Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 16 to March 10, 2006

message: *Yes. Bensaccount 19:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Your position Hipocrite was known. It does not matter. The policy will improve in the mind of people, and this is more important. At some point, it might even be reflected in the project page. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hipocrite's position matters no less than anyone else's here, and more than some to some bemused watchers. FeloniousMonk 20:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * I have a second thought. This poll will be useful, except that the title should have been "Please sign below if you are in the statu quo gang"! -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I echo Saxifrage's comments earlier; please, take this to your talk page. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Katefan and Saxifrage are both right; take it your own talk page. Two months of this are enough. FeloniousMonk 20:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (after edit conflict)Yes, stop filling up policy talk pages with this 'useless chatter' as H. so eloquently describes it. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And to illustrate the point, take a look at the archives at the top of this page: There are as many archived pages for January 2006 alone as there are for the preceding 6 months. Take a guess what the topic is and who the editors are. FeloniousMonk 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll: Does the undue weight section distort the process of fairly representing views?

message: There are 4 editors in the gang (to be updated):
FeloniousMonk, 
Hipocrite, 
Katefan0, 
KillerChihuahua
List created with the help of the poll. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors in the statu quo gang

message: ::: This is not true. The problem is more that editors that see how little respect editors that try to clarify the fundamental aspects of the policy receive are simply discouraged.  Therefore, only non controversial issues, such as issues that only apply to a small number of articles, are discussed. The statu quo gang is very happy to discuss these  issues. For example, the issue of editors trying to write about themselve, their family or their business is not controversial because it only applies to few articles. Moreover, this issue is only a challenge for the few editors that try to do that even after they are told, and it is only a tiny minority. However, the purpose of the Undue weight section is  very fundamental because it affects almost all articles with a variety of opposing viewpoints.  The statu quo gang simply act as trolls and interfer in an honest attempt to use the talk page as it should be used, which is not just to discuss non controversial issues.  We do nothing wrong in the talk page. We only do something useful in the talk page. We do not stop others from discussing  their preferred issues.  There is enough room for all of us. Ask yourself with a little more honesty (toward yourself) why exactly you want us out of this talk page. Where is the problem? What is this thing "freeing the main discussion page up for talk on topics that interest more than one or two editors"? If we were a family with members that are open to each other viewpoint, there will be no problem. So, this is not the end of the story. You are dreaming if you think that it will end that way. You know why it will not end that way. Because there are people out there like Bensaccount and me that think differently than the statu quo gang, and these people will not stop to exist. We are good people with good intentions, but we have our opinions, and you will have to decide what is the best way to deal with this situation.  Think about it carefully. Do not hope that you will find an easy solution that will not require you to open your heart and your mind. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No harm will be done if you use the subpage to hash out the philosophical underpinnings of any decision to change the wording of the Undue Weight section. Once you have concrete suggestions that directly address specific wording changes or other direct suggestions for changes, most people will be much more receptive to discussing it here. It's just that nobody else much wants to participate in a long wandering talk about the philosophical and semantic issues that you and Bensaccount are discussing. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, harm will be done. If we are accepted in this talk page, without a gang that keep considering us as trolls, spammers, etc.,  perhaps after a while others will join us. We do want to see others participate in the process. This is an ongoing process. It is the opposite that is obviously true: No harm will be done if we are accepted in this talk page. It can only be good. Again, as I said to FM, if you see that some harm is created because we remain in this talk page, ask yourself why you feel that way?  What are you afraid of? -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Large quantities of insular text drive new participants away from a Talk page. You are accepted—your current project is not. Vive la consensus. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean vive la majorité (the majority).  Obviously, there is a majority of editors (of this talk page) that are against policy when they exclude the view of a minority of editors from this talk page.  Here is the real situation. When one dislikes a viewpoint, then it is seen as a problem. For example, one feels that it dilutes the good viewpoints, it confuses people, etc. OTOH, if one likes the viewpoint, it is not a problem. Therefore, you are just saying that you don't like that we present in the talk page a viewpoint that challenges the statu quo of the policy. This challenge is "the harm" that is done. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 23:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  BTW, if the problem is "large quantities of ...", then it should be OK that we move back the essential, and continue our discussions here. If you do not like the idea, it must be that the problem is exactly what I said above. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken to your talk page, as this is again getting ridiculously long and is not about the policy page. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  No thanks. We discuss this here or nowhere or in your talk page, but in any case it cannot be the end here. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 03:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  My conclusion is that it is fine that we selectively remove something that it is very long if we keep the essential here. I will not oppose to such a suggestion, if I feel it is justified.  It remains that any selective removal should be done with a consensus because otherwise it is against policy. Vive le consensus! -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 03:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from Talk:NPOV, 10 March