Wikipedia talk:Attribution/against the merge

message: At the top of this page, it says "This has been copied from User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy."
Then in the first section, it says "For more than one reason, I've decided to request that nobody except myself edit this user page."
I'm trying to figure out what these two statements mean together.  Which of the following three is being said?
# Wikipedians other than Coppertwig should not edit User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy.  Nor should they edit Wikipedia:Attribution/against the merge. 
# Coppertwig made a copy of his page once, but now the two have forked.  Wikipedians other than Coppertwig should not edit User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy.  But they are free to edit Wikipedia:Attribution/against the merge, which is now the "active version" of this essay.
# Coppertwig will be periodically copying his page over this one.  Thus Wikipedians other than Coppertwig should not edit User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy.  And it is a waste of time to edit Wikipedia:Attribution/against the merge, since that page will be overwritten periodically.
This is an important question.  The How to participate in this poll section of the page Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll points to this essay, and so this essay helps all voters understand the issues.  It seems unfair for Coppertwig to be the primary source of information about this poll. — Lawrence King (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawrence, Coppertwig asked that no one but him (or, at one point, no one but people he chose) edit this page while it was in his user space. The page was subsequently copied by me to Wikipedia space so that anyone may edit it. No, it won't be overwritten, except by the normal editing process. See Wikipedia:Attribution/against the merge. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which page can't we edit? 

message: The argument about changing the meaning of links to the page comes from user Jimbo Wales.  I wonder whether it would be better to mention the name and maybe give a quote (or at least a link to a quote). --Coppertwig 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided some links and people can find who said them if they follow the links, but given Jimbo's wide range of comments and his wish to see consensus, I wouldn't mention his name explicitly; just my opinion. --Audiovideo 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good.  Thanks.  --Coppertwig 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention Jimbo? 

message: In my opinion, eventually all the links directly from the page should be to organized versions of arguments, not to talk pages with many messages posted on them.  For now, nothing wrong with collecting some links to talk page messages if they have interesting material we can refactor. --Coppertwig 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to other arguments 

message: Good work, much progress already!  By the way, I've put a note on SlimVirgin's talk page asking the user not to edit any pages in my user space except my talk page.  --Coppertwig 01:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for collaborating! 

message: I created another collaborative page, same/similar rules, with a link from this main page to that page.
:Change this to be an Appendix of the main page, so everything is on one page?   Or shorten each subitem and make it a section of the main page?  (but then the main page would be too long -- I prefer it as an Appendix, so users don't have to read it to get a good idea of the debate, they only read it if they want to check the statement that there was "significant dissent".) --Coppertwig 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant Dissent subpage 

message: Read over your page, and I think diff #1 in this section doesn't quite mean what you imply it means. The non-problematic "status quo" in the diff is to leave WP:ATT as policy, and the "unnecessary change" is to remove ATT's policy status immediately. Gimmetrow 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Above copied from my talk page) I think maybe Gimmetrow is right.  Delete the diff?  --Coppertwig 02:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from Gimmetrow 

message: Need to check whether any significantly different points are there to be separated out, otherwise shorten it.  --Coppertwig 02:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Coppertwig 23:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to shorten 2nd point in section 1 

message: I think this part could be moved to "stuff that was left out".  The last bit, "but totally ignore the WP:RS and WP:V requirement to verify that the assertion in the Wikipedia page has support "directly referenced for the point."" seems to merely repeat what was already said and can be deleted.  I may do these and other changes later, or others (among those editing this page) can do them or comment here.  --Coppertwig 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Let's start culling and combining anything that we find that is repetitious in this page.  Just combine to make the final statement better.  I'm not sure that these particular summary criticisms culled from the four months of argument against WP:ATT and WP:ATTFAQ still apply.  What do others concerned over the erasure of WP:RS from the final WP:ATT and WP:ATTFAQ find here?  Anybody?  --Rednblu 16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait.  WP:ATT says "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources."  How does that not cover "Directly referenced to the point"? (I think this was my comment which I forgot to sign. --Coppertwig 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think I get it.  WP:ATT only says the material must be referenced.  The previous policies said the point being made by this collection of material must be referenced.  Important distinction.  The policies should support each other as much as possible, not seem to say different things. --Coppertwig 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bingo!  In actual operation, the new WP:ATT does not require "point verification," but rather merely "point attribution" -- which fatal flaw in WP:ATT formulation caused higher authorities to see that the WP:ATT formulation was incoherent in practice.  --Rednblu 23:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just a comment, but WP:V used the word "material" for a long time. This is at best an issue between WP:ATTFAQ and WP:RS. Is WP:ATTFAQ really part of the current discussion? Gimmetrow 00:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely.  Go on.  There are two useful directions 1) flaws in the WP:ATT formulation which includes WP:ATTFAQ and 2) future improvements to Wikipedia policy.  Which direction should we take the discussion?  --Rednblu 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I looked at the June 29, 2006 version of WP:RS, and it refers to material. Uses of the word "point" are in the context of NPoV. If this is a genuine deficiency, it seems like it pre-existed WP:ATT. Gimmetrow 00:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS currently says "Sources used in this manner should be directly referenced for the point that is being supported."  This can be seen as being in the context of NPOV if you like.  The problem as I understand Rednblu's point is that WP:RS supports NPOV by stating this requirement, while WP:ATT and WP:ATTFAQ fail to do so, thus implying a contradiction with NPOV.  This is something that is present in RS, is absent in ATT and ATTFAQ, and that Rednblu considers important to have in any replacement for RS.  The policies need to support each other to some extent.  --Coppertwig 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  The point is it came about later. It was added to the draft here and the draft was moved to the policy page here. This seems like a fairly weak objection in itself. Anyway, the ATT poll seems to be going now. Gimmetrow 02:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Directly referenced to the point" 

message: I'm moving this here from the user page.  I have trouble following what the point is.  I think I can express the same or similar idea in a way that may be easier to understand.  Comments and explanations are welcome. 
:As for punchy-catchy phrases, one must stop and think why the word "cliche" became a ironic one. While the phrase sounds revolutionary, the first reaction is often "WTF?..." 90% of wikipedia bashing is precisely because supposedly wikipedia is incapable of providing correct information, i.e., of "truth" in its everyday meaning of "not crap". 
--Coppertwig 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to represent this point in a short bit referring to Wikipedia's "reputation".  --Coppertwig 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "punchy-catchy" paragraph moved from user page 

message: "Best practice in scholarship requires the use of primary sources and multiple secondary sources to check the loss of accuracy that occurs over time in secondary sources.  The new policy discourages the use of primary sources in a way that radically departs both from real world standards of sourced research and from longstanding Wikipedia policy. " 
(possible material for user page) --Coppertwig 00:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, personally I don't see this.  WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:ATT seem to be saying the same thing about secondary sources being used whenever possible.  I would prefer it say primary sources be used to check basic facts and secondary sources be used as a source of opinions.  Ideally one would use a secondary source and also check the primary sources that the secondary source relies on.  Quotes, for example, are better coming out of the primary source.  But I don't see how this is an issue with the merge.  Maybe someone would like to provide quotes from the policies to support this point. --Coppertwig 23:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This would be wrong.  Only WP:NPOV and the other :m:Foundation issues are non-negotiable. --Audiovideo 07:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It does seem to be stablising. Go for it --Audiovideo 07:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of editing it further (perhaps mostly shortening to make it more concise)  when I have time, maybe later today.  Also moving the evidence of "significant dissent" into a set of diff links right in the text.  But it's all under GFDL;  if someone wants to copy it somewhere I won't mind.  Perhaps I can edit the moved version. --Coppertwig 12:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think I've finished editing.  If someone wants to copy or move the page, that's OK.  Note that it's probably best to move or copy the whole thing including talk page and page history, rather than just copying the content.  I believe that's what was done with SlimVirgin's document.  --Coppertwig 13:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From community discussion