Wikipedia talk:Argumentum ad Jimbo

message: See Jimbo's "just me, not The Jimbo" edit summary comment at WP:FAME; I quote it on WP:NHIST.
See also  (sorry, I'm too tired to wikifiy that right now.)
Very amusing stuff! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two bits o' fodder for the cannon (canon? &gt;;-) 

message: This argument is reealy annoying, especially when people are misinterpreting what he said. -Amarkov blahedits 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you! 

message: Francis, this is getting silly. I'd be happy to reword the page or remove parts you find objectionable, but what you're now doing amounts pretty much to blanking the essay. Cutting the relevant parts off a page after your nomination for deletion failed to get consensus is rather inappropriate. >Radiant< 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting silly 

message: Here is what I think should be in this page:
:From time to time in Wikipedia discussions Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, expresses his opinion on the matter at hand. In this respect it should be noted that Jimbo in this respect has no special position that makes his opninion more significant than other "common" users. However Jimbo is a user who has proven himself to the community like many other respected users. His opinioin should for this reason never be disregarded as should no other.
Is this something we can work from? I think this is the main point but it could of course be a lot better, eg. referencing other policys to support the point. --Morten LJ 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Make a new suggestion below then :-) --Morten LJ 10:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New text 

message: The editwarring is definitely getting silly.  Francis, I think your #New text has some merits, but it's not a drop-in replacement for the entire content of the article.  For one thing, at bare minimum the article has to explain that it is a reference to a widely-recognized class of logic fallacies, or even the name of the article will not make sense to most people who have not taken a university-level class in logic or philosophy or weren't on a debate team.  I think the message Francis is trying to get across can be merged into the extant text (though I'd use "Wikipedian" and "editor" in place of the two occurrences of "user", in the text you actually replaced the article with, which is different from the version immediately above).  Perhaps if you explained your concern that the article is an ad hominem attack on Jimbo, here, that would be conducive to consensus-building.  I personally think that the pre-Francis version does need some work, as it can easily be misinterpreted to mean that any citation to statements by J. Wales are necessarily argumentum ad Jimbonem, which is clearly not actually true.  But I also don't think the article is a direct attack on Jimbo either; it can simply be similarly misinterpreted that way.  A rather simple merge of the two widely divergent versions, and some copyediting, ought to be enough to make everyone happy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text merge 

message: .....opening the essay with a comment undermine it any more than making the content into a bland parody of itself?ALR 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly see some irony there. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So does.... 

message: Which is better, the current quote, or the following?
-- Jimbo Wales
—Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote format 

message: # @ SMcCandlish: Re. "Francis, I think your #New text has some merits, [...]" - sorry, in was not my #New text. I never wrote on this talk page before, nor was any text originally written by me copied to that section - nor anywhere else to this talk page. In other words, SMcCandlish' way of quoting has all characteristics of a bad, tendentious, quoting technique, exactly what the Argumentum ad Jimbonem page aims at preventing. I can only conclude the intended message of the page appears very hard to grasp for some.
# @ Radiant, Re. #Getting silly above: please consider that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem should not be reduced to a yes/no vote on the content of the page, but should be treated with the usual approach for XfD discussions (taking full account of the merits of the arguments on such pages). E.g.:<Blockquote>[...] the nominator along with the ones giving votes agree that this article should be here, only the content is not agreed upon. We should then discuss the actual content on the discussion page. (Morten LJ)</blockquote>[...] nominator is disagreeing with content of, not existence of, page in question. [...] article text (which at bare minimum should explain the argument to authority connection, etc., or the whole concept won't make any sense at all to users who are not well-versed in formal logic/philosophy/debate.) [...] Not all of nom's concerns are invalid [...] (SMcCandlish)The page shouldn't be a personal attack [...] (Disavian)I think the existence does raise a very valid point and deletion really brushes the need for a discussion about the point under the carpet. [...] (ALR)I'm quite sure we can treat the content of this page in a grown-up way.
# Re. Morten's and Radiant's talk in #New text above: I can only repeat Morten's suggestion to Radiant: "Make a new suggestion below then" - The existence of this page should not be an excuse for philosophical gibberish like "The "Argumentum ad Jimbonem" is a logical fallacy [...]" Even the most amateurish of amateur philosophers would see that there's no necessity for the "Argumentum ad Jimbonem" to be a logical fallacy in all circumstances. In fact the expressionThe "Argumentum ad Jimbonem" is a logical fallacy (etc)...can only be described as a complete and utter logical fallacy, and should consequently be removed from the page without delay. For the time being, until a more comprehensive treatement without internal logical fallacies is agreed upon, I revert to the version constituted of a combination of Morten's proposal above, and Radiant's valid "dont't claim that what Jimbo says is The Truth" observation. If there are better ways to express this, without falling in logical fallacies, I'd very much welcome that. --Francis Schonken 10:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My first comments on this talk page

message: I do hope opening this essay with a quote from The Founder was done with a smile, as it gave me reason to.  I very much like the message behind this, in aid of preventing editors from getting anywhere near reverence let alone worship for Mr. Wales.  So thank you, |→ Spaully°τ 22:48, 6 April 2007 (GMT)
*Oh yes, irony intended :) >Radiant< 11:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: What does the quote  have to do with this argumentation? The "unsuspecting" Wikipedian doesn't refer to Jimbo's statement in a discussion, after all. SalaSkan 14:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo's words should be kept for posterity - JimboonCrack!  —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I say something else about this quote? Did the unsuspecting wikipedia resign as a result of Jimbo's comments, because it appears his account has disappeared and there is something to do with a resignation in the summaries. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 14:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: It seems that people aren't getting it. I've just created a new essay at Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. Enjoy! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New essay 

message: Argumentum Jimbini seems wrong to me, since the o > i sound law in intermediate unstressed vowels would only be motivated if Jimbo be a genuinely Latin name, which it isn't. I think that Argumentum Jimboni and (the formally erroneous)  Argumentum ad Jimbonem are the more "correct forms", and that Argumentum Jimbini is superfluous, since few will come to use it, yet fewer to understand it. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We could have argumentum ad Cambria. --FormerIP (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo not Latin