us to answer the questions in the right manner.  -- Jayron  32  19:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, although some assumptions are easy enough to verify or refute, like "Why does Bangladesh have more Olympic gold medals than the US ?". In that case, we should simply provide a link showing that the assumption on which the Q is based is incorrect. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * True. That's easy, but we get lots of questions that call for a value judgement.  In those cases, it is best to explain why we cannot give a satisfactory answer, and do our best to still link to sources related to the topic at hand.  There's no reason not to direct the person to Lilliput-Brobdingnag relations in giving our response, even if we can't definitively answer the question.  Regardless, however, it doesn't mean that "sanctions" are an appropriate response.  -- Jayron  32  20:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't tell a question is unanswerable until we've all had a shot at answering it - and even then, the next person could change that. Gulliver's Travels had all kinds of allegorical meanings which I'm too lazy to look up - I should not be surprised if someone can say, "oh, that's easy, Lilliput represents so and so and Brobdingnag stands for so and so and everyone knew they were in the middle of a bitter dispute..." and pull out good sources to back it up. Wnt (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've mistaken the general point by getting lost in the details here. Ignore the Swift example if it doesn't work for you.  If there are questions that lack definitive answers, do your best to provide links, but make it clear why the question lacks definitive answers.  Capice?  -- Jayron  32  02:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's an example of my point that you don't know if a question is unanswerable until everybody tries. We should be ruled by the most imaginative responder, not the least. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Wnt, "most imaginative" is not a trait the Ref Desk should be cultivating. We need those who have knowledge and citations. We are not writing novels or creative essays (notwithstanding some of the answers that appear); we are supposed to be providing information with sources. We do know when questions are unanswerable in terms of the Ref Desks' mandate; we (including me) just leap in to the abyss anyway. Go to Answers.com if imagination is what you want. Bring clarity and facts here. Bielle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It takes imagination, not just knowledge, to answer questions. History is full of experts who have said that no one would ever travel faster than XXXX, who have been proved wrong.  If someone asks that question or its equivalent, the best answerer is not the person who says "no it's impossible", but rather the person who says, "we don't know how to do it, this is the reason why our current approaches don't seem to work, these are some highly speculative ideas that have been presented and what they're about".  Maybe the best Genuine Expert in a precise, narrow field can truly give all such ideas simply by remembering what he's read - but I don't think so - but for everyone else, the people who are searching for answers even as they give them, finding them requires first imagining what they might be. Wnt (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * All well and good for the junior-common-room debates, Wnt, but not for Ref Desk answers. Our mandate is not about "highly speculative ideas". We tend not to answer with absolutes about the future, or about "impossibles" except as qualified by, "with our current knowledge", or some such phrase. I don't, in fact, imagine what the answer might be; I just have to have some certainty that there is an answer. I disagree with you about what makes a good answer, even while knowing I have flitted down some of the speculative trails myself. I will leave this subject to others as I feel you are just fishing for a debate and I have said what I need to say. Bielle (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Imagination might be helpful for some types of questions, like "What could be causing my computer to do X ?", but not for others, like "What treaty ended the US Revolutionary War ?". StuRat (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Knowledge gives us the answer that it was the Treaty of Paris (1783). But imagination suggests it was the Treaty of Greenville, as not all combatants agreed to the Treaty of Paris. Wnt (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Imagination is most certainly useful, though not in the sense of making up answers so much as puzzling out solutions. Sometimes the best or most complete answer isn't in the most obvious places. This is usually where we find the most obscure articles are dug up, the Wikipedia Has an Article on Everything ones. Mingmingla (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "If you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere." I can't come up with a reading of this that says "Don't ask us for advice or opinions as such questions will be deleted". Yet this is generally what happens. If the policy is not to answer such questions or to remove such questions, then the statement needs to be rewritten. If it is not, then please don't remove such questions - at least let us point the querent in a more appropriate direction. Just my 2p worth . --TammyMoet (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's try this out
I'm going to voluntarily post a reply to a question here, for review, before actually posting it to the desk. This is a reply to WP:Reference_desk/Humanities. Here's what I was going to write:

"I found a pdf discussing this very question: WAS DUST THEIR FOOD AND CLAY THEIR BREAD? ... I'm not sure of its provenance, but it seems scholarly. It's also very long, so I can't give you the executive summary as I've only got to page 20 (out of 59)."

Seems innocent enough, right? It wouldn't cause any fuss. I'm aware of committing a couple of sins here, though. For one thing, is that really a reliable source? What's the "Coroplastic Studies Interest Group" that hosts it, and who is CAITLÍN E. BARRETT, and where was it published? For another thing, it has a copyright notice on the first page, for Brill Publishers, and it says "also available online" with a link to their site. I can't find where it's available online - searching the site returns no results - so I can't establish whether it's a free download (they do have some) or whether they want money for it. Maybe I shouldn't link to it, because supplying links to copyrighted works on ancient Mesopotamia is theft?

Please improve my reply to KAVEBEAR a bit before I post it. This seems fussy, I know, but it might be a good tradition to establish. Card Zero (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's published by Brill so it's certainly relevant and scholarly and useful. JANER is the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Brill says things are available online but they're hard to find, and in any case you'd need a subscription. I don't know what CoroPlastic Studies is but apparently they have simply taken the PDF from the Brill website - in fact just from glancing at the article, I can see it has Brill's distinctive typeface and that it was published in one of their books or journals. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Coroplast (artisan). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So what's my recommended course of action? Card Zero  (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've now located a profile page for the author and, on the same site, a link to the pdf  (it's the small "view on coroplasticstudies.org" which is the link). I think that might amount to a tacit statement that the pdf article is free. Not sure, though. On the author's home page at Cornell, it says it was published in the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Can I link to this thing or not? Card Zero (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would recommend it to Kavebear...maybe it's a little sketchy to link to the PDF, but I don't know if he would have another way of obtaining it. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh OK, I know what to do. I'll tell him the name of the article and the journal, and if he should happen to google for it and discover the pdf (or click the "papers" link in the sidebar of the author's profile page that I linked to), that would merely be a happy coincidence. Card Zero  (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The version of the article hosted on the publisher's website says "© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007", so a direct link from here would be inappropriate; but I agree there would be no harm in telling the reader they may find it with a Google search. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no way that we can know whether a document posted anywhere (even on an official corporate or university site) is a copyright violation or not. It is certainly possible that any given academic paper appearing on an author's web site is a legitimate use, either as an exercise of his personal right to publish his own material or under license from an understanding journal.  People answering questions should not be responsible for such legal legwork before mentioning an online resource.  The only time that links to a copyvio should be prohibited is when an editor has reason to know that something is a copyvio, either because it says so in a place which he happened to see, or because the site has a strong reputation which the editor knows about, or because the site looks so dodgy that any reasonable person would conclude this.  Even then, this legalistic prohibition on posting links is actually nonsensical - posting a link, posting a Google search that gives the link, or saying " can easily be found pirated online" all have the same effect of contributory infringement; it's just that the last of these is so clearly an intrusion into freedom of speech that even the courts can't ignore it. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just on that point, linking to free versions of paywall articles hosted on websites other than the copyright-holder's: The publisher Brill's website says "Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article." The version of the article on the publisher's website (behind the paywall) says "© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007" and "Buy & download fulltext article: Price: $35.00 plus tax." The free version on the other site doesn't mention copyright. I've asked User:Moonriddengirl, who does a fair bit of work in the copyright area, for her view on our responsibility here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You could say the same thing about practically any article on ArXiv. But they are legitimate and we use them.  We are here to answer questions, not do legal research on third party web sites. Wnt (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl has given a detailed response here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How'd you find the article on the Brill website, by the way? When I put the article title into the search box there, it returned no results. Card Zero  (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By logging in via my university library site. The Ingenta Connect portal is here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

KEW EEH DEE, ELL OH ELL. μηδείς (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we supposed to know what that means here? Q.E.D. has its place, but I can't see its relevance here.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The objection was made in the above this thread that people who stick to the topic lose out. This question quickly segued into a discussion of copyright, even to the point of getting the original poster off topic with a "BTW".  QED. μηδείς (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So you're referring to a point made in an earlier thread. What was that you were saying about not sticking to the topic?  Just because you're thinking of something as you're writing, does not mean the rest of us have any clue about what's in your mind.  I appreciate you answering my question, but seriously, communications that are not even slightly self-explanatory miss the boat.  Totally.    --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  08:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't get it, either. If the off-topic stuff can happen here instead of on the desks, that's great. (See the thread above the thread above this one.) Card Zero  (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, if I expected you to be psychic I would have told you to figure it out yourselves rather than explaining, as if you were interested. But now that I have explained myself, am I the boogity man for getting this off topic?  It was already off topic before I pointed out it was off topic, and before you blamed me for off topicking it further by having mentioned it was already off topic.  Once again, QED, and I laugh. To be back on topic briefly, the only solutions are for people to WP:BOLD in enforcing the rules, and to refrain from answering every darn question that gets asked.  Some questions shouldn't be asked.  Some questions shouldn't be answered.  And most of the time many of us should let someone else give a serious answer before we try a joke or a criticism. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I endorse all of that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What? This is the talk page. It doesn't matter about going off topic. We can have rambling conversations (pertinent to the reference desks) here. Quid tibi est (since you said all those QEDs)? Card Zero  (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Mission statement
This board needs a mission statement. And a vision statement. And strategies in the form of policies and guidelines for the achievement of the mission and fulfillment of the vision. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, we at least have some Guidelines. It's the constant breaching of these guidelines that I'm trying ro resolve two threads above.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  12:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Going forward, we will have to effectuate our paradigms. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. We need to ensure we're all singing from the same hymn sheet before we push forward with this. Let's start by operationalising the strategic infrastructure. Then we can lace some Nikes on this hippo and see if she hits the tape faster. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If we all sing from the same hymn sheet, we will end up sitting in each other's pews. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Minor nit, but: this is not a board. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. OK. ok. ok. Sorry for commenting before reading the talk page or the guideline. I know how absurd that is. I've always thought mission statements were just a marketing, feel-good thing but I'm learning a little about them and now have the evangelical zeal of a recent convert. I'll read some background before embarrassing myself further here, and possibly a little more about mission statements. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You wrote the whole of that recommendation without having read either the talk page or the guidelines? What are you -a management consultant? You realize your whole credibility on this matter is now shot, don't you? Bielle (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone has trouble finding them, here are the Reference_desk/Guidelines - which are of course community-created and could be changed to meet consensus. However, time and experience has shown that the most fundamental parts of the guidelines are well-founded. Provide references to encyclopedia-worthy content. Be civil. Help people understand whatever they're stuck on by providing links to our encyclopedia and elsewhere. Redirect non-reference-requests elsewhere: either to an appropriate page on Wikipedia, or to a meritous discussion forum off-site. Remember that the reference desk is part of Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia, and so we should abide by the standards of content and tone that generally apply elsewhere in the project. Nimur (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mission statements are often very concise, such as
 * So, would your line in italics be a good summary of this page's mission, do you think?
 * --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, would your line in italics be a good summary of this page's mission, do you think?
 * --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I happen to think it's a nice idea; certainly well-meant, and potentially quite effective. I don't see that a lack of knowledge of the guidelines needs to be a disadvantage - many great ideas come from people leaping in head first, eyes closed. I say go for it and see what you can come up with. I'm happy to help if you think I can. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Cucumber Mike, that's very kind of you to say so. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Leap head first, eyes closed, into an area where you don't know the basic layout and you may end up a quadraplegic, which is not, by any definition, a "great idea". Bielle (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bielle, I've now finished the talk page (I had read some of it before my initial post) and read the guideline (which I'd never heard of before, and it's not mentioned on the project page). Is my credibility on this matter still shot? If so, what other steps must I take? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the Refdesk has more than enough guidelines already; if there's one existing point I'd suggest promoting more, it's the notion that bringing references (or at least Wikilinks) to the table is a good thing; just talking without references is often unsatisfying. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If there's one new point I'd add to our (implicit or explicit) guidelines, it would be: We do not need to answer every question.
 * What if, instead of deleting or hatting so much, or arguing about it here, we just let some of the poor questions fade away? —Steve Summit (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but refs aren't always needed, like when someone posts their homework problem with their solution, and we find a basic math error. (Presumably a link showing how you need to carry when you add would just be insulting.)  Also, the civility req means insulting others who don't include refs, or who you disagree with, is not OK.  Unfortunately, I've seen some of that recently. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Questions that do not request references probably don't belong on the Reference Desk. Nimur (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Q's like us finding the error in their math seem fine to me. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Remember though that the "reference" can simply be the relevant Wikipedia article, and telling someone how to apply an equation there is a valid use of the Refdesk. (Actually, virtually any article on Wikipedia that provides an equation could use a massive rewrite for clarity...) Wnt (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you mean that they are written for mathematicians only, I agree. This then requires us to write a more accessible answer each time we answer a Ref Desk Q.  Of course, it would make sense to change the article accordingly, but any change would quickly be reverted by mathematicians. StuRat (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I know that's the truth. Hence the refdesk... Wnt (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe that should be our mission statement: "To present material from our articles in a form which is actually human-readable". :-) StuRat (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * For programming questions, the reference can be the documentation to the language ... which the questioner probably already has, but probably didn't know which part of it to look at. So the reference isn't usually needed, even though it's there. Weird, huh. Card Zero  (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (Response to Anthonyhcole's question above addressed to me.) What you have demonstrated is that you do your research after you make a proposal, and only when pushed to it, all fuelled by the self-confessed enthusiasm of the newly converted. For someone like me, 20 years' of business experience after this trend first became the "word of the day", it is old and worn cant. It looks good on an annual report, but I have only ever heard it quoted to put a damper on change. It is corporate "busy work" and of no use to those who provide the services or make the products. It is also the private language of "management consultants". (To my enduring embarrassment, I was once one such.) Enthusiasm is a fine tool, but a poor master. There is a reason that "look before you leap" is still considered sound advice. YMMV Bielle (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The first mission statements I read were for various commercial enterprises, and they were basically "to dominate our market sector" in more euphemistic terms. Most were just embarrassing. The purpose of an actual mission statement for an enterprise is to have something against which you can measure policy and behaviour. If the mission is clear, such as "to encourage the creation and distribution of eBooks", it can keep things focussed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm reminded of the Dilbert strip where they composed a mission statement, by committee, which was a long, run-on mess, at which point Dilbert commented sarcastically that "We should jam 'efficiency' in there somewhere". The pointy-haired boss greeted this suggestion with enthusiasm. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose We don't even enforce our guidelines. Why add a mission statement on top? μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what my opinion is worth since I'm not here that much, but I'm against any type of mission statement, or any related such. I think such things will, ultimately, repel new people from answering; given that we are volunteers with a busy life, strategies, vision statements, strict guidelines, etc. will only serve to make answering appear, and become, stressful, which is a major turn off. A small pool of major contributors left to enforce a relaxed set of guidelines among themselves is more likely to converge to the desired goals here than anything else; the only reason I can see for anything more would be if the number of regular contributors drastically increased, but I doubt that will happen. [By the way, this is a response to the original post not the one above, the indent makes it seem ambiguous to me.]Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Phoenixia, little enclaves like this do become owned by a bunch of regulars who feel they fit the niche. That's fine so long as a culture doesn't develop among that clique that is antithetical to the Wikipedia's aims. That's why we have guidelines and policies, so the rest of us can tell the clique how they're meant to behave, while we get on with our interests. The guidelines are fairly clear on what you're meant to be doing here, and a number of the regulars seem to think they're above that. A community-wide RfC is the next step if that culture can't be corrected from within. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to be an ass, but didn't you read those guidelines after you started this whole discussion? Also, your language seems to paint the people here as if they were some virulent subculture destroying Wikipedia from within; or, perhaps more apt, like this is the Wild West of Wikipedia and the people here need reigned in. I don't really see anything that horrible going on here that it requires a community wide intervention to remedy.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We regulars wrote the Ref Desk guidelines. StuRat (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If, Phoenix, you are not responding to the post above yours, and it is not indented, either indent to the one you are responding to, say @ (OP's username), or put an asterisk in front of yours. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Medeis/μηδείς doesn't seem to be able to locate the colon key. Must have been dropped on their head as a child. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If i respond to a specific post, I indent. Like this.  If my response has nothing to do with the ones above it, I don't.  That doesn't take not having been tossed upwards into a ceiling lamp to understand. μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your double negative makes your last sentence mean "That takes having been tossed upwards into a ceiling lamp to understand", which is just about right. You are responding to the OP, so indent from it.  Otherwise, as Phoenix said, his indent of one tab from the OP looks like he is responding to you, since you didn't indent.  If you really want to add something which isn't a response to any previous comment, then create a new section or subsection.  StuRat (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Even your "logic" is wrong, Sturat. A negation of two separate verbs is not a double negation, and your paraphrase is an invalid one of my original. μηδείς (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. See anthonyhcole's and nimur's posts above.  Pester them on their talk pages.  Start a five-day discussion of it.  Over three separate threads.  Here and elsewhere.  Insult a few other people.  Then get back to me after the RfC.  Never even mind the point of this thread. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Anthonyhcole is the OP, so presumably isn't responding to himself. Only the OP should add comments without tabs.  And yes, Nimur should know better. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Bielle, I did shoot my mouth off before reading the most recent posts on this page, and I'd never heard of the guideline until it was mentioned in this thread. I don't think I've demonstrated this is an habitual behaviour. The only way to demonstrate that would be to do that kind of thing repeatedly; and I don't. What I have demonstrated is an ability to acknowledge, apologise, and quickly take advice when my shortcomings are pointed out.

I look at this project page and think, what a farce. You need a mission statement for what you're up to here. Presently you're an unfocussed bunch of amateurs, all with startlingly different ideas about what the mission is, dispensing safety and efficacy claims with little grasp of the seriousness of that. Many of the threads I've read here have been useful or at least harmless, but your propensity to dispense health-related information, and not even realise you're doing it, or, if you realise you're doing it, not even think there's a problem with that, is scary. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia as a whole is "an unfocussed bunch of amateurs". The same logic applies.  Just like the stock market, where each individual investor may be an idiot, but the net valuation of each corporation is nonetheless usually reasonable, so many of our edits may be bad, but the totality of all the edits tends to be reasonable. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's false. There are many areas of Wikipedia that are imbued with a professional ethos, including topics of interest to WP:MED and WP:MILHIST. The number of errors you make here, as described in the study cited above (25% wrong and 62% right), and my little analysis (5 out of 9 medical answers containing factual errors), is simply appalling. If our articles were as crap as that, this Wikipedia would be dead. You do not measure up here to the quality of the rest of the wiki, and you seem to think it doesn't matter. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @Anthonycole. Do you mean to say that, in general, the people here don't conduct themselves appropriately? You seem to be saying a good bit of what is posted here is risky advice from people who don't even know they are giving it to people who require professional help (of some kind) Is that accurate, or are you saying something else? Whatever the case, I certainly don't think the reference desk is a farce nor do I think anything here could be characterized as "scary". That said, since you are proposing all of this, what would your vision/mission statement be and how would all of this remove all the danger and amateurism that you see here?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not fair to ask him to go further out on a limb and write the mission statement for us. Since Anthonyhcole is strange and new, we'd all automatically hate it. (I guess then at least it would be doing its job, to create focus and solidarity.) Card Zero  (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, not a mission statement. Not a vision statement. From my long working life those things sit in my memory as the creations of wankers contributing nothing productive to the large corporations and government bodies I've been part of. Very productive smaller organisations I've belonged to didn't need them. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You too, eh? Here's my rule of thumb on mission/vision statements. If you read one and turn away from it and can't recite it, then it's worthless. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mission statements are created by people who don't deserve their jobs so that they can justify their existence by creating mission statements. People who actually have a reason to be employed, and who are competant at what they do, don't have the need to create, read, or care about such bullshit.  -- Jayron  32  20:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My "amateur" comment was echoing this comment by : which is my view too. By all means change the name to "chat room" or similar, but if you're going to call this the reference desk, you'll need to change the way you operate. When I walk up to the reference desk at my local medical library, the librarian never answers my question, ever. She/he asks enough questions, and then points me to a database or a selection of textbooks. That's it. My big concern is with the casual dispensation of health advice here. Wikipedia medical articles are patrolled by a tireless bunch of volunteers who take great pains to ensure this project does not mislead its readers on health questions. But here... When I posted my previous comment, nine of the 41 threads on the science desk were directly related to health. Some others related to biology and psychology but didn't have obvious immediate health implications. Here Medeis (μηδείς) deleted advice including statements by Buddy431 about the safety of ethyl alcohol and diethyl ether consumption. The advice was restored by administrator, deleted again by Medeis, restored by administrator , and deleted again by Medeis who opened a thread at ANI.
 * Dental question:Toothbrush vs. Toothpaste Contains unsourced dental hygiene claims.
 * Calorie-equivalent exercise compared to wading in a pool Handled well, with a link to a Mayo Clinic article.
 * Can runners prevent knee pain by injecting motor oil in their knees? Contains advice on the efficacy of snake oil, chicken fat, Synvisc and other compounds in the treatment of joint pain.
 * hearing loss - age Contains unsourced assertions regarding age-related hearing loss.
 * Psychosocial development Handled well with little speculation, and links to our articles on Erikson's stages of psychosocial development, Piaget's theory of cognitive development, and Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
 * increament in Amino Acids Handled well with just enough speculation to clarify the meaning of the question, and links to two journal articles, a textbook and our article on Congenital disorders of amino acid metabolism.
 * Hormonal contraception and pregnancy Handled well with a link to a Mayo Clinic article.
 * One Severe Pain - Self-Applying Pain elsewhere - Less Pain Overall Contains unsourced claims that cold can gate pain (the last I saw, this is contested in pain medicine), that the more recent pain masks the earlier pain, and that the effect of pain on pain is caused by distraction. Ultimately resolved with a link to a journal article on pain-induced analgesia and our article on diffuse noxious inhibitory control but the false claims stand.
 * Feces and STDs The medical advice given was not clearly supported by the subsequent discussion or links provided.

As for a mission statement, it's up to you of course but it seems to me you don't actually know what you're doing, or should be doing, here. I can see that a lot of you have had bad experiences with silly or disingenuous use of "mission statements" in the past. By all means reject the notion of a mission statement, but consider deciding what you're up to here. Particularly, what do you mean by "reference desk"? Clearly you don't mean what most of us understand that term to mean. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you have unrealistic expectations for what an all-volunteer Ref Desk can achieve. Do you know of any other that does a better job than ours ? StuRat (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also bit offensive to suggest we don't know what we're doing. We are all different people with varying levels of expertise and experience. You're making a rather broad statement there. Plus there is a big difference between advice and information, and you yourself noted that the health questions you've listed in many cases are referenced and linked. If you're looking for professional librarians, go to the library. Everyone else can only do their best. Mingmingla (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As a group you don't appear to know what you're doing. Individually each of you seems to have a pretty clear idea of what he's/she's up to. Five of the nine threads I pointed to contain false or unsourced and dubious health, efficacy or safety claims. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Mission statement arbitrary break 1

 * Actual published analysis of the ref-desk concludes that answer quality is comparable to a library reference service (which includes "accuracy, completeness, verifiability" as one of three key sets of criteria). Not bad for a bunch of unfocused amateurs who just hang out and like to chat about stuff. DMacks (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What kind of library reference desk was that study comparing this discussion forum to? Honestly, I'm not really concerned if you're giving out bad advice about upholstery cleaning. How does this "reference desk" compare with reference desk advice at medical libraries? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My goodness man, first you're asserting that we're amateurs giving poor advice with no basis, and now I'm citing a reference as my basis (rather than giving my own opinion, i.e., I'm acting like a real reference service not a chat-site) and you're not bothering to read it to see if it answers your question? Sounds like the problem you had when this thread started is back again. DMacks (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A search for the article title failed on my university library site. But I've just browsed to the journal and found it. I'll comment soon. But I notice, "A little over half (55 per cent) of the answers were accurate, 26 per cent were not accurate..." which I suppose is acceptable if you're recommending turtle wax for mahogany. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The study is comparing the Wikipedia reference desk with the results reported and discussed by Hernon, P. and McClure, C.R. (1986, “Unobtrusive reference testing: the 55 percent rule”, Library Journal, Vol. 111, pp. 37-41), who say about earlier studies of reference desk queries at academic and public libraries, "Collectively, these studies have shown that staff generally answer 50-60 percent of the questions correctly; make infrequent referral, either internal or external, to the library; fail to negotiate reference questions; and conduct ineffective search strategies," and about their own study, "Participants in the study answered 62 percent of the questions correctly and 38 percent of the questions incorrectly." They conclude that "The collective findings from unobtrusive testing suggest that the profession should reexamine its priorities and the degree of commitment to the provision of information services and meeting patrons' information needs. Without such priorities and commitments, clearly stated and evidenced on a daily basis, many libraries will not offer information services that effectively meet patrons' information needs."


 * Hernon and McClure were unimpressed with the quality of service provided by library reference desks, and recommended the profession take a good look at itself. I haven't read the 2002 studies Shachaf cites, but it seems the 55% rule still prevails in U.S. academic and public libraries. That your record here is equal to that is nothing to be proud of. As I said above, I don't really care on questions of turtle wax, but, given the level of accuracy Shachaf found here, and the results of my little survey above, I beg you to stay away from health-related questions, or at least limit yourselves to direct links to and quotes from either Wikipedia articles (which have a fair bit of oversight) or authoritative reviews, graduate-level textbooks or national or international government or professional guidelines. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I told User:First Light that I had quoted them and this is their response. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an example of what I mean about how imagination is needed to answer questions. I never imagined that someone actually did a study on the Refdesk and compared it to library reference desks!  Now as for whether these statistics are good or bad, it depends on your null hypothesis.  When we don't take the risk of answering a medical question, what happens?  In the eyes of some people, they run straight to their doctor to ask whether their vaccination will protect them against hepatitis during their date tomorrow, or whether that little black mole looks like a melanoma or not.  I suppose that is true for the very wealthy, the people in this world who "matter", but for the ones I care about, I don't think so.  I see people asking for (and getting) interpretations of their spinal X-rays on 4chan, getting laughably bad advice (much worse than 4chan!) on Yahoo Answers.  And as bad as those are, it's still better than people sitting home and having no idea.  If it's wrong for them to ask for help here, is it then also wrong to go to equally unreliable reference librarians at the local public library and ask for books about their condition? Wnt (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't misunderstand me, Wnt. We agree on the aim. I want a doctor or patient in Somalia to be able to ask for help online and get it. I just believe that when Wikipedia offers that, it must be evidence based. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, generally speaking the "medical advice" that people here keep complaining about is evidence based - usually it's out and out obvious. Certainly expanding the freedom to give evidence-based information is most important.  True, I don't actually think it would be a bad thing to allow some non "evidence based" medical discussion either, because all evidence has to start somewhere.  If an herb has a traditional or folk medicine usage for a specific disease, I don't think it does any harm to mention it, even if it is probably ineffective; the patient might benefit from the herb, or might suffer from it, probably not either in any great degree, but having the additional knowledge and power over their own condition to make their own decisions, at least in some small part, is generally a good thing even when the treatment itself is not. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not "wrong" of them, it's just stupid of them, to expect a non-professional to be able to help them from a distance. It is not our place to manage other reference desks. It is also not our place to play doctor. They need to go to a doctor. Whether we think they can "afford" to go to a doctor, is also not our place. What country do you live in, pray tell? When people fail to go to the doctor, it's not usually that they can't afford it - it's that they're in denial, and they think by seeking advice elsewhere that they can somehow make whatever they have go away. It is irresponsible and unethical to give medical advice to an anonymous person on the internet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is becoming dangerously off-topic, but I feel it is necessary to dispel a misconception. According to the World Health Organization of the United Nations, health care in Somalia is both free and government-sponsored, in addition to many privatized health care provider alternatives and NGO agencies.  Affordability is not the primary issue in Somalia, which though formerly a regional leader, has had some of the worst health statistics in Africa since 1991.  (One might make a cynical observation about the evident quality of free medical advice...)  Nimur (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is a place for free online medical advice; and that place may be occupied by Wikipedia. But the policies and guidelines governing it need work. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthonyhcole, the majority of other contributors on Wikipedia's reference desk respectfully disagree. The consensus is that medical advice should not be doled out on the reference desk.  We will perpetually debate whether a specific question or answer falls under this guideline, but it is unlikely that we will change the guideline, because there has been so little compelling evidence that medical advice belongs on Wikipedia.  Nimur (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the science reference desk should be dispensing medical advice. I think I've argued well against that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? This went from mission statements to medical advice, and now I'm not sure what your point was from the beginning.  Someone referred to an article that claimed we are as effective as a real ref desk, and no you want us to do better then that?  If professionals can't get that success rate you want, what do you expect from volunteers? Mingmingla (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can imagine Wikipedia hosting free medical advice online, but not on the reference desk; and it may be taken on by UNESCO or WHO, rather than us. The mission statements of each of those organisations cover that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested what a real library's policy on medical advice is look at the bottom here. This is Duke University's medical library and they are clear with this sentence: "We are pleased to help you find health information resources. However, we cannot answer questions about your medical case or give you specific medical advice. Please contact your health care provider for specific information about your case." It's the same as ours. Mingmingla (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds about right to me. That's not what's happening here, though, is it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As I linked early in this discussion, I have given "evidence-based" medical information (not advice), and have been wrong. As the topic was STIs, it is possible, had I not been corrected by someone both knowledgeable and with access to better sources, a reader could have gone away dangerously misinformed about transmission. Am I alone in finding this statement by Wnt to be frightening:
 * If an herb has a traditional or folk medicine usage for a specific disease, I don't think it does any harm to mention it, even if it is probably ineffective; the patient might benefit from the herb, or might suffer from it, probably not either in any great degree, but having the additional knowledge and power over their own condition to make their own decisions, at least in some small part, is generally a good thing even when the treatment itself is not.?
 * It is not "additional power and knowledge" nor is it "a good thing" when the information is dispensed without consequence to the dispenser, who is neither qualified nor responsible, and is almost as likely to be wrong as right. Whether we are speaking of allopathy or naturopathy, or of herbs or pharmaceuticals, it is completely inappropriate, and possibly dangerous, that we should permit anonymous individuals to pontificate in areas where they have no known training or credentials and where the subject matter may have devastating consequences. What's the point of being able to "make decisions" if the decision is based upon strangers babbling about things they know not what of? No, no, no! Bielle (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Per that study mentioned earlier, the odds on being wrong are one in four - still potentially devastating, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that otherwise known as "Wikipedia"? Seriously, what's the difference between giving information here and giving it in an article?  What's the difference between a reader finding a link to a traditional herbal on Google and finding it because someone mentioned it here?  The reader shouldn't be trusting the word of someone on the Refdesk - not when we've disclaimered that we don't give advice - but the reader should be looking at a citation to some other reference.  Being right thoroughly outweighs being wrong, even when we've strayed from evidence based medicine, because if you're wrong then the reader, at worst, goes out and obtains some supplement off the store shelf that doesn't work, which happens to millions of people every year anyway, but if you're right, then you've given him some genuine relief. Wnt (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought: the prohibition on medical advice could be seen as a form of disclaimer, taken to an extreme. Visitors don't always pay much attention to words written at the top of the page (sometimes not even the words "Wikipedia" and "reference desk"), and the subject matter is more dangerous than most. In any conversation, one should make a reasonable effort to communicate any information necessary to keep the other person safe from harm. "Reasonable" in statements like those always covers a huge amount of ground and could mean almost anything, depending on context. It's interesting to argue that an outright ban on giving medical advice at all is, in the context of the reference desks, the correct amount of "reasonable effort" to inform visitors of danger. (Probably not true, but interesting.) Card Zero  (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, hehe, but the fact that a client ignores a disclaimer does not legally indemnify a service provider from ignoring his own disclaimer. He'll get sued and lose every time. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking of the "we don't give medical advice" disclaimer. (Is that even a disclaimer?) ... I was thinking of a disclaimer along the lines of "our statements may be wrong, think for yourself, seek your own sources, draw your own conclusions". If a disclaimer like that has been taken on board by the audience, we can follow it up with a moderate amount of misleading crap and guesswork, without having done anything bad, because the audience know to be sceptical. The problem is, there's no way to ensure it's taken on board. In reality they'd ignore the disclaimer, and would consider the random gibberings of ref desk inmates as the Holy Wisdom of Wikipedia. Card Zero  (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Cochrane's law dictionary, a disclaimer is simply a disavowal. The issue, as far as I can see, and I am not a lawyer, is that simply saying "I warned you" does not indemnify a party from further civil complaint against advice given.  I.e., one can't say "I am an idiot, so don't listen to me" and give advice nonetheless, and expect the court to ignore the fact that you continued to give advice.  My non-expert advice is simply to refrain from giving non-expert advice, even if you've advised people you're not an expert. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that coherent with morality, do you think? In past discussions we've established that ethics are what's at stake for the medical guideline - it's not there to cover Wikipedia's ass. Maybe I shouldn't have linked to a legal concept, but I find that particular concept useful for many moral dilemmas. It's great because it's so vague. Card Zero  (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Mission statement arbitrary break 2

 * Looking back at this thread, it strikes me as a rigged game. We're being evaluated solely on the quality of our medical advice, after being forced not to give medical advice!  The knee thread, given as a bad example, was anything but - it led to the realization that knees work at least ten times better than mechanical joints with oil, clarified that the idea of injecting substitute synovial fluid (Synvisc) does occur, and even mentions some other wide-ranging ideas.  As science, it's great.  As "OMG you mentioned something that is not sane medicine", you can bash it.  But we're not giving medical advice, remember? Wnt (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to comment above arbitrary break. NO!  We need to worry about legal principles, which are, if not objective, based in precedent.  Ethics is not formalized, and if I think something is unethical, rather than illegal, I ignore it.  If it's illegal or actionable, I delete it. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the medical guideline (WP:Reference_desk/guidelines/Medical_advice) is a bit of formalized ethics. (And therefore a kind of law?) Card Zero  (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My assumption is that the policy's weight has always been based on the principle of legal liability, not on mere moral consensus. μηδείς (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Morality is not the issue. I'd go further than Medeis.  In my view - and I know I've expressed this a few times lately, but it bears repeating until there's a clear consensus supporting it, or a clear consensus the other way - the purpose of the Ref Desk is to provide information.  Its purpose is not to provide advice, and that includes expert and non-expert advice; medical and legal advice; or any other kind of advice.  It doesn't matter how knowledgeable we are about a certain subject, our role is not to answer questions via a display of our personal knowledge except as supporting material to or commentary on the reference source/s we're offering the OP.  They come here for references, first and foremost, which might have something to do with why it's called a Reference Desk.  They don't come to discover how knowledgeable I am or anybody else is.  We are no different from the anonymous jerks on the internet we often warn OPs to steer clear of.  They have no reason to trust any of us individually, any more than they should trust someone they interact with on Dr Crazy's Flat Earth Society website.  So we have to practise what we preach and stick to our primary purpose, of providing information, not advice, and trusting that they have the capacity to use it to good purpose, or they can ask further questions if they need to.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  09:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Quibble: that's a principled position, so it's a moral position. But anyway.) The medical guidelines page mentions "the real possibility of doing harm to readers" under the "Why?" section. It doesn't say anything about the danger of being sued. TenOfAllTrades indicates here that both concerns matter. Card Zero  (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that only the thread about amino acids was asking for medical advice. the others were about medical information, and few comments could be considered advice. The guidelines say: The reference desk is not a place to seek professional advice on medical or legal matters, nor analyses, diagnoses or solutions to questioners' health or legal problems, and responses that could be construed as such must not be given. However, general medical and legal questions ("What treatments are used for diabetes?", "Which countries recognize common law marriages?") are fine.
 * Hearing loss and age: hearing loss is not a disease, and there's not a hint of advice in the answers.
 * Calorie-equivalent exercise: not exactly professional medical advice, if I asked my doctor he'd probably tell me to google it. Same for Psychosocial development.
 * Contraception and pregnancy: that one contains specific advice, yet it's considered "handled well".
 * Severe pain and pain elsewhere: does not ask for advice but for the mechanism. If professional medical advice is often based on randomized comparative trials without knowing how a drug works or assuming a mechanism that later turns out to be incorrect, a "false claim" (according to current understanding) doesn't seem that big a deal to me. Again, no potential advice can be gained from it.
 * And about the ANI thread: there seem to be a lot of editors who don't like the reference desk and see it as a source of dangerous misinformation. Considering the amount of inappropriate comments, false information, personal experiences, medical histories etc. posted daily on the talk pages of articles, one mouse click away for people interested in the topic (in contrast to the refdesk where you'd be very lucky to find your fav topic discussed in the last seven days), the recurrent concern about and criticism of the (science) refdesk and the apparent lack thereof regarding talk pages would suggest a serious cognitive bias or impairment. Ssscienccce (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll address two points. First the last. No. Wikipedia medical article talk pages do not contain any, to the best of my knowledge, medical advice or pontifications about efficacy or safety. I spend a bit of time patrolling recent changes to medical articles so have literally thousands of medical articles on my watchlist and almost never see inappropriate commentary on the talk pages, and in those rare occasions when it happens, it's usually stomped on fast by editors who know better.


 * As for your assertion that few comments in the examples I list above contain advice. That's wrong. Take the first example, Dental question:Toothbrush vs. toothpaste (all, I think, unsourced per WP:RS):
 * without the paste, your teeth will most likely become yellow with tartar
 * The abrasive serves to remove food & bacteria stains and keep down tartar
 * The main function of brushing is to disloge food particles, and rub the paste on the teeth.
 * The main function (of brushing) is to remove biofilms that accumulate on the teeth because of the normal mouth flora.
 * any such benefit (from fluoride in toothpaste) is negligible or completely non-existent
 * Fluoride toothpaste is considered the main reason for tooth decay declines in industrialised countries
 * Fluoride effects the demineralization of teeth caused by organic acids produced by bacteria. It doesn't do anything to the bacteria themselves.
 * low flouride DOES increase the bacteria load in you mouth, further increasing the decay problam and increasing the probability of you pasing the bacteria on to others.
 * eating (hard) cheese after a meal reduces tooth decay because it helps the remineralization process.
 * As for "pain inhibits pain", I know something about this topic.
 * "thicker, slow nerve fibers carrying pressure, vibration, and/or dull pain..." Only thin A-delta and C fibers carry pain.
 * "simply a question of "attention", by biting your finger you are drawing attention away from the other pain." Distraction and Diffuse noxious inhibitory control appear to be distinct mechanisms.
 * "pain can be gated by cold" Not as far as I know. I recently read a review that says it doesn't.
 * "It's kind of like bandwidth but the "newer" pain gets priority, at least momentarily" Pure speculation. In most measures of DNIC, it is the earlier pain that inhibits the later.
 * That is, until Looie and I turned up with a strong source and a link to the relevant Wikipedia article, everyone was making shit up.
 * "Advice" can mean: Opinion about what could or should be done about a situation or problem; and information communicated. Of course the former must not be allowed, but handing out health, medical, efficacy or safety "information" that is not supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources here is stupid, dangerous, and a breach of WP:V - not to mention the masses of WP:OR that this chat room is awash with. Maybe you could all begin by reading, and understanding WP:MEDRS, and making sure every piece of top-of-the-head bull shit you spout to our readers is attached to a reliable source, or a Wikipedia article, at least for health-related information. Aren't you meant to be doing that for all "wisdom" you dispense here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are going to refute unsourced comments with something, it had better be with references. Saying "I know something about this topic" is exactly what you are complaining about: people spouting off without references, and is exactly the same problem StuRat has found himself in below. You may know what you are talking about, but we can't take you for at your word any more then you can take me for mine when I talk about working at a real life reference desk.  References are everything here. Mingmingla (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not refuting unsourced comments. I'm pointing out unsourced comments, and mentioning, by the by, that they're false unsourced comments. Sheesh. The whole point of all my comments here is that your project page/chat room is full of unsoursed bull shit. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And to prove they are wrong, you list why... without sourcing. Don't accuse us of being harmful and dangerous by appealing to your own "knowledged":  You said these exact words: "I know something about this topic". That's simply not good enough. Source it.  If we have unsourced and dangerous comments, that is indeed a problem, one we are trying to deal with (read all the threads below), sure, but you claim ""pain can be gated by cold" Not as far as I know. I recently read a review that says it doesn't. "  What review? One you read?  Which one?  Show us.  You claim ""thicker, slow nerve fibers carrying pressure, vibration, and/or dull pain..." Only thin A-delta and C fibers carry pain." Okay.  Links and references, please. Get your act together before you accuse the rest of us as being amateur hour. Don't be a hypocrite accusing us of not sourcing and spewing nonesense if this is how you are going to prove us wrong.  You are hardly making a case for yourself. Mingmingla (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is so beside the point. The point is that the unsupported claims just shouldn't be on the project page, "true" or "false." It is not my job to go looking for sources that disprove the unsupported assertions. The assertions just shouldn't be there without recent, authoritative sources. Can you please get over the fact that I had the temerity, on the talk page, to assert, in passing, that I know they're false?
 * Since you completely ignore the point of my response to Ssscienccce, and go on and on about my incidental observation that the claims actually are false, just to put this irrelevance behind us in the hope that you or someone might actually respond to the point of my comment (that you people here are constantly, in a slack and dangerous way, ignoring WP:V, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS):
 * "thicker, slow nerve fibers carrying pressure, vibration, and/or dull pain..." See Type_of_sensory_fiber The two at the bottom, A-delta and C, are the slow, thin sensory fibers. They are nociceptor (pain-transmitting) fibers. The ones above, the thicker, faster fibers are not nociceptors. This comment is false because it claims (a) the thicker fibers are slower and (b) the thicker fibers carry dull pain.
 * "simply a question of "attention", by biting your finger you are drawing attention away from the other pain." Per this study and several it cites, distraction is distinct from diffuse noxious inhibitory control, the phenomenon the questioner was asking about.
 * "pain can be gated by cold" It is a popular practice, but the evidence is weak. To say that it is so is to misrepresent the state of the evidence.
 * "It's kind of like bandwidth but the "newer" pain gets priority, at least momentarily" I can't be arsed looking a refutation of this off-the-top-of-the-head speculation.
 * Ssscienccce, it matters that you (plural) get this stuff right. It is bad when you put any old shit in your answers. Your (plural) current standards don't belong here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mingmingla, I didn't mention that those unsupported claims in the pain thread were false as proof that they were false. I just mentioned it in passing. It shouldn't matter whether they are true or false, as far as your (plural) practice here goes, everything on the project page should conform to WP:V. I pointed out the falseness of the claims in order to make the point that you could be doing real harm if you get things wrong here. If you tell people pain can be gated by cold when the evidence for it is weak, someone might waste hours or days messing around with ice packs when they should have gone straight for the morphine, or another technique with stronger evidence of effectiveness. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Question feedback
I'm reading the discussions above with interest, and I'm feeling a certain amount of positive vibes from the conversation. It feels like we might be able to come to some sort of common understanding about the best way to operate this desk in the future. With that in mind I'm starting to formulate in my mind a set of proposals, mainly based on the consensus that seems to be appearing above. In order to pre-emptively test this out, though, I'd like to ask you to criticise a few answers I've given recently whilst trying to follow my own proposals:   - did I answer the questions in the way you feel a reference desk should? Should I have given more information? Less? Or should the question have been flagged as medical/legal/general advice? If you wish, feel free to post responses on my talk page. I welcome your thoughts. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Too concise, you're gonna make the rest of us look bad! So yes, that's pretty much how it should be I think. The autism question had potential to go offtopic, a controversial topic invites opinions about the subject. A lot depends on the first answer imo, if that's offtopic, others will follow; if it's an educated guess, you'll get more of the same (hard to resist sometimes); but when it's to the point, with references, things turn out ok. That's my impression at least based on RD/science. Ssscienccce (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, you're doing it right in my book. I encourage others to do what you have done here, and I was in fact about to do the same. For example I was fairly happy with how this question about allergies went (which some editors may have seen as borderline, regarding medical issue):(If anyone wants to comment on that thread as well, I'll be interested to hear). I was fairly confident in my answer, but unsure of the scope (e.g. some/ all / many). So I put in some refs, and worded carefully. A few hours later, people with more experience/confidence in the field chimed in with additional info and refs, and I think the OP got what they wanted out of it. Also, Ssscience's point is very apt: the first few responses set the tone, and I would encourage editors to be extra careful to provide some refs on the first response, and be especially reticent to opine/guess right out of the gate. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Would it be permissible for an autistic Wikipedian to provide anecdotal feedback relating to the qualia of intrapersonal autism? ~ AH1 (discuss!) 18:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a response to my comment? I'm sorry, but I don't see the connection. Anyway, I suppose the context is very important, and (IMO) there is not a simple yes/no answer to your question. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, I would support a guideline that the first attempt to answer to a question should provide some reference (a very low bar to cross). Not as a hard/strict rule (no such thing here anyway ;), but as a guideline, i.e. a suggestion for best practice. If an editor cannot find any suitable reference, and the question has zero current replies, then perhaps s/he should wait a half day, until they have more time to find a ref, or others have started the process out on the right foot. (I add this not to derail, but in the spirit of CM's post: to build a common understanding of how to run the desk) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To approach the above question (qualia of interpersonal autism): consider this thread . The answerer, User:SteveBaker, had beforehand accumulated tons of credibility by giving outstanding, well-referenced, answers to a wide array of questions. His sharing of personal experiences, was, in my opinion, a valuable contribution. To prohibit or delete or hat such a contribution is, IMHO, an unnecessary restriction which suppresses the sharing of knowledge. Given the egalitarian nature of Wikipedia, allowing it for User:SteveBaker, implies allowing it for everyone else who might feel they have something to contribute. Well fine. Contributions that have little value, are best left ignored. Contributions that are disruptive should be dealt with accordingly. I have not seen that such contributions have led to big problems or unnecessary noise, and would urge that we do not let wikilawyering get in the way of common sense. --NorwegianBluetalk 23:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

what's wrong with this question?
I simply wanted advice on deducing if formaldehyde or Coomassie Brilliant Blue would be (excruciatingly) painful to drink or not, despite their toxicity. Yet my question kept on being removed. It's not a request for medical advice. 71.207.151.227 (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I advised the IP to ask here rather than restore the question to the ref desk after AndyTheGrump properly deleted it. You'll forgive me if I don't explain myself why asking what lethal poisons taste like is not a question we can answer encyclopedically. μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a question we can answer, were it not for the medical advice police. It's quite ironic that important safety information cannot be supplied any more. If this is going to be the wikipedia policy, MSDS data from all chemistry articles should be removed, as well toxic amounts from medicines etc... We report that nickel tetracarbonyl has a musty smell; phosgene the smell of freshly cut grass, hydrogen cyanide smells of almonds, mustard gass smells of mustard, and so on...  What would be the appropriate forum to get a formal decision on this issue?  Ssscienccce (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources you have provided, Sscinece, explain how "excruciatingly painful" consuming those poisons is? Really? Responding willy-nilly to nonsense does not amount to providing relevantly encyclopedic references. μηδείς (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not impossible for descriptions of pain to be encyclopedic - see cluster headache for an example. I'm slightly surprised that the Cyanide poisoning article doesn't include an anecdotal report of the experience - I could have sworn it used to. Perhaps some snob removed that part. &lt;sarc&gt;Not in keeping with the encyclopedic tone, don'tchaknow. Can't include that interesting information, some people might enjoy reading it, and that wouldn't be edifying.&lt;/sarc&gt; Granted, the content of such anecdotes is original research, and can't be supported by sources; but if the anecdotes are notable, the fact that somebody said it can be included ... or we can say what an expert thinks the experience is like, based on people's anecdotes. Failing that, deductions about the experience could be made based on the nature of the poisoning. With suitable references, of course. Card Zero  (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Guess I misinterpreted your words. I agree that info on excruciating pain when drinking toxic chemicals isn't a usual topic in safety sheets, or anywhere for that matter. Given that such an effect would certainly be noteworthy, not finding it would indicate it probably doesn't occur. Excruciating pain is not generally overlooked, see the bullet ant, some types of jellyfish, the delayed effects of mustard gas... So yes, excruciating pain would be mentioned if it occured. The ATSDR fact sheet reports that drinking large amounts of formaldehyde can cause severe pain, vomiting, coma and possible death. the NCDOL guide to formaldehyde's instructions if swallowed are to induce vomiting immediately, toxic effects after ingestion include severe irritation to mucosal surfaces. Nothing that points to what the OP is asking. Considering the once widespread use of formalin to inactivate proteins or preserve specimens and the practice of mouth pipetting, and not finding any horror stories about it, I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The medical guidelines have no bearing on this hypothetical question. It is a difficult question to answer. Sometimes survivors of poisonings report what the experience was like, but that's more likely to be the case with well-known poisons, particularly the ones used as weapons. I don't know why the question (diff) was deleted. Card Zero  (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you people out of your minds? Please read Responding to threats of harm. Under no circumstances should questions like this be answered. Instead, the matter should promptly be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation, and via e-mail or IRC to an admin - both of which I promptly did after deleting the material. Unfortunately, I have to go out now, but I shall be reporting this matter at AN/I when I return, and asking that action be taken to ensure such grossly irresponsible behaviour is not repeated in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, that was not a threat of harm. --Viennese Waltz 14:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Andy's taking the fact that it's a question about whether a potentially fatal thing hurts a lot, and interpreting that as a suicide threat. Card Zero  (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is in the eye of the beholder whether a question like that is a threat of self harm, maybe it is, maybe its just curiosity, we should avoid overly harsh criticism of each other in cases such as this where reasonable minds may differ. Without more context in the question it is impossible to say for sure. Monty  845  19:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we being asked advice on a dangerous topic? Yes.  Is the question encyclopedic in nature?  No.  Is it asking for opinion?  Yes.  Do we need to or benefit from answering questions like this?  A resounding no.  Regardless of Andy's suspicions, which are plausible, and should be given the benefit of the doubt, this is a perfect candidate for, "try a chat room". μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given recent talk page debates, I wonder if someone isn't baiting us with this question. Does [blank] hurt doesn't strike new as medical advice or diagnosis but the direct reference to poison seems suspiciously well timed to rile people up. Mingmingla (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Formaldehyde will cause extreme pain if ingested -- it will destroy the lining of the stomach. The consequences of ingesting Coomassie Brilliant Blue have not actually been studied -- the Material Safety Data Sheet states: "Ingestion: May cause gastrointestinal tract irritation with nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The toxicological properties of this substance have not been fully investigated". Looie496 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with answering this question, and no way is it medical advice. But, I don't know the answer, nor even how to get it unless it turns up in a search by dumb luck. Wnt (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can imagine a theoretically reasonable purpose for this question&mdash;perhaps someone is writing a mystery novel. But I also find it quite unlikely that this is the reason the question is being asked. Given recent controversies here, I suspect that the question is being asked for purposes of testing the boundaries and creating discord. For this reason among others, removing the question was appropriate, and it should not receive further attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd have put "idle curiosity", "mystery novel" and "safety factsheet" as my top three (if you want to get people to be careful around a substance, pointing out that it hurts a lot might get more attention), with suicide way down the list, after "unguessable", which is usually the correct answer what with people being such complex creatures. The OP's post below this shows what I know, though. Card Zero  (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a threat of harm; there's no condition attached nor are other people in actual danger. It's rather nanny'ish to prevent someone from seeking information to inform decisions over their own lives when it doesn't negatively affect anyone else. I have already sought professional treatment for my condition and am already on 450 mg bupropion (maximum dose) and 3 mg risperdal, but I'm already quickly adapting to my meds and the relapsing pain is unbearable. I'm just asking for some compassion here in answering my question. It's not a "dangerous" question -- no one is being harmed. 71.207.151.227 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I wrote most of Cancer pain, and in the process learned a little about pain and suffering, and its amelioration. I think Cancer pain carries more about pain management than any other article here. It is possible to erase even the most intractable pain. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with Wikipedia answering that question, if it doesn't already. It does so for arsenic or cyanide. (I would also point the questioner to Suicide prevention.) What we mustn't do is answer the question incorrectly. It is better that we say nothing than purvey dubious imaginings and opinions. StuRat, Ssscienccce, and Wnt should be banned from these pages, and possibly their article content needs examining, considering their attitude to flagrant disregard for WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Updated 09:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's rare to ban people for having an attitude. Card Zero  (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right; corrected myself. I'm wondering if I should include you on that list. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I perform (unusually) badly at giving references? I'm surprised. I certainly bear the need to give references in mind (and have done since the last time somebody was really vociferous about it on this talk page, six months or more ago). I dislike the medical guideline (as a libertarian and notorious danger-liker), but you can't book me for that, since I abide by it. I believe Bugs also keeps a list of other users, for some reason. Possibly you could collaborate, merge your lists into one, and then throw it away. Card Zero  (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I mistook you for someone else. I think I agree with most of what you've written above. I welcome a discussion about the merits of WP:MEDRS, but it may be out of place in this thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In the case of requests for medical or legal advice we can suggest the individual consider consulting a doctor or lawyer. If someone wants to know the probable taste of "formaldehyde or Coomassie Brilliant Blue" where should we send them? We probably don't know what "formaldehyde or Coomassie Brilliant Blue" tastes like, we have very little way of predicting the tastes of these substances, and we probably don't even know how they can get this information—short of actually trying to imbibe some of these foul brews. I think the most responsible thing is to admit to one's ignorance on the topic of the question that is posed. We don't have to be able to answer every question posed. Bus stop (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what conclusion you're driving at (or why it's a reply to me). I will say, though, that you're wrong in this particular case, because of what Ssscienccce said above about "mouth pipetting", and more generally because of what was said further up the page about the value of imagination in replying (or should I say, in thinking of references), and the difficulty of accurately judging that a question is unanswerable. Card Zero  (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the workability of removing improper questions. Provided no one gives medical or legal advice, and questioners are told why a request for advice is not fulfilled, and all statements are backed up by reliable sources and reflect the current scholarly consensus, pretty much any question should be allowed to stand.


 * I like your idea of incubating answers here on the talk page, by the way, though I agree with Jack that the incubation period should be at least 24 hours. That's basically page protection, governed by talk-page consensus. I wouldn't distinguish between trivial and non-trivial information. Presently, with the way things are here at the moment, I'd impose that on all answers. Once contributors here demonstrate an understanding of and willingness to abide by WP:V, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, the "protection" could be lifted, and editors could resume responding directly on the project page. I'd also like to see the answer inserted into the appropriate article on every occasion when the fact couldn't be found in an existing article. This will hold the answer up to scrutiny by editors with an interest in and some understanding of the topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I support that. The question-setting visitors enjoy getting a prompt response to simple questions (here's the name of the font you asked about, here's the site you were looking for, the person you're thinking of is Edgar H. Throgmorton, that is a picture of a crested honey buzzard), but that's a detail. Card Zero  (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't support that, but if it did happen I think a separate desk for medical questions would be appropriate. It would be easier to create such restrictions without hamstringing other, non-medical questions.  Granted, a new desk for medical questions would likely invite more questions, but in theory some of our current editors might be less compelled to answer everything they see as they might choose not to edit that desk, just as I avoid language and computers.  I know I wouldn't.  Mingmingla (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Are opinion-seeking questions admissable or not? A Yes or No will do.
I just don't get it. And I don’t like not getting things I feel I really ought to be across.

The thread about 5 yr olds being allowed/able to play outside by themselves was hatted, with the message "The Reference Desk does not answer requests for opinions". Maybe it should have said: "The Reference Desk is not really supposed to answer requests for opinions, but we often do. Just not in this case", because clearly it DOES answer requests for opinions. Often. Witness the immediately preceding thread, about Libya. The OP included a link, but not one of the respondents included any reference sources that would have at least addressed the question. The responses were entirely the opinions of the respondents. There were a handful of wikilinks to identify something a respondent was mentioning in their own opinion, that's all.

The point is the Libya question asked for an opinion, just like the "playing outside" thread. Virtually all "why" questions are seeking opinions. But instead of being hatted as an unanswerable question, it was immediately and generously welcomed, and a free-for-all ensued. A part of the thread was hatted, but only because it was off-topic; the remainder of it was let stand. We may as well say it's perfectly OK to rob a bank or murder someone, as long as you don't used bad language while doing it.

The difference in treatment could not be any more stark. One would get from the Libya thread that it’s perfectly OK to answer opinion-seeking questions (as long as we don't commit the grievous sin of veering off-topic). But from the next thread one would get that it's perfectly NOT-OK to answer such questions. This is yet another example of the grossly inconsistent application of the rules I referred to a few threads back. I know what would have happened if I'd hatted the LIbya thread, as I was sorely tempted to do when I first saw it: I'd have been accused of being a self-appointed wiki-police.

What's the point of having any rules, or of having these interminable discussions about the rules, if they're so shoddily and unrigorously and inconsistently applied? Either let all opinion-seeking answers through, or let none of them through. I could live with either paradigm. But this "sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on the whim of the moment" thing really does my head in.

I was told a while ago that we should not judge questions by the answers they get. Just because nobody's bothered to come up with a reference source yet does not mean that such sources don't exist. Maybe a source will be provided, just have a little patience, Jack. Yeah, sure it will. But the Libya question was all about opinion. That was obvious before there were any responses. One could come up with any facts one liked in support of one's opinion, but no answer anyone could ever provide to such a question would be free of opinion as to which facts were more important. No external source could ever say definitively and incontrovertibly "This is why". But we could at least have included some sources that talk about the issue, as the OP did. That would have been like turning only one blind eye to the policy. But as it is, both eyes of some editors appear to be wired and sewn shut and cemented over. -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason cited isn't the real reason the Q on letting a 5 year old play alone outside was hatted. The problem is that a "Yes, go right ahead" answer could get somebody killed.  No answer to the Libya question is dangerous, however, so it was left alone. So, it's questions which solicit potentially dangerous opinions we don't allow.  StuRat (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Stu may be right, but I somehow got the impression that answering requests for opinions was OK whenever several regulars had very strong opinions to give. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "May" is stretchable, but I don't think it stretches so far. I'd say that a widespread naive misunderstanding of complex political situations in unstable areas of the world is likely to kill more people than the playing habits of 5 year old children. Moreover, I'm quite certain that there are a multitude of reliable sources that do indeed handle the topic of how, when and where children should be allowed to play unsupervised, from scientific studies to parenting guides. There are a lot fewer reliable sources that explain and handle current international hotspots. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, please point to the part of the Ref Desk Guidelines that says "Answering questions that seek opinions is acceptable, as long as it doesn't endanger lives". I can show you one that says "Answering questions that seek opinions is not acceptable, period" (my paraphrase).  The strength of the opinions anyone might entertain, as a factor in interpreting this policy, seems to have been curiously omitted from our Guidelines.


 * Some people live their lives under the philosophy of "The more fervently I believe something is the case, the more the rest of the world should accept my belief as a fact". Not so.  Wikipedians, of all the people in the world, ought to know that. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  23:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the guidelines in years. I attempted to construct a rule based on observational evidence alone. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The two relevant sections of the guidelines are:

"The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. Editors should strive to accurately and fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources. An individual editor is not required to provide a fully comprehensive answer – a partial answer may be improved on by subsequent answers. However, responses must not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute."

"Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate."


 * Neither one seems to say that all opinions and questions asking for opinions should be deleted immediately, but that opinions should be limited. Thus, your paraphrasing above seems to be incorrect, and based on, well... your opinion.  StuRat (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And you've interpreted all that down to "It's questions which solicit potentially dangerous opinions we don't allow"? Well, thank God this isn't the Reformation or the Renaissance or the Soviet Union.  And what does "limited" mean?  No more than 20 opinions per editor per day per desk?  No more than 95% of the content of any one thread?
 * Come on, Stu, let's have an honest discussion for once, not one characterised by obfuscation and re-interpretation on the run. There has to be a general agreement or consensus about what these policies actually mean, which we all abide by; not just one editor saying "I can pretend to make it mean X when it suits me".  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  23:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what you did when paraphrasing it to say "Answering questions that seek opinions is not acceptable, period". StuRat (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems the text in the header ("The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions") doesn't reflect the actual guideline ("Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary"), in two ways: "necessary" opinions are allowed, and it's the answers that we judge, not the question. Card Zero  (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Both threads should have been hatted. Whoever got to the 5y/o one first did the responsible thing. I ignored the Libya one after the first few words when it was posted. Having read the first few sentences now, it's clearly an invitation to debate. Once a question like that gets a few answers, the momentum is to keep it up. It should have been nipped in the bud, rather than responded to by whomever placed the first response. We could use a template given in markup at the top of each page that deletes a question and replaces it with "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, references could exist for the Libya question. At first, it was a strictly factual question: Why did the US support Libyan rebels with known connections to Al Qaeda?  The problems were a) it got into a bit of a rant, and b), there weren't any answers that provided references to directly address the good part of the question.  Had StuRat provided references for his opinions, I don't think the debate would have necessarily started.  While StuRat did make a point to provide references to the organizations he mentions (good on him) he didn't put forth any other references that would support his suggestions.  Had that been done, I don't now if this would have got to the point of hatting.  That said, I don't object to the hatting.
 * Here is the test I propose for question admissability: Would a reference librarian be reasonably able to answer the question? these are the same tests I perform when I work the reference desk in real life, ones that are taught in a roundabout way at library school:


 * Q. asks for a specific fact: Answerable.
 * Q. asks for a suggestion in further reading on any topic: ''Reader's Advisory. Answerable."
 * Q. asks why a current event is occurring: Find an appropriate news source or Wikipedia article, then link and summarize. Otherwise, leave it. In this case, if neither of the above is provided, the answer (not the question) is to be hatted/deleted.
 * Q. asks medical/legal advice. Not answerable.  Medical and legal information fact requests (no matter how odd) are acceptable)
 * Q. asks about moral or personal issues. Look for reputable etiquette guides and reference it. Otherwise, leave it alone or close it.
 * Q. asks for a debate. Zzzappp.
 * It is not ours to judge why they want an answer, just to answer it as far as we can within the bounds above.
 * This is all stuff we should be doing now. We are claiming to be like a library reference desk.  It's time to act like it.  That's means shutting down anything that isn't, either by putting the question back on track or by shutting it down. Medeis has been doing this, to much debate, but Medeis is getting better, and bringing it here is great.  More of us should have the balls to do it to the obvious ones.  If we're wrong, it can always be restored. Mingmingla (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Eureka!
 * My only quibble with your answer, Ming, is that "Why did the US support Libyan rebels with known connections to Al Qaeda?" was never going to be a factual question. When it comes to why Country A did Action X to Country B, all we ever have is a multitude of opinions.  Maybe the head of state/government of Country A made a statement about it; we should at least cite that if we're going to answer the question at all. But whether that statement represents the real reason/s, well, you'll always have debate about that.  All we can do is cite what reputable sources have to say on the matter.  What any of us editors individually has to say on the matter is not what questioners come here to find out; and even if they do, that's not what a professional reference service does.  Just because we're all volunteers is no reason not to act in a professional manner.  OK, we're not robots, and we know stuff that we like to share, which is part of why we're here in the first place.  But please let us do our jobs first, by providing suitable references, and then after that perhaps we can have a bit of a chat.  Let us not keep on pretending that an interchange of our opinions can take the place of relevant citations from reputable sources.  They cannot and they do not.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  00:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I read that question and ignored it. But I come to the same conclusion as Jack. I think it would also be appropriate to respond to the implied assumption within the question, which could have itself been a separate and purely factual question. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If we are honest with ourselves, any one of us would happily hat or delete all the opinion questions with the immediate exception of the ones "I" want to answer -because that is what it comes down to, doesn't it? We will even battle over what constitutes a question calling for an opinion. The Entertainment desk frequently has questions about "bands that sound like . . ." and variations on that theme. Unless you are providing a technical reference about chordal structure or instrumentation or rhythmic patterns (and I have yet to see one answered that way), it's all just opinion. Are we planning to delete all of them? I went to the Computer and IT desk (shudder!) and very quickly found what I expected to find, a question on the "best X" (in this case, the most comfortable noise-canceling headphones). A number of answers followed, not one of which referenced a review or technical specs -all just personal opinion. While there was a unanimity of responses on the noise-cancelling query, there were debates (or challenges) on the "bands that sound like Black Sabbath" which is the current Entertainment desk example. (I know you want diffs, but I am about finished for the night. Trust me, right?) Some kinds of questions appear to me to be obvious matters of opinion that we should not be answering -"why" questions outside of the hard sciences, for example, or "alternate universe" questions - but I couldn't ever work up the energy to delete the opinions on who sounds like Black Sabbath. This is the wrong issue on which to be looking for consistency, I fear. Bielle (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's simply ridiculous, Bielle. That question is one of the better answered ones currently around, with plenty of scholarly/eductaed links.  I added links only after all that had died down to certain omitted groups which in my educated opinion fit the criterion with links to our articles and outside links so the questioner can make his own judgements.  Had the question been on piano concertos I'd have held my tongue as clueless.  This is no different from someone on the language desk suggesting that such and such might be a good synonym, or a better translation, or the word the inquirer is looking for.  (Those have elements of judgment too, but they are able to be looked up and confirmed by the reader, while no answer to the Libya question is going to be found in Facts on File.)  Judging what is similar to what is a hell of a lot different from asking for mind reading as to why certain people took certain actions or asking what they "should" have done under certain moral premises.  Had the Black Sabbath question been, who is the best band of all time, or why didn't Black Sabbath record more dance tunes you'd have a point.  As of now, I think sleep is a good idea. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the music questions of the type Bielle mentions is a form of Readers' Advisory, something that many public library reference desks do. And so do many of our articles, often under See Also sections and in the Genre pages.  Mingmingla (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no way to determine whether a question to which the answer is unknown is subjective or not (e.g. "does sex hurt?") therefore there is no way to determine whether an opinion question was known as such when asked. Therefore prohibiting opinion questions is impossible. Also, reasonable people will often reasonably disagree about which questions are subjective. Therefore, there is no way to resolve this issue. &mdash; Cup co  01:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We need a link to the Libya/Syria question being discussed here: . (How ironic that Jack, who complains about lack of refs, didn't provide any here.) Note that I tried to give factual answers related to the Q, like what type of aid the US is providing the Syrian rebels.  I've been reading News reports daily on Syria, and have also gone to the Syrian News Agency (SANA) each day for their POV (if anyone doubts my word, you will note that I asked a Q on why the SANA web site was inaccessible several weeks ago: .).  So, I do have some qualifications to answer as to what's happening in Syria, probably as much as anyone else here, unless we happen to have a Syrian Ref Desk volunteer.  Therefore, my first response was not just a bunch of personal opinions (although I did add personal opinions in the later portion, which I hatted as off topic). StuRat (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing about your opinions, StuRat. I think they are reasonable and plausible.  The thing is, if you've read so much about the issues, you should have therefore be able to post references to the stuff you read to back up your opinions.  That's the issue here.  Provide references on the Reference Desk. Mingmingla (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The answers StuRat and others gave had all the hallmarks of "This is the case because I say so".  And that is not what a good reference librarian does (as distinct from a participant in a pub debate on a Saturday afternoon).  If you can find a source to back up what you think/feel/believe/assume/suspect/opine/assert/insist is true, provide it.  If you can't even be bothered to go looking for one, what are you doing manning a reference desk?  There are plenty of other places online where you can debate stuff till kingdom come, with no requirement for references. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  03:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In the case of Syria, I could provide numerous news articles, but they all say "since Western reporters are not allowed in Syria, these facts could not be independently verified", so it didn't seem like they would add much. And, Jack, you have no business telling people to leave the Ref Desk if they don't use references, since our guidelines do not say they are required in all cases, and you don't always supply references yourself.  StuRat (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't tell anyone to leave. I wondered why anyone would choose to become voluntarily involved in any project but not honour the principles by which that project operates.  I offered an alternative for anyone to whom my alternative might have been attractive.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  09:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/c) StuRat, let me respond to you directly. I don’t doubt that you arrived at your opinions about the Libya/Syria matters through reading, watching and listening to relevant news reports.  Of course you did; they wouldn’t have come to you in a dream.  But you know as well as I do that when it comes to matters of politics, war, power struggles and the like, there are many, many, many opinions and points of view.  We can all read and watch the same reports, but we’ll all come away with different points of view, sometimes only in minor ways but sometimes hugely different.  Your opinions are no less valid than anyone else’s.  But they’re not more valid either.   When the Guidelines were written, we all agreed that the personal opinions of refdeskers were not to form the core part of any response.  Don’t you remember that? They are allowed in essentially limited circumstances, but that obviously needs some tightening up.  Contributing your opinions as the answer to the Libya/Syria question is in clear breach of the policy.  You say you “have some qualifications to answer as to what's happening in Syria, probably as much as anyone else here”.  That is rubbish.  Does reading a few media reports make you an acknowledged authority on the matter?  Have you published any writings?  Have you been interviewed on TV or radio?  Even if the answer to all those questions is Yes (which it clearly isn't), the point you seem very unwilling to concede is that nobody is qualified to breach the guidelines.  If you were Hillary Clinton herself, you still wouldn't be permitted to present opinions on the Reference Desk as if they were fact. Coming back here to explain why your opinions are educated and not just made up is ok; but why not tell the OP the same thing?  Tell them why you think what you do, and where you got those views from.  Give them more than just your opinion.  This is a reference desk.  I’ll say it as often as you like.  This is a reference desk. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  04:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be paying attention, Jack.  My initial post there was not opinion, it was statements of fact.  Here it is:

Some points:

1) Only a small portion of the rebels in Libya and Syria appear to have an al Qaeda affiliation.

2) The US is so far refusing to arm the Syrian rebels, for fear that they will use those weapons against the US or allies (especially anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles).

3) The US is providing humanitarian aid and communication equipment to the Syrian rebels.

4) The current Syrian government supports US designated terrorist organizations, like Hezbollah and Hamas, either directly or by funneling weapons and money to them from Iran. They have also been directly implicated in terrorist activity inside Lebanon, including a car bomb that killed a major anti-Syrian politician, and a recent foiled attempt at multiple bombings.

5) Consider that the US wants to be seen as on the rebel's side, in case they win.

So, so far the US has decided to give weak support for the Syrian rebels, although Obama hinted that, if Syria breaks out the chemical weapons, then "the gloves will come off". StuRat (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Now, if I said "I think we should support the rebels because...", that would be opinion, but doing things like listing the type of support currently being supplied is not opinion ! If necessary, I could supply refs for each of those statements.  However, don't going challenging everything I say just so you can waste my time.  If you actually believe one of those factual statements to be incorrect, that's fine. StuRat (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but you're the one who seems not be paying attention. You're arguing about why what you've said is true and why I shouldn't challenge it.  Where did I ever comment on the truth of anything you said on this issue?  That's a perfect example of the obfuscation I referred to before.  I'm talking about a matter of policy and principle and how we answer questions generally, but you're defending the accuracy of the content of particular posts you've made.  It's got absolutely nothing to do with that.
 * The issue is, and I can do no better than quote your own words back at you, "If necessary, I could supply refs for each of those statements". Wait for it:  Yes, It Is Necessary . That is the precise issue.  Without refs, you are simply presenting your opinions, which we don't do here.  With refs, you are providing reference sources, which we do do. It's as black and white as that.  Why won't you accept that?  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  05:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently you don't know the difference between a statement of fact and one of opinion. As our opinion article says: "...an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts".  So, "The US should bomb Syria" is an opinion.  On the other hand, "The US is not currently supplying Syrian rebels with weapons" is statement of fact, whether it is true or not, and whether it is supported by references or not.  "The Moon is composed of cheese" is also a (false) statement of fact, not an opinion, since it can be checked.  StuRat (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So, now we have true facts and false facts. Anything that doesn't include a "should" is a fact, eh? Well, when you get back from your extended holiday on the outer moons of Jupiter, get back in touch and we can talk some more.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  06:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So you're telling me that, in Australia, "opinion" means "a disproven fact" ? StuRat (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Facts do not have polarity. They are by definition true, or at least generally accepted as true at the present time, or they're not facts at all.  Sometimes, things we believed were true are shown not to be so, and they cease to be facts.  At all.  They don't become "false facts", whatever that would be.  They become false statements or false beliefs.  If someone said they genuinely believe the moon is made of green cheese, we'd tell them they're entitled to their belief or opinion, while attempting to show them the error of their ways.
 * But this is just more bluster and obfuscation, Stu. You've taken us off on yet another tangent.  It doesn't matter what status an answer has in the truth-fact-opinion spectrum, it should be accompanied by a reference.  There are obvious exceptions, but that is the general requirement. You know this, you've always known this, but now you're arguing against it for god-knows-why reasons, while accusing me of time wasting.  Please. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  09:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * An assertion of objective fact is always such, based on the possibility of proving or disproving it. If not yet proven, it is an unproven statement of objective fact.  If disproven, it is then a false assertion of an objective fact.  At no point does it become an subjective opinion.  That is solely an assertion which could never possibly be proven or disproven.  Understanding what the words mean is important to understanding what the guidelines mean, or, in your case, misunderstanding.  To use the example I gave in a previous section, where you referred to a Wikipedia policy, but did not provide a reference to it, does that make it your opinion ?  No.  It just makes it an unreferenced fact.  StuRat (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We're discussing the communications that occur between the OP and the respondents. When we talk about "opinions", we're not getting into the deeper epistemological polemics of meaning and language, but we're talking about the OP's perspective on things.  Ever heard of putting yourself in the other's shoes and trying to understand it from their perspective?  I know you have because you've been an OP here yourself on occasion.
 * Scenario A: The OP asks a question. A respondent gives an answer, with a reference. The OP could check it out, or they could just accept it sight-unseen.  Either way the answer might make them happy.  Or either way they could find the answer does not satisfy them, and they could then comment on it, or seek or wait for further responses.  But regardless of which of those things happens, the answer they've been given is at least referenced, and any issue they may have with that information is something they take up with that source, and they don't get to shoot the messenger, the Ref Desk respondent.
 * Scenario B: The OP asks a question. A respondent gives an answer, without a reference. That may happen to satisfy the OP.  Or it may not.  In the latter case, the question in their mind would be "Is this respondent just making it up as he goes along, and talking out his ass?"  Either way, the OP is unable to distinguish the answer from the respondent's personal opinion.  And OPs need to know which is which.  Opinions have their place, and sometimes that's all we can give an OP; but an OP needs to know that one answer is referenced to some other source and can be checked independently, and that another answer is simply what the respondent happens to believe or think, i.e. an opinion.  It may be a very well-educated opinion, and I'm sure most of yours are, but when any information is presented without anything to show where it came from, as far as the OP is concerned it is an opinion.  That may be good enough in some cases, but the default requirement is that we provide referenced information where it's available, and not just our own opinions or material that has all the appearance of our own opinions.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To a fallibilist, everything is opinion. I thought we were all fallibilists here. So that would seem to mean that we can't give any answers at all ... were it not that what's actually prohibited is personal opinion. That's why everything (at least, everything remotely controversial) has to have references. It's passing the buck to the source. I think what you've actually hit on with the "should" thing is the is-ought problem - moral ideas exist in their own domain, criticised by other moral ideas - but that promises to be a massive sidetrack. Card Zero  (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Jack does kinda have a point here. This is the "reference" desk, not the "fact" desk or the "answer" desk.  Even if what we say is factual, it should be backed up with a reference to where we get the fact from.  -- Jayron  32  05:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sleep is avoiding me. Medeis, as no one connected anything specific in the articles on the bands named (and, here, finally, is a link to the question), I made the assumption that the links were there merely "because there are articles". However, the few I have now looked at do have mentions of their place in heavy metal. Where I really was wrong was that I skipped Jayron's second response entirely, where he does provide a lot of third-party references. So mea culpa. My point stands. I just picked a poor example; you were right about that. However (may I waffle now?), the Entertainment desk does get a lot of opinion questions. Here's a better example. It took me about 3 minutes in the archives to find it. It is possible that someone has written on "The Best White Rappers", so this could have been a "Facts on File" question. It is possible that someone has, or will shortly, write a scholarly work on why the U.S. supported Libya. The over-riding point I am making is that, if we can't find a source that answers the question, perhaps we should just say that-and nothing more.


 * But then then there are other types of questions. JackofOz answered one which asked about the key of Ode to Joy. The references all seemed to say one thing, but Jack went right to the original document (or as close as he could get with a piece written almost 200 years ago without breaking into a museum on the other side of the globe) and demonstrated that the references were probably wrong and certainly incomplete. In an article, that would be WP:OR and not acceptable, and there is a certain amount of opinion about choosing which single key best represented the piece. But the response was, in my opinion, wonderful, and about as complete as one could wish.


 * Consistent? Good luck. Bielle (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The apology was unnecessary and your case is strong, Bielle, although I obviously agree that example was weak. I would also like to agree with Jack that any question with a "why" raises a flag, and three flags if it has the word "should". μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a shame that those are some of the best questions that can be asked. I mean, in terms of inquisitiveness. Not, perhaps, the best for a ref desk. Card Zero  (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If someone came into a library and asked for advice on whether a 5-year old should play outside, the first response would have been "that's not a matter for us...". But the follow-up would have been "...but here are the issues that may be worth considering in thinking about an answer in your case, and here are some links to information that may help you in coming to your view."  That's not offering opinions, it's being helpful to readers.  I thought that was the point of us being here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Opinion-seeking questions are undefinable, apart from questions that explicitly contain some wording like "what's your opinion?" or "let's have a heated debate". The people who have told you in the past to be patient are correct in that a source might be found. If in the meantime there are answers without sources, though, those are bad answers. The guideline is that we don't give our own opinions. (The text at the top of the page about removing requests for opinion is just a consequence of this guideline, and only works in cut and dried cases.) It would have been in keeping with this to answer the Libya question with sources (such as links to opinion pieces). Card Zero  (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe the guideline is wrong, or wrongly worded. Maybe we could, in response to the '5-year-old' question, say something like 'Here is a study by a child psychologist, who says that children should be encouraged to play away from their parents from age 4. On the other hand, this parenting specialist recommends that children be watched at all times until age 7' (both these are, obviously, hypothetical). Thus, although we would be offering an opinion, it would not be our (or Wikipedia's) opinion.
 * This would work just as well with the Libya question. We can try to find articles that give an opinion, one way or the other, on whether the rebels have links to Al-Qaeda, and whether or not that means that the US government should support them. Our own opinions should never enter in to it, but there are plenty of well-respected people giving well thought-out opinions on both sides of the argument, so we could use those instead. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Could you clarify in what way the guideline might be wrong? What you just said seems compatible with it. Unless you interpret "personal opinions in answers should be limited" as referring to other people's personal opinions that we cite? I hadn't even thought of reading it that way. Card Zero  (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. At the moment, at the top of the page it says "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions". I would suggest that this is intended to mean that we must only give facts, and not opinions. This is contrary to long-standing accepted practice - we DO answer requests for opinions, whatever the guideline says. Therefore, either we need to change the way we work, or we need to change the guideline. It would seem to me that if we phrased it like 'Volunteers should not give their own personal opinions, but may direct questioners to published sources of opinion' we can  continue to provide a good service to our customers without getting ourselves into trouble by providing potentially risky advice and opinions. Obviously, it would take an agreement among ourselves to commit to this, and to help each other to stay within the modified guideline. I like the trouting idea you suggest below - something like that might work. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, two things to clarify: the text at the top of the page is not the actual guideline, and (I'm almost certain) it's not published sources of opinion which are verboten: when the guideline speaks of "personal opinions", Wikipedia ref desk editors are the persons intended. Card Zero  (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry. Whilst I do look at the guidelines from time to time, I was under the impression that they were merely an expansion of the text at the top of the page. Now I see that, on this subject, they appear to contradict each other (compare "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions" to "Respondents should direct questioners to relevant information and discussions, but should refrain from participating in any extended, heated debate." - I would interpret those two statements as being somewhat opposed). Since the guidelines already include the sentiment I was trying to reach above, I retract my suggestion. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * StuRat, I "fixed" your set-up for the list form of response because I felt it was distorting the page. If it is original layout was important to you, please feel free to revert my changes. Bielle (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I did it that way to make it obvious which part was copied from the Q. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's all remind each other about references all the damn time
One problem with getting people to give references is that confronting them on their talk pages (or here) about a particular answer seems kind of like being an asshole. If we could reach consensus that this is in fact good etiquette, for the good of Wikipedia, and not singling anybody out or being petty ... or perhaps if we had a standard template for saying this, similar to WP:TROUT ... then that might radically reduce the number of answers that are just personal opinion. Card Zero (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just want to reiterate something I said above - I think CZ has the right idea here. From the discussions above, I'm getting the feeling that we already have good guidelines in place that, if followed, allow us to give good customer service whilst protecting ourselves from criticism. However, since we are receiving some level of rebuke from the community for acting outside those guidelines, it would seem sensible that we all try to help each other to play by the rules. Hatting and/or deleting questions and responses are rather blunt tools and often lead to disagreements and bad feelings. A system whereby we can send each other a friendly 'heads up' when a guideline is breached might be able to reduce bad feeling and increase the quality of our answers. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My training and profession have provided me with ready opinions on many RD/S questions, but I restrain myself because I also know it's a lot of work to provide a good (well-referenced) answer (i.e. not just opinion).  It's disappointing to see some of the "answers" that are provided, and sometimes I feel compelled (or am asked) to correct errors.  That said, I'm frequently impressed to see some great answers.  I do miss Steve Baker's well-crafted and -referenced answers on an amazingly broad array of topics.  -- Scray (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I miss his answers, too, Scray. (And thanks for pitching in when called.) Bielle (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal. Let's re-emphasize that our objective is to present encyclopedic-quality references when we respond to posts.  There are many other places, on the internet and elsewhere, that are available for other types of discussion and discourse.  Here at Wikipedia's Reference Desk, content should provide encyclopedic reference.  Nimur (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been considering for some time that, for example, the 5-year-old-playing-outside question should properly have been answered by referring the querent to a forum such as Mumsnet rather than just saying "sorry we don't give advice". I don't consider that good customer service. Speaking as one who worked for some time in a college library, a request for something outside our purview would have been met with "sorry we can't answer you here, but why don't you try asking at x?" Referral on to a specialist forum should be the default for things outside our policy in my view, rather than a straight "go away". --TammyMoet (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Question about calling oneself a "self-taught philosopher"
I have removed a question along these lines from the Humanities desk, as it clearly sought opinions only. I have also posted at the user's talk page... see next section below. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That guy (diff) is repetitive, and bad at writing in English, and the question has been thoroughly answered the last 90 times he asked it. (This one is a subtle variation, but the answer must be the same: that it comes down to peer recognition.) It's not actually a request for opinions, though, since we've answered it before with sources or article links (haven't we? I'm sure we could, anyway) ... so, remove it as disruption, not as opinion-seeking. Except you've posted to his talk page about opinion seeking anyway. And quite likely it was, really. Card Zero  (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was clearly seeking our approval of his decision to call himself a philosopher. I closed the same post here: . μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Template for usertalk pages for unambiguously "opinion-seeking" questions
I've started work in userspace on a template that I plan to use in cases like the above. Other users are warmly welcomed to help develop it before I consider moving it to Project space. It's at User:Dweller/Ref. --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the premise that anyone should remove questions that contravene guidelines on whether a question is "opinion-seeking" or not. If a question leads to a discussion of opinions, it should be closed, but remain visible.  We should discourage debates over opinions - and never ever set out our own opinions (much of the problem here derives ultimately from RefDesk regulars using the desks as a forum for debate, irrelevant asides, jokes, etc.) but there are very good reasons to provide informative links that help questioners and readers to think, refine and develop their own opinions.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, particularly since there is no such guideline (in reference to questions). The guideline is about answers. The text in the header (not a guideline) mentions requests for opinions, but says nothing about removing them (unlike the bit about medical questions, which does say those will often be removed). Card Zero  (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. Obvious trolling should be removed, as anywhere, but I see nothing to be gained by removing a sincere question. A friendly statement about why it can't be answered (not a template please) should be sufficient. If editors can't resist the temptation to give inappropriate answers to such questions, they should be page-banned. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of a question I don't think needs so much as to be closed for asking for opinion, but answered properly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012_July_30#Bu.C3.B1uel.27s_Best.3F μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to Finance Company withdrawing money from people's Bank Accounts without their knowledge - allegedly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=512185578 Whilst we are in the midst of discussions about potentially inappropriate advice given in response to questions, I'd just like to invite scrutiny of my answer to this question. I hope I struck a balance between answering the question and not giving potentially harmful information, but please feel free, in this instance, to edit my text if needed. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a good answer, Mike, IMO. I was actually aware of the source you linked to, having read it recently, and I would probably have directed the OP to it if you hadn't.  Nor did you give any more information on how fraud might be committed than the article itself has already provided.  If anyone else started speculating or getting creative, that might be questionable, but your answer seemed fine to me. -  Ka renjc 17:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seems the OP was happy, too, so I'm satisfied. On the broader subject, I'm starting to see that if the initial answer to a question is calm and authoritative, much less nonsense seems to flow from there on. (Although I'm having trouble believing that I have just, in all seriousness described myself as calm and authoritative!) Maybe we should bear this in mind. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly the convention (not always observed) that the first response should be a serious attempt to address the question is a good thing to keep in mind. - Ka renjc 18:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The convention does not apply to questions about how to have sex with your dog, though. Looie496 (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A milkbone and a friend that can keep a secret? -- Jayron  32  01:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am hatting this thread, and believe it should be deleted outright. Accusations of criminal activity are defamation per se. Neither the defamation, the soapboxing, nor the request as to how to commit a criminal act is valid ref desk material. Combining them in one post does not somehow make a valid question, either. While I appreciate the humor of the last response, this has gone way over the bounds. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually agree quite frequently with Medeis's take on RefDesk policy, but I must admit I'm left bewildered over her rationale on this one. Where on earth was the request for legal advice?  What I see is a query about a report on a mainstream UK TV consumer programme about an ongoing fraud, and a reply referring the OP to the wording of an article by a journalist on the website of one of the UK's most widely read mainstream newspapers, which warns about the same fraud and how it might be being perpetrated.  And great care taken by the initial respondent to say why it was inappropriate to speculate on the fraudsters' modus operandi outside this reference.  "Accusations of criminal activity?"  Nonsense - this is a question about fraud against the company that is richocheting onto innocent third parties.  "Defamation?"  No.  The company itself accepts that the problem exists . It's being featured in UK national news stories right now. . Inappropriate hat, IMO. -  Ka renjc 19:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to make a well-reference balanced and neutral article we can ref the OP to, fine. But the ref desk is not a place for what amounts to gossip and speculation about criminal charges, without regard to any encyclopedic goals. μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Really, folks, does this need to go to ANI? The rationale for hatting was given above: soapboxing, potential defamation, request for an explanation of how to commit a crime, and now another "I would never do business with XX", mention of criminal activity, and, however joking, suggestion that an OP might consider filing for divorce.


 * None of this has to do with wikipedia as an encyclopedia, no references have been given except to one hardly WP:RELIABLE primary source, a website with no notabilty thisismoney.co.uk run by an editor Andrew Oxlade with no notability.


 * Please refute the rationale for closing here, and don't reopen the thread based on the previous hatting summary text. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're right that thisismoney is a bad source, there are 388 Wikipedia articles that need to stop citing or linking to it, and the BBC shouldn't have bothered mentioning thisismoney's nomination for an award in this article, or reporting the results of a poll thisismoney did in this one . Card Zero  (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it's a "bad" source, i said it is a nonnotable blog and hardly what we look for as a reliable source. I have absolutely no problem with people adding neutral well sourced comments after the hatting assuming such sources exist, which I will happily take on good faith.  But we have had a huge discussion about the need for sources above, in which I am only the smallest of players.  Let's focus not on, I can rationalize why I should be able to answer this how I like, and focus on, is there some relevant encyclopedic wikipedial rationale and article or quality source I can provide that benefits the project without coming close to criminal and civil legal issues. μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How about moving the hat to just the part by 85.211.136.133, which is the soapboxing part that implies we should follow the poster's example and "have NOTHING to do with" the company? There is no defamation in the OP's question, as Karen says: the only people accused of crimes are "fraudsters", and even that is presented as reported opinion ("complainers to 'Watchdog' asserted that ..."), and it would be assuming bad faith to think that the OP was actually trying to get us to explain how to commit a crime despite saying "it had actually occurred to me after I had posted the question [that it shouldn't be answered in such a way]". Mention of criminal activity, and reliance on a blog which is not a bad source, are not problems. Neither is jocular mention of divorce in small text, but that falls inside the bit I suggest the hat could cover.
 * The two IP's in the thread are different, by the way. If the OP had returned in order to make the second remark, I could see how the whole question would look like a disingenuous ploy to sling mud at the loan company. But in fact the two IPs are from different sides of the Atlantic. Card Zero  (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you count the BBC as a reliable source, but today's Money Box programme is carrying a feature on this very subject. The problem seems to be with the banks refusing to cancel payments to payday loan companies, countermanding the instructions of its customers and acting illegally: a point which has been made by the Financial Services Authority. As this is a point of interest to all bank customers in the UK I would propose unhatting the discussion and providing a link to this programme and subsequent written online media. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC) And here's the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19598492 --TammyMoet (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I would prefer to see the thread unhatted (either fully or just the area Card Zero suggests) but with the Money Box link included for further reference. However, the point of the RefDesk is to answer an OP's question if it's valid, and fortunately this occurred before the nuclear option was invoked.  Leaving aside the rest of the chit-chat, which is irrelevant, which I assume Medeis doesn't take exception to, and which could be cheerfully hatted for me, we have an OP who asked a reasonable question about something that was puzzling them in a BBC TV programme, and a sensible answer that satisfied them (and even got a thank you!)  We even have some further sources, if anyone's interested.  The accusations of soapboxing, defamation and briefing would-be criminals are (to put it politely) hyperbole, not to mention a breathtaking assumption of bad faith on the part of the OP.  But if it's staying hatted, I would strongly suggest that Medeis considers rewording the outburst that currently adorns the hatted content.  As a way of saying "Move on, folks, nothing to see here", it leaves a lot to be desired. -  Ka renjc 14:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is going on?
I simply cannot believe the number of current attacks on WP Ref Desk policy. Do I really need to take this to ANI to request the ref desks be shut down? Where are the reasonable users to protest against this nonsense? This is simply too much for me, as an individual, to handle. The rest of you need to step up and defend a resource which I sincerely think benefits us all. I am ready to cry in public !!!! 02:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC) <--


 * Medeis, my recommendation would be for you to disengage from RD policy wonkery for a while. Answer questions with good referenced answers when you find it appropriate, and otherwise let the RD operate under its own inertia.  It's a surprisingly effective, low-energy, low-drama way of handling this sort of feeling.  I've used it myself before, and based on admittedly amateur observations, I'm pretty sure other RD regulars do, too. &mdash; Lomn 02:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Medeis seems to be imagining problems when there are none, or, even worse, creating problems.  Enough of the drama, already.  And leave the hatting for people who know when it's appropriate and when it's not.  StuRat (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur with StuRat and Lomn about this. Medeis, you've been reminded before that you've had troubles with properly assessing what is and isn't a reference desk "violation".  I had to remind you a few days ago about not biting newbies and assuming good faith after you attacked two question askers, and just a little while ago you were curt and dismissive to someone who asked a reasonable question about locating the "Innocence of Muslims" film.  Please stop trying to make yourself the arbiter of the ref desks.  Your rate of false positives when it comes to deciding what should and should not be "closed down" is quite frankly apalling, and you need to stop seeing your job as being to enforce standards.  Please stop this kind of behavior, I implore you.  Continue to answer questions, but let others deal with the problems, because you've repeatedly demonstrated a lack of ability to correctly identify them.  -- Jayron  32  03:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jayron, Sturat and Lomn. Medeis, your judgement is not aligned with consensus here. You are repeatedly over-reacting, your tone has become agressive and threatening, you are not showing a sense of balance and proportion. These things are often signs of stress. I suggest you take a break from the ref desks - I think you will feel better for it. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jayron, Sturat, Lomn, and Gandalf61: trying to enforce the rules religiously is also a disruption, sometimes bigger than the question or answer which is slightly out of place or not completely relevant. Letting people break the rules a little bit is in the spirit of wikipedia and makes things run smoothly. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Medeis (I take it on faith that that's who I'm addressing, since your post was not signed), you're over-reacting. The Ref Desks are never perfect in their operations. Sometimes the irritations and egregiousnesses are a little higher than the norm.  We do seem to have been in an upswing lately, which is why I've been a little more vocal about a few things than is my usual preference.  A few others have been bringing issues to attention as well.  It's frankly disrespectful to all these editors when you lament "Where are the reasonable users to protest against this nonsense?" and "The rest of you need to step up ...".  Your reference to AN/I will be interpreted as you saying "Do it my way or you'll suffer the consequences", which would be more the message of a control freak than of a mature adult working in a collaborative environment.  Besides, those who threaten others with the big guns need to be squeaky clean themselves.  Enough said.
 * At first I though this was another example of your American humour (or humor in this case), but your co-Americanists don't seem to get it either. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  04:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is a joke, it's for an audience of one. Sadly, I don't think Medies is joking in these posts.  -- Jayron  32  05:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The consensus among regulars here seems to converge on "problem? what problem?" Personally, I see a problem; and other outside commentators above seem to have concerns. If you think policy, guidelines or behaviour need tweaking, you're unlikely to find support on this talk page, among the regulars who appear to be very comfortable with the status quo. Perhaps a community-wide discussion in the form of an unstructured RfC ("Is there a problem at the reference desk? Discuss") would clarify the question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That’s not entirely correct, Anthony. Speaking for myself, I’ve been making regular comment about the mismatch between our policies and our practices, particularly about us providing opinions and getting into debates, since at least as far back as 13 August, this time around.  I even got so frustrated with the malaise that I went on a long holiday from the ref desks, which lasted all of 3 days because I soon figured I’d be more valuable arguing for reform from the inside than being on the outside looking in.  Cucumber Mike, Dweller, Card Zero, Mingmingla and others have been making worthy contributions to continuous improvement.  Medeis too, but somewhat more aggressive than most in hatting things, referring matters to AN/I and so on.  We might dislike that editor’s general approach, but I, for one, do not doubt their sincerity and good intentions.  Not that that really matters a great deal at the end of the day.


 * Suffice to say there is clearly a mood of dissatisfaction with some aspects of our operations, and there is clearly a mood for a review of the Guidelines. There is also an element of resistance to this, which is perfectly OK, and that may be what you're picking up on.  For some days now I’ve been contemplating a discussion draft of a re-write of the Guidelines.  A number of matters need to be clarified, so we need to talk about them, and someone has to start the ball rolling.  I’ve been busy with RL, is my excuse for not starting that task yet.  But I don’t see anyone else even talking about it.


 * But to the matter at hand: Medeis has suddenly gone off the planet in terms of reasonable discussion about the issues that are getting under their skin.  We’ve had threats and warnings about having the ref desks shut down as a “pestilence”, for godssakes.  I know Medeis doesn't actually believe that, but we can't just let it pass.  We’re all just engaged on countering that ludicrous level of abuse at this stage.  Nobody here will be held to ransom by such preposterous rodomontade.  When Medeis has got this “perfection or no ref desks at all” thing out of their system, we’ll be able to resume normal dialogue.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  11:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't question that μηδείς is acting in good faith and trying to make the RD better from their POV. I don't even mind too much that they sometimes seem a little too trigger happy with hatting, complaining about OT discussions, requests for opinions, etc. The thing which bugs me is that while on the one hand they're complaining about OT discussions, discussions getting sidetracked, offensive posts etc; they themselves are frequently enough that I notice it, the one guilty of a number of these same infrigements.
 * While everyone is probably guilty of this a little sometimes, it does seem to me it's more common in μηδείς's case. E.g. Wnt's habit of complaining about censorship, disagreeing with many removals etc may be something I disagree with, but they seem consistent, and don't seem to do the stuff they complain about themselves. Similarly StuRat doesn't go around demanding refs or complaining about answers being wrong (well except perhaps for the occasionally WP:pointy follow up perhaps). BB joins with glee many jokey sidetracks. IIRC, HiLo48 does usually specify when they're referring to stuff in Australia.
 * As I said, I don't question that μηδείς is acting in good faith, I presume they just don't notice it. I'm lazy to dig up any specific examples at the current time, in any case if I'm the only one who feels this way I'll drop the matter with full apologies to μηδείς so I don't see much point. But if I'm not the only one to feel this way, it perhaps reflects one of the reason why people sometimes find μηδείς's actions frustrating. (I think μηδείς has gotten somewhat better in recent times, but it wasn't that long ago.)
 * Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. -- Scray (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no crying in baseball, and there's no need for crying in the ref desk either, especially not in public. I was going to say, "If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out", but that's medical advice of biblical proportions, so instead here's some non-medical advice for Medeis: If anything on wikipedia is getting annoying, take it off your watch list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To Anthony, it is not the case that the regulars do not see a problem. There certainly is a problem of too many answers with no references, too many debates, too many threads that go off-topic. But none of that is helped by hiding questions that yield poor responses when there was nothing wrong with the original question. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem I see is the divergence between two positions: one, that "reference" is meant in its academic sense, and the other, that "reference" is meant as "a point of reference": that is, somewhere that one may refer to in order to achieve a goal. Querents on the RD generally come here with the second point of view I feel, whereas "volunteer librarians" such as Medeis and Anthony have the first position. Maybe if Medeis and Anthony can see the RD from the second point of view more they would understand the frustration some of us have with their point of view. I appreciate the comments on providing sources and have tried to provide more references myself. However, it does not appear that those on the other side have made any attempt to compromise or modify their position. I'm all for improving the service we provide but we must remember that we are providing the service to Joe Public, not ourselves. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that's true, Tammy. I take the first definition as well, but I have hardly been on the side of agreeing with Anthony and Medeis most of the time.  But it is interesting to see this other point of view.  It never occurred to me that anyone could think of reference desk in any other way than providing references. Mingmingla (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Two things:
 * (1) Tammy just pointed out that "reference" can mean more than one thing. Some people are happy with a link to a suitable WP article, while others want something external. But that's only half the story.
 * (2) Experience tells us that people often come here with questions that could not possibly have references, of either kind. "Should I trust website X?".  There could be evidence pro and con, which we might provide, but the question as asked is unanswerable by us.  Or "What's that tune that goes Dah-dah-da-Dum-dah, dody-doody-deedy-diddly-dum dah?".  Either a respondent knows the answer or they don't.  Collectively, we can usually help out.  There might happen to be an article on the song, but that can only be identified after the essential question has been answered.  Sometimes the OP wants to read more about it, but oftentimes all they want is to put a label on that damn tune that's been making them crazy, so that it'll just go away.  If we were a pure reference desk, we'd say "Sorry, but identifying tunes is not our role here".  We've never been a pure reference desk, though.  We're a sort of hybrid between (a) a reference desk and (b) a community advice bureau and (c) a brains trust and (d) a quiz show and sometimes (e) World War III.  Some months ago I drew attention to this and wondered if a name change might be worth thinking about.  That went over like a lead balloon.  See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 91 (12 July 2012) – it’s a long thread but maybe worth revisiting.  I also raised this back on 1 April 2006, @ Reference desk archive/Humanities/April 2006, so I’ve been consistent for over 6 years now. But I guess that earlier mention was easily dismissable as an April Fool’s Day joke (it wasn’t).
 * People are generally happy with the name "Reference Desk", but are also happy with answering questions that nobody would ever ask a RL ref desk librarian. Go figure.  Often times a RL reference desk librarian is asked questions that do not fall strictly within their brief, or even anywhere near their brief, but they can help anyway, so they do what they can.  Not as a reference desk librarian in the performance of their official duties, but essentially as one human being helping another in need.  Many of us here do the same thing.  The question them becomes:  Is it always to be regarded as essentially a WP editor acting in their private capacity, and not as a WP Ref Desker as such?  Should that private help be given here, under the auspices of the Ref Desk, or should the parties remove themselves to somewhere else (their own talk pages, say) and talk it out there?  That seems clunky and bureaucratic.  So, if we're happy to accommodate these human-to-human services here, why not formally acknowledge them at least in our charter/guidelines if not our name?  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And I've suggested we add a "Formal Rules Desk", where all of the rules are strictly enforced. I suspect that very few OPs would really want that, as many Q's can't be answered that way, but there seem to be many here in favor of such a thing.  A softer alternative is to have a template an OP can choose when posting, which either says "Formal rules mode" or "Informal question mode". StuRat (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the distinction between someone acting in the private capacity and someone answering a question on the RD. We're all peers on WP, all acting in our private capacity, but in a sandbox provided by the WMF.  We therefore must abide by rules of the WMF, but we can do no more or less than act in our private capacity.  -- Scray (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe enforcing "formal rules" to the RD would be counter-productive. As I've stated, sometimes an answer to an OP's question isn't readily apparent. Perhaps he/she did not phrase the question adequately. This can easily happen with a subject the OP is unfamiliar with. In this case, some banter and discussion between the OP and a RD respondent (or several respondents) can ultimately lead to the answer. And while a definitive answer to a question is obviously best, an informed guess is far better than no answer at all. At least it will point the OP in the general direction of finding an answer.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That isn't too different from what the guidelines say. Except they don't recommend guessing. Incomplete answers are suggested, though, as potentially worthwhile, and so is seeking clarification rather than answering. 213.122.47.83 (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Scray: Communications I have on my talk page still have to meet site-wide rules, but they're much less restrictive than what we can say here. There, I can get into all manner of debates, opinions, predictions, whatever; I could dispense medical, legal, marital, spiritual, theological, travel, financial and other kinds of advice freely; here, I can't do any of those things (officially, although we often give travel advice and tips and nobody seems to mind).  If someone asked whether they should join a certain religion, here I have to remain neutral, but on my talk page I'm free to be as scathing as I like.  Is it possible to give the scathing answer on the Ref Desk, and have it regarded as a private communication between me and the questioner?  Or do all communications that occur on the Ref Desk have to meet Ref Desk rules?  I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but humour me just for now.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  00:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jack: I don't think we're disagreeing (not sure how that affects your humour). We're all acting as individuals in each context, and each context has rules.  What I meant to say was that none of us is specially-anointed to answer questions on the RD, and there are many different styles permitted within RD guidelines (eliminating "scathing" responses narrows individualism only slightly).  -- Scray (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And then there's this. Lovely.  -- Jayron  32  03:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an incredibly non-responsive, meaningless and offensive post, with its author deserving censure.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Medeis should at least have had the decency of coming back here to reply to the answers to her question. She claims to be very worried about the RD, but is also disrupting it. Is any way of blocking here for a couple of days, just to cool down? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just in case you are not aware of the policy, OSMANRF34, here is the relevant section from WP:COOLDOWN:
 * Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption. Bielle (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)