Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreadstar (talk | contribs) at 17:19, 3 May 2008 (→Go ahead and write a new essay: sp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Misplaced Pages talk:Call a spade a spade/Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The Ugly Duckling

Ya know, I am just as fond of the Ugly Duckling story as the next person, but as a matter of bald logic, that particular story belongs in an essay entitled Misplaced Pages:Don't call a spade a spade. Wouldn't it be better over in that essay, not this one? --Newbyguesses - Talk 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Quackitty quack. --NewbyG (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Has anyone considered the idea of merging Misplaced Pages:Call a spade a spade with Misplaced Pages:Don't call a spade a spade and placing it on a title like Misplaced Pages:Should we call a spade a spade? It seems that with the discussion over some points in SPADE being more appropriate for NOSPADE and such, we might as well merge the two, and discuss both points together, since while on their faces they seem separate and opposing, they overlap quite a bit. What do you think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a merge seems a good idea at this time. Probably no need for a new name, most of the material here would fit well into Misplaced Pages:Don't call a spade a spade. --Newbyguesses - Talk 19:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Quack. --NewbyG (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, while both mostly recommend against, or at least call for discretion, I would recommend retitling because it does indeed state that spades are spades, and ultimately it leaves the spade-calling to the Wikipedian to decide. Of course, we should pick a title for purposes of page history, and then perform a move on that title, but I believe a new name is necessary. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this merge. It is true that the meaning of Misplaced Pages:Call a spade a spade has been changed by many small edits until it now argues against speaking frankly, but that is not a good thing and, hopefully, is not a permanent thing. Cardamon (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cardamon, why do you say that the current essay "argues against speaking frankly"? It doesn't seem that way to me at all; which bit in particular suggests that we not be frank? In my understanding, there's no conflict between speaking frankly and avoiding name-calling, which I think is what the essay argues against. Does that seem right? -GTBacchus 03:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, question: I'm not that fond of the fact that "spade" also argues against, either, but why not merge the concepts into a single article that treats them both together? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the argument for "calling a spade"? -GTBacchus 03:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is right, User GTBacchus. The article argues against "name-calling". It used to argue for frankness. That is all good, but "consensus can change". Waiting, still thinking about the merge, as other opinions a have now been voiced. Cheers --Newbyguesses (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:SPADE is being used to justify uncivil behavior, such as name-calling. There's a big difference between being "frank" or "direct" and being rude, insensitive and blunt...and believe me, spade is being routinely used to justify and excuse some egregious personal attacks - so yes, this needs to be strongly addressed. Dreadstar † 18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think calling a spade a spade can be fine. Calling a person a spade is ridiculous. Name-calling is unhelpful at all times, or un-civil. But we need to be able to call a DIFF a DIFF, and call a post an "unhelpful" post. Now sometimes people go on to say "an editor is being unhelpful" or even "an editor is an unhelpful editor". Those are name-calling, but I think people are going to say such things. In some circumstances, blocks could be enacted. But, what does that all mean for this essay? --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, if that were indeed the limit of the name-calling and labeling, this wouldn't be an issue...but the problem is far worse than that, and it is being used to justify calling a person a spade. WP:SPADE isn't an article in Misplaced Pages about the meaning, origin and usage of call a spade a spade, it's a Misplaced Pages essay, which means it addresses "some aspect of creating and managing an online encyclopedia" (Misplaced Pages).

Saying "that's an unhelpful edit" or "your edits appear to be vandalism", is quite different than shouting names at editors you disagree with...there's nothing "frank" about calling another editor a "disruptive, wikistalking, pov-pushing troll" or a "moron" or "crank" or "idiot." And that's the kind of behavior this essay was being used to justify. That has to stop. It needs to be very clear what is allowed and what isn't. WP:SPADE isn't a license to call whomever you like, whatever name you personally feel is justified, nor should it allow you to attack other editors.

Besides, I don't see where the current version of WP:SPADE disallows an editor from calling a "DIFF a DIFF," or calling "a post an 'unhelpful' post," or even saying "an editor is being unhelpful", although one should be wary of poisoning the well when making statements like "an editor is an unhelpful editor". Dreadstar † 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be chaging ANI board name to "Pot don't call a Kettle black!" Igor Berger (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

More like "Pot don't call Kettle butthead!"...;) Dreadstar † 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If SPADE is cited in calling a 'moron", that is uncivil, but it is just plain wrong in logic, and should be shot down in flames by a crushing counter-argument. We don't need essays to do our thinking for us.

I am entirely on the side of putting as much BITE into CIVIL as possible; I would send SPADE to Mfd in a second if I was convinced it was an unhelpful essay to us at en.wikipedia. We can continue this discussion, though, if it addresses "some aspect of creating and managing an online encyclopedia" (Misplaced Pages). --Newbyguesses (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kennedy test

I don't get this bit. How is it a "test"? How is a story about Lloyd Bentsen making Dan Quayle look bad in a 1988 debate related to editing Misplaced Pages?

Is the application supposed to be that if you deflate someone with a condescending insult, then.... you win? Does it mean anything that the debate in question actually hurt the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket more than it helped? -GTBacchus 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking from the other end of the world I am even more puzzled because I have never heard of any of these people (except John F. Kennedy of course, who I have never before heard referred to as "Jack"). So I find this section quite distracting. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I guess the idea is that, if someone is comparing himself to "Jack Kennedy" (claiming some position of prominence or authority?), then it's appropriate to call them out, and point out that they aren't what they claim to be. I guess that makes it clear to observers that the person is a phony. I can't say I think it's good advice, but I guess I see what it's saying. That's not altogether clear from its wording. -GTBacchus 23:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

...

What kind of namby-pamby foolishness turned an essay on calling a spade a spade into an essay that says that if you call a spade a spade, you'll probably be blocked, so best to be ever-so-civil and NEVER, EVER dare say anything that will ever offend anyone? Are we trying to build an encyclopedia, or practice before we have tea with the queen? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, calling a spade a spade when it comews to discussing article content is important and productive. It's NECESSARY to call, say, a problematic source a problematic source. It's necessary to be able to point out problems with a suggested addition. And, if someone's edits are truly egregious, over many months... well, dammit, call a spade a spade and do something about it =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an example would help: Here's me calling a spade a spade on an article talk page, deconstructing why I find a suggested wording inappropriate. . This does not mean I do not respect Dave souza, the creator of the content I'm criticising. But calling a spade a spade makes points clear, prevents miscommunication, and allows for productive discussion on how to move forwards. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your viewpoint is expressed in a refreshingly forthright manner. Call a spade a spade was the original gist of this essay; a companion piece Misplaced Pages:Don't call a spade a spade was got under way. If you examine the "Merge Discussion" above, and the revision history, you will see how these two essays have now seemingly come together. There have been some suggestions as to how to proceed, so how would you proceed, Thanks --NewbyG (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the sensible part of calling a spade a spade comes to dealing with content issues and arguments. If a source doesn't really support the comment, say so. If yu've looked at a study that someone has used, and find major problems with it, tell them so on the talk page. If it seems a suggested wording would confuse rather than assist, then by all means say so. So long as you're dealing with content and arguments, but stay polite when discussing with the person making them, calling a spade a spade makes discussions clearer and helps solve problems much more quickly.

What you don't want to do is call a spade "the sorriest excuse for a spade you ever saw". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're totally right. Haven't read it recently, but has this essay really come to the point where you can't say a spade is a spade, like "That's a really bad source for the statement"? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well no it hasn't come to that. Or, yes it has come to that. It depends which way you look at it. --NewbyG (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think this essay goes just a little too far. It should be modified basically to say that this is usually the best policy, but, for example, sometimes you do use the term "POV pushing" about certain edits, or whatever. In other words, I've never been at a loss to express myself within the CIV policy, but I do feel that sometimes saying exactly what the situation is, is the correct way to proceed. Even if that means you say that an edit is POV pushing. It almost never comes to that point. At that point, for me, it is a warning that I'm going to do something, like get mediation or report. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think that a source or an edit is a "spade", call it that. If you think that a contributor is a "spade", keep your judgment to yourself, and proceed based on encyclopedic grounds, not based on your conclusions about someone else's motivations. Right?

Should the essay say that trying to be diplomatic is a bad idea, when dealing with people whom you consider to be sufficiently wrong? -GTBacchus 10:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If the point of this and the Don't call a spade... essays is to play advocates for the opposing viewpoints, then yes, probably. And, certainly, if noone expresses concern with the trends in a user's behaviour, then why would they change? So politely expressing concern does have its place, and we should explain how to politely do so. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that the point of this and the other essay are to oppose each other. If one of the two opposing viewpoints is destructive or wrong, then I hope we would avoid endorsing that one. as for politely expressing concern with an editor's behavior, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever been against that. -GTBacchus 14:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a good idea that these would be two essays espousing opposing viewpoints; perhaps it could be thought of as having different strategies for different occasions, and that that difference concerns a sanction against the labelling of editors with disparaging names, which can be made clear by considering both essays, or merging them. As has been previously discussed in preceding sections . The current state of both essays is , I think, a little unclear. --NewbyG (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Honesty

I find this edit by Raymond Arritt somewhat troubling. Is asking editors to be honest really "jarringly inconsistent with the preceding material"? Is there anything on this page that says "be dishonest"? What's going on there? -GTBacchus 01:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a disconnect with the rest of the paragraph, which discusses how one should avoid giving an opening for accusations of incivility and such. Out of nowhere suddenly comes "always practice honesty." So yes, it's jarring. If you want to say that none of the preceding discussion implies that we can't be honest, it would be better to build it into a coherent paragraph on its own. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wanting to say anything, so much as asking whether this page currently advocates dishonesty, in your opinion, or in anyone's? -GTBacchus 01:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it advocates dishonesty as such. But it doesn't advocate complete honesty, either. There's not always a dichotomy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I added 'And always ... honesty' in response to a previous good edit. The essay Misplaced Pages:Honesty is good. Actually, And to always practise honesty -- it was meant to jar a little, as a stylistic measure, but maybe it just doesn't fit precisely there anyway. It was meant to suggest that maybe both or either of the editors might make an honest mistake, I was reflecting on that, and trying to round out the paragraph. --NewbyG (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with what Raymond said. The sentence fragment about honesty was jarring and not well integrated into the preceding material; it didn't fit with the rest of the essay. If you really want the essay to say something about frankness and honesty, then as Raymond says, it would be better to build at least a coherent paragraph on the subject, rather than just suddenly sticking "And always be honest" at the end of a paragraph that seems to be about something else; it's a question of composition. It's not that the rest of the essay advocates dishonesty and then the sentence fragment about honesty is jarring in contrast; it's more that the essay seems to be about something else entirely (being nice, I guess), and then the sentence fragment about honesty seems to be tacked on out of nowhere.

It seems to me that last time I read this essay, it advocated frankness and honesty, within reason; I found it very intelligent and refreshing. But now I can't see a great differentiation between this page, WP:CIVIL as it now reads, and Don't Call a Spade a Spade. All of these now kind of say the same thing (be nice) and I'm not sure why they even need to be different pages. I'm curious what the section on the duck test said before it turned into a children's story about how if you shout at the duck the duck will quack at you and if you're nice to the duck, the duck will turn into a swan. Surely it didn't always read that way? Woonpton (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the essay advocates dishonesty - indeed, if it does, we should fix that. I think what the essay advocates is staying on topic, which doesn't really have anything to do with honesty or dishonesty.

This essay has converged with WP:NOSPADE, which is a bit odd. The trouble is, this essay had been used far too much as a justification for making personal attacks, on the grounds that the person being attacked is a "spade". The essay has been drifting away from that idea, and in the direction of not calling people names after all. Making this into an essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy. Like I said in another section above: if an edit or a source is bad, call it bad. If you think a person is bad, keep it to yourself.

One small point - it doesn't say the duck will turn into a swan; it says he might turn out to have always been one. That's rather different. What the duck test used to look like can be found in the history; see this version for example. As you can see, it didn't really say much. -GTBacchus 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said they think the essay advocates dishonesty; I certainly haven't. My point was that the essay as it stands now doesn't advocate honesty or dishonesty, so why suddenly stick in an exhortation to be honest? Your question was: does the essay advocate dishonesty? My answer: no, I don't think so. But neither does it really say anything that's not said as well elsewhere, say on WP:CIVIL. Ducks are ducks and swans are swans, its unlikely that what looks like a duck could turn out to have always been a swan. Having never shouted "It's a duck" at ducks or swans, I guess I'll have to take it on faith that this story will make people stop doing that. Woonpton (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say here. The reason I thought someone might perceive that the essay advocates dishonesty is that Raymond didn't say in his edit summary, "this is jarringly off-topic", he said "this is jarringly inconsistent". I was trying to get at why he said "inconsistent".

As far as the likelihood of mistaking a swan for a duck... I've seen it done enough times to make it worth writing down. -GTBacchus 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that the edit in question was jarringly inconsistent, stylistically with the text that it followed. lol --NewbyG (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But it startled us into realizing, because this little bit about honesty didn't fit with the rest of the essay, that the essay was no longer about honesty or frankness or clear expression, and that we wanted some of that back. So it was a good thing.Woonpton (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

From ducks to swans

No doubt I'm belaboring a vanishingly trivial point, especially since I think the whole page as it stands now is redundant to other pages that also advocate politeness and niceness and giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt, but this little duck analogy annoys me, because I like things to make sense, and it makes no sense. Even children like their stories to make sense. The Ugly Duckling story works because there was something from the beginning that didn't fit about this little duck. He didn't look like the other ducklings, didn't walk like the other ducklings, didn't feel like he belonged with the other ducklings; the other ducklings pecked at him and wouldn't let him play. He was a lonely and unhappy little duck. It was only when he grew up that everyone realized that there was a good reason for his differentness: he hadn't ever been a duck, and trying to be a duck had only made him unhappy, and now he could go and find the swans and be who he was and feel at home. The moral of the story: don't be afraid to be and celebrate who you are, even if you're different from those around you; maybe there's another group somewhere that you fit with better.

This story here tries to make the Ugly Duckling plot fit an entirely different moral: Don't assume someone fits in category x just because they have qualities you've decided are associated with category x. (An example: the apparently widespread assumption that anyone who comes into Misplaced Pages and figures out things quickly must be a sock puppet, because no one who is really new could possibly figure Misplaced Pages out so fast. That assumption, BTW, has never any made sense to me. They want no smart people in Misplaced Pages? They have engineered Misplaced Pages to be so incomprehensible that new people can't possibly figure out how it works, and if someone manages to figure it out anyway, there's got to be something subversive going on? I don't get it. But I digress). The Ugly Duckling story works because the duck was always recognizably different from the other ducks, and the reason for his differentness eventually became apparent; he belonged to another species altogether. Being nice to him, being mean to him, positive reinforcement, etc is irrelevant; either way, he's still a swan, and to tell the truth, anyone who ever took a clear-eyed objective look at him would never have mistaken him for a duck. A biologist certainly wouldn't have mistaken him for a duck. It was just that everyone assumed without thinking about it very much, that because he was in the duckling flock, he must be a duck, so they tried to make him conform to the norm of duckness even though he didn't look like a duck or act like a duck.

So what's that got to do with the essay at hand? Not much that I can think of. The principles underlying this section appear to be (1) the characteristics that are commonly associated with categories are often poorly drawn, not overly characteristic of all members of the category, can be characteristic of many that aren't members of the category, or are simply mistaken, so be careful about putting people into categories; you could be wrong. (2) it's not productive to call people names. These are both good principles that I would endorse. The duck thing is apparently here because in the old days it seemed to be arguing for a cursory look and quick judgment: if it acts like a duck, it must be a duck. We want to say that's no longer a good practice to follow, if it ever was. But in order to make that point, maybe you should just say: Let's not be so quick to judge people, and even if you're sure someone is a duck, you shouldn't ever call ducks ducks in the course of normal discussion or in edit summaries; it's not helpful. Just take it to COI or the sock place or ArbComm or whatever venue is appropriate. At any rate, why not just keep it to ducks and leave the swans out of it.

I agree with "Making this into an essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy." I would endorse that effort wholeheartedly. I still think there is room for calling a spade a spade (meaning concepts, not people) and the essay WP:HONESTY doesn't serve the same purpose; it's about how lying is bad for the encyclopedia. This essay should be about not beating around the bush, saying straightforwardly what you mean, which is what it used to be about, and I don't think it should just be rolled into Don't Call a Spade a Spade or some other "niceness" essay. I'm sorry that the essay has been misconstrued by some to excuse calling names, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to advocate frankness and speaking your mind about issues, just because the basic idea has been sometimes misapplied to excuse insulting comments about people under the guise of honesty. I suppose this should probably win a prize for the longest post about the most trivial issue. Woonpton (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly welcome rewrites to that effect. The whole duck business could go away, as far as I'm concerned. As you point out, the adage about "if it walks like a duck" doesn't hybridize all that well with the Ugly Duckling story. -GTBacchus 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing

Most of these arguments User:Woonpton makes make good sense to me also, particularly essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy. - This essay should be about not beating around the bush, saying straightforwardly what you mean, which is what it used to be about - be careful about putting people into categories; you could be wrong. - it's not productive to call people names. Yes, that post deserves a prize. --

To me, the point of WP:Honesty is to be honest not only with others, but with yourself also; acknowledge that one can be wrong, and make mistakes, and therefore refrain from making hasty judgements about others (even if others share the same characteristics) --

There is very much a case for retaining the idea of the Duck test, and determining where that would be useful (Hint, it is appropriate for investigations of sock-puppetry, it is not appropriate for people to get called names, that is really tiresome). --

The Ugly Duckling section belongs in Misplaced Pages:Don't call a spade a spade, obviously, I think it should be moved over there. --

Is no-one interested in pursuing a merge debate, is that just another false trail? --NewbyG (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we're agreed (no?) that the duck section belongs in Don't Call a Spade a Spade; could someone move it there, please? Every time I look at it, it annoys me for a different reason. Today it annoys me because Anatidaean is the group that ducks, swans and geese all belong to, so what are we saying exactly, when we say "If you believe that a duck is an Anatidaean, you should inform it of its duck-like behavior."? I can't make that mean anything informative But at any rate, it belongs in that other essay.Woonpton (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Yeah, there seems to be some support for keeping SPADE and NOSPADE as separate essays, dealing with different questions. -GTBacchus 01:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Newby, but just to give credit where it belongs, the statement "Making this into an essay about frank honesty that doesn't involve disparaging other editors sounds dandy." was a quote from GTBacchus; I was just agreeing with it.

I take your point that the duck test may have its uses, but seems problematic here, as it does seem to encourage labeling individuals >calling names, and as such it may not serve the goal of advocating "frank honesty that doesn't disparage other editors." Woonpton (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all good, thanks. I am wondering now, maybe what WP:Spade is about is the difference between clear thought and direct speech, as opposed to hastily jumping to conclusions and expressing them indelicately? --

Jumping to dangerous conclusions without considering carefully, is that a way of acting dis-honestly? If an editor was always jumping to conclusions that were wromg and potentially harmful, their incivility would be causing problems. --

Maybe I am saying that being wrong about other people in such an incivil manner is a way of being dis-honest with oneself. --

Being wrong about facts is unfortunate; being wrong in making inferences about other people's motives, or mis-representing one's own motives, is uncivil, or perhaps dishonest in the sense I am construing here. --

The newer material in the essay does not gel fully with the old, but that is a normal part of the editing process. --NewbyG (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you've just lifted my spirits considerably; after reading that previous discussion I was feeling like this is just an exercise in futility, like the people in prison camps who are kept busy moving a big pile of rocks one way one day and back the next day. But here I see a possible way forward, and I am going to think about this while I take a walk. Woonpton (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. The other thing about facts is, that you could just as likely be correct! That is the time to speak clearly, and call a spade a spade, when you have looked in to the matter reasonably thoroughly. Cheers! --NewbyG (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I like the idea of valuing clear thought and direct speech, but I'm not sure I entirely agree with making the crucial distinction one between clear expression and jumping to unwarranted conclusions; I think maybe those two things are on different vectors. I'm still thinking about that.

What the people who rewrote this essay apparently wanted to say is that it's bad to call people names, but in the process, they threw out clear thinking and honest discrimination along with name-calling. There has to be a way to split clear-thinking from name-calling so as not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I've lost track of who the ducks and who the swans were supposed to represent, but there really are different species of individuals here, whose approach to building an encyclopedia, whose style of thinking and approaching information, and whose communication styles are quite different from each other. One group tends to a direct, forthright style; the other to an indirect, less straightforward style. I prefer the direct style myself; it makes communication straightfoward and uncomplicated and easy to understand. While we don't want name-calling, I also don't think we want an essay that suggests that a direct style of communication is bad, just because people who prefer a more oblique style don't like it or are inclined to misinterpret it as rude or abrasive or personally intended. (Again, let me stress that I'm not condoning name-calling here.) I hope those who want to get rid of name-calling don't mean to go further than that, to say that a direct, straightforward communication style should be discouraged.

Being so oversensitive that you see personal attacks where there are none, seems to me about as incivil as actually attacking someone. I would put that into Newby's category of a kind of jumping to conclusions that qualifies as dishonest. If the emerging civility policy encourages this kind of incivility while outlawing its inverse, I would have a problem with that, and this is where I take issue with this essay as re-written; it could be interpreted to mean that any direct or straightforward assessment of a situation should be avoided, because someone might take it personally and be offended. This attitude was apparent in the earlier discussion now archived, where people argued not only against calling names, but against saying negative things about anything, which taken to extreme could lead to, say, the position that giving a fringe viewpoint its proper (very small to nonexistent) weight is uncivil because it could make the fringe idea's proponents feel unwanted and devalued. It sounds ridiculous, but it's not more ridiculous than arguments I've seen on many fringe article talk pages, such as that it's uncivil to call an idea "pseudoscientific" because that's pejorative and disrespectful to the people who hold the idea. Again, way too much text, sorry. Woonpton (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking to see where I could start to move this in the direction we want it to go, and I personally think we should just start over.

I really have a problem with this passage: "Certain editors will take a statement, detached in tone, that negatively evaluates their work as a personal insult, no matter what. You should take this into consideration; it will often be the case that you can make a more positive suggestion, concerning improvements or modifications to the text that editor introduced." This seems overly solicitous. If there are editors who can't accept a neutral, detached observation about their work without seeing it as a personal insult, they don't belong in any kind of collaborative environment where they have to work with other people. It's possible this may fit somewhere, but surely not in an essay titled "Call a Spade a Spade" unless it's covered as an example of the incivility=dishonesty of jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Oh, Newby, I think I see how this can go, I think your idea will work. If I have time this weekend, I'll start a draft for your consideration. Maybe you're already writing one. Woonpton (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the important distinction to make is not between communicating directly and indirectly. It's about commenting on content versus commenting on contributors. If you're talking about content, then nobody is arguing that you have to be indirect. If you're talking about contributors, then no amount of directness or indirectness will make that productive.

If there are going to be two essays, which I think sounds great, then WP:SPADE could be about the virtues of communicating directly and frankly - bluntly even. It could help people who tend towards bluntness to understand that their way is valid and valued, and to avoid unnecessary conflict with differing ways, and conversely, it could help people who tend towards indirectness to understand and work better with more straightforward styles. That's an essay worth writing, but it should be clear that we're not suggesting that we label people as "spades" and call them out accordingly.

A separate essay, WP:NOSPADE could point out that being plain-spoken and direct does not imply name-calling. That essay could focus on how questions of motivation are irrelevant to the project of improving articles, and that trolls and POV-pushers are best dealt with in a dispassionate and professional manner. -GTBacchus 08:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, GTB, that's what everyone's been saying. The NoSpade essay has already been written, and it's fine as far as I can see, although of course if you think it can be improved, you're welcome. No one who has been arguing to return Call a Spade a Spade to some shadow of its original meaning has been arguing for advocating name-calling; I think to continue belaboring that point is beating a dead horse. Also, I don't think anyone has argued for making the essay about communicating directly vs indirectly; that part of my musings was simply to help me understand why the essay had reversed direction from frankness to niceness rather than just being tweaked to be about frankness without name-calling which is what I gather most people think it should be. It ended up disparaging frankness altogether, which went too far, and I was just wondering if a possible reason for that might be a distaste for frankness, even without name-calling. But that was a meta-discussion; I wasn't suggesting that it be part of the essay.

I just re-read your post, and I see that after beginning with the idea that the distinction to make isn't between communicating directly and indirectly, you go on to suggest that the essay be about telling people who communicate directly and people who communicate indirectly how to communicate more effectively with each other, in other words, making the distinction between people who communicate directly and those who communicate indirectly. That might be an interesting essay, but it doesn't belong under Call a Spade a Spade; it belongs somewhere else. Communicating Effectively with Others, maybe. The duck story might fit well there. If there is to be an essay Call a Spade a Spade (I get the impression some would like it to just be eliminated altogether) it should be about clear thought and direct speech. And no, I don't mean you should be able to call people names, and, frankly, :--) it rankles me a bit that I have to keep saying that. Five times should really be enough to be taken at my word. Woonpton (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ducking the merge question

For why these two essays have converged, you might want to look back in the archives as far, or further, than October 2007 at Misplaced Pages talk:Call a spade a spade/Archives#Hijacking essay and other sections. The merge question, and the Duck question have been discussed there, without resolution. --NewbyG (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just read that, or as much of it as I could manage, enough to see I'm following well-worn footprints of those who have trudged the same circular path before me. SorryWoonpton (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We may be heading in the direction of reverting to an old version. The current incarnation just spits back policy. We have the policies themselves for that; not every essay must parrot them. (Bird reference completely intended.) Antelan 15:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delineation: Spade and No Spade

Given the distinctions GTB is making could WP:Spade be more about content rather than behaviour, and if so, being direct would not imply any actions towards an editor but rather towards the content/edits, and strong, direct language could be more acceptable, although many editors are subjectively attached to their edits so care would have to be taken here too. WP:No Spade would possibly apply to behaviour towards other editors and could be described as that kind of behaviour that although problematic, is best dealt with not condemning the editor in any way but by dealing with the editor in a civil manner so as not to further support an already less than opimal working environment. Spade then becomes a more objective note, No Spade the more subjective one.(olive (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

You could make this into an essay about content, but then you might as well write a totally different essay; this has always been an essay about editors. Antelan 15:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was not so much suggesting a shift in the actual content but rather a shift in the focus. There has already been much discussion here on whether reference is to edits or ccontent or the editors themselves. They are at this point tangled up together. I guess I wondering if its possible to delineate them or untangle them to more cleary be able to react or act in a manner appropriate to either situation.(olive (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

I think with the version I've posted, it's now much more clear. Antelan 16:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see so much confusion; I see a consensus for an essay that advocates for clear thought and clear expression without disparaging other editors personally. I don't see what's confusing about that. Maybe if I could write this draft you would see what I mean. I'm intrigued by Antelan's comment that the essay has always been about editors; I hadn't read it that way before.

To respond to olive's comment about supporting an optimal working environment: I've been thinking about what it is that makes Misplaced Pages feel disagreeable and unpleasant to me, and has kept me postponing the decision whether to stay and become involved or decide it's not for me (though I seem to be getting in over my ankles already, while I'm thinking about it). I don't know how typical I am (if unique, of course, it just means I don't fit here and my decision should be to exit rather than stay and be frustrated) but for me, it's not name-calling or frank speech that makes Misplaced Pages an unpleasant working environment. I don't like name-calling, don't think it furthers discussion, but it doesn't upset me to the point of making me unhappy. What makes me unhappy, and makes me think I can't possibly stay and work here without tearing my hair out, is something else: an oh-so-civil obstructionism that ignores or distorts policy in the service of promoting fringe ideas, that picks out trivial side issues to argue with rather than engaging in honest debate on the important issues, that subtly provokes and provokes until someone loses their temper, like the kid in the back seat who keeps poking her brother, again and again and again, until finally he's had enough and hauls off and whaps her. That's the kind of stuff that really makes me dislike working in Misplaced Pages. The poking is just as uncivil as the whapping, but the current emphasis on civility seems to consider that only the whapping is a problem, which IMO will just encourage the poking. This has little to do with this essay per se, but I think it's germane to the discussion since the purpose of rewriting the essay seems to have been to discourage incivility "so as not to further support an already less than optimal working environment," in olive's words. My point is that name-calling is only one of many ways to create an unpleasant working environment, and should not be addressed in isolation. Woonpton (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and write a new essay

This is an essay, not a policy document. Recent edits have flipped this essay entirely on its head, and I have undone those edits. If what you are trying to say is "don't call a spade a spade because doing so may be uncivil", consider writing a new essay. Antelan 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages essays are not articles describing a subject, they are editor-created pages that typically address some aspect of creating and managing an online encyclopedia. They describe a way to handle situations, and WP:SPADE is too often used to justify uncivil conduct. We've gone over this and this essay needs to make it clear that Misplaced Pages policy needs to be followed. Dreadstar † 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there consensus for Antelan's reversion back to the version that allows for name calling and uncivil behavior? Dreadstar † 16:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, ask loaded questions much? It's an essay, not a policy. As such, it expresses a private sentiment publicly. It doesn't purport to be policy, and as such it can't be construed to "allow" anything. That's purely a rhetorical flourish on your part.Antelan 16:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy helping you do that without twisting the text of the essay. For example, a big box at the top of the page could emphasize that this is not policy, and that policies must always be followed. Oh wait, that's already there. But we can make it brighter or more bold if that would help. I see no reason to censor the text itself. Antelan 16:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "loaded question," it's a fact. The box may be at the top, the but the text in the body contradicts the statement in the box - and that's what's being used to justify uncivil comments. Dreadstar † 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a fact; it's incorrect. If a document doesn't have any power to allow a behavior, then it is not a fact that it allows any such behavior. Now, if people are using this to justify acting against policies, then all that is necessary is to tell them that they are wrong. That's a user behavior problem, not a problem with this essay. Antelan 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Please post your proposed changes here on the talk page or in a sandbox. Your good faith bold edit has been disputed and we've all been working toward a resolution to the conflict between this essay and the civility policy. Let's continue that and find an acceptable resolution. Dreadstar † 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, that's an unnecessary lecture. Like me, you also made edits without posting here or a sandbox. It's perfectly acceptable to do so. And my suggestion was to put a box at the top of the page. It's already there, and I don't see what more is needed. What do you think? Antelan 16:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, essays are not policies. Claiming that an essay is in tension with a policy is like claiming that a letter to the editor is in tension with the Constitution. Antelan 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Let's see what the other editors think. Dreadstar † 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you heart-set on sanitizing the body of this essay, or are there alternatives (such as brighter boxes at the top, more clearcut warnings about it not being policy, etc) that you would be willing to try? Antelan 16:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing, robust discussion of this essay, and many changes made to the body of the essay. I only objected to your reversion to a version that I believe is problematic. I'm not for "sanitizing" the essay, I'm for clarifying how one should actually be calling a spade a spade on Misplaced Pages. Dreadstar † 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sanitizing by any other name is still sanitizing. And this is "call a spade a spade", not "a spade is a spade, but don't say it." I look forward to a direct response to my question about alternatives.Antelan 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As I already stated, I don't think the boxes are sufficient. The text that says a "pov-pusher is a pov-pusher" and then follows up by saying that an editor has "no need to dress up the way we address such users." is problematic in that it seems to allow for name calling based on nothing more than an opinion. This needs to be addressed so that it is undeniably clear that such name calling is not civil. Discuss the edits, calling them spades, not the editors. If you want to call an editor a "disruptive pov-pushing troll," do it in an RfC, Mediation or RfARB, but not in edit summaries or in talk page discussions. Dreadstar † 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Antelan. Many Misplaced Pages policies, guidleines, essays intersect, as a matter of fact most of them do, so that seems a moot argument and you are maybe dealing with a Dead Parrot:0) on that comment. The recent edits are more general and all-ecompassing in their scope and importantly more neutral. I would have to support them over a less neutral version.(olive (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

So you think all essays must simply restate and explain policy, albeit in different words? Also, if the essays currently intersect with policy, then it's anything but a "moot" point, from the definition of moot. Antelan 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, actually what I said was, that Misplaced Pages policies guidelines often intersect, that is a given , and to argue that we here should try to create an essay that does not or cannot intersect is not an legitimate argument given that very fact. The version in place now,with Dreadsatr's edits, I believe, more clearly without bias, outlines the metaphor in my mind, bearing in mind that the metaphor itself is just another way of approaching the civilty issue.(olive (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC))