Talk:On the gripping hand (idiom)

Use

I used this the other day without even thinking about it and got quizzical looks from my coworkers! :-) -- WhiteDragon 06:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I use it all the time - I think in threes and fives, so it comes quite naturally - and make a point of linking to this article whenever I do it online. - Korivak 20:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am not a "particularly devoted fan of Niven and Pournelle" but I use this all the time. Whoever I am. (this unsigned comment was added on 21st October 2005 from 67.130.105.243.)

I don't know if this article gives the best explanation; one of the characters in the book describes it as an illustration of 'Aristotelian logic'. My understanding was it was a nice way of expressing the dialectic form of reasoning: 'on the one hand' = the thesis: 'on the other hand' = antithesis: 'on the gripping hand' = synthesis: we can't actually say this, as symetrical beings, though the phrase 'on the other hand' sort of implies it,so its nice to have a way of doing so. On the other hand,it doesn't help that some of the examples in the book aren't clear, and fit the description in the article. The gripping hand is, does anybody think the article should be amended to reflect this? (this unsigned post was added on 24th July 2006 from 62.6.139.11)

I always thought the "gripping hand" was meant to underline an important consideration with the decision to be made, such as the two options may be irrelevant and potentially harmful in the light of some other circumstance 128.113.148.163 13:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it at least means there is a strong, dominant, or as above a syncretic option among three (or two if syncretic) options. For example, my merge proposal below: 98.215.48.213 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe the line from the novel was "three possibilities, one dominant". It is most definitely not synonymous with "on the third hand..." 87.194.152.231 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

On the one hand, I like Niven and Pournelle and use "The Gripping Hand" as an expression every so often. On the other hand, this is a stub with only one reference at best. On the Gripping Hand, the article is also small and I'm not at all convinced of the Notability of the expression (where I am convinced that the novel itself would easily survive a challenge on book notability grounds. Therefore I would recommend rolling this text into the main article The Gripping Hand, and that Gripping hand and variants be redirected to the book. Comments? 98.215.48.213 (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice example! But I don't think I'd agree with a merge; the expression could do with being clarified, but it does seem to have a bit of a life of its own. Is it worth trying to establish some notability for the expression? And is it worth trying to clarify things here? I've got some ideas how to do that; is it worth starting? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on the merge - just because the novel uses the phrase in its title, it's not really connected, certainly not any more than it's connected with the first book. Kuralyov (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the section "Motie" in The Mote in God's Eye should be split off, and Gripping hand should be merged into that subsequent article. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? What purpose would that serve? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there some confusion about what this page is about? Maybe it needs moving to "On the Gripping Hand (idiom)" or something. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the merge. What we have now is two short articles; each refers, as they must, to the other. In fact, in order to explain the title, this one covers the main point of the other.

To cover the rare instance where someone might be interested in the phrase, but not the book, a redirect from 'The gripping hand (idiom)' to the section on the phrase would work quite well.

B00P (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus here for a merge (2 for, 2 against); if there are no objections I'll close the discussion and remove the tags. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK done. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Used in Mote?

I know that this expression appeared in the sequel, but I don't recall seeing it in the first book. I don't have my copy with me, so I can't check for myself either way. Anybody want to take a look? Kufat (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall that either. The name "gripping hand" maybe appeared already on the first book, but the figurative use on having a third choice was introduced at the start of the second book, as a clue that moties had contacted humans outside their system, and as a plot device for all of the second book. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea isn’t explicitly in the first book, though it’s hinted at.

On p520 (during the negotiations) Jock says "I say this because it is obvious, although I am told your trading procedure does not usually include admission of disadvantage. On the other hand—" the Motie looked curiously at her three hands. The humans did likewise and there was laughter. Which was the other hand for a Motie?' Moonraker12 (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Move?

I suggested a move to "On the gripping hand (idiom)" in january, to clarify what this page is about, but there was no response. If there are no objections I will do that in a couple of days. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

re-write?

I also suggested a bit of a re-write, to clarify the term and its current use. Again, I will post a draft in a couple of days if there are no objections. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability?

Can someone establish notability for this article? It seems like a prime AfD candidate. And, I don't mean "is the phrase used?"-- I've used it myself. But most idioms I can think of don't have wikipedia entries either (e.g. the idiom "On the other hand..." has no entry). It's more of a "cultural references" bullet point in the main Mote article. Wellspring (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(I keep meaning to do something with this...) I thought the notability was OK; is it not? The phrase is used in the book, and is in the Jargon Dictionary in the External link section, and, as you say, people use it. That's about the same as a lot of the phrases in the Idiom category (which I've added). What did you have in mind? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge

This is an obscure idiom that seems to only be here, frankly, because some wikipedians like to stroke their own egos. The only "source" given is a literal compendium of "stuff I made up on the way home from school", and the actual text of the article does nothing to demonstrate its own importance - it is made up of weasel-wording, and is, again, ego-stroking. It also relies almost totally on original research, rather than citations. This really has no right to have its own article.68.58.50.173 (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article for this "idiom" is longer than that of the book itself.68.58.50.173 (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Weasel wording" and "ego stroking"? You’ll need to explain that a bit, I think.

In the meantime though, how will a merger remedy the situation? There’s very little overlap, and moving most or all of the text here to the GH page isn’t going to improve it. It will also (as you have noted) result in an article where over half the content is taken up explaining an a pretty minor point.

Unless of course by "merge" you really mean "delete and substitute a redirect", which isn’t really the way we do it.

If you think there are problems with the text, why not simply improve it? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ego stroking: "Some of the more devoted fans of Niven and Pournelle will sometimes slip into this metaphor in regular speech, often resulting in some confusion for the listener. The abbreviation OTGH, modeled on OTOH, is also used in some SF discussion groups." In fact, that's a prime example of the weasel wording as well, since the claim is so general there's no way to practically disprove it.

By merging, I would suggest integrating the plot summary of what the term means into the story synopsis of the gripping hand article, with a small note, maybe in the lead, that the idiom from the novel has some life outside of the novel, using the hackers database cite there. It is not, in any way, sufficient to establish notability for an entire article, as it tries to do here, but it could serve to establish existence, on that page.

Honestly though, the "delete and substitute as a redirect" is exactly the method of choice for wikipedia on fiction-based articles. I've seen it used nearly everywhere. I hate when a redirect is not actually covered on the target page, but it's simply not true to say it's something novel for wikipedia.67.163.2.212 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice that, with a fine disregard for consensus, you’ve deleted the content here, under the guise of carrying out a merger. I’ve reverted it, as the discussion isn’t closed.

The phrase is notable enough; it’s backed by a reliable source (which is mirrored here, and here) and a google search for it throws up over a quarter of a million hits , which compares well with other entries in the category. Of the neighbours there, Out of the blue (idiom) has more, but Nosebleed section, and Nancy Reagan Defense have significantly less.

And you still haven’t given any justification for this other than "I don’t like it"

So again, if you don’t like how it is written, (and I’m not disputing that) then re-write it. Or if you don’t want to, I’ll do it. Though I’ll give you a bit more than 16 minutes to respond on that...Moonraker12 (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

...did you not check the target page? I brought in as much as I could.

You can't just say "it's notable", you have to have sources to back it up. The jargon file does not establish that, and as it stands, this page has one cite (to a book on programming), and an external link. That is not enough citations to establish notability.

The figurative use section, which takes up the meat of this article, is the lead (every bit of which I merged), with slightly more detail, quite a lot of repetition (the first and second paragraphs say essentially the same thing), and then explanation of the idiom's place in the book (all of which I merged). It then has a totally unsourced, weasel-worded, ego-stroking ("more devoted fans") passage about its use in the real world - which I still recycled into the merge).

Also, I gave plenty of justification in my initial post beyond "I don't like it", so you can stop about that right now. In fact, I gave all the same justifications I'm giving now.

Google hits do not establish notability, at all. If they did, it would beg the question of why we don't have articles for "happy medium" or "on one hand/on the other hand", the two real-world idioms that this idiom is an extension of.

Furthermore, after the merge (which was a merge, I recycled all non-redundant info), this page is 100% redundant to the target article.

As I've oft been told, it is not the mergist's responsibility to re-write the article, it is the separatist's responsibility to provide a quality article that demonstrates need for independence. As I've just said, this page is currently:

1. Made up about 90% of OR
2. Uses only one source to claim notability, without actually using that source properly (ie, showing how that source uses it), and is a source that to me, doesn't seem very reliable for this sort of thing anyway (as it is not an academic work on idioms, but appears to just be some guy using the idiom personally, within his work on an unrelated topic)
   1. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so this idiom would need especial citations to establish notability, and "it's been used" would be the opposite of appropriate types of citations.
3. Heavily uses weasel wording
4. Is completely redundant to the target article

I'll go ahead and rewrite this article to address these as much as I can (bar the redundancy), but I doubt you'll like it.12.53.10.226 (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Followup: Here's the specific policy, emphasized bits mine.

Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. If you are interested in writing an article on a neologism, you may wish to contribute it to that project instead.

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.

In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

EDIT: Hmm, it appears that someone else merged the article while I was posting this. It's up to you to discuss that action with him, but I personally think that the policy is pretty clear in this context, and that it even goes further in implying that the jargon file cite is also unacceptable, meaning that the page would have had no sources. An export to wiktionary might be appropriate, if you want.12.53.10.226 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I’ve been pretty gobsmacked by this. If I thought merging whilst a discussion was still open was high-handed, merging while you are in mid-sentence really takes the biscuit.

There are a number of things in what you say I’d have liked to reply to, but it seems a little academic now; I’ll take Uncle Dick's intervention as a vote for a merger.

But also, your point about Neologisms is fair comment; I hadn’t really seen it that way.

And I don’t dislike your re-write ( I did ask what you wanted it to say) though I suppose I had something more like this in mind. Still, it doesn’t matter now.

All in all, not a good day! Moonraker12 (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW Do you check your talk pages? I’ve left a note for you here. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am using IPs because I don't want to create an account, and have to move between multiple computers, but I don't think I've been pretending that I am multiple people, and I am sorry if you got that impression.

Your rewrite of the page, I think, would still be plagued by redundancy, as well as bits of OR. The "Figurative use" section is only a few details shy of the last two lines of the lead, as well as containing OR about the Moties not using it, and the "current use" is also based on OR, and almost word-for-word a restatement of a line in the lead.

As a matter of principle, also, no wikipedia article with any pretension of respectability should ever link to tvtropes. That site can be entertaining, but it is in no way informative, academic, or reliable.12.53.10.226 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)