Wikipedia talk:How many legs does a horse have?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the discussion

---

I'm not sure that WP:HORSE is the best acronym for this page - the first place I saw it, (without having read the policy), I thought it meant "I think Statement A is horse shit". Maybe WP:LEGS would be better. Maybe I have a dirty mind. -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- stillnotelf is invisible 02:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it Gertrude Stein that (who, which) said? "A rose is a rose is a rose." Well, the real moral is: shit by any other name is still shit. Call it a rose, call it whatever you want, it is still shit. But we must recognize serious epistemological issues here. What I perceive as shit (usually brown, always smelly: unpleasant and noxious to the human sensory organ called the nose) you, dear reader, may perceive as a rose. Example: you are a dung beetle, and you perceive that ball o' shit over there as "better than a rose", it is life itself. And prove to me that you are not a dung beetle? Good luck, etc.

I do truly believe that this "policy" should be called the "horseshit" or "bullshit" policy. We have a good source now, thanks to a certain renounced (woops, renowned moral) philosopher at Princeton. I will add this source to the policy. wvbaileyWvbailey 22:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that the definitive "rose is a rose" would have been Shakespeare in Juliet's balcony speech where she mused "that which we call a rose/By any other word would smell as sweet". There is a lot to be said, however, for the duck test, i.e. If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then you can infer that it is indeed a duck, even if it is not wearing a label that explicitly states its identity. -- Alias Flood 23:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I will research the rose quote and get back to you. wvbaileyWvbailey 23:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it was Gertrude Stein. This from Bartlett's Familiar Quotations: "Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose." Sacred Emily, 1913. I have no idea what it means. Nobody knows what any of her writing means. That must be why it's considered so good.wvbaileyWvbailey 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the horse/legs example illustrates the point without as, uh, crude a reference. The problem is that bandying words like "horseshit" around quickly gets one accused of personal attacks or of being a dick. Personally, I curse fluently, so I'd never be offended; but many people would be offended by a WP:SHIT policy. Using weaker words should help with that problem. -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that, to label someone's writing "bulls**t" or "horses**t" might seem a bit ... what shall we say? ... aggressive? But to label someone a "dick" is pretty rough too. Better to label someone's writing "bulls**t" (bullticky? bumsuck?) than to label the person who wrote it "a dick", unless of course they are a dick, in which case it's completely justified ... right? What I will do is actually read the reference that I quoted, i.e. "On Bullshit" and report back; I have a cc right before me. (Novel concept, this?) Whether the 5-legged horse problem and the duck problem and the rose-as-sh*t problem are the one-in-the-same has become unclear to me. So much philosophy, so little time. wvbaileyWvbailey 23:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I read the book (truly. Not the easiest read, actually). I also noted that Bullshit is a page in Wikipedia. The book itself observes that bullshit is more an enemy to truth than a lie because, after enough practice the bullshitter comes to believe his bullshit and every word he says or writes is suspect. This causes me to wonder exactly what the "Legs" parable means. Does it mean: "To thine own perceptions be true?" To have the courage to shout: "The emperor has no clothes! And horses have four legs and you can't talk me out of it!" Back in mid '60's when I came east to college I had a couple of the college secretaries convinced that Denver was still a stockade fortified to keep Indian attacks at bay. But one in particular refused to believe it. If I'd been writing my history of the West on wikipedia should she have written in response: "LEGS!" Or "Bullshit!" or what exactly?wvbaileyWvbailey 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

After much cogitation I will now render my opinion (I think that "rendering" means boiling down dead beast-bodies into fat: yes, my trusty Webster's does indeed corroborate this usage...) that this is the "WP:Horselegs" policy, so much kinder a moniker than the "WP:horsesh*t" or "WP:bullsh*t" policy. wvbaileyWvbailey 22:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, the alternative abbreviations/links are a done dudu. If they don't work mea culpa, then flagellate me with a wet noodle, etc. wvbaileyWvbailey 03:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, calling someone a dick is aggressive - the page says Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly. It is also an assumption of bad faith to cite this policy when a weaker statement is sufficient. So...yes...you're right :) -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I find some humor in discussion of what to call an essay whose subject is It doesn't matter what you call it... John Reid 02:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Lincoln

Shouldn't this essay credit the actual source? 72.199.30.31 16:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can "prove" the source is Lincoln with a verifiable attribution (as in: look in book xyz on page pqr) is Lincoln, well then, of course he should get the credit. wvbaileyWvbailey 21:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best article in wikipedia

"How do I nominate thee? Let me count the ways ...." [How do I nominate thee? Lemme know the ways! thanks, wvbailey!]Wvbailey 23:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)