Wikipedia talk:New proposal for alternative analysis

message: I'm quite sure I don't understand much of what you have written here, as in it is as clear as mud, but what I can make out I oppose, from the first word which refers to Wikipedia as "Wiki", and forward. "The preferred format for articles is short and concise." No it is not. You might wish to look at WP:FA to see the format of what we consider our best articles. "Original thought is barred": Yes, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—by definition a tertiary source, not a primary or secondary source, nor a blog. "Alternative analysis and new ideas should be allowed on every page if nothing more than a link to the subject titled with the prefixed." Again, this is an encyclopedia. 
"Provide the dominate view first, then link to pages which are truly analytical so that people can be made aware of alternative views." NPOV already means that articles should explore all sides of all subjects. What we are concerned with is facts, not opinion. I agree that NPOV can be difficult. You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and have articles be nothing but opinion pieces. I really don't understand how doing so helps the apparent goal you have stated of having some sort of "true NPOV." It sounds more like you are envisioning some sort of giant chaotic blog. It might have behooved you to explore the site for a bit more than your eight edits suggest before suggesting a massive revamping in a policy proposal. This should be rejected out of hand and soon pursuant to WP:SNOW--Fuhghettaboutit 02:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal seems to be a blatant violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Nice try, though. But Wikipedia isn't the place to analyze people's theories, no matter how right or wrong they may be. Fagstein 08:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

message: For someone who does not understand what I am proposing you sure have allot of comments.
So far all of the critique I get on my submissions starts with "his rather long..." so this may be the view of self-appointed NPOV police not WP. I am glad to hear that.
It is more than an encyclopedia. Why it simply must be a regurgitation of tertiary sources I have no idea. Again my proposal as you quoted was to maintain primary articles by the rules as they stand, but to add analytical, not opinion, sources under links so that they are not added to the original article.
To throw the baby out with the bath-water would mean that the original article would allow opinion - this is not what I said and you quoted that. I mean keep WP policies as they are for original titles. Then allow educated analysis which is also strictly rule based. It must be logical analysis not opinion. 
There is a difference and it may be that this difference is not clear to you. Analysis pages would actually have a much higher standard than the original article since if it is the author pointing out the failures in logic and reasoning of the tertiary sources then it must be credible analytical thinking which starts with a premise and supports that premise with a process of logical syllogism(s).  
This may be simply pointing out facts of which the reader may not be aware and how those facts may effect certain ‘views’ of the original tertiary source. 
I want to give you an example for you to analyze. Here is some of the original text of Gullivers Travels:
“Soon after my return from Leyden, I was recommended by my good
master, Mr. Bates, to be surgeon to the Swallow, Captain Abraham
Pannel, commander; with whom I continued three years and a half,
making a voyage or two into the Levant, and some other parts. 
When I came back I resolved to settle in London; to which Mr.
Bates, my master, encouraged me, and by him I was recommended to
several patients.  I took part of a small house in the Old Jewry;
and being advised to alter my condition, I married Mrs. Mary
Burton, second daughter to Mr. Edmund Burton, hosier, in
Newgate-street, with whom I received four hundred pounds for a
portion.
But my good master Bates dying in two years after, and I having
few friends, my business began to fail; for my conscience would
not suffer me to imitate the bad practice of too many among my
brethren...” 
Compare this to the “encyclopedic” entry in [Gulliver's Travels] at the section “Part 1: A voyage Littliput”.
None of the interpretations of Gullivers travels actually capture the essence of what he was trying to say about what happens to an individual who rejects the status quo of life - one who puts himself outside those things we take for granted about life. There are unspoken rules of life which cause great persecution if someone begins to speak. To say that the emperor has no clothes can make you a hero or a goat - but mostly a goat.
The article on Gulliver touches upon writing which offends a class of powerful people who have become entrenched and how they stifle those who would expose this.
There are logical analytical views of Machiavelli which when the facts of his life are assembled under a certain premise one comes to a much more reliable conclusion.
There is a deeper politic and culture in life which tertiary sources have learned by their ascendancy to avoid illuminating.
My proposal is to allow credible, linked articles, of the same subject which perform this desperately needed task.
This does not make WP a blog, or a forum, but accommodates the need to provide alternative analysis by responsible authors who are in the know and willing to risk the virulent opposition they will face when speaking the truth.
:As far as I can make out the intent of this proposal, I agree with Fagstein. And, avoid instruction creep! -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Dont Get it 

message: Again, I do not know what you mean by facts. History is constantly being re-evaluated and we find
that once what we thought we believed was not true. It was the opinion of the cited authors and
their bias.
I can make the distinction between logical analysis and rant opinion. If you cannot make the distinction between analysis and opinion then how can you say that any article does not have a point of view? Everything of a subjective nature written out here is someone's opinion.
When I go to do research on something I depend on WP to give me historical insight and the current state of the art thinking on the subject. This I do not want to change and I say this in every response I make. But some issues have credible opposing views which reflect reality much more than the state of the art thinking. 
As to the assertions of my analysis of the fourth amendment the idea was to strip it of historical developments subsequent to its original intent. The analysis based on the wording was to show that privacy is not implied but inherent in the fourth amendment. This was the premise. The premise was followed by syllogism - A + B if true equals C.
Look also at the analysis of judicial activism. The original author cannot strip it of POV since there are so many interpretations of Judicial activism. Each and every opinion is opposed by one or many people who want to cite the article to death. In other words - force the author either to cite it so to come into compliance with their view or set the bar so high the article never sheds the POV label.
An opinion has certain characteristics that analysis does not. Most often it is a statement of personal cause and effect. “This subject has effected me or my class of people this way thus I believe it is wrong/right”. Opinion is emotional and devoid of insight. Opinion is not centered it espouses one side or the other. 
Analysis points out key ideas that are missing from a subject which change the nature of the subject generally - not from one side or the other. Analysis can expose suppressed ideas, what you call “original thinking” which indicate that a controversy is actually supporting a status quo and that there is no controversy at all.
In physics it is well known that the Lorentz Equations can be written in the exact same way yet two results occur - one that supports relativity and one that supports classical mechanics. The math can be shown in a logical analysis yet this cannot be openly exposed by professionals in the field. Notice I did not say what this means I simply stated that it is so. But the world is littered with lost careers by those who insisted that this be recognized openly.
Your opinions on my proposal are good examples of how opinion operates. I am trying to find some middle ground where suppressed ideas or more reliable analysis can be had without making WP a blog. But every critique made of this proposal attacks it by reforming the argument so to justify the critique. 
Take out an old logic book from college and read it. Try to think of the things in your profession which are unspoken rules. If you are an attorney think of all of the ways the law is manipulated to insure profit. I read many articles on legal theories which if they pointed out that certain aspects of the issue enhance the profitability of law then I would get POV’d to death. Yet cite me one article from one legal expert which exposes the fact that lawyers are “automatic” officers of the court and what this means for them and the separation of powers. Just one. If you are a lawyer you know this is not in your best interest to do so and if you are not a lawyer you will not find one.
A dramatically novel idea supported by facts, not necessarily citations, which goes against the grain of all or most of conventional thinking credibly analytically presented should be allowed. An opposing article should be allowed and that ends the subject. A one shot pro-con and that is all. If it becomes a never ending diatribe then it is not strong enough to be considered analytical and should be zapped.
All I am asking is to find some method to expand WP so that it lives up to what the Internet provides. Create a committee that establishes rules on what alternative analysis is and the rules by which it can be allowed. There must be people out here who are educated and experienced in the art of philosophy and logic and understand when an alternative is truely unbiased and when it is opinion.
What I find really sad is that knowingly or unknowingly you are playing into the hands of thought police who do not want certian aspects of our lives exposed. It effects their power and their pocketbook - maybe your power and your pocket book.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jb2ndr (talk • contribs) .
:Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a research forum. There are plenty of places out there to publish original ideas (from peer reviewed journals to Geocities), but an encyclopaedia is not one of them. An encyclopaedia is supposed to reflect and reprint the research of others, not conduct its own. --Daduzi talk 13:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There are tons of places for analysis, opinions, theories, etc. This just isn't one of them, and the proposal goes against what Wikipedia's mission is. When people come here looking for information about something  (the Fourth Amendment, for example), they're looking for facts and history, not the opinions of some person who decided to use the Wikipedia article as a forum. Fan-1967 14:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not set up or "ready" to do what you're asking; our mission is verifiability, not truth. It's a hard concept to see at first, but you have to accept that it's not negotiable here, as it defines the project itself. Take that away, and you don't have Wikipedia. If you want to publish your own opinions on things, it'll have to be somewhere else. -- nae'blis 16:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a major difference 

message: As already mentioned above this proposal (for what experienced editors undertand of it) would be a Wikipedia:No original research liability, further it also goes against following policies and guidelines:
* Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ("no personal essays");
* Wikipedia:Content forking ("Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject" - which is a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requirement)
As far as I'm concerned this should be marked "rejected" ASAP. If it were only rulecruft,  I'd be happy to give it some more time to see whether something would come out of it. But it sort of creates false impressions regarding core content policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, which I'd avoid.
No offense intended. Last year at Wikimania Jimbo pleaded for a rapprochement with the Spanish fork (supporting personal essays in a separate namespace). But at English Wikipedia the core content policies (WP:V + WP:NPOV + WP:NOR + WP:NOT) are seen as a whole, not allowing personal or "single slant" essays. --Francis Schonken 08:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reject?