Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 27

message: Has the automation process stalled again?  Clio the Muse 05:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No and yes, in that order .  The toolserver lost its internet connection for a moment last night (or was shutting down), so the bot was unable to finish.  I'll bring it back up to date now, and the bot should operate perfectly tonight. Martinp23 17:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Archiving. 

message: I see that some are getting into a fret over this. My own unscientific survey awhile and several times ago suggests that unsigned inquiries and for that matter red sigs usually don't bother to come back for our pearls of wisdom and are typically a first edit. Every now and again I add sigs to the anon inquirys and then check back just to satisfy my own curiosity about all that; too much time on my hands some would say. Anyway,  please don't fret or add any new rules please. If the bot doesn't add a sig then do it yourself, that's what I do now and again. Please don't make another big deal out of something as frivolous as an RD missing sig or, if it's important to you then take a few seconds an add  to satisfy your need for exactness. It helps me at those frustrating times when I have a need to rag on someone (Heidi also says thanks).  ;-)  --hydnjo talk 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsigned inquiries galore

message: Could users sensitive to these matters have a look at the juvenile garbage posted by 220.239.107.13 on the 'Why people like violence' thread (item 3.2, 17 March) and tell me if this is legitimate contribution or not?  My inclination was to flush it, but I have no wish to do so without consensus.  Clio the Muse 14:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked the user to rephrase; see here. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensitive...and starting to use the ref desk as an example of Web 2.0 for middle school students, so thanks for your attention, both of you! Jfarber 18:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violent contribution 

message: I see the automated bot has completely scalped the Humanities RD.  All the introductory information has been removed, as well as the QAs for 17 March.  Clio the Muse 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Fixed--VectorPotentialTalk 00:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done!  Clio the Muse 00:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is *really* weird.  Currently the bot is running on the toolserver, so it's not easy for me to monitor what it's doing.  I'll take a look tonight if I have the time. Martinp23 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More scalping tonight!  All of the desk preamble has vanished. This is just on the Humanities RD. Clio the Muse 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed again--VectorPotentialTalk 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot scalping! 

message: I've responded to two questions at the Lang. desk in the last couple days and both times now the page that loads when I hit edit next to the question is the archive for that particular day (the day the question was posted).  Why is this happening?  Dismas|(talk) 08:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does that for me as well, but only on threads that are a few days old. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this not happen when a particular day is on the threshold of archiving?  Clio the Muse 08:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it has to do with bot archiving; the bot, to be safe, probably duplicates the information before deleting the otherwise extant version of the RefDesk. V-Man - T/C 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd redirect upon responding 

message: The entertainment desk now has questions from March 5 - 11, plus one question added today (March 20). Questions from March 12 thru 19 are gone. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! (and apologies to Sir Bot) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More botched bottiness (?) 

message: Could the person responsible for placing the icon at the absolute upper right location please move it. I'm using Safari browser with Classic skin and the icon renders over the Go and Search buttons making them useless. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fixed but note that the sine wave icon on your user page obscures in the same way.  --hydnjo talk 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is  causing the same problem? or is it small enough not to get in the way?--VectorPotentialTalk 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's fine, small enough to not obscure any functions. I don't know about any other skins though.  --hydnjo talk 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Colo(ou)r collaboration...  icon

message: I assume RefDeskBot is down for debugging? or did the database crash about an hour ago have some effect on toolserver?--VectorPotentialTalk 01:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole toolserver was/is dow, I'm afraid. Martinp23 06:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  0:00 has come and gone.. 

message: Hi, This is Krishna Here. Can any one help me how to build a UNICODE websites.IF possible please send me a piece of code.Also, the Intial req to be done.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krishna.logic (talk • contribs) 07:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Krishna, please put your question on the reference desk page, not this talk page. Thanks! Think outside the box 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can any one help me how to build a UNICODE Website ? 

message: I made a comment right there under Jfarber´s comment on the Humanities Desk, but I can´t see it right now. Can someone check it, please? I think someone has deleted it. Here is the link with the diff  A.Z. 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some kind of problem w/ the transclusion of Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_March_23, there are comments in the archive which don't appear on the desk, and vice versa.—eric 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I thought it was a conspiracy or something. A.Z. 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See changed title -- I think something much more significant may be wrong, as I get the run of March 23 questions TWICE, from start to finish; AZ's first answer is in the secodn set, while his second answer is in the first set, when one scrolls down the page.  Jfarber 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed (hope i didn't lose anything in the process). Looks like the 22nd was archived before the 23rd's date header was added.—eric 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite all this, it actually was a conspiracy. V-Man - T/C 12:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I would have corrected the headers before the bot got around to archiving them, but I wasn't online, so the problem went unnoticed until after the wrong date headers were already transcluded, so thanks for fixing it--VectorPotentialTalk 17:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can´t find my post on the RD (because there's TWO March 23rds on the Hum desk!)

message: IRC stands for "Internet relay chat" so "IRC chat" is an error. Plain old "Internet relay chat" would be an improvement. --Yath 05:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and "VIN number" would be another example, but does this relate to a specific issue on the Ref Desk ? StuRat 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "IRC chat" appears on the project page. It's protected, so I mentioned it here so someone else can fix it. --Yath 19:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. StuRat 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ATM machine! V-Man - T/C 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to make a change to the project page, this can be done through Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header which is not currently protected--VectorPotentialTalk 00:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC chat, PIN number 

message: For better or worse, This post by Mac Davis qualifies as child porn in some jurisdictions (especially since he is still a minor himself). Removal/oversight? Anchoress 07:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Both posts were merely relating personal experiences, not fulfilling the purpose of the Reference Desk and were likely to offend.—eric 08:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it would be a bit helpful, otherwise I would not have posted it, and anything regarding censorship was not to be worried about. Medical pictures of child genitalia are not regarded as illegal child pornography are they? I figured although it isn't the same thing, it isn't exactly child pornography, since it is used to educate. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal was only censorship in the sense that all editors act as censors, removing material that does not improve Wikipedia. If you would like to respond to a question, please make sure that you can provide references to support your answer, or link article content which covers the subject. Relating your personal experiences is not "a bit helpful", but rather the opposite.—eric 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Supporting as above for removal of posts that consist of personal anecdote of what some may consider a prurient nature (which I wouldn't equate with kiddie porn). Offering links to pertinent pages provides content-specific information, and queries to clarify that content might better be asked on a particular topic's Talk page. Subsequent failure to get an adequate (or any) response could be followed up by a Reference Desk posting that points to the query.-- Deborahjay 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: forgive me but what is this child porn thing about? I will get him traced asap!--Tatshro Satou 16:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child porn 

message: Re Welcome to the XXX reference desk at the top of each page:  I'd like to see the words Language, Mathematics, Miscellaneous, Science, etc spelled with initial capitals. JackofOz 03:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. StuRat 03:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fixed it for you; If I caused anything to go wrong, this was the change, at Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/leftside. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 04:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick work, Mac.  JackofOz 04:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcome banner

message: *If you disagree with someone, it is your responsibility to provide proof that they are wrong. StuRat 04:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find StuRat's proposed "responsible to prove" requirement unreasonable. It evokes some sort of "chronological imperative" - whereas the identical "requirement for proof" applies in providing any information, whether an initial or subsequent response. Furthermore, it would be liable to add to the contentious nature of Reference Desk reply dynamic. How about if respondents focus on providing either internal and/or external links to support their content? -- Deborahjay 10:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Deborahjay.   The phrasing StuRat uses is too strong, both in relation to how reference works and in terms of this being a "requirement".  Additionally, some legitimate reference questions may have multiple answers; we don't want answers to devolve into long, drawn-out fact-throwing contests.  But if we're going to write policy/style whitepapers, we should indeed include some sort of language that encourages people to provide links to evidence.   Perhaps phrasing like "avoid anecdotal evidence" and "the best answers are those which both answer the question and, wherever possible, link to corroborative resources".  Jfarber 12:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is appropriate here to link to the logical fallacy of Negative proof.  Suppose a questioner asks "Were there ever really any unicorns?" and somebody posts a reply saying "Yes, there were, but six thousand years ago they all relocated to the mirror earth on the other side of the sun."  Is it now incumbent on subsequent responders to prove that the first response is false?--LarryMac 13:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it would be wrong to say "I can prove that unicorns never existed", it would be reasonable to say "there is no evidence that unicorns ever existed", "it is unlikely that unicorns ever existed", or "according to Occam's Razor it is most reasonable to believe that unicorns never existed". StuRat 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The other commenters on this have taken the words from my mouth.  Such a policy would grant unwarranted protection to the first talking-out-of-the-ass fast-typing-with-no-time-to-think-cite-or-research answer.  I'm pretty sure that's not what we want to encourage.  It's always reasonable to ask where – or whom – an (uncited) answer comes from.  If the only requirement for the first poster is for him to hold the belief that his opinion is correct, there's no reason why a second, disagreeing poster should have to clear a higher bar. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with others, especially Deborahjay who wrote: the identical "requirement for proof" applies in providing any information. David D. (Talk) 14:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree to lowering it to somehow say there is an equal burden of proof on anyone who makes a claim and anyone who disagrees.  What I really wanted to avoid is the attitude some have that they can disagree with a claim, without providing any proof that the claim is false, and demand that the claim be retracted (unless the author is willing and able to spend the time to find proof). StuRat 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I was talking to an astronomer the other day and he told me that there was a teapot orbiting the sun inside venus's orbit. I've provided a source, now it should stand as an authoritative answer to the question 'what orbits the sun inside venus's orbit'... There's a reason we ask for published, peer-reviewed sources where possible, and rate these higher than hearsay or what someone on the desk thinks might be true. For example, I posted a potential answer to the question on saponification on the science desk, however I made it clear that it was a guess based on what I knew. If someone who knows more about saponification, or soap, or industrial practices, comes along and disagrees, or if someone finds some reasonable source that even suggests that saponification experts think this might not be true, I would happily accept I was wrong. Skittle 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be supporting arguments from authority.  If so, your comment is in the wrong section. StuRat 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, here is my attempt to make the statement more balanced:
*An equal burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim and anyone who disputes this claim. StuRat 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't understand why the Ref Desk should differ from the basic premise of contributing to the project: that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds material. Note that the above quoted policy uses the word evidence, not proof. This is because in most if not all scientific disciplines, few things can be proved beyond all doubt, they can only be disproved. However, enough evidence can be provided and, if its convincing enough, it can be widely accepted by the scientific community. No one piece of evidence will provide "proof", but the overwhelming weight of evidence will mean the community is in consensus. We should be reflecting that in our answers, not debating the scientific process. The proposal here simply means that in any of these situations someone who holds fringe, or pseudoscientific, beliefs gets a chance to promote these views, then challenge others to "prove them wrong". Its also a license for individuals to opine without any basis in fact, then demand equal recognition because it cannot be disproved. That is not the purpose of a Ref Desk. We should instead be providing Sourced evidence for our all claims, or be willing to retract them when challenged unless. Rockpocket 00:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That policy is written for articles, not talk pages like the Ref Desk.  It's obviously not a good idea to allow everyone to remove anything they don't agree with from a talk page, and neither is it a good idea to allow this on the Ref Desk.  On talk pages, including the Ref Desk, you should instead state politely that you disagree, and offer any proof/evidence to support your position.  Also, many statements are simply unprovable.  For example, the recent Language Ref Desk discussion on the shades of meaning of "talk to"/"talk with"/"talk at", which apparently vary by location, would be difficult to answer with references.  Thus, under your policy, anyone could make any of the responders take down their answers because "they lack authoritative sources". StuRat 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we are working on the premise that the Ref Desk is a talk page then we should follow talk page guidelines: talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.. In other words, opinions should not be offered. I would only expect individuals to consider removing an answer without sources if it was shown to be misleading by another answer with authoritative sources. I would expect conscientious respondents to do their utmost to focus attention on a definative sourced answer - not fight to maintain an array of opinions to choose from. If a referenced answer cannot be offered, then either (strictly) no answers should be offered or (more realistically) people will offer their best guesses, but the issue of sourcing will not be a problem. I think the importance of us providing sources for all answers is kind of hinted at by the name of the desk. Rockpocket 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Personal views" are not the same as opinions.  For example, "at the current rate of advancement, I'd expect the first human clones to be produced somewhere within the next decade" is an opinion, while "clones are an abomination unto the Lord" is a personal view.  And, if one claim is disproven by an authoritatively sourced rebuttal, the OP will see that, and there is no need to remove that claim.  This avoids having responders fight over what gets removed, and leaves it up to the OP to judge. StuRat 04:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: responsibility to provide proof

message: *No unilateral removal of the posts of others.  This should only be done once a consensus is developed on the Ref Desk Talk Page. StuRat 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously disagree with this as policy, though I like the idea of having a repository for some removed discourse, as has been done on this talk page recently.   As we see here on the talk page, there are several types of information which can and should be removed unilaterally, including and most especially things like inappropriate materials (cf kitty porn on this same talk page), obvious policy breaches (unarguably dangerous medical advice, like, say, if someone suggested thsat it was okay to take eight aspirin at a time), question duplication on multiple desks, trolling, and clear examples of ad hominem attacks.   For this and other (to be defined?) types of ref desk behavior and language, by the time consensus is reached, it would be far too late; the damage is done.   Jfarber 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in complete agreement with Jfarber.  It is a sad fact that one person's personalised attack seems to be another person's 'fair comment'.  I take this to be the case from personal experience.  Sensible and intelligent editing is an essential part of the Reference Desk, and I am grateful to those who have cut with discretion.  Clio the Muse 12:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would have to agree with Jfarber's reasoning.  While the RefDesk isn't the firehose of crap that is Special:Newpages, there's certainly a substantial volume of trolling, spamming, and personal attacks—including from long-term editors who ought to know better.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I completely agree with Jfarber, especially this bit: by the time consensus is reached, it would be far too late; the damage is done. David D. (Talk) 14:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jfarber too.  This has been brought up a number of times, but demanding prior discussion of removal of content simply won't fly on Wikipedia.  Friday (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We went round and round and round this block 2-3 months ago. Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines is a pretty good compromise and as close to a consensus as we are ever going to get. Is there any point in re-opening this discussion ? Gandalf61 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's always going to be somewhat contentious.  What is offensive to one person may be perfectly reasonable to another.  Who gets to be the unilateral arbiter of this?  I've had posts on this page simply removed because they were contained within a discussion that another person considered an inappropriate discussion.  My posts, viewed in isolation, were utterly appropriate and inoffensive, yet they were just removed because someone had a bee in their bonnet.  When someone says something offensive in an oral conversation, they may later "withdraw" their remarks, but the remarks remain having been said.  They can't be unsaid.  They're permanently on the record in the memories of the co-conversationists.  Same here.  Anyone who wants to go back over the history can find everything that's ever been written here.  It cannot be removed, only hidden from current view.  Wikipedia works by consensus, not arbitrary removal.  JackofOz 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. StuRat 23:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which gets to the core of the dilemma, actually.  Can the Ref desk function effectively as a reference desk (i.e. for querents) if there is no consensus among volunteers about acting like they are volunteering at a reference desk? Jfarber 00:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean "...no consensus in how the Ref Desk should be run", then yes, it can, and has all along. StuRat 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right.  I draw a distinction between having agreed guidelines about how we all should operate, and the removal of posts that are unilaterally deemed contrary to those guidelines.  JackofOz 01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree again. StuRat 01:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Unilateral deletions are allowed on articles, yes, but not in talk pages like the Ref Desk, except for reverting rather extreme cases of vandalism, etc.  Unilaterally deleting the comments of others from talk pages just because you don't like them is most definitely prohibited. StuRat 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: StuRat, please put down the strawman.  You've been using it for months, and it's actively harmful to productive resolution of this issue.  No one is suggesting we ought to "delete the comments of others just because we don't like them".  This is ridiculous.  We're talking about what's appropriate for Wikipedia, not what we do or don't like.  I don't like celery, but an article on celery is appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Friday (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (after edit conflict)  I kinda agree with that, in principle, Friday.  But how would you have reacted if your post had bothered me so much that I just deleted it without any further ado?  The general rules for Wikipedia were created with articles in mind, not talk pages and not the ref desk.  That's not to say we should ditch all the general rules (NPA, etc), but they don't all apply all the time to talk pages.  Talk pages (including this one) are essentially conversations, not the well-polished pieces of prose we hope our articles are/become.  Remove one person's contribution to a conversation, and whatever follows is at risk of being meaningless.  Removing others' posts can be a valid option, but I would like to think it would hardly ever be the first option chosen.  It should be a last resort. JackofOz 04:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a HUGE difference in the standard for removals from article pages, where any unilateral removal that you thinks improves the article is just fine, and talk pages, like the Ref Desk, where other people's comments can only be removed if they cause DISRUPTION, which means it prevents Wikipedia from functioning.  The removals that have been happening on the Ref Desk go well beyond disruption, and get down to unilateral removals just because the deletionist thinks it improves the section. StuRat 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In that kind of a case, I'd imagine that things would continue with Friday questioning your reason for removal, thus entering the consensus process. Of course, it will be a lot different in the case of really new editors who may be bewildered about having an edit removed without explanation, and may not know what to do about it. V-Man - T/C 04:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  That is why, at a very minimum, the author of any removed post should be notified on their talk page, and directed to both the location of the removal and the proper place to lodge any objections or ask any questions about the removal.  Unfortunately, the deletionists rarely do this properly, leaving the author totally confused as to why they can't find their post.  StuRat 04:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Informing the author should be an absolute minimum mandatory requirement.  I've had posts removed without any communication with me whatsoever, and I just stumbled around for a while until I worked out by myself that what I had written was now no longer there.  That is simply unacceptable.   What ever happened to "assume good faith"?  JackofOz 09:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it doesn't sound like it from the tone, the words sound like you're agreeing.  The point is "removal only by consensus" is entirely unworkable (for reasons stated above, mainly timeliness).  Nobody's words at the ref desk are so precious that they must be kept sacrosanct.  The way it works is anybody is free to post whatever they'd like, but anybody else is free to remove anything they consider to be unacceptable.  Conflicts regarding what is unacceptable need to be worked out on this talk page (not on the ref desk itself), generally with the comments in question removed.  The fear (I think I have this right) is that this procedure may lead to censorship and cause some regular contributors to stop contributing.  There's a false dichotomy promoted by some users between inclusionists and deletionists.  The reality is anyone who regularly removes comments that most people would find acceptable is going to be told to stop it and if they don't will ultimately end up being blocked for disruption.  Anyone who persistently posts comments that most people find unacceptable is also going to be told to stop it and if they don't will ultmately end up being blocked for disruption.  -- Rick Block (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of posts

message: *Answer any question that isn't trolling. Even if someone is asking for an opinion on some problem, that is no reason to respond immediately with "no soapboxing". I know that many a good discussion has been ruined when someone came through and tried to make the ref desks pure factual response. I do realize that removal of obious trolling and soapboxing needs removal, but there is no reason to deny us some intelligent discussion. - AMP'd
:*I agree. StuRat 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't agree with this.  Intelligent discussion of the world in general is outside the scope of Wikipedia.  We have enough work to do with things that are within our scope, so we should not go out of our way to encourage inappropriate content. This is the reference desk, not the chat desk or the opinion desk.  Friday (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Disagree.  The proposed style suggestion is too broad; as Friday notes, "good discussion" is not something the majority of us believe the reference desk is for.    Though there are certainly ways to address questions which ask for opinion by providing links to articles which enumerate the debate on both sides -- see, for example, the recent responses to the question Abortion, pro or con -- there are just as certainly some types of questions which do not belong on reference desks.   The ongoing debate here about what is and what is not legitimate "reference desk help" is relevant, but until we resolve it, I doubt we'll get consensus on an "answer any question" standard, nor would I support one.   Jfarber 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Answer, not Discuss! The prime directive on a Reference Desk is providing information. And while I support swift removal of overtly bad faith queries, I'm an  inclusivist: I believe that subverting trollish questions or those on "taboo" topics, for the sake of providing valid information so that countless knowledge-seeking lurkers might benefit from reading it, is A Good Thing. -- Deborahjay 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note, for the sake of accuracy, that IMHO Deborahjay and I are actually answering the same way, here -- as our similar examples demonstrate.   Clearly, there is a similar middle ground that both of us support; just as clearly, the way AMP'd's suggestion is currently phrased goes too far as a point of policy. Jfarber 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (sidenote, moved from above by request: I am MOSTLY an inclusivist as an encyclopedia builder, but NOT as a Ref Desk volunteer. The problem with PURE inclusivism (where Deborahjay and I seem to differ) as a strategy for a space in which each person has equal ability to add a separate answer, and most folks won't bother adding their voice if their answer would be identical, is that it creates an ILLUSION that, once several answers show up, each is supported equally by both evidence and by the total number of volunteers who have seen that question whether or not they answered it. In other words, in a space like THIS -- and NOT in an article built over time -- REFERENCE standards cannot and should not parallel wikipedia ENTRY standards exactly, because the media are different....and here, the short-term frame for answering makes too easily allows any fact and any answer equal weight. Jfarber 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification of my position: Inclusive of query topics; responses to be held accountable for complying with WP standards, e.g. those being promoted in this discussion. The OPs are often coming from outside, whereas respondents quite often are Wikipedians, meaning (a) they ought to know what they're doing, and (b) if not, are due for a comment on their User talk page (rather than cluttering up the query/response discourse with accusations, etc.). -- Deborahjay 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I point that the first words of yours in all capital letters add to the phrase MOSTLY NOT PURE: ILLUSION. THIS NOT REFERENCE. (unfortunately, I think there might be the need to say: this was just a joke!) A.Z. 00:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Disagree. I strongly feel that if we allow 'discussion' on the reference desks, they will not exist 6 months later. Skittle 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I agree. I don't know which arguments I'm going to insert here, but, for now, I have a question: may I ask how Jfarber's sentence "good discussion is not something the majority of us believe the reference desk is for" is not appeal to authority? Well, it was a rethorical question. The fact is it is appeal to the authority of the majority. I'm just pointing it, so everyone can know. I have nothing against you, Jfarber, only against your argument! I has previously wrote it was ad hominem argument because I thought this encompassed appeal to authority. Anyway, what I mean is that the argument does not say a thing about the subject of the discussion. Both Ad hominem and appeal to authority don't say a thing about the subject. They are just not worth anything. worth nothing. A.Z. 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think that's an appeal to the majority. StuRat 23:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Or, in Wikipedia terms, we call this consensus.  Friday (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been hitting edit conflict after edit conflict while AZ goes back in and changes his answer.  I believe my originally written response to an accusation of ad hominem attack STILL counts, though, because the later accusations demonstrate exactly the misunderstandings about what the Ref desk should be for in the first place. To wit: I believe an appeal to majority, to authority, and to community consensus when we are discussing what WE should BE is a perfectly legitimate, nay necessary, aspect of the discussion. The difference between what we're doing HERE and what the Reference Desk is FOR is the very issue at hand; not recognizing that the basic parameters for discussion MUST be different in talk pages and Ref desk pages is actually quite bothersome.   See below for my orig. response to AZ; after that, I'm wiping my hands and out for a while.  Jfarber 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment: There's nothing a troll hates more than to have its trolling turned into lovely flowers. Sometimes, ya just can't turn troll-scat into flowers, and you just have to flush it down the toilet. As far as opinions and speculation go, I'd say that kind of thing would be acceptable if it were backed up by well-cited reliable sources; otherwise answers could take on the form of infinite monkeys. V-Man - T/C 23:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed, Infinite Monkeys: very well put, V-Man!  There was a discussion recently on the Humanities Desk, of all places, on breast fixations, if I remember rightly, and another on incest, which showed every sign of taking on this particular form.  Clio the Muse 00:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Since people here have been granted the AUTHORITY of one vote each, I will use my AUTHORITY (my vote) in the following manner: I will not ever support any change whatsoever to the Reference Desk unless Jfarber and Friday and all other editors involved support the change. If at the end you see that a true consensus has not been reached, change my vote to do nothing. A.Z. 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jfarber + Friday = JFriday! ^_^ V-Man - T/C 00:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  I don't remember saying anything about voting in regards to authority.   Did I miss something I said?  Because I thought the "authority" in wikipedia STYLE discussions was collaborative, consensual, discursive, and ongoing.  And I also could have sworn I said that appeals TO authority are necessary PARTS of a DISCUSSION.  Not sure how declarative threats came out of that.   And I can't figure out how voting came into it.   Weird.   See you all on the desk.  Jfarber 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the opinion of the majority is not in any way related to the truth about what is best for us to do and therefore there should not be any appeal to it on this and any discussion. This is my argument. Please, explain to me how can authority an appeal to the opinion of the majority ever be necessary and ask for any clarifications if you did not understand this argument. A.Z. 00:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (Killer irony.) Consensus is a very comprehensive ideal in Wikipedia, and A.Z. is referring to it to show how difficult consensus may become at times, especially in hair-splitting situations like this. V-Man - T/C 00:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Are you really saying you think there is a correlation of intelligence with edit count? David D. (Talk) 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: questions which ask for opinion

message: The wiki process to determine content, content must be written from a neutral point of view, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, avoid original research, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a social networking site, or a discussion forum, are "what we have so far". If someone would like to challenge any of these policies or guidelines then the appropriate place is at those talk pages, not here.—eric 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  I'd only add that these notions are sufficient entrenched and well-accepted that there's really no point anyone challenging them.  Oh, and don't bother arguing that the reference desk is "different"- check the URL, it's part of Wikipedia, whether you want it to be or not.  Friday (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  I have personally pointed out to you several times the stuff at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Maintain_Wikipedia_policy. I'm not making this up.  We really do need to observe core content policies, even on talk pages.  I'm frankly amazed that you keep asserting otherwise, after the countless times you've been referred to the guidelines that explain all this. Friday (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a "guideline", and also states "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation...".  It also appears to be talking specifically about talk pages for an article, not talk pages like the Ref Desk or user talk pages.  It would be absurd to say that those things are prohibited on user talk pages, for example. "No listing your location unless you have an authoritative source to prove it !".  I'm frankly surprised that you continue to wikilawyer and misapply this guideline. StuRat 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a talk page. It's not within the the talk namespace, it's linked from the main page, we field a number of questions from those who are new to wikipedia, and the name "Reference Desk" itself should give everyone some idea of it's purpose. If the Wikipedia community had the impression that this was just a talk page, i think that main page link would go away fairly quickly and the reference desk would be listed on MfD soon after.—eric 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not within "mainspace", with the articles, either, as Ref Desk edits aren't considered to be "mainspace edits". StuRat 17:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if the RDs are not talk pages then Friday's pointer to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines is irrelevant anyway. And if we can't even agree on what sort of page the RDs are, then I don't see how we can agree on anything. And I think the RDs were already listed on MfD a few weeks back (here), but the debate was speedily closed, IIRC. Gandalf61 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What eric thinks we ''really'' have so far

message: : I reject the false dichotomy, and encourage others to try to transcend the interpersonality that is endemic TO talk pages (and is therefore appropriate here), for just a moment, while I try to explain what I mean to say. 
:First: Friday and eric may not realize it, but it is both a dismissal and a straw man to suggest that we are challenging policies which apply to wikipedia entries, and that therefore we should address our concerns in those policy spaces.   
:Because although SOME of those policies apply to ALL spaces in wikipedia, some apply specifically to the writing of wikipedia ENTRIES.   For example, the issue of consensus need not apply for a given paragraph; on the reference desks, multiple answers, or partial answers, get to stand on their own, while on article pages, these eventually evolve into a single entry, OR into two discrete entries.   For another example, consensus does not exist on, say, the page about what barnstars are.  Special pages are special pages; community standards apply; content-driving standards relate to what the page is for.  
:In other words: it is NOT true that the reference desk are a talk page.   THIS is a talk page.  But the reference desk is not an article space, either.   
:The wiki process to determine content which eric cites is specifically designed to maximize potential success for wikipedia ENTRY content -- which can be created over time, which can be slowly tweaked by a group consensus process, and which results in a single document which represents the current state of community agreement to the extent that such things can exist.   Reference content shares few of these attributes.  Therefore, rules designed to maximize potential for Wikipedia entry spaces may or may not be successful rules for the reference desks.  
:The question, then, becomes WHICH wikipedia-wide standards SHOULD apply, and which would not make sense given the different nature of the medium of "reference desk".   It's too easy, and too wrong, to merely say "this is wikipedia; everything is the same".  As the "reference desk is a talk page" proponents point to, the reference desks are not like encyclopedia entries; that they take this too far does not mean their fundamental instincts that this is NOT a wikipedia ENTRY space are faulty.  
:As such, though many wikipedia expectations (such as WP:NOT#SOAP) will apply, some (like the consensus standard, and the notability standard) will not always apply.   Two answers are sometimes better than one here; such is not the case in wikipedia entries; how do we best make style sheets and policies which acknoledge the difference?   I'd be happy to go more deeply into this, but I did want to at least mention that there IS a difference...and it's NOT the difference that makes this talk page different.  
:In sum, then:  though I agree with eric and Friday that many Wikipedia standards should apply which are currently not being applied, I ALSO agree with those who are arguing that the space might need SOME parameters and style suggestions.   And I invite us to consider, now, what a reference desk IS...because if we define the medium, I believe we can better define the style that would best drive it forward.   Jfarber 16:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of what you say, but do consider the Ref Desk to be a talk page, just not an article talk page (where a specific article is discussed).  I fully agree that almost nobody considers the Ref Desk, and whether the rules they made apply to the Ref Desk, when writing general guidelines and policies.  There seems to be considerable sloppiness in the rules and guidelines in failing to say whether those rules apply throughout Wikipedia or only to specific areas.  For example, almost none of the rules apply to what a user can put on their own user page, yet the policy and guideline pages rarely bother to make that distinction. StuRat 17:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We've been through all this before.  Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines.  My point was not to suggest that the ref desk is a talk page, but rather to point out that even on talk pages we should still observe the basic editorial policies that make Wikipedia an encyclopedia rather than a forum.  Personally I think the term "reference desk" tells us what we need to know about its purpose, but we still have no shortage of people who read this to mean "chat desk".  I suppose we could start seeking community bans from the ref desk for whose who make a habit of misusing it.  Friday (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly agree with Friday on this one. Its name makes it very clear what its purpose is, and thus it can't be considered a talkpage as its role is not to talk or discuss, but to act as a reference source. Any of the policies proposed here will only serve to indemnify the desk from our core policies. This will be ultimately harmful for the future of the desk, as it will legitimise (either explicitly or implicitly) the perception that debate and opinion serve its purpose. I also support seeking community opinion on taking action to stop those who misuse the desk, as it seems to be a constant battle to keep it from turning into a discussion forum. Rockpocket 19:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, if and editor continues to cause problems then seeking community sanctions is the best solution. However, i don't think we need greater community involvement before making edits to improve the desk. For instance, a particularly useless series of additions were recently made, on the Misc. desk. These should be reverted and the editor warned. I don't think we should hold off trying to improve the desk until it reaches the point a community ban is necessary.—eric 20:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  If we're diligent about removing inappropriate content, hopefully those putting it in will realize we don't want it, and they'll probably stop.  Unless they continue to press the issue, no sanctions will be necessary. Friday (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's my stab at a three sentence Guideline- - - "The Wikipedia Reference Desk pages are neither articles nor talk pages.  Regardless, any contributions and edits to the Ref Desk should abide by the standards and policies of Wikipedia as much as possible.  These include, but are not limited to, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL."  --LarryMac 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that's reasonable.  But the downside is, the people who are the problem either don't understand or don't accept our standards and policies to begin with.  That's pretty much the entire problem.  Friday (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Friday, you obviously have certain editors in mind when you refer to "the people who are the problem". Will you please name them ? Gandalf61 21:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen tons of editors on the ref desk and elsewhere who clearly don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia.  I deal with them any time I do new pages patrol.  I certainly can't remember them all. I don't think it really matters to list them- if a particular editor becomes a recurring problem, it'll become apparent from the talk page, I would expect.  Friday (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Friday, are you saying that you see new editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia as a "problem" that you have to "deal with" ? Gandalf61 20:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Friday assumes that these "tons of editors" are all wrong about their interpretation of what the Ref Desk is for and his is the only possible correct interpretation ? StuRat 22:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh dear.  In that case, perhaps "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether" (as stated on WP:Policy) comes into play and we're all in the wrong place.  --LarryMac 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A reference desk is, equally, by definition where references are sought and offered, not opinions. If we are looking for definitions on which to hang out policies, let start with that one, shall we? Rockpocket 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hang out policies" ? Does that mean no loitering ?  "Move it along folks, nothing to see here". :-) StuRat 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As for opinions, I believe librarians are often asked for opinions, such as "what's a good book about the environment for 8 year olds ?". StuRat 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Figuring out what a reference desk is NOT will help us start figuring out what it IS...

message: Just in case anyone missed it the first time, I put together a brief sketch of my Ref Desk philosophy the last time we went 'round this merry-go-round.
See User:TenOfAllTrades/RD thoughts.
Please bear in mind that my remarks aren't meant to be converted directly to policy instructions; they're intended more to provide a framework for our discussion: an idea of the purpose of the Desk, and how it fits into the Wikipedia project as a whole.  Briefly, I believe that the Ref Desk must remain true to three major guiding principles:
#The Reference Desk is here to provide information to people who need help answering their questions.
#The Reference Desk should be a useful part of Wikipedia.
#The Reference Desk must maintain a friendly, open, welcoming environment.
I've also indicated a few guidelines that I feel should flow logically from these principles.  (The list of guidelines is not meant to be exhaustive; indeed, an exhaustive list is probably not achievable, and attempting to formulate a complete list would likely just least to ruleslawyering.)
If anyone finds my remarks useful, feel free to appropriate them, in whole or in part.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tooting my own horn 

message: I have removed a great chunk of unacceptable personal attacks from the Humanities Desk with this diff. (). I hope that all contributors will refrain from this activity. --Dweller 08:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I support removing any question that starts out with the dread phrase "I was wondering what my fellow Wikipedians' opinion might be "  (emphasis added).  Such question can only lead to no good.  IMHO  ;-)  --LarryMac 13:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that personal attacks do not belong on the Ref Desk, I don't see how these were precipitated by it being an opinion question.  The source of the problem was Clio mistakenly calling "Britain" by the name "England", thus excluding Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland from the discussion.  This could just as well have happened on a strictly factual question. StuRat 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the "problem" was caused by someone getting their panties in a knot because someone said "England" instead of "Britain". It wasn't caused by Clio, but by someone else's emotional reaction to an error in diction. - Nunh-huh 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also Clio's refusal to correct her error, at first, and her ad hominem attack: "...even a graduate of Glasgow University will recognise...".  But, again, none of this has anything to do with it being an opinion question. StuRat 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd characterize it as her refusing to perform on demand like a circus seal. The questioners don't get to dictate the responses, and they don't get to demand that they be changed. The initial questioner's emotional response caused the problem; there'd have been no escalation without repeated provocation. Clio's response was, admittedly, not optimal, but everyone occasionally falls for the sort of trollery the querant quickly descended into. - Nunh-huh 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not that opinions inevitably lead to this sort of thing.  But, opinion questions are irrelevant to the mission of Wikipedia- so any trouble they cause, no matter how small, is a net loss to the project.  We have enough work to do with things that are relevant to the mission of Wikipedia- why should we borrow trouble by facilitating irrelevant things?  By simple cost/benefit analysis, opinion questions are not desirable. Friday (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Image:Totodog.jpg - "...redact remarks in toto..."
I do, in part, blame myself for causing this little storm.  I should have recognised that there was a possible problem from the slightly hysterical tone taken by the questioner.  I have to say, though, that I thought it legitimate to attempt comparisons between the two Prime Ministers under consideration.  On a personal note, I am English (just as I am upper class!) and I do, from time to time, refer to my country as England, as have many others in the past, including Prime Ministers of Scottish origin.  As I said, it is a cultural reflex on my part, one I expect that will continue to exert its power.  I am sorry if this upsets people, but I will not change who I am.  Finally, my reference to Glasgow University ( a fine institution) was not an 'ad hominen' attack, but a measured retort to a cringing remark about Cambridge.  Clio the Muse 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll add a 'me too' here; it's almost always best to avoid editing another editors' signed remarks; people can get very touchy when you alter (intentionally or not) what they say.  Best, in future, to redact remarks in toto with appropriate explanation to the involved editors.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I wanna know who added this page to the Wikipedia humor category... V-Man - T/C 03:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it has; I thought you were joking!  Perhaps this is no great surprise, V-Man.  I'm sure you must be familiar with the alleged Medieval theological debate over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?  Are you not reminded of this by so much of the discussion this page generates? I certainly am.  Ah well, the futility of all earthly things!  Clio the Muse 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because I was curious, I checked some history and determined that the Essay and Humo(u)r tags got added as a result of the insertion of a link to the "Astronomer vs Amateur" essay above.  --LarryMac 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I plead guilty.  I forgot that transcluding the page would bring the category tags along for the ride. But the humour tag does seem appropriate. In the black farce sort of way.:evil grin: David D. (Talk) 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks on Humanities desk 

message: I personally think we are doing a much better job of answering the "what is a dog?" questions! Very friendly answers, not even "this is an encyclopedia you know?" [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 06:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (see above.) V-Man - T/C 09:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So do I. A.Z. 23:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations!

message: After a question on the Misc. desk this week led to some great and truly REFERENCE DESK fact-checking (a properly sourced study used a 1971 journal article to make a claim that adding Vitamin D to soy milk was not legal), the New York Times changed an article to reflect that fact-finding...without saying that they had changed it.   Especially odd journalistic practice, given that the original article was a) the most emailed article on the NYT website for most of this week, and b) claimed that soy milk could not be fortified in ways that would make it a good idea to serve to, say, kids, and thus could have had a seriously negative impact on the public perception of appropriate use for soy alternatives for kids.   (I'm biased, here -- I'm lactose intolerant, and have kids)
I must admit, I was disappointed in the NYT response; at best, it would have been nice to show that wikipedia can get some GOOD press once in a while, but at the least, I had hoped a public correction would help those who had seen the original article know that it was not after all illegal to add Vitamin D or calcium to soy milk (which would mitigate the blow the original article made to public perception of soy milk as a truly healthy alternative).   Now, I suspect most folks will never know the correction was made; the article makes it look like the error was never there.  
Given the dubious journalism involved, I submitted this to BoingBoing; it's up on their site today.   See the original ref desk discussion for the issue and my letter which (I assume) prompted the change to the article; see here for the boingboing article.   And nice work, all of us, for this and every effort to help the world see the power of reference!   Jfarber 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it might be considered as piling on, but I sent an e-mail to Jane Brody (the author of the NYT article in question) to point out this discrepancy between "correction" and "glossing over," encouraging her to bring the correction to light in the spirit of old-fashioned journalism rather than brush the error aside. Thought y'all ought to know. V-Man - T/C 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also heard from at least one other wikipedian who has written to the public editor at the Times, asking why there was no correction; not sure what critical mass is for a body as substantial as the New York Times, but it does make me ever hopeful that we will get some sort of response, at least.   On a side note: this seems to be turning into a story about journalist ethics, which is interesting to me.    Our original concerns about the story, IMHO, seemed to point to the panel recommendations, not to the reporter, as being responsible for reporting outdated information.   It is only since the article was emended silently, with no accompanying correction or acknowledgement, that the Times' journalism has been called into question.   One might say that this wasn't about the Times, until the Times made it about themselves.   Unfortunately for them, as the BoingBoing acceptance may suggest, in a world where blogger-journalists pass discovery around like lightning, the Times may be a juicer target than a study about the nutritional applications of beverages, no matter how popular the original article may have been.  Jfarber 03:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Original story now includes a correction!   (But no acknowledgement of delay in making that correction.)   Jfarber 13:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any acknowledgment that Wikipedia editors notified them of the error ? StuRat 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI:  Wikipedia Reference Desks on BoingBoing (story updated) 

message: I have a problem with the "general advice" provided to the "Plea Bargain Gone Bad (3.7, March 29)" query by StuRat, upon whose User talk page I've written as follows:   
*...[this] would have been more appropriately worded had it not been couched as your personal opinion. There are other, more objective ways to present the possibility that serving time in prison may have a corrective effect (note links to pertinent pages), rather than "Prison time might be just what they need." On the other hand, your remark that "you should keep him away from that bad influence [i.e. his brother] in any way you can" is irresponsible and presumptuous, and writing that "it might be time to give up on him" [i.e. the OP's recidivist son], is that and worse. It's my belief that such remarks degrade the reputable nature of the Reference Desk as a source of information (and I will ask about this on its Discussion forum). The RD policy of not providing legal or medical advice is clear; exercising good judgment (and good taste) is the responsibility of all respondents, at their discretion. That response of yours, however well meant, is grossly lacking that latter quality. You might consider amending it yourself, if you see fit, besides the sort of disclaimer JackofOz subsequently added. 
I have no objection per se if a response lacks citations or is based on personal knowledge, even the anecdotal (particularly on the Language RD, e.g. regional differences in usage or pronunciation). However, I feel the conjectural, subjective nature of this response on a sensitive matter, crossed some lines here. I'd appreciate clarification if my position is outside the consensus or RD guidelines. --Thanks, Deborahjay 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, thank you.  --LambiamTalk 23:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you realize that you're basically promising to be disruptive with this statement?  This is inappropriate- you're saying you're going to hold the page hostage until everyone does what you say.  This is a collaborative project.  What you're doing is no way to work peacefully with others.  Friday (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not "holding the page hostage".  And it's not what I say, but what the consensus says.  In fact, I haven't seen one person argue that it's a good idea to delete contributions without notifying the author. StuRat 05:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, there is no consensus yet that if one party does something inappropriate, you have the freedom to react by doing something else that is inappropriate.  --LambiamTalk 11:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the crux.  It's not ok to abandon the rules in relation to an apparently wayward user just because they have done so, or for any other reason.  In simple terms, "two wrongs don't make a right".  If there ever is a consensus that the rules cease to apply when someone pushes our buttons, or whatever, we may as well dispense with the rules here and now.  Responsible behaviour is about dealing with an issue without resorting to the same stunts that irresponsible people engage in.  JackofOz 05:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that EricR does this all the time, by saying that "because (in his personal opinion) this response violates X (usually some policy dealing with Wikipedia articles)", he can then delete it, without consensus, and without notifying the author.  He is the one doing "two wrongs make a right".  I, on the other hand, simply restore us to the situation before the last wrong was committed. StuRat 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (non-legal/medical) "Advice" on the Ref Desk 

message: Has anyone else noticed that March 29 on the Humanities desk seems to have been vaporised?  Clio the Muse 00:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot ate it, but failed to regurgitate the archive page.—eric 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The day vanishes 

message: Per two recent topics here, there are evidently problems with this, along with a risk of rev wars. Setting aside the issue of what/why to remove, it would be instructive to have:
* a refresher explanation—including citation of the pertinent Reference Desk policy—of the "proper removal" process (to which StuRat refers above). 
* Discussion if the existing policy is being challenged
* Renewed consensus and compliance.
-- Thanks, Deborahjay 06:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, AFAIK, we don't have an RD policy, as such (yes, yes, I know the RDs are part of Wikipedia, which has overall standards such as WP:5P, but we don't have a policy that is written specifically for the RDs). We do have Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer, but we don't have agreed guidelines on how to handle "problem" situations. Attempts to define such guidelines a couple of months ago were resisted on the grounds that it would be process creep, "guidelines encourage wikilawyering", "we don't need more policies", "Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules", "all we need is common sense" etc. The closest point we got to agreed guidelines the last time we went round this block is preserved at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines. Personally, I think that the resurfacing of this debate shows that we do need agreed RD guidelines, but I am pessimistic about the chances of reconciling the very different stances taken by various regulars on this talk page. Gandalf61 10:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My thinking is that a notice here on the talk page which explains the reasoning behind the removal and invites further discussion should really be sufficient. If there's consensus though that each individual contributor also needs a notice on their talk page then i'll do so. I do object however to feeding the trolls by requiring that they be notified if their trolling is removed. Please do not restore such content simply because they have not been made aware that we've cleaned up after them.—eric 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with eric- the talk page is good enough.  This should only be brought up on user talk if the same editor is repeatedly posting inappropriate content- then this would be a user conduct issue.  Friday (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this talk page is not good enough, you know darned well that newbies won't know to look here for an explanation of why their contributions have been destroyed. Also, EricR goes well beyond deleting contributions he thinks violate policy, he also deletes responses to such contributions, where he only thinks the original contribution violated policy, not the response, and he deletes things simply because he personally (and incorrectly) judges the response to be incorrect. StuRat 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You should tell them what specifically you objected to in their post, not just give a big list and say "it's probably one of those". StuRat 19:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedure for Removal of [[WP:RD|RD]] Responses 

message: There's now a template for warning an editor that their contribution to the desk has been removed, though i'm still not sure this is a good idea.—eric 16:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should tell them what specifically you objected to in their post, not just give a big list and say "it's probably one of those". StuRat 19:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User warning template

message: According to StuRat, (above), "NPOV in the form of every contribution reflecting all POVs is only necessary on article pages, not the Ref Desk.  At the Ref Desk, NPOV can be accomplished by having several responders list their POV." I find the latter practice turns the RD into an opinion forum, not to mention that providing balanced content would then only "be accomplished"—that is, remain entiredly dependent upon—the chance contributions of subsequent posters. It also tacitly releases all respondents from any obligation to provide objective information. While I'm unclear on the conclusion and consensus regarding the nature of Ref Desk content falling somewhere between an article's page and its Talk page in regard to requiring NPOV, my question is: What is the current policy? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 06:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that even articles often use the "multiple POVs" form to assure NPOV, as in articles with "arguments for" and "arguments against" (or "criticisms of") sections. StuRat 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not the personal opinions of the contributors (or if they happen to be, this is purely accidental). They should be attributable, just like anything else. Even for article talk pages the guidelines state: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.  --LambiamTalk 11:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ref Desk doesn't contain "article talk pages", but rather a completely different type of talk pages, more like user talk pages. StuRat 03:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[WP:RD|Reference Desk]] as a [[WP:NPOV|POV]] free-for-all forum? 

message: Many of the conflicts we've had come from people who are actually objecting not specifically to what happens at the ref desk, but rather to the character of Wikipedia in general.  I would invite those people to raise their objections in the appropriate place, rather than here.  If everyone would read and understand the five pillars, this may help a lot.  Then, if you want to raise an argument about why NPOV is bad, for example, you can do it at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view rather than here.  I would also encourage those responding to such arguments to merely say "Look, you're objecting to a pillar, this isn't the place for it" rather than continue to have the same discussions here over and over.  (I've been as guilty as anyone of violating this last suggestion, so I'm going to try changing my approach).  Friday (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think all the people debating on the electoral reform thread do not understand the five pillars or are objecting to them? The pillars are really vague and I for one admit that I do not understand them, but I think that other people may just have different interpretations for them. A.Z. 19:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe the best way to understand them is to go get lots of experience editing articles, and occasionally go back to the page and re-read them.  They should get more clear over time.  Friday (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the best thing is to understand why someone felt compelled to come up with something called the Five Pillars, and why they gained broad acceptance. Rather than having someone tell you, "these are the rules, learn them well", as if they were sent from heaven and are infallible. Vranak
The problem isn't "not understanding the rules of Wikipedia", but rather those who try to apply rules, which were written for articles, to the Ref Desk, without change.  Some rules don't apply at all (like anyone being able to remove anything as long as they think it's an improvement), other rules are applied differently (like NPOV, neutrality is obtained by obtaining many views on the Ref Desk, and suppressing none, not by requiring that each response contain all possible views), and other rules apply in exactly the same way to the Ref Desk, like assuming good faith. StuRat 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you say neutrality should be treated differently on the ref desk? Are you saying there's existing consensus or a guideline that indicates this, or are you giving your own opinion on how things should be?  There are well-established ways of dealing with neutrality - I can't think of a good reason to not use these established practices on the ref desk also.  Friday (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The help desk does not - nor cannot - operate as if we were writing articles in response to questions.  Mostly people come here because the articles we have have failed them in some way (well, no - mostly people come here to troll - but when we do get a serious question, it's often because articles have failed them).  As a result, the answers they get cannot be properly referenced - they are frequently off-the-cuff and it sometimes takes the answers from several Wikipedians to nail the result.  What we have here is more a conversation between people who mostly have the right knowledge - it's what you get if you ask someone a question - not what you expect to find in an encyclopedia.  We very often nail the question exactly - sometimes we don't.  Humor creeps in because it's a conversation - not a formal article.  All in all, I think we help people - which makes it worthwhile. SteveBaker 16:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, NPOV doesn't apply in the same way to talk pages, like the Ref Desk.  To say that, in response to the question "What are US politician's view on abortion ?", I can't list any politician's views unless I list every politician's views, in order to maintain NPOV, is absurd. StuRat 19:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some conflicts are really objections to the pillars of Wikipedia