Talk:Documentary hypothesis

Damn! Now what are the chances of getting an edit conflict while starting an article. I'll get you next time, AKJeldsen! Good work though - I might do my Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John bits now. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!


 * Haha! The odds are so low, there must be intelligent design involved! Matter of fact, I was just about to run over to your talk page to invite you to contribute, so... you're invited to contribute, I guess. :-) -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 11:57, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I've noticed a pattern recently where people see an article being created or stuff being done, and join in the effort. I had an edit conflict today while creating a category. So the chances are higher than random. Totnesmartin 12:56, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Title and caps
Is this referred to as the Documentary Hypothesis, as the article title would suggest (if so, edit article to be consistent with that) or is it the Documentary hypothesis, in which case the article should be renamed, or the documentary hypothesis, in which case both must be done? human  20:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT) (PS, WP takes the third choice in their article)
 * No answer from anyone who cares? I'll proceed to move things around and fix links to the uncapped version in that case.  ħ uman  00:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmm, looks like I dropped that one. It's supposed to be "documentary hypothesis", so I guess there some work to be done.  ħ uman  20:53, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Anyone think we need the redirect at "Documentary Hypothesis"?  ħ uman  21:04, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmmm, anyone? (OK, McCain's become incoherent already, time to listen for my keywords!)  ħ uman  21:16, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Gonna kill it for now.  ħ uman  23:02, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia link
Can we agree to discuss this rather than edit war? tmtoulouse 20:46, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Amusingly enough, "discussion" has not slowed the edit war down at all. Although in the meantime I moved it to the correct title, fixed six or so links, and corrected the capping in the article... oh well...  ħ uman  21:09, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * You started it. 20:48, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * No you did. tmtoulouse 20:49, 15 October 2008 (EDT)


 * EC) from the diffs, Pink you started it! :Wasn't there somewhere a Manual of Style type of thing? Giving details like this? 20:51, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Re the "you started it thing": Firstly, it was a joke, and secondly, I clearly argued my position for the first few times, and only gave up when I found myself being reverted with no explanation. 20:52, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * (EC)An in-line link makes the connection to the subject clear, whereas putting it at the end means that very few people will see the relevance and actually visit the WP article, rich in compelling information as it is. 20:51, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * So set it up as a footnote. The trouble with in-line links is they tend to obscure articles we have, or need.  ħ uman  20:55, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Human, the discussion did not finish just because it reached a point that you liked. 20:59, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Pink, why on earth do you think I thought it had?  ħ uman  21:01, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Gosh, could it have been the way you instantly carried out your suggestion? 21:03, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah, so you thought the discussion was finished each time you reverted the article to your preferred state? Really?  ħ uman  21:05, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

The primary argument against in line WP links is that they take people off the site, and there is no way to know the difference between a valid RW link and an inline WP link. We should only be linking inline for articles that belong on RW, if it is red, and we should have it, link it and write a stub. If RW shouldn't have an article on it we shouldn't be in line linking. External links is where WP references belong, just like every other external reference we would use. tmtoulouse 20:57, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Why are we worrying about people leaving the site? Also, there clearly is a difference; the WP links are lighter. And although you say "We should only be linking inline for articles that belong on RW", you haven't explained why. 21:02, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * There's a WP box at the top of the page, so anyone really interested can go there anyhow, so more prominent WP links are superfluous. 20:59, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * No, it's a completely different link. 21:02, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Err, and this guy's not mentioned there? If he is then find him there, if not then he's probably not worth the trouble. 21:06, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * He is linked in the fricking second sentence.  ħ uman  21:07, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

PINK: You're just being contrary for its own sake - STOP IT! 21:10, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I am not. I simply object to being reverted in the middle of discussion. 21:12, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * So that's why you keep reverting three other editors in the middle of the discussion?  ħ uman  21:14, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Certainly. I've argued my case, and you've just said "we don't do that". 21:18, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * We don't. It's been that way as long as I've been here. 21:21, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * And we're a staleocracy now, are we? 21:22, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Change for change's sake? If it aint bust, don't fix it? TMT's statement above covers the reasons. 21:27, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * No it doesn't. It says "we don't do this", "we shouldn't do this", "we don't do this". Those are not reasons. 21:30, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Pink, I'm not continuing with this. 21:34, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Pinkie, darling, dear, honey, sweetheart, you haven't "argued your case", you just want it to be so. On the other hand several editors have supported the case "against".  You might try logic, or clarity, in your "so-called" arguments.  ħ uman  22:54, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I can't possibly read that comment; it'll rot my teeth.
 * In fact, I have explained myself several times. On the other hand, all you've said is "we don't do that". 23:06, 15 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Sorry for the potential tooth decay, it is a danger we all face... Um, people are "explaining" why we try not to "do that", but you aren't reading their comments.  ħ uman  23:20, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I meant you specifically. As always, regardless of what anyone has said, your entire contribution to the debate is to tell me repeatedly that I haven't explained myself. I'm amazed you didn't melt from the sheer irony when you typed "people are explaining, but you aren't reading their comments". 23:25, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Okay lets try and make this simpler for you to address the specific points:


 * 1) In line links should only be used for articles that RW has or should have
 * 2) Every other external link is handled in footnotes or external links section, wikipedia is not "special" in that manner

What is wrong with point 1 or 2? tmtoulouse 21:48, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Point 1 is just an assertion. I think you should be more specific on that point. And I don't think Point 2 is true -- I've seen many external links in the text of articles, and I think that, in the right context, they're a perfectly reasonable addition to an article, especially on subjects that RW is realistically never going to cover in full. 21:55, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I think this is a style issue that needs to be discussed with a wider audience, this conversation should be pulled out and the "mob" alerted. tmtoulouse 21:57, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't think the mob would really be interested, you know. And it adds nothing to the debate to have it flooded out with "I don't know or care about this issue but I like things as they are" votes. 22:03, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Well 3 editors currently think your approach is not appropriate, so does that mean this issue is then decided? tmtoulouse 22:04, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * No. Two editors support my approach to this article, and there have been compelling arguments for WP links in the past. The issue is not cut and dried. 22:12, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Human, Susan and me all feel that it is not appropriate, that sure seems to be 3 to me. I think there are very compelling reasons to avoid such links. You do not want to move this to a larger audience so we are left with 3-1 against. tmtoulouse 22:18, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * A larger audience is fine; I just think it should involve people who are interested in the issue. And it's 3-2, I think. 23:06, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * "Point 1 is just an assertion." It has also been a major issue on RW.  "And I don't think Point 2 is true -- I've seen many external links in the text of articles" well, then, fix them! "I don't think the mob would really be interested, you know."  ORLY?  Don't want to know what other people think?  ""...I like things as they are" votes" are people saying they like things as they are.  Their opinion matters.  The issue is certainly not "cut and dried" - however, there was an article I reamed of WP links ages ago that had endless links to RW articles that existed.  Anyway, shall we take this to debate:mobocracy again, or just argue endlessly?  I know some of you want "rules" - but I don't think you want them to guide us, so much as to be able to "wikilawyer" using them.  ħ uman  23:01, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Wait a second, would you? I can only get so many edit conflicts into a single evening. 23:06, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Right. "It has also been a major issue on RW." -- In fact, it has been a major debate on RW, as your comment here shows. This is not a long-treasured consensus, it's an issue that hasn't been seriously challenged until now.
 * "Their opinion matters" -- Not if they're wrong, I'm afraid.
 * "shall we take this to debate:mobocracy again, or just argue endlessly?" -- All in good time.
 * "I don't think you want them to guide us, so much as to be able to "wikilawyer" using them" -- That's pretty rich coming from you, Human. You're quite the wikilawyer yourself, and our nebulous "mobocracy" only makes it easier to do so. 23:18, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Who is to say "they are wrong"? Some random color?

Yes, it has been debated. Only one editor (AKjeldsen) really disagreed.

Wikilawyer, me? OK, I first accused, so I can be counter-accused. Please provide references.  ħ uman  23:22, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * PS, did it ever occur to you that I might take the trouble of building a giant ad hom case against you and your name-calling? (Hopefully, real life will prove more compelling) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:23, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * What name-calling is this? 23:27, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * You do have tendency to call me things like "liar" & c. But I suppose you were just joking?  Or just grandstanding? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:42, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I have been known to call you a liar just after you've lied about something. Is that what you meant? 23:46, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * You have been known to call me a liar, yes. Your accusation, however, is usually unfounded.  Perhaps you should provide evidence? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:48, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
 * You disappoint me. 23:54, 15 October 2008 (EDT)