Content deleted Content added
Thinking... |
Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:*LOL, that'll never do. But merge with what? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 20:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC). |
:*LOL, that'll never do. But merge with what? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 20:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC). |
||
::*One of the articles mentioned by the other folks in this thread above. The proposed redirect, perhaps. Frankly, I really think Keep is the best option, though I suppose the endless drahmahz war by the satire-impaired would be wearing for you... sigh. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 17:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC) |
::*One of the articles mentioned by the other folks in this thread above. The proposed redirect, perhaps. Frankly, I really think Keep is the best option, though I suppose the endless drahmahz war by the satire-impaired would be wearing for you... sigh. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 17:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
* '''Userfy and redirect the resulting redirect and the shortcut to Wiktionary.''' |
|||
::This essay inherently causes misunderstandings. It's wrong on the meaning of the phrase and so, when someone writes "with all due respect" in a talk post and links the phrase to this essay, the link puts readers on wrongful notice and contradicts its purpose. The essay thus violates policy. |
|||
::That it is wrong is determined from dictionaries: |
|||
** [[wiktionary:with all due respect|Wiktionary]] |
|||
** ''The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles'' (Oxford: Clarendon (Oxford University Press), [4th] ed. thumb index ed. [1st printing?] 1993 (ISBN 0-19-861271-0)), entry ''respect'' (not under other three words): "with (all due) respect" (boldfacing omitted) means "a polite preface to an expression of disagreement with another person's views." |
|||
::Other dictionaries are silent under any of the four words: |
|||
** Partridge, Eric, ed. Paul Beale, ''A Dictionary of Catch Phrases: American and British, from the Sixteenth Century to the Present Day'' (Lanham, Maryland: Scarborough House, 2d ed., rev. & updated ed., 1st trade pbk. ed. 1992 (ISBN 0-8128-8536-8)) |
|||
** ''The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language'' (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 5th ed. [1st printing?] 2011 (ISBN 978-0-547-04101-8)) |
|||
** ''Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary'' (N.Y.: Random House, 2d ed. [1st printing?] 2001 (ISBN 0-375-42566-7)) |
|||
** ''Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged'' (G. & C. Merriam (Merriam-Webster ser.), 1966) |
|||
::A thesaurus had nothing on point. Chapman, Robert L., ed., ''Roget's International Thesaurus'' (New York: HarperPerennial, 5th ed., 1st HarperPerennial ed. [5th printing? printing of [19]94?] plain pbk. 1992 (ISBN 0-06-270046-4 or 0-06-272037-6)), phrase not indexed under first three words and nothing on point found at ''respect'' in paragraphs 155.1-155.3, 504.1-504-10, 509.1-509.8, 587.3, or 662.3 or antonymically in paragraphs 156.1-156.3, 505.1-505.3, 510.1-510.9, 589.1-589.6, or 661.1-661.6. |
|||
::And the essay is unsourced. |
|||
::The phrase is a cliche and, as such, is weakly meant, but that is not a semantic reversal, does not justify one, and does not support the present essay. |
|||
::Probably most of us readers follow only those links that are likely to tell us things we didn't know. If we already know an ordinary meaning of a linked phrase and the context does not suggest a difference, we're unlikely to follow a link, and, since there are too many links for most of us to follow all of them, selectivity is good and typically necessary. ''E.g.'', if an editor tells another that "Wikipedia needs [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]]", that should not be a link to a secret code for 'unreliable sources are needed' (or '... allowed') and if we already know about RS we don't need to follow the link. In this case, the link provides concealed notice of a communication, thus often failed or false notice. (In August, 2012, about 5-6 of 14 links to the essay were misleading.) If someone wants to insult us with a phrase like "with all due respect", they should insult us openly (which is generally not permitted) or refrain from insulting us. Linking to an essay like this should presumptively be treated simultaneously as a [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attack]], as [[Wikipedia:Civility|incivility]], and as an [[Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles of Wikipedia etiquette|etiquette breach]] and, because of the virtual concealment, as [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|gaming the system]], all policy or guideline violations, even though the essay does have some cautionary content and the humor and unsourced linguistics could be appreciated (a reason I waited after discovering the essay until recently and was preparing an RfC) if misuse weren't encouraged. |
|||
::Sanctioning against each editor linking to it in a misleading way is too cumbersome, while correcting the problem with the essay itself is more efficient. Therefore, I propose: |
|||
** that this essay be userfied, probably to its principal editor's userspace ([[User:Bishonen]] is the creator and its most frequent editor) |
|||
** that the resulting redirect at the old URL and the shortcut to the essay in the Wikipedia namespace ([[WP:WADR]]) both be redirected to the [[wiktionary:with all due respect|Wiktionary entry]] |
|||
::[[User:Nick Levinson|Nick Levinson]] ([[User talk:Nick Levinson|talk]]) 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:46, 1 August 2013
Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect"
- Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Can we delete this silly super-short "Wikipedia essay" please? Full disclosure: I wrote the essay. I regret putting it in Wikipedia space. If it was ever funny, it soon wore off. It has been altered a few times by others, mainly in ways to make it say the opposite (making the title absurd), but its current state is pretty much as I wrote it. Here's the first version and the latest version for comparison. I had some thoughts of simply speedying it, since I really don't think it needs to be kept to honor the other editors' right to their content. But, thinking about it, that might not be a proper use of admin tools. So I'm asking you, dear community, to support deletion. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
- With all due respect, Madam, but I like this essay and I wish it would stay. However, if you prefer it was deleted, I do not see any policy that would make us keep it. So Delete. :) Tex (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Madam, but I liked this essay and I wish it would stay. However, if you prefer it was deleted, and as it is essentially all yours, Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per author's wish since the current content is not so different from the original version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- delete per nom. plus I don't agree with the content - it doesn't always mean that, and sometimes it is used to soften a phrase that may otherwise be misinterpreted. Just mho.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I noticed the minor disruption at the essay, and it would be pointless to battle over the ultimate meaning of "with all due respect". Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note. It's just struck me that I might have achieved a satisfactory result by simply redirecting the page to Wikipedia:WIKISPEAK#respect, which it's redundant with. But now that we're here, do let's delete it — that's even better, and I appreciate the input above — and then perhaps re-point the shortcut WP:WADR, which (per What links here) people mostly use, to the Wikispeak page. No need to break all those links. Bishonen | talk 13:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
- Keep or merge:I link to it constantly. If it is deleted, I'm going to get blocked for saying what I really think! Montanabw(talk) 18:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Userfy and redirect the resulting redirect and the shortcut to Wiktionary.
- This essay inherently causes misunderstandings. It's wrong on the meaning of the phrase and so, when someone writes "with all due respect" in a talk post and links the phrase to this essay, the link puts readers on wrongful notice and contradicts its purpose. The essay thus violates policy.
- That it is wrong is determined from dictionaries:
- Wiktionary
- The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles (Oxford: Clarendon (Oxford University Press), [4th] ed. thumb index ed. [1st printing?] 1993 (ISBN 0-19-861271-0)), entry respect (not under other three words): "with (all due) respect" (boldfacing omitted) means "a polite preface to an expression of disagreement with another person's views."
- Other dictionaries are silent under any of the four words:
- Partridge, Eric, ed. Paul Beale, A Dictionary of Catch Phrases: American and British, from the Sixteenth Century to the Present Day (Lanham, Maryland: Scarborough House, 2d ed., rev. & updated ed., 1st trade pbk. ed. 1992 (ISBN 0-8128-8536-8))
- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 5th ed. [1st printing?] 2011 (ISBN 978-0-547-04101-8))
- Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (N.Y.: Random House, 2d ed. [1st printing?] 2001 (ISBN 0-375-42566-7))
- Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (G. & C. Merriam (Merriam-Webster ser.), 1966)
- A thesaurus had nothing on point. Chapman, Robert L., ed., Roget's International Thesaurus (New York: HarperPerennial, 5th ed., 1st HarperPerennial ed. [5th printing? printing of [19]94?] plain pbk. 1992 (ISBN 0-06-270046-4 or 0-06-272037-6)), phrase not indexed under first three words and nothing on point found at respect in paragraphs 155.1-155.3, 504.1-504-10, 509.1-509.8, 587.3, or 662.3 or antonymically in paragraphs 156.1-156.3, 505.1-505.3, 510.1-510.9, 589.1-589.6, or 661.1-661.6.
- And the essay is unsourced.
- The phrase is a cliche and, as such, is weakly meant, but that is not a semantic reversal, does not justify one, and does not support the present essay.
- Probably most of us readers follow only those links that are likely to tell us things we didn't know. If we already know an ordinary meaning of a linked phrase and the context does not suggest a difference, we're unlikely to follow a link, and, since there are too many links for most of us to follow all of them, selectivity is good and typically necessary. E.g., if an editor tells another that "Wikipedia needs reliable sources", that should not be a link to a secret code for 'unreliable sources are needed' (or '... allowed') and if we already know about RS we don't need to follow the link. In this case, the link provides concealed notice of a communication, thus often failed or false notice. (In August, 2012, about 5-6 of 14 links to the essay were misleading.) If someone wants to insult us with a phrase like "with all due respect", they should insult us openly (which is generally not permitted) or refrain from insulting us. Linking to an essay like this should presumptively be treated simultaneously as a personal attack, as incivility, and as an etiquette breach and, because of the virtual concealment, as gaming the system, all policy or guideline violations, even though the essay does have some cautionary content and the humor and unsourced linguistics could be appreciated (a reason I waited after discovering the essay until recently and was preparing an RfC) if misuse weren't encouraged.
- Sanctioning against each editor linking to it in a misleading way is too cumbersome, while correcting the problem with the essay itself is more efficient. Therefore, I propose:
- that this essay be userfied, probably to its principal editor's userspace (User:Bishonen is the creator and its most frequent editor)
- that the resulting redirect at the old URL and the shortcut to the essay in the Wikipedia namespace (WP:WADR) both be redirected to the Wiktionary entry
- Nick Levinson (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)