Talk:List of eponymous laws/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Poe's Law

Poe's Law would be another worthwhile addition. Colonel Tom 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

These sites refer to Scopie's Law: http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/163/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/the_nuttiness_that_is_whaleto.php http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Internet_Law http://jdc325.wordpress.com/laws-of-the-internet/ How notable does an internet law need to be before it is added to this page? 325jdc (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I removed this edit which was added by a friend while I was getting coffee. The edit wasn't "wrong" per se, but violated WP:COI in that I coined the law and my IP was the "editor". Pommer 18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability and verifiability

This list seems to be a catch-all for a whole slew of non-notable, unverifiable (i.e. no reliable sources) "laws" that are used only within certain groups of people. "Laws" from and used solely in newsgroups, forums, blogs, wikis, etc. placed here because some fanboy or fangirl thought it was "cool" (e.g. "Poe's Law") should be removed. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit of a hodge-podge at the moment. I'd welcome some consensus around inclusion rules. The page started out as a list of eponymous laws having wikipedia articles. I accept that we might need to go wider than that - there may be otherwise reasonable laws which for some reason do not have an article. Amara's law would be one of those, for me, at the moment. But the page is also a dumping ground for newly minted laws & attention seekers. I think we should probably get tough & sensible, and demand proper citation for laws, which is a mention by a reputable secondary source; or else remove them. Thoughts? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines for lists wp:lists states pretty clearly that items in lists must meet all the core content policies such as verifiability. It would seem to suggest to me that anything on here would need a wp:rs source to stay. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a template box we can put at the top of the page for that? 67.135.49.198 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind. I found it. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's strange that you would re-add "Poe's Law" without any sort of RS after making that post. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Its use widely on ScienceBlogs, for example, would be an adequate reference for notability for list. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples, in particular:

Are weblogs reliable sources? In most cases, no. Most weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of the verifiability policy. Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available.

67.135.49.198 (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ScienceBlogs is consistently used as a source through out wikipedia. Major blogs such as Pharnygula have cited Poe's Law. This more than meets the requirements for a list article. It is not enough for a full article, but to be included in this list it sure is. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:lists: "The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material. Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." Please follow this before re-adding the entry. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

JinxMchue I mean, anonymous user 67.135.49.198, could it be that your opposition to this term is based more on your dislike that targets a group you identify with rather than a lack of a RS. This term is widely used and is accepted by many sources. SirChuckB (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion on its notability does seem odd as it does not have an article. The question is not is it notable enough to have an article, in which case you would have a case for its deletion, but if it is widely used enough term to be added to a list already full of terms that are not notable enough to have an article. It has an article on Urban dictionary, these blogs all use it and after about 5 pages of shifting through a google search for the world it is coming clear that with in certain forums and blog sites, it is widely used and its meaning is understood, so as it not insignificant even if it is not significant. Aiden Fisher (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And if the Urban Dictionary and blogs were reliable sources, you'd have a point. They aren't, however, and so you don't. Perhaps I should start adding stuff to Wikipedia that I can find used on numerous Christian and conservative blogs. No? Didn't think so. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been explained to you that the notability requirements for a list are a lot less than for articles about the topic. The references on ScienceBlogs, and its Google presence is plenty to justify inclusion in a list. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "Fitzmas" used to have an article here on WP. Its references on blogs of all sorts and its "Google presence" was many, many times larger than "Poe's Law." Hundreds and possibly even thousands of times more at the height of its popularity. Heck, you can even find many past articles about Fitzmas via Google News. Yet the article was deleted and all references it to it save a redirect were removed as it was deemed a non-notable neologism. "Poe's Law" is far less known and far less used. There is exactly ONE ScienceBlogs article that comes up in Google News and it's by PZ Myers. Tell me, is PZ's field of expertise the study of whether or not something is a parody of fundamentalist Christianity, or not? 67.135.49.198 (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons to other articles or past deletions is on of the hallmark "arguments not to make" when discussing notability. We are not talking about an article on Poe's Law, which everyone agrees is not notable enough for an article. But everyone except for you seems to think it perfectly fine for a list. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you advocate different goalpost positions for different items on WP? 67.135.49.198 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the criteria for inclusion in a list is different than the criterion for an article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You really, really need to re-read WP:Lists:

Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.

Translation for the slower minds among us: the criteria for lists is exactly the same as that for articles. Period. End of story. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I suggest you read a little more carefully, we are dealing with two different concepts, one the actual "list" and two the content of the list. Stand alone lists as articles need to meet full criteria for an article, but the individual items in a list do not. The individual items in the list are more like paragraphs in an article. Individual sentences and paragraphs do not need to meet the same criteria of a whole article. A sentence can be backed up by a single source, and article can not. A single item in a list can be backed up by a single source, the whole list can not. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I support OP of this section. However, the template requesting citations doesn't make sense at all - it is a list, and how would it look if every single entry had a reference attached? Sure there are templates better suitable to indicate what this page is lacking? Pgallert (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Google quickly establishes for me that Poe's law is in widespread enough usage to be notable. Like all other entries in this list, I'd like to see us insert a WP:RS type reference; but I think there's little point in seeking to argue for its removal. As to the debate I've just read, I see the distinction as content in a list must be reliable; the list must be notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So to sum up, Poe's Law is notable because you say so. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-spore

There is significant coverage of Poe's Law now that the anti-spore site has been outed as parody. In a couple days I will pick the best source and drop it in this article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you're going to do much better than the "original post": http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17606580#post17606580 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.217.73 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. With as much coverage as that received, I likewise should have my own Wikipedia article because I've received more during my life. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is required to keep an item in a list. A single source is plenty. All the other reasons explained to you also apply. You are the lone voice in the wilderness, and I think this is a lost cause for you. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Because you say it is, right? Seriously, the twisting of the spirit of WP rules is why this article is filled with so much garbage. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I, and everyone other than you, say it is. Yes that it is right, yes, that is the way it works. See on this site consensus is built by the editors not handed down on from on high. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what "twists" wikipedia is editors who have a private agenda but are sufficiently hypocritical as to accuse others of bad faith when their agenda is not being served. Meanwhile, though it is abundantly clear that Poe's law is widely accepted (presumably by people other than fundamentalists), we would be as well to find a reference for it so as to close down this discussion for once & all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing Poe's Law

Options as I see them now, source to a high rank blog such as Pharyngula or some of the major gaming blogs that covered it during the antispore.com thing. Another option is that Robert Ebert brings it up as a post-script at the Chicago Sun Times but doesn't define it [1]. And still another option I will just throw out there is RationalWiki. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ebert says that he wasn't aware of it, and has to cite Urban Dictionary. And gaming blogs and "RationalWiki"? Are you kidding? — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Please keep your comments and opinions about whether the "Poe's Law" entry should be removed in this Talk page, not in the main article. I don't think anyone has come up with a satisfactory reason for removing the entry against the Talk Page consensus, and this is a really, really petty thing to need to request Page Protection or Admin intervention over. Keep the discussion going here, and if you feel that it's not being fruitful and the "Poe's Law" entry should still be removed, please use Wikipedia's existing dispute resolution mechanisms. The question is not whether Poe's law is "right" or offends you, the question is whether it exists, is verifiable, and is notable. Alereon (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

indeed. I find it also in very poor taste to unilaterally delete the redirect pointing to the list entry. Yes, the Poe's Law article was deleted, back at a point in time when it was indeed not yet notable, in 2005. This presents no precedent whether the thing deserves to figure as a list entry here, or whether the article should even be recreated. We used to consider it disruptive to re-submit a case for reconsideration under changed circumstances within less than 2-3 months. I frankly consider admins who are attempting to stifle reconsideration of a case after three years pretty far out of line. Yes, "Poe's Law" wasn't verifiable as notable three years ago. No, that doesn't mean it automatically is still unnotable todaY. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was last deleted by consensus six months ago, not in 2005. Please do your homework before making comments such as these. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Consensus as I understand it is for Poe's law to remain, and I'm sorry to see the most recent removal and the insertion of a bogus scaryygram. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You understand incorrectly. If you wish the entry to remain in the article, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources. Unsourced material is subject to removal without warning at any time. There are no reliable sources for "Poe's law", and I am replacing it yet again with the "bogus scaryygram"[sic] that you dislike so much. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please abide by talk consensus, Hex. Little or nothing in the article is sourced. Why pick on Poe's law? It clearly has enough traction vide a google search for it. Even your own suggested search, minus all sorts of things, give us 2.5k pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

2,500 pages, none of which is a reliable source! It would be far less if "-inurl:" worked in Google searches, which it doesn't seem to. No offense, but are you actually aware of Wikipedia's sourcing requirements? — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you go back and read WP:N properly. let me help: here are the opening paragraphs, with my emboldening:

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.

These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

Poe's law is not the topic of this article. It is one of the hundred or so laws found. It is very clearly very abundantly used.

So that leaves us with WP:V, which quickly passes us on to WP:RS. There we find "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution." You will grant me, Hex, that Poe's law does have very many google hits. You'll rant that there's no ambiguity about Poe's law - no dispute over what it is. That being the case it is not an "exceptional claim requiring an exceptional source".

As the person who established this page and has worked with it since its establishment, I have to tell you that google tends to be the bellweather for the page. I'm happy that the retention of Poe is very well within WP policy & guidelines. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never stated that "Poe's law" is the topic of this article, so I shall pass over your entirely irrelevant discussion of what merits the topic of an article.

I will also ignore your implication that I don't know what I'm talking about. As a Wikipedia administrator, I am quite conversant with the policies of this project.

Very many things on the Internet have very many Google hits. That is equally irrelevant. For you to say with a straight face that a search engine may be used as a measure of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia is, frankly, astonishing. You would do well to consider this section of WP:MADEUP.

You have still yet to provide a single non-self-published source for this "law". When you can do that, it will be suitable for inclusion. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read the discussion we had about this further up the page? Inclusion of an item in a list requires far less than inclusion of a whole article. There was coverage of Poe's Law during the "anti-spore" site in September in many of the game sites, such as pc gamer and others. It was mentioned in an online editorial by Roger Ebert at the Sun Times, it has been mentioned multiple times on major blogs such as Pharyngula and Bad Astronomy, which have been used as sources in many articles. More than enough for inclusion in a list. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Christianforums.com That is the first ever use of Poe's Law. I've been visiting that forum for a long time, and everyone agrees that Nathan Poe, who is the person in the post, is the creator of Poe's Law. Just Google "Nathan Poe's Law" and get tons of listings all referencing him as being the creator of the law. As such, I think it's only fair to include his law in this page. It is illogical to refuse to accept forums to be a legitimate source when the forum IS the origin of the law. Just by shear volume of search results (for the specific "'Nathan Poe's Law'", we have 255 from Google and 1,070 from Yahoo! and for "'Poe's Law'", we have 16,000 from Google and 154,000 from Yahoo!) makes this a very referenced idea that should be included in this article. The ONLY result from the first 100 listings of "Poe's Law" that references "poems" is Wikipedia's. If we're the only one out of the 100 top results that has a different result, don't you think it should be changed? Tech Digest names Poe's Law and says of it, "Poe's law refers to internet debates, like Godwin's law, and states that without a winking smiley or blatant display of humour, it's nearly impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that *someone* won't mistake for genuine beliefs." Rationalwiki and even Conservapedia both have articles on Poe's Law and both name Nathan Poe to be its originator. In fact, Wikipedia seems to be the only place anywhere on the internet that talks about evolution and creation controversies WITHOUT naming Poe's Law. Poe's Law is widely known. It deserves to be included in this page much more than Edgar Allen Poe's Law. When you're just inundated with examples of people invoking Poe's Law, excluding it from Wikipedia does an injustice to all of the internet. Even in the link earlier that said it has no reliable source, it STILL has many uses of Poe's Law found in that search. Poe's Law is so pervasive in pop internet culture that, even if you don't accept my exact source for Poe's Law, it would still be valuable as general information provided by Wikipedia. Pop culture references don't need to be sourced for people to use them. The fact is that this law DOES exist as evidenced by over 150,000 hits it gets from Yahoo! Sleeker (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Alas for you, "Nathan Poe" is not the Poe found in reference books for "Poe's Law." And wikis and self-published sources are specifically disallowed on WP, else I would place a couple of my own laws here <g>. Collect (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does a pop culture bit of information need a reference for a source? It's widely used, and that itself gives it enough merit to be in Wikipedia. If we didn't know who invented TV, does that mean we shouldn't mention it anywhere? Look, a .org website that mentions it. There are 150,000 Yahoo! hits for " 'Poe's Law' -edgar ". Look, another .org that mentions Poe's Law. By ROGER EBERT: "A postscript and confession. As I said, everyone has blind spots. Many of my supporters cited Poe's Law, which I was unfamiliar with." [2] It's a blog, yes, but by the famous Roger Ebert. He mentioned it himself. Does that not qualify as proof it exists? Sleeker (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mate... We went through all of this here. Months and months ago. It's still on this page. Read the entire discussion; you're not bringing anything new to the table. I'm not going to repeat myself. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(Resetting indent)

As I commented to you above on this very page, Ebert said he'd never heard of it, so that immediately doesn't count. And as I commented to Tagishsimon, if you have sources, PUT THEM IN. Don't just assert that references exist somewhere. Until such point as you or Tagishsimon provide at least one reliable citation, it comes out again. — Hex (❝?!❞)

To Tmtolouse again: in your earlier comment you mentioned "RationalWiki" as an option for source. Having looked at your user page I now see that it is, in fact, your project. I think it would be patronizing of me to have to point out in detail what the issue is there. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And you certainly wouldn't want to appear patronizing now would you? Maybe a little late though...Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please address the issue. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just undone your edit. The Ebert piece does not count as a citation. He says he's never heard of it, and has to link to Urban Dictionary as a reference. You can do better than that, seriously. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain to me, using wikipedia policy, why that does not count as a source? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ebert added that comment as a postscript replying to its mention in comments on the article, and does not discuss the "law" in the article itself, so it is inappropriate to cite as a reference to the "law". As if that wasn't bad enough, the other two "citations" you added use your site, RationalWiki, as a "reference"! You are clearly having conflict of interest and possibly even ownership issues with this article. I am now formally warning you: if you continue to edit this article to insert material that you cannot reference beyond your own website, I will have to consider taking sanctions against you. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you are bucking the consensus I am sure someone will be along to revert you again soon, I will not since it would be a violation of the 3RR, a rule you have all ready broken, will you continue to do so? Now you are threaten action against an editor that you are having a dispute with, not to mention various other violations of good faith. Ownership issues? Glass houses and rocks and all that, I see the you have placed "Poe's Law" as one of your major causes on your user page. Back off Hex, take a walk, drink some scotch, or do whatever it is you need to do to chill out. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I will be happy to discuss the more substantive issues once I see evidence you are no longer crusading and recognize that any overt action you take against me as and administrator would be a massive violations of wikipedia policy. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't broken 3RR. Today I edited the article once, and have subsequently reverted Tagishsimon once and you twice.

"Poe's law" is not a "major cause" on my user page. I present there a list of things I have done as an editor, including nominating the "Poe's law" article for deletion as non-notable. The community agreed with my nomination.

I'm entitled to threaten action because you're breaking the rules. There's no ownership issue with me; my job here is to ensure that policy is followed. That's the commitment I made to this site when I became an administrator.

I'll repeat and expand my comment from earlier. If you can find a neutral, reliable source for this material, directly discussing "Poe's law", and not referencing any website with user-submitted content - let alone your website - and place it in the article as a citation, then it will be fine. If "Poe's law" is as notable as you say it is, this should be trivial. The ball is in your court. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That would make you in violation of the 3RR rule, anyway, the major issue is that I want you to retract your threat of administrative action, and admit that you can not use those tools in article, or against editors you are involved in an active dispute with. This a gross violation of Wikipedia policy and grounds for the removal of your admin rights. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. This discussion is over; I have nothing further to say to you. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Then we will let Wikipedia policy of the last word: "Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. We certainly shall let it have the last word. Try reading a few paragraphs down the same policy page you just selectively quoted.

However, one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them.

My interaction with you, and this article, is in an administrative role. And now in that role I'm giving you a second, and final, warning. Provide citations, or drop the issue. Blustering and making threats is not the best thing for you to do right now. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that you entered into, you lack any semblance of neutrality and came onto this page huffing and puffing with a massive chip on your shoulder and a history of bias in regards to the content dispute. When things aren't going your way you threaten, when you are called out on this you threaten even more. Pathetic. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's enough. I'm giving you a 24 hour time-out. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What other steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution have been tried here? Has there been an article RfC? If not, I strongly recommend filing one. --Elonka 22:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Abusive admin actions

I note here for the record what I perceive to be wholly inappropriate and abusive actions by Hex, specifically:

• his block of tmtolouse
• his (now failed) RfC aimed against tmtolouse

Hex has involved himself in a content dispute, but appears to labour under the misapprehension that any content dispute in which an admin is involved is an administrative matter. I regret to note that Hex's actions come across as the worst kind of bullying.

WP:ADMIN states in unambiguous terms: "Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."

I call Hex to account for his lapse here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I reject your accusations in their entirety. Your invented "misapprehension" does not represent my opinion. It is an admin's job to prevent the abuse of this website by those determined to add unsuitable material to it. When someone repeatedly adds false references to an article that cite a website that he runs himself, as Tmtoulouse did, that is a violation of policy. I note also for the record that Tmtoulouse has been blocked twice this year for edit warring, in a total history of only 700 edits made to the project.

Tagishsimon, seeing as how you stated on this page "As the person who established this page and has worked with it since its establishment.... I'm happy that the retention of Poe is very well within WP policy & guidelines", perhaps you should spend some time considering your apparent ownership issues with the article, instead of playing Junior Wikilawyer. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, your concerns are noted, but this really isn't the proper venue to be bringing them up. Article talkpages should stay focused on the content of the article. As it is, the block of Tmtoulouse has been overturned, the RfC has been deleted, and admin Hex (talk · contribs) has been counseled that since he is clearly involved in the content dispute on this topic, that per administrator policy, he should not be using his admin tools here in the future. He is, however, welcome to continue participating as a regular editor. So, can we mark this issue resolved? Other uninvolved admins are now monitoring the situation, and will take any actions needed to reduce disruption to the project. So I recommend that everyone now simply move away from discussing the contributors here, and instead focus on the content of the encyclopedia, which is, after all, our primary goal here.  :) If there are other concerns, please feel free to bring them up at my talkpage? Thanks, --Elonka 18:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to the issues at hand

The meta issues above are now being discussed elsewhere, my block is overturned, and I imagine Hex will not be threatening administrative action on this issue again. That brings us to the specific issue at hand. There are two policy points where I think expectations are drifting.

1. The criteria for inclusion of an item in a list vs. the criterion of inclusion for an article
2. The issue of the sources for our sources

To the first point I think it is prima facie obvious that inclusion in a list does not need to meet the same criteria as inclusion for an article. Poe's Law does not meet the criteria for an article but that does not exclude it for inclusion as part of a list.

To the second point I would like to know why the fact that say, Roger Ebert, sources urban dictionary is a problem. Where is the policy on wikipedia that governs "sources of sources" so that I can read it and see how it fits in with this dispute? Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Note - link inserted for other readers to save finding it above -- EM

Note: "Elsewhere" is Tmtoulouse's talk page. Please don't brush off other users in this fashion, thanks.

WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made... Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." (emphasis in original)

Ebert does not discuss "Poe's law" in the article. In a postscript, he mentions that his commenters mentioned it, and that he has never heard of it. Only the tiniest amount of common sense and editorial judgment are required to see that this does not directly support anything.

Ebert also links to Urban Dictionary, which is more or less a wiki (let us not nitpick over the site's technical implementation).

The reliable source examples advice says: "Wikis... are not regarded as reliable sources." Especially not Urban Dictionary, which is specifically mentioned in WP:MADEUP.

— Hex (❝?!❞) 20:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As a direct source, sure, but what is policy about sources of sources. If a RS quotes an "non-reliable source" is that a problem? Can i see the policy on it? Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't specifically one that I can find to quote, nor does there have to be one. Ebert is linking to an unreliable tertiary source, and even the definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources says "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment".

That shouldn't even come into it, though. The real issue here is that Ebert's piece does not discuss "Poe's law" at all. Your citing of it implies that it does. That is a false citation. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am using Ebert as a hypothetical at the moment, to zero in on what exactly is needed in a source. From what I can tell from wikipedia policy the reliability criteria only applies to the source we use. The choice of sources for information that our source makes is not governed in wikipedia policy. So if a reliable source can be found that defines Poe's Law, where they got that information does not matter. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Tech Digest describes the law while covering the Anti-Spore site [3]. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you produce a single source that is not a blog, wiki, or other self-published medium, and otherwise meets the requirements of WP:RS? — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tech Digest is used as a source through out wikipedia. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That is quite the exaggeration. Out of 2,624,738 articles at the time of writing, there are 13 that link to techdigest.tv. The particular article you are linking to does not even discuss "Poe's law" beyond a copy and paste of the definition from another website. — Hex (❝?!❞) 04:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It says exactly what Poe's Law is, it is sitting in the article. The fact that it is a copy and paste from another site is meaningless. The fact that it is used as a source in other wikipedia articles means that there is no reason to reject it a priori as a valid source. Add in the other sources that have been discussed I see no reason at all that this does not meet the standards for inclusion in a list. I will be adding it back shortly. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are misrepresenting my words. I did not reject the site a priori, only your untrue statement. Please do no such thing until more editors have contributed opinions to this issue. It is certainly not meaningless that it is a copy and paste from another site; by your logic dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of equally unnotable things become worthy of Wikipedia entries by merit of copy and paste. There is no consensus to restore this material at present, and reinserting it material would be extremely poor behavior. — Hex (❝?!❞) 05:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove the material in the first place! You do not get your way by default, and so far of the people that have chimed in on this page the majority are for inclusion. If the New York Times publishes something from a website we can site the New York Times and the information that it has published. Pretty basic stuff right there. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the number of persons on this page disagreeing with the inclusion is larger than that of persons insisting that it be kept. Either way, consensus is not needed to remove dubious material. "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed" - WP:BURDEN. Your point about the New York Times is also wrong. Suppose it quotes Wikipedia? What then? "Some news organisations have used Wikipedia articles as the sole source for their work. To avoid this indirect self-referencing, editors should ensure that material from news organisations is not the only existing source outside of Wikipedia." WP:RS. You can't say "a known website quotes a website therefore it must be true regardless of what it is". Also, you're comparing techdigest.tv to the New York Times. I don't think so. — Hex (❝?!❞) 06:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In order to try and re-focus discussions on the article, may I suggest that everyone try the technique of writing in the third person? Removing the words "you" and "your" from posts, though a bit intellectually challenging at times, can be an excellent way of de-escalating conflict. --Elonka 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be a lot more useful if somebody else actually contributed an opinion to this discussion. No offense meant. — Hex (❝?!❞) 06:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The post at WP:RSN doesn't seem to have brought anyone in yet. I recommend trying an RfC. Have you ever filed one? Let me know if you'd like help. --Elonka 06:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have actually just filed a user RfC for Tmtoulouse. — Hex (❝?!❞) 06:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I meant an article content RfC, not a user conduct RfC. --Elonka 06:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I know. — Hex (❝?!❞) 07:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to let retaliatory abuse of process stifle the discussion...Hex the only other person on this page that seems to support removal is an IP editor that I know has a personal grudge dealing with this issue. Multiple other editors have shown up and said that it should be included. Multiple sources have been provided that seem to meet the bill, you do not want it in the article, therefore yes you do have to get a consensus! The whole "I am above such petty things as consensus building" won't work well on a collaborative wiki project.

As soon as the RFC you have filed against me goes away, which I assume it will for failure of cert, I will set up an RFC about the article. If I am going to be having to invest my time dealing with your RFC against me that will take up what time I do have for wikipedia.

As for avoiding "you", again, I am happy to drop the personal tit for tat, but I will also not just lay down and take it from another user. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not just go ahead with the article RfC now? Do you think you have a sentence descriptor of the dispute, which would satisfy both parties? --Elonka 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple. "Hex contends that there are no reliable sources that merit the inclusion of "Poe's law" into List of eponymous laws. Tmtoulouse contends that blog comments and Google hits are sufficient." — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, yea, that is a neutral and accurate statement of my opinion.....sure....why don't I worry about the article RFC, you haven't had much luck with RFC lately. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend writing the RfC in a neutral manner, that does not mention editor names. How about: "Are there sufficient reliable sources to merit the inclusion of 'Poe's law' into the List of eponymous laws?" --Elonka 19:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As for doing the RFC now, I feel there are a lot of reasons to wait for the RFC against me to expire, such as the limited time I have to devote here and not wanting to split my resources if somehow it manages to go forward, and that fostering of conversation will go a lot better when it is clear that the content and source issue has to be addressed specifically and misusing various meta wikipedia tools to stifle debate will fail. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A mockery of law

Many of these laws like Brooks' and Linus' laws are not real law according to the rigorous definition of science. They are just mockeries of knowledge to massage the authors' ego and a marketing ploy. These should not be mention in a serious mentioning of laws like Newton's and Kirchoff's laws. --Zoldello (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of a "real law" and others' definitions of the same may vary. Newton and Kirchoff may or may not be sufficiently snooty to dislike Linus or Brooks, but that has no bearings on this page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Poe redux

Found two solid text cites for "Poe's Law." Sorry if it refers to one with no controversy attached thereto. Hope this helps. Collect (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done; but that would be another Poe's Law. There appear to be three distinct laws competing for that namespace. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I found one. Only one with exceedingly solid cites. And it definitely antecedes any others, no? Collect (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about your Poe's Law. I suspect the second one has good cites, too - something about scriptures meaning different things to different classes of readers, IIRC. I'm sure both predate the one we're having citation issues with. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work! I just found these, too: Full text of "Pencillings" and Pencillings By John Middleton Murry. It's actually interesting reading. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thnks! I love searching books as most editors seem not to realize just how much is there <g> Collect (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-added

Note that this is a discussion of Nathan Poe's Law, not Edgar Allan Poe's law. The former is humorous, the latter refers to short stories and other fiction. EAP's law is on the table and adequately sourced. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I re-added Poe's Law (the humourous one) to the list, as, apart from Hex, and the anonymous IP poster above (67.135.49.198), everyone here seems to agree that it is notable enough to be included, or, at the very least, hasn't said one way or the other. In addition, if we applied Hex's standards (if it doesn't have sources that meet the same verifiability standards as a full article, it doesn't get included) to everything on this list, the majority of this list would have to be deleted. As such, it seems like, for whatever reason, Hex is fairly blatently applying double standards in order to try to keep Poe's Law off this list. 92.20.9.53 (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the majority of this list does not meet standards for inclusion, then it should be deleted. You are implying falsely that for some reason I approve of the rest of the article and not "Poe's law". This is untrue.

If that's the case, why is it ONLY Poe's Law you pro-actively removed? Indeed, just having a quick glance down the list, it seems to be that actually having cites, of any kind, is the exception, not the rule, so why did you not systematically work your way down from the top of the list and delete any and all without cites at all, instead of jumping in and starting at Poe's Law, and then stopping after deleting only that single one? Indeed, you have not made a single edit to this article, other than to repeatedly remove Poe's Law, despite the consensus on the Talk page seeming to be that it should stay. 92.20.9.53 (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the history of this discussion, you would be aware of why I came to this article in the first place. Nevertheless, you are applying a fallacious argument - viz, "everything or nothing". Were your logic to be extended fully, no person would be allowed to pay attention to a single article without having to take care of its entire associated category as well. "Poe's law" is nevertheless deserving of different treatment to the rest of this list: it does not have an associated article, because when it did, that topic was found non-notable and deleted, twice. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I'm the same person as 92.20.9.53. Well, care to point out the reason you came to this article, because, from what I have seen, the 'history of this discussion' only serves to further reinforce the idea that you came to this article purely to ensure Poe's Law was removed, and stayed gone. As for my 'fallacious argument', you fail to address that, in fact, it was YOU who made the implication that it was NOT only Poe's Law you disagreed with. If this is true, answer the question - why is it ONLY Poe's Law you have removed, repeatedly, and why is it, until now, ONLY Poe's Law that, according to you, should have to abide by these standards? Additionally, your claim that the Poe's Law article was deleted twice for 'non-notability', is, in fact, incorrect. The first deletion, in 2005, was for non-notability, as it had a grand total of 48 Google hits back then, in distinct contrast to the 13,600 it gets now. In the second deletion, it seems it was actually notable enough to stay - but was deleted as no-one had provided a source that was verifiable, according to WP:V, and the 'keep' arguments hadn't addressed that. Smidgy (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If no reliable published source exists for something, it is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Your assertion that "[i]n the second deletion, it seems it was actually notable enough to stay" is a bizarre attempt to rewrite history. In the discussion, the majority of delete votes mentioned non-notability. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the 'delete' arguments assert this is so, and the 'keep' arguments give various places where it's discussed and referred to. The final reason for deletion was not 'non-notability', but, and I quote, 'mandated by WP:V, a core policy, because of the lack of reliable sources. The "keep" arguments do not adequately address this issue.' (Emphasis mine). If it was deleted for non-notability, that's what would have been put on it. Smidgy (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question for you. How is it that you have suddenly appeared, from nowhere, to argue for the inclusion of a trivial little thing like this, and are able to argue over the nooks and crannies of Wikipedia policy within hours of registering a user account? Hmm? — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's actually relevant, at all, but I simply happened to stumble across this page, and saw that Poe's Law seemed to have repeatedly been removed for no real reason, against consensus, in a flagrant disregard for how I understood Wikipedia was supposed to work. As for how I am able to 'argue over the nooks and crannies of Wikipedia policy', that's simply down to being able to read. Smidgy (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat the question I made to Tmtoulouse last week. Can you produce a single source that is not a blog, wiki, or other self-published medium, and otherwise meets the requirements of WP:RS?

It has already been explained to you that the standards you are applying to this single entry on a list are supposed to be applied to the subject of an article, or the general subject of a list, not a single entry on that list. 92.20.9.53 (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record I note that 92.20.9.53 (talk · contribs) has not made any edits beyond this topic. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And your point is...? 92.20.9.53 (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I favor having cites for the rest, which would improve the overall tenor of the list. That said, the secondary Poe's Law would have to meet reasonable standards for its cites, which it so far does not meet. Collect (talk)

I would suggest limiting the list only to eponymous laws that have articles on Wikipedia. This would place the burden of citations and notability on individual articles, which can be dealt with on a case by case basis as usual. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the only limitation would be eponymous laws that actually exist. After all, if something doesn't have a Wikipedia article, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it just means that, for one reason or another, no-one had created such an article, or something like WP:V caused it to be deleted. To quote from WP:V, 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth'. Something may be true without being 'verifiable', according to those standards, and doing a simple Google search proves pretty readily that Poe's Law actually does exist, even if particular people here don't like the fact it does, or what this law says. Smidgy (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on the question of 'reliable sources', one has already been given - the original post by Nathan Poe. This was, basically, ignored, for no real reason I can see. This proves, pretty conclusively, that it does, indeed, exist, and what, exactly, it is. I never actually saw the now-deleted Poe's Law article, but, if this was put in there, but rejected as being 'not reliable', why? That's about as primary a source as you can possibly get - in essence, an actual recording of what the person actually typed. Smidgy (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting proposal that -- if anyone posts their own law, it can get added to this list using their own post as the source? I do not think that having a WP article should be a requirement, but sources indicating widespread usage of the "law" should be a requirement. Not including one's own post to prove usage, of course. Collect (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a point - I would therefore amend my above statement then to include the idea that any that aren't really notable should not be included, such as if doing a Google search turned up only a few dozen hits, for example. This would mean that, in the case of Poe's Law, the post by Nathan Poe would be a reliable source that the law exists and what it is, and a simple Google search would be an indication of it's notability and usage. Smidgy (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Without reliable published sources for the "law", the original post fails WP:MADEUP. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you go read that page. If you actually do read it, and understand it, especially the part about the game, 'Scrabble', combined with what I've pointed out below, you would realise how foolish that makes you look. Smidgy (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Right underneath where it says "[s]omeone has to think it's sufficiently important to write a book, a newspaper or magazine article, or an academic paper on your idea." You need to spend a lot more time reading before trying your hand at wikilawyering. My advice: don't give up the day job. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

1) I refer you to point 1 below.

2) You missed that the section about Scrabble says that Wikipedia could have an article about it when Scrabble 'became widely known and widely written about'. Poe's Law is widely known and widely written about.

3) You also missed that the entire page talks about a person, or small group of friends, inventing something and attempting to use Wikipedia to spread word about it. In case you haven't figured this out, I am not Nathan Poe, nor do I even know him (indeed, I was not even aware of who Poe's Law was named for until I saw the original source, given in a section further up this page). It is also a fairly safe bet that most of the various people writing about and referring to Poe's Law also do not personally know Nathan Poe, so it would seem dubious, at best, that WP:MADEUP even applies. Smidgy (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In which case the 132 google hits for "Nathan poe" "poe's law" is likely insufficient to show wide usage at all. I would suggest that 250 be a minimum if we wish to use Google as the guideline. Hey, I get to add Weiner's Law on Libraries! (well, it does have solid cites as well as being in Google). Collect (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As most people would not include the name of the person who invented it when referring to it, try just "Poe's Law" instead. I get 13,600, and most of the first few pages (I haven't checked the rest) are people referring to it in passing, further underlining the fact it seems to have entered fairly common usage. That's FAR in excess of your suggested 250 limit, so I'm glad we agree it should be included. Smidgy (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're quite done fantasizing, perhaps you could produce some reliable sources for this material. If you want to change Wikipedia's core content policy, I suggest you read the entirety of WP:SET (paying particular attention to the section on notability) and then take your proposal on using search engine hits as a measure of inclusion to Wikipedia talk:Notability. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced, large scale mass read blogs such as dailykos in politics, pharyngula in the ID/evolution debate are regularly used as sources in article. There are several such blogs of equal weight from the gaming community that talk about Poe's Law in relation to the anti-spore site. There is also the mention by Roger Ebert we have discussed, and the article from tech tv which is also used as a source on wikipedia. We are well past the "there are no sources" argument and into the "I don't like the sources you have provided." There is precedent through out the site that seems to suggest we have adequately sourced a one line item in a list article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what Tmtoulouse has said:

1) I remind you you are applying the standards for a full article to the inclusion of a single entry on a list.

2) Nice strawman fallacy.

3) Quote from the box on WP:N: This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Applying common sense, if a fairly large volume of normally unreliable sources all refer to a term, and are all using that term in the same way, then that should be taken as reliable, as such an 'occasional exception' to the rule. Smidgy (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, upon actually reading the guidelines in detail, here is something else on WP:N:The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content. So, it seems the very guideline you are trying to argue says that Poe's Law should be taken out pretty much goes out of it's way to say that it is completely irrelevant in a situation such as this. Smidgy (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but the crediting of an "eponymous law" requires that the source of the eponym also be found, otherwise the concept of providing a source for it being a specific eponym is gone. I can find more than 250 misspellings for "misspelled" (304,000 in fact for "mispelled") but that does not mean a list of words should include the misspellings, does it? Collect (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And the original post by Nathan Poe gives the source of that eponym. Your point? Your point about misspellings is fallacious. The analogous situation would be if I was using a Google search for 'mispelled' as an indication that the word exists and is in use for a list of commonly misspelled words. 'Poe's Law' is not a misspelling - it is a term used to refer to an adage, in the same manner as Godwin's Law. Smidgy (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, all you need is an RS for Nathan Poe stating Poe's Law and showing that it is in common usage. So far, we do not have the first RS by WP standards :( . Collect (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still fail to see what is so unreliable about Nathan Poe's post - it is the same standards as citing a book as a source for the plot of that book. However, in addition to the ones Tmtoulouse has already added, and mentioned above, how's about the well-known gaming website Kotaku? It references Poe's Law, and even defines it, in a news post on it's Australian site here. Smidgy (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And I should actually point out that you're actually doing what Hex was doing - applying the criteria for writing an entire article on Poe's Law for it's inclusion as a single entry on a list. Smidgy (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I am perfectly willing to have cites be added to the current entries, and any entries for which valid cites are not found should be deleted. The naming of a law is the same as any other fact in other articles -- and facts, as a rule, require valid RS cites. Collect (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for Poe's Law has been deleted - TWICE. It is a non-notable, pejorative internet meme created by a no-name internet poster with the handle "Nathan Poe." The majority of the rest of this list is made up of items coined by and/or named after notable individuals (and with proper clean-up, this would be true of 100% of the list). If we include Poe's Law, what other non-notable memes do we include? 67.135.49.198 (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And, as has been explained a dozen times, the relative notability of Poe's Law as an article has nothing to do with its inclusion as an item in a list. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So then you wholeheartedly support the inclusion of all sorts of meaningless, non-notable garbage in this article. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there is pretty obvious lines for inclusion, of which Poe's Law easily surpasses. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus on that point. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And it should be noted that the version being discussed here isn't even the original version. The original version was directed specifically at Creationists, not the nebulous "fundamentalism" bogeyman. Other non-notable, nameless internet posters took Poe's Law and changed it to fit what they wanted. This is just another reason to reject it. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not have any bearing on inclusion, and has nothing to do with anything. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it actually does. The list does not include modifications of other laws. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. You mean for all this time Tmtoulouse (and now Smidgy) has been arguing for the inclusion of something that isn't even the original formulation? I think that more or less seals the deal. It is totally inappropriate for this article. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with anything. It would be appropriate to discuss in an actual article, but the common formulation is what should be included in a list. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Then even if it were suitable for inclusion, which has so far remained unproven, it should be listed as "Poe's law, popular variation", as it is not the "law" proposed by the original author. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect's removal of "Poe's law" from the list just now makes a valid point. A citation for an eponymous law must do more than just quote the definition; it must refer to the author. Otherwise it does not provide a cite for the "eponymous" part. I do not believe, at present, that such a citation can be found from a reliable, non-self-published source. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment at Reliable sources noticeboard - the current two sources aren't great as they are discussions from two poets rather than literary critics who would suggest that the idea has current play (the second reference isn't discussing Poe's law, it's quoting T.S. Eliot discussing). That being said, though the google books search isn't perfect, there does seem to be support for a minority discussion. Examples include [4], Poe's law of parsimony is operative in symbolist and decadent art..., [5], [6]. The overall search includes snippets as well [7] - 15 references total. These aren't the best sources, and suggest that it's a rule of thumb of a variety of interpretations. By the way, this page exists on rational wiki and it's verions of poe's law is totally different - Nathan Poe, rather than the Edgar Allan Poe the current law supports.

If I'm missing the point because this discussion is about Nathan Poe's law, I've seen no evidence that there is any serious discussion and including Nathan Poe's law would be a violation of WP:NOT, WP:NEO and WP:WEB. It shouldn't be on the list. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the talk page quickly, obviously that response was less than helpful. Give me a couple hours and I'll look over the sourcing for Nathan Poe's law and could provide a more informed opinion if anyone is interested, but I wouldn't consider this a RFC since I wandered over from RSN. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hex, if adding a source that is Nathan Poe saying what, precisely Poe's Law is, is 'original research', which is what you are saying, considering that's the page you sent me to, then, by the same standards, ANYONE adding a cite for ANYTHING about ANY subject in the whole of Wikipedia is 'original research'. In addition, you say that Wikipedia 'does not rely on primary sources'. However, WP:RS gives situations where primary sources can be used, such as 'for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself'. Here, the primary source is being used as a basic statement of fact as to what Poe's Law states, and for the basic fact it was Nathan Poe who stated it. This is then backed up by a secondary source, which gives the more common, altered form of Poe's Law. I do not see the problem. 92.23.156.2 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Poe would need a "reliable source" ascribing the law to him, and evidence that the use of the law is common. At this point, neither appears the case. Note the restrictions on "self=published" sources. Thanks! I'd like to see it in here, but only if it meets these relatively reasonable requirements. Collect (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if what is, in essence, a direct recording of the act of Nathan Poe inventing the law is not a 'reliable source', then, by the standards being applied here, NOTHING is. As for the restrictions about 'self-published sources', by my reading of them, it is regarding self-published secondary sources referring to something else. By definition, ANY primary source is a self-published source, and, as the above user pointed out, WP:RS gives a situation where primary sources are considered reliable, which this one seems to fit. As for the idea of providing a singular source that proves the law is in common usage, that is simply impossible, if, as has been suggested, the fact a Google search brings up quite a number of hits is not considered any proof of this. I would actually need to go through all 13,600 hits and cite each one that definitely references Poe's Law in turn. I am sure you agree that this is a ludicrous idea. Smidgy (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you misapprise what a "self-published source" is under WP standards. The other laws enumerated are all considerably better-known in character and author than this secondary "Poe's Law" appears to be. At this point, it seems to be at best on the cusp of notability. Collect (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the sources that are put forward to support the existence of Nathan Poe's law on this list. They were self-published, and accordingly were not reliable sources. I don't see reason to have Nathan Poe's Law on this page or on its own separate page. If it is picked up and reported by reliable sources, no prejudice against inclusion, but I would suggest presenting the source on the talk page before doing so. Since three people have now suggested it's not sufficiently notable to be included, and have given their reasons in line with the guidelines on notability, I think this would be a graceful time to end the discussion and begin the process to find more adequate sources. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"X's law" or "X's Law"?

There's no consistency at the moment. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably because there is no consistency in sources. While I suppose we wish they were consistent, we are pretty much left with some laws capitalized, and others not. Collect (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair do's! — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

eternal Poe

Per [8] the source now cited for "Poe's Law" is not peer-reviewed, has no specific editorial controls, contains "working papers" and "rough drafts" etc. "Actually, articles may be too strong a word for what you can find on the site — the texts include pensées, abstracts, informal arguments, outlines, rough drafts and working papers, up to the finished products you might find in academic journals." does not quite meet RS, does it? Collect (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly would satisfy as a reliable source for the position that "Poe's Law" exists as a term in common usage (at least among a certain segment of society)? A published, peer-reviewed study of frequencies of eponymous law usage? An off-handed mention in an official New York Times article? The contention is whether people are using the term to a notable degree, not whether some source says that it's true as a concept. How would the lack of a review process at a source negate the fact that the term is being used there for scholarly purposes? Are you saying a review process would have edited the term out? 98.125.224.160 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A good first step would be to find a source which actually meets WP:RS. SSRN does not -- per the NYT it includes all sorts of stuff which would not remotely be considered RS in WP. And note that SSRN specifically cites the NYT article <g> as proof of what it is. As for the history here of the "Poe's Law" - it goes back a ways, so please read all the past discussions about it. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe's+Law Spotfixer (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing a Pop Culture Reference

Why do we need a source for a pop culture reference? It exists. Whether or not there is a source, it exists. Its existence is easily verifiable by a quick search on any search engine(151,000 hits for ' "poe's law" -edgar ' whereas there are only 934 hits for ' "poe's law" edgar '). That's not to say we should get rid of Edgar Allen Poe's Law, but if we're talking about an encyclopedia for the people by the people, then Nathan Poe's Law needs to be included whether or not you source it to him. Do we have a source that's not a forum or something? No. That's because it was invented in a forum. Denying the other version of Poe's Law is now just being stubborn. Sleeker (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The purpose as defined a long time before I got here was to try listing "laws" named in honor of the persons who discovered them. The problem with self-referenced laws is that there are a huge number of them (heck, I can lay claim to a few dozen myself at this point) and that was deemed outside the reasonable purview of this article. If you wish to try seeing if you can establish a new consensus substantially changing the nature of the article, then by all means try. Without such a change in basic consensus, the self-referenced stuff stays out. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing though. It IS a self-referencing law. Therefore, the source for it is where this person mentioned it first. However, that is at a forum, which is not allowed for some reason even though that IS the source. This should not exclude it from the list. It has been referenced over and over again on the internet. You can't apply this to your laws since any laws you named after yourself aren't widely known ("Collect's Law" only brings up one hit on Yahoo! compared to 151,000 for ' "Poe's Law" -edgar '). This isn't just any old self-named law; it is a widely known one. Godwin's Law is just the same, just a bit more popular. Godwin's Law was named Godwin's Law by Godwin, yet that is still on the list (and even has its own article). Plus, look at the top of the article. "In some cases the person named has coined the law — such as Parkinson's law." That explicitly includes self-referencing laws. Some examples of people citing Poe's Law: By the editor of this site, on another site's homepage, and by a writer here on yet another site. Sleeker (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What you want - the inclusion of "Poe's law" in this article - would require a change to Wikipedia's fundamental policies relating to content referencing. I'll save you some time - no matter how much you argue on this talk page, that situation will not change. If you want to push the argument that web memes are notable by dint of merely existing and do not need reliable sources as citations, then I suggest you take it to WT:V and WT:RS. When you've successfully managed to do that, come back here and make your arguments again. Until then, "Poe's law" isn't going to be included in this article. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read my last entry? Self-referencing laws are allowed in this article. Examples are given. Why does Godwin's Law deserve to be on this list when it too is a self-referencing law? I've got a source. It's on a forum, but that's because that's where the first instance of Poe's Law happened. People are just too stubborn to accept this source. There is not one other person ever claimed to be the source of it. You wanted sites that named Poe's Law. I listed three separate non-blog/forums/youtube/anything like that which cited Poe's Law as existing. The search hits for it number well over 100,000. That very fact, along with several completely unrelated people here arguing to get this law into a list (not even an article unto itself) shows that it is deserving of a little entry into a list. I just can't believe that Wikipedia is being such an anti-knowledge authoritarian here. I've provided all of what you asked. What new hurdle are you going to make me jump over? (Of course, then there will just be a never ending line of hurdles.) Sleeker (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to continue to be this way, at least tell us where we CAN put this law in a way that people searching for it can find it. Have the redirect go to this article, but then have a "For the internet law/meme/phenomenon, see _______" to a different list (List of Internet Memes ?) in which this can be included? Actually, since my Poe's Law is much more widely searched for, have the redirect go to the List of Internet Memes and say, "For Edgar Allen Poe's Law", See List of eponoymous laws. Sleeker (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not right; you're not even wrong.

"Self-referencing" is not qualification for inclusion in Wikipedia. Until a reliable source has written about something, our rules prevent inclusion. You clearly have no idea what a reliable source for Wikipedia is; blogs and other self-published media do not count. "Why does Godwin's Law deserve to be on this list"? Because it's not "self-referencing"; it has citations from Der Spiegel, Wired and Reason amongst others. The three "cites" you give above are self-published and cannot be used.

Until valid citations exist, the answer to your question is "nowhere". — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this then? It's specifically in the category "Gaming news". If this does not qualify for also being self-published, please direct me to where in the site it says it is self-published. How about a reputable Norwegian site that very clearly has "Poe's Law" named in context. Sleeker (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a blog. The Dagbladet article quotes in passing (it does not discuss "Poe's law" in the article itself, so can't be used as a citation) a blog that links to another blog for the term "Poe's law".

Sorry, but you're wasting everyone's time here, including your own. If a reliable source citation for this material existed, it would have been found by now. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So you want the original source, but you won't accept the original source because it's from a forum? So basically, no matter if everyone in the world knew of Poe's Law and knew where it came from, you would not accept it because the original usage was a forum. It's nice to know the Wikipedia isn't about public knowledge anymore. Also, I gave sources that clearly said it EXISTS. You're just being stubborn now. Sleeker (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at our our policy on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. It notes that

Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

So it's not that we can't accept the material because it was in a forum, it's that we can't accept a forum as a source. As soon as a reliable secondary source is available, it merits an entry regardless of origin. That's our threshold for inclusion. The problem here is that nothing presented as a citation so far has been in such a source.

As to what you say about "everyone in the world", well, the reliable sources guideline says

"if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so."

If everyone in the world knew about it, I'm sure that we'd have some great independent sources to cite, so it'd be fine for the article. It's just not the case so far. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)