User talk:FateClub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] re Image

That graph is misleading because it puts together data collected using different methods and approaches, and as such it cannot reflect actual trends of public opinion. The list of polls contains more information because it lists the provenance of the data, which is as important as the data itself because it allows readers to judge whether they trust a given source or not.

I'm all for making easier to the readers to understand the material, but the way you did it is not an appropriate way to analize data. That's why I suggested to clump all polls from a single source together in one graph, for instance. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Data has to be comparable in the first place in order to justify putting it in a graph. The poll data on that list is not for the reasons I mentioned above. Your graph as it stands may be misunderstood as reflecting changes in voting preferences, which is of course not the case. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken :) FateClub

[edit] Re: List of Mexican billionaires

I mean for you to wait a few minutes until I finished writing my arguments in the article's talk page, and then read what I had to say for reasons for my revert. Sorry I wasn't fast enough :)

By the way, fellow editors are always welcome to my talk page, and you are too. Hari Seldon 20:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha... it was all about timing. You got me confused ("which talk page is he talking about... could it be... this one?!) Sorry, I'm really fast sometimes. --FateClub 20:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spic (slur)

Of course it's untrue; the article sets out a number of theories that have been proposed, and discusses them. It could do so more fully, and that would be a useful thing for you to do. Removing mention of a theory because it's false isn't. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, what part of what I said above was unclear? Why do you still think that deleting the paragraph is more useful than adding a clearer account of the theory in question? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, you seem to be depending upon a distinction between an assumption and a theory which is the wrong way round; the Wikipedia term is correct, the source is sloppy. Secondly, I don't know how many times I can say this, but: you're arguing that the article isn't clear enough about the status of this theory — so why not make it clearer? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Explaining common errors is of course part of what an article should do. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And therefore the article needs to be................ improved.......................... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, some people simply chop out chunks of text that need improvement rather than improving them. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh good grief, if you can't discuss the actual case, but can only make your point by silly references to "what grandma says", it's clear that your position is untenable, and you're continuing to argue simply because you can't bear to give in. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, AGF. Misconceptions and false theories do have places in articles (we even have articles devoted to them — think of all the articles on religions, on the Flat Earth Society, on phlogiston, etc.) — we just have to give sources to show that they're really held by people, and then describe them accurately and explain (giving sources) what experts say is wrong with them. We're not allowed to do that with religions, in fact, because the NPoV approach has its limits unfortunately, but we can certainly do it here. The article doesn't do it well, at the moment, which is where you can improve it by editing that paragraph to make things clearer. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was misleading; I meant that I was going to AGF.

The problem was that, after removing the paragraph (rather than adding {{fact}} to it) because it had no source, I explained its source — but you still wanted to delete it rather than improving it, even though your arguments were all to do with the improvements that are needed. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if the problem is with your understanding of the English; what do you take "theory" to mean? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded hostile; it was meant very straightforwardly &mdash things that you've said imply that you're understanding the term "theory" non-standardly, and if that's true it might be the source of at least part of this disagreement. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A theory is simply an explanatory hypothesis; the notion that "spic" comes from "hispanic" is an atymological theory. It's a false theory, of couyrse, but a theory nonetheless. Why do you think that it isn't? And if you don't think that it isn't, why do you object to the article saying that it is? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)