Wikipedia talk:Don't call a spade a spade

message: Nice essay! *Dan T.* 13:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of moving the Vasily Grossman quote from Life and Fate over here from the WP:SPADE essay, since it seems to dovetail more fittingly with the point being made here. Any strong feelings? MastCell Talk 15:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the quote. I wouldn't suggest removing it from there just because you add it here, though. Someone can remove it if they disagree with it there, but for now it's doing no harm. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: See "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street", as well as The Crucible. *Dan T.* 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Bravo!  I have linked this to my user page, as this is one of the BEST essays I have read in a while.  Good job!  We need a WP shortcut for this... it is that good IMHO.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is... WP:NOSPADE the shortcut you're looking for? Thanks for the comment and the link. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Excellent Essay!

message: Calling a spade a spade allows the person who confronts the extremist/POV warrior (that's another word for extremist) to at the least be confident in the knowledge that others are aware of what is happening. You are assuming that the person involved with the dispute knows they have the support of the community, that they don't need to question whether others share the same perception of the situation? That may well be acceptable for the author of this essay, who appears to my mind community-minded by nature and knows how to appeal to the same, but for others the situation is not so simple. At the very least the approach this essay offers does not address their concerns.
Al Gore may be respected today for drawing attention to a problem of our society; but for a long time he was regarded by the community as a robotic enviro-nut. Perhaps those of similar mentality to Al Gore's own -- those who attest to phenomena -- want something better? Certainly the innovations the community prizes would not have been possible were not the relativistic "conditional realities" the innovative would otherwise embrace clarified and stabilized by those who saw reality for what it was? What would Einstein's work have been if no one had attested to c at 186,000mps?
Behavior may drive perception, but perception also drives behavior. Tcaudilllg 00:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain I understand your concern. At what point is it necessary to be certain that the person with whom one is dealing is, in fact, an extremist or POV-warrior? Why does that "fact" (if it be factual) have to enter the equation at all? It remains the case that we're trying to build a free encyclopedia of facts that are verifiable in reliable sources. How does identifying different editors as certain "types" help with that project?  I appreciate that you want to address the concerns of those who are less sure of themselves when dealing with "extremists". I do not see, however, why it matters whether the community shares their perception of some editor as  POV-warrior. Isn't it far more important (in a ratio of infinity to zero) what the community thinks of the content, rather than what we think of the contributor? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Extremists deny the very existence of facts they don't like, because they sense that the very substance of the facts is something they are ill-equipped to deal with and unable to successfully apprehend, leaving them vulnerable. The point is this: where there is extremism, there is no peace. The fewer extremists exist in a community, the more peaceful it will be, because common ground outreach will be made from all sides. Extremists do not compromise on their positions, no matter what. Tcaudilllg 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're making assertions without proof. As far as I can tell, these are faith-based statements. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  "Isn't it far more important (in a ratio of infinity to zero) what the community thinks of the content, rather than what we think of the contributor?" -- Indeed it is. But when you govern by consensus, each contributor is important. The problem happens when we try to please everyone, then realizing this is impossible, sue for a false peace that seems more comfortable to us than the expression of simmering conflicts. Tcaudilllg 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware that we try to please everyone. I think we try to please WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Can you provide an example of the problem you're talking about: some situation where "extremists" (from your perspective) need to be identified and removed? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perception is important 

message: Good essay, but this section....  I guess it's supposed to be ironic, or something?  It think you are being too circumspect.  Many of the folks who are eager to call a spade a spade truly don't consider the possibility  that they might be wrong; and this section may sail right over their heads.
My suggestion: change It profits little to think  to It is worth thinking Dlabtot (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that section doesn't do much for the page. If you can think of other improvements for it, I'd say go for it. I think that's about where I ran out of steam writing the thing. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought I'd try to spiff it up a little by adding a couple of metaphors..but it's late and I should really be in bed instead of trying to be clever..sooo...forgive me if it's quacked up... Dreadstar † 10:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The little considered "case b"

message: I think the fundamental attribution error helps to explain why we are all so prone to "calling a spade a spade". Another problem is that we hardly ever get feedback telling us that we were wrong when we did so. If an admin blocks a new user who is just clueless indefinitely for "obvious trolling", then the new user will either leave Wikipedia completely or start again with a new name. In either case the admin will never know they were wrong. Déformation professionnelle and moral credential effect are two other biases that seem highly relevant in this context.
I would like to see these things mentioned in the essay, but I am not sure how to do it. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognitive biases 

message: Suppose someone had replaced a page with, say, "Mary is hott", and the bots don't realise it for some reason. In fact, no-one realises it except you. Then suppose a newbie came along and asked  "What's this edit?". Suppose you said "It's just an ordinary everyday edit". Then suppose the newbie says "Oh" and corrects the misspelling of 'hot'. The thing is, honesty is the best policy, which means that you have to call a spade a spade. Is Wikipedia Wikipedia? Yes! Is it Uncyclopedia? No! A spade is not soil, and soil is not a worm! In my opinion, the most important thing is to tell the truth. Smartguy777 (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Honesty is the best policy does not mean that you have to "call a spade a spade". Honesty doesn't mean saying anything that you happen to think - there's still a question of whether stating something honest is at all helpful. I might think the judge in court is ugly, but if I decline to tell him that, am I being dishonest? I think not.  I don't see what your example has to do with this essay. If someone replaces a page with, "Mary is hott", that's not an encyclopedia article, and we can change it back without calling the person who did it anything. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I totally disagree 

message: :All the changes to these two essays had got very confusing, but now there seems some stability and differention. latest and 15 May. Maybe this works? I really like the explanation which was posted above by User:ATren [17:17, 4 May 2008] for this essay, it makes a lot of sense. --NewbyG (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shoemaker suggested I add that section to the essay, but I couldn't figure out how to add it in without bloating it. It's already pretty wordy, and adding that section would introduce redundancies. Perhaps it could be integrated with a good trim/copyedit on the rest of the essay, to avoid repetition. Feel free to take a stab at it. Or, I had also considered creating a new essay with that as a basis - "Guide to Strategic Editing" or something - and link to NOSPADE. ATren (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How bizarre 

message: this is an essay on  WP:NPA, not on WP:SPADE. Needless to say, WP:SPADE never advocated discussing presumed qualities of editors, since discussing editors isn't within the scope of WP:TALK to begin with. It is still ok to call an edit worthless junk if it happens to be worthless junk, without indulging in second-guessing the contributor's motivation, intelligence, childhood or sanity. If people add junk and then go about crying "NPA" for being asked to refrain from adding junk, this is their problem, and a misapplication of NPA. --dab (𒁳) 11:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the intent of WP:SPADE, this essay was written in response to those who interpreted WP:SPADE as an essay encouraging the labelling of editors. I am reverting your change to the "nutshell" line, because your version doesn't talk about NOSPADE at all, and the previous version properly qualified that it addressed the misapplication of WP:SPADE anyway ("When calling a spade a spade means applying labels to an editor...") ATren (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: rename

message: The picture is distracting. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's the point. It brings a little humor to a serious subject that causes a lot of conflict. When I saw it, I smiled, then returned to reading. Humor puts people at ease and makes them more open to what they are hearing or reading. Seregain (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Bomb picture 

message: "If you are not willing or able to put forth such effort it may be best to seek help from other editors." 
Whether you are seeking help from other editors via user pages or email, it seems like this might border on canvasing. If not, how is it different? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canvassing 

message: "If he continues, seek outside opinions...."  Stuff like this needs to somehow indicate why it would not be canvassing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ditto

message: I removed it. There is no source, and see http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/18/great-minds/. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roosevelt quote