Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shermer's last law

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 01:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Shermer's last law

Shermer's last law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are zero secondary sources in the article to establish notability. There is only one citation in the article, and it is one of Michael Shermre's columns, which is a primary source Nightscream (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Nightscream (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Merge with Michael Shermer. Mentioned in:

SCEPTIC magazine (article)

The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (book)

ABC Science (editorial)

50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists (book)

Grave New World: Security Challenges in the 21st Century (book)

Plus, of course, numerous blogs[1][2][3], popular books by Sherman himself[4][5] and the original Scientific American column[6][7][8]. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Changed !vote per SPACKlick's analysis below. This does not change the fact that, Nightscream's arguments notwithstanding, Wikipedia:Notability (the standard for inclusion in an article) says that reliable third-party sources are needed, not reliable secondary sources. or that WP:GNG (the standard for having a standalone article) says that significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is needed, nor does it change the fact that "secondary" and "third-party" are unrelated concepts. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"This does not change the fact that, Nightscream's arguments notwithstanding, Wikipedia:Notability (the standard for inclusion in an article) says that reliable third-party sources are needed, not reliable secondary sources." Wrong. As I pointed out below in my 12:21, 21 May 2014, the General Notability Guideline flat-out states: "'Sources' should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Unless you've decided not to read other people's messages, or have forgotten what you've read, this statement of yours is a knowing and deliberate lie on your part.

"...nor does it change the fact that "secondary" and "third-party" are unrelated concepts." You seem to be operating under the delusion that if someone falsifies your statements, that you can just ignore the falsification and keep repeating the falsehood in order to make it "true". As I pointed out below, the assertion for this claim is derived solely from a couple of essays you cited. Not policies, and not guidelines.

Stop splitting hairs, Guy. You were proven wrong in this discussion, and now be a man, and stop embarrassing yourself by trying to salvage some vestige of righteousness in order to avoid having to admit that fact. Nightscream (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self esteem. These people think well of themselves in general, but their self-esteem fluctuates. They are especially prone to react defensively to ego threats, and they are also more prone to hostility, anger and aggression than other people."

"These findings shed considerable light on the psychology of the bully. Hostile people do not have low self esteem; on the contrary, they think highly of themselves, But their favorable view of themselves is not held with total conviction, and it goes up and down in response to daily events. The bully has a chip on his shoulder because he thinks you might want to deflate his favorable self image."

Source: Roy F. Baumeister, Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty page 149

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You know, Guy, before I just figured that you were a well-meaning but somewhat inexperienced editor, owing to the fact that you don't edit that frequently (and there's nothing wrong with that). I see now that you're an abject narcissist, and practice deliberate deceit in order to avoid having to admit when you're wrong. You were not bullied, you were criticized for your behavior, which included deliberate deception, ignoring counterarguments that falsified your position, and for lacking the courage to admit it. Being criticized for such behavior is not "bullying", nor is any other legitimate criticism for questionable behavior. There are many legitimate reasons for "hostility" that have nothing to do with bullying, so stop falsely playing the part of the victim by jumping on the anti-bullying bandwagon. All you're doing is digging yourself a deeper hole by confirming that you're of poor character, and exploiting a quite legitimate movement and its real victims in the process. You asserted that secondary sources were not needed for notability, while holding up a distinction between secondary and third-party sources, and after I falsified this by pointing out a policy page that indeed indicated the former, and that the latter was derived from mere essays, you went made that claim again. You did that knowingly, and you did it deliberately. If you can falsify this by virtue of evidence or reason, then do so. If you can't, then stop making it worse for yourself by persisting in this narcissistic refusal to admit when you're wrong. Nightscream (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Folks, every day, a troll goes hungry. These are not trolls in some third-world country, but right here at home. The growing rate of trolls is alarming. In the United States alone, the number of hungry trolls is expanding at a rate of 1 troll for every 15 global warming flamewars.

For example, take little Nightscream here. On the comments section of his local blog, he does not even gain enough responses to fill an entire Tweet on Twitter. He has been forced to go into Yahoo! chat rooms and post about gun control or abortion just for enough troll food to last the night.

Sponsoring a troll is easy. For the cost of sending just one flame or other response, your contribution (along with others) can keep a troll fed for a month. If you include your email address, you can get weekly or even daily letters from your troll. Try explaining the difference between "secondary" and "third-party" and watch him dial up the aggression in a show of gratitude. Think of what one post from you could mean to a hungry troll.

Please. Feed a troll today. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, you were not trolled. You were criticized, quite legitimately, for your behavior. That has nothing to do with what trolling is. "Trolling" refers to the act of intentionally attempting to provoke emotional reactions in others or sow discord, which is not a practice I've ever engaged in during my 9+ years on Wikipedia, or anywhere else on the Net. I don't have a blog, a Twitter account, nor have I ever gone into Yahoo! chat rooms. One more time: You were provided evidence that unambiguously falsified your claims, and then you engaged in deliberate deception by brazenly repeating those claims again, because you were not man enough to accept this (and when you really weren't required to day anything). You were criticized for this, and then started to whine that you were "bullied", revealing yourself to be a narcissistic child, a fact you've bolstered further with this sorry "troll" accusation. I've confined my messages to providing evidence and reason for my position, even when criticizing you, which is hardly the inflammatory behavior defined by the word "troll". By contrast, you've adopted the behavior of a petulant child who cannot admit when he is wrong, and then lashes out at others for pointing this out, which conforms far more closely to that definition (and violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA, for that matter) than anything that I've said. Nightscream (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: "I've confined my messages to providing evidence and reason for my position" and "'Trolling' refers to the act of intentionally attempting to provoke emotional reactions in others or sow discord, which is not a practice I've ever engaged in during my 9+ years on Wikipedia, or anywhere else on the Net.", let's examine the record, shall we?

I called you:

hostile,

bully,

troll.

You called me:

a knowing and deliberate liar,

under a delusion,

repeating falsehoods,

splitting hairs,

not a man,

abject narcissist,

deliberatly decieving,

lacking courage,

of poor character,

narcissistic,

not man enough,

whining,

a petulant child,

hair splitting,

suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Most of which you called me previous to my finally responding by calling you the bully you are.

I did find your "confining my messages to providing evidence and reason for my position" claim to be enormously entertaining, given the above rather blatant trolling and bullying.

And now a word from TUAD:

An open letter to the internet from Trolls United Against Defamation:

First an introduction - what I'd like to talk about are "Trolls" - we've been much maligned over the years but we've decided to come out from under our 'bridges' and once again take our rightful place in society.

Many of you older readers may remember the friendly little man who lived under the courthouse steps in your home town, he was a well-liked and respected member of the community, your parents approved of his occupation and understood that "it was a tough job, but someone had to do it". In small town America in the '50s no one questioned the valuable place your local trolls played in society.

Readers who grew up in the '60s may remember being distraught by Oppie's special friend Max's sudden disappearance from Mayberry after the actor who played him was blacklisted following the McCarthy hearings.

Let me try and explain the whole sordid story as briefly as possible. It all started with what we trolls commonly refer to as "that goat incident". Back in the spring of 1964 there were wild press reports from Eastern Europe about a poor hungry troll eating some goats who woke him up while sleeping under a bridge - naturally the press blew it way out of proportion, someone noticed that not only were there trolls behind the iron curtain, but here in the US too - Joe McCarthy (a lawyer!) came out of retirement and started up 'HURT' the 'House Unamerican Reaction to Trolls' - Trolls were subpoenaed, question, publicly vilified and driven from their occupations all across the country, in the south trolls were driven from town by the KKK on horseback. Those trolls whom survived moved to the wilder parts of the country to hide out, some even moved north to Canada.

At the time our knowledge of ecology and ecosystems was not great enough for anybody to predict the horrible results this would cause. As the Soviets were finding out by the '60s if you take away it's usual prey a predator will turn elsewhere. They banned lawyers in most communist countries, which of course explains the plight of that poor hungry troll under that bridge that started this whole mess.

After banning Trolls the US is now suffering from a most horrible scourge. Just like removing the wolves from Yellowstone resulted in Elk herds that multiplied out of control and devastated the grazing for all other species, taking your local troll out from his usual place below the courthouse steps has resulted in lawyers multiplying completely out of control with dire consequences to all parts of society.

We intend to once again become the respected useful members of society our parents and grandparents were. And after much soul-searching we realized that we would need good legal council. As you might imagine this was hard to come by, so we decided that we needed to train some of our own people in the law. I, and my colleagues, worked our way through law school, it was hard, we suffered under much discrimination from the faculty, we spent long nights suffering working through the law books, and days resisting temptation in class. In the end we graduated top of our class - in fact in that year we were the only ones who surv^H^H^H^Hgraduated.

We moved into private practice as "Troll, Troll, Troll and Bandicoot" mostly doing civil rights law for other trolls. Recently you may have heard of the very substantial out of court settlement we received from the Tolkien estate in our libel case. We intend to use this money to fund future legal work for our clients.

Which brings me to the main purpose of this letter .... it has come to our attention that some people on the internet have been using the name 'troll' in a negative, derogatory manner. This must stop immediately. Along with our co-litigants the Spam Industry Council we are today serving a class action suit, on behalf of all trolls everywhere, on all people who have participated in the practice of 'trolling'.

We were lucky that the law firm of Canter&Siegel after some initial reluctance were yum^H^H^H able to help us in searching the Usenet archives to discover the perpetrators and to electronically serve all those who were found responsible.

I hope that this will be the end of this matter.

Thank you for your attention

Timothy T. Troll

Attorney at Law

Troll, Troll, Troll, and Bandicoot

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Every criticism I have leveled against you has been derived directly from the evidence of your behavior. Did you not lie when you repeated your false arguments about sourcing, even after I falsified them, because you simply lacked the courage or the manhood to just admit that you were wrong? Yes, you did. Did you not react to this by narcisistically whining that any time someone criticizes you for this, that it makes t hem a bully? Yes, you did. Did you not -- either by ignorance of the definition or the word "troll", or by deliberate misusing it -- pretend that I had engaged in trolling, when the actual definition of that concept has nothing to do with anything I've said or done? Yes, you did. Isn't this behavior of poor character? Yes, it is. Are you now claiming that being accused of splitting hairs is somehow bullying or trolling? Apparently you are. All of this is reasonably argued by virtue of what these words and phrases mean, and how you exhibited these various behaviors on this page. If this were not true, then you'd have falsified it with counterarguments. You haven't, because you can't.

By contrast, can you provide a definition of "bully" or troll" under which any of my behavior can be fit, except in your imagination? I doubt it.

Try to find some maturity, admit that you were not only wrong, but persisted in your false statements even after I falsified them, or else explain how this is not true. If you can't do either one, then try moving on. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment The Skeptic magazine article is written by Shermer, making it a primary source. Ditto for the The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, the ABC Science article, and the essay in 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists. In the book Grave New World, it appears solely in a footnote which cites the column in which Shermer coined the phrase. Ditto for the "numerous blogs, popular books by Sherman himself and the original Scientific American column." Those are all primary sources. To establish notability for a topic to get its own Wikipedia article, you need secondary sources. You've racked up close to 18,000 edits since 2006, Guy, so you should know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 02:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You might want to consider the possibility that, in your haste to lecture me in an area where you believe that I am wrong, you might not have fully considered the possibility that it is you yourself who are wrong.

Question: does Wikipedia:Notability actually say "if no reliable secondary sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article" or does it say "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article"?

You are aware that Wikipedia:Third-party sources says that "This concept is contrasted with the unrelated concept of a secondary source...", right?

The reason the distinction is important is because of the nature of establishing notability of something like Shermer's last law.

Let's say I come up with a pithy saying -- "You took your last vacation in the Islets of Langerhans" -- and put it up at http://www.GuyMacon.com/flame.html. Does that establish notability? No, because GuyMacon.com in not an independent source; I control it. Note that I didn't say whether it is a secondary source (it isn't), because that is not a factor in establishing notability.

Now assume that I expand on the idea and The New York Times puts my words on the editorial page. That would be an independent third-party (I don't own the NYT or decide what it publishes) publishing my words, which would still be a primary source. Now assume that the US Park Service carves my saying into the base of the Washington Monument. Again, independent third-party, again primary. If those two things happened, then "You took your last vacation in the Islets of Langerhans" would be considered by Wikipedia to be notable, because the rule requires independent third-party sources, not, as you claimed above, secondary sources.

Just to be complete, the above would only establish that I said that you took your last vacation in the Islets of Langerhans and that my saying so was notable. If we wanted toe establish that you actually did take your last vacation in the Islets of Langerhans, now we would need some reliable secondary sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that if lots of people discussed that Shermer Said and publicised that Shermer said his third law, it may establish notability, however, what we have is a scant few reprints of his article, it doesn't compare to the carving on the Washington Monument now does it? Especially since most of Shermer's articles are reprinted verbatim in various sources. And they are reprinted mostly not for the ideas being noteworthy but because Shermer is noteworthy. SPACKlick (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

SPACKlick, I agree. The carving on the Washington Monument example was to show Nightscream a clearcut example of something that is notable without being secondary. As you correctly pointed out, this just proves that some things can be primary and notable, but doesn't prove that Shermer's last law in particular is notable. Good analysis.

Your comment "...not for the ideas being noteworthy but because Shermer is noteworthy" brings up an interesting question. Would "I have a Dream" be noteworthy if Martin Luther King wasn't? Upon refection, I don't think Shermer's last law is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, but it certainly is notable enough for a sentence or two in our Michael Shermer article. Again, good thinking on your part. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I have no problem considering that I may be wrong. I've been wrong many times, as I am only human. But if you want to convince me of this, then you have to provide a lucid counterargument with commensurate counterevidence or counterreasoning that compels me to arrive at that resolution, and if the above is what you've got, then that's not likely to happen, buddy. It's not haste that informs my above posts; just Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

You asked above, "Does Wikipedia:Notability actually say 'if no reliable secondary sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article' or does it say 'if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article'? Well, Wikipedia:Notability says lots of things. And if you read the entire page, and related pages, and make an effort to understand the wisdom behind those policies and the manner in which the community tends to interpret them (which requires that you not exhibit "haste"), then you'll see that it says, among other things:

• "'Sources' should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

In short, that page, and related ones (such as Wikipedia:Independent sources) treat the phrases "third-party sources" and "secondary sources" as synonymous by definition. Unless you can demonstrate how they are treated different by policy, your false either/or argument above is just hair-splitting. Nightscream (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you read

• "This concept [the concept of third party sources] is contrasted with the unrelated concept of a secondary source"

in Wikipedia:Independent sources and get

• "treat[s] the phrases 'third-party sources' and 'secondary sources' as synonymous by definition."

out of that? How is my pointing out that "unrelated" and "synonymous" do not mean the same thing hair splitting?

Perhaps our essay on Wikipedia:Party and person will help you to understand why we make this distinction. look at the part starting with "'Secondary' does not mean 'independent' or 'uninvolved'." (emphasis in original),

Also, please explain how your claim that

• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"

would apply in my made up Washington Monument example. The words are mine (primary source), but published by the US Park Service (independent third-party). Likewise, Scientific American published Shermer's words (primary source), but Scientific American is an independent third-party. Your quoting

• "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent"

makes me think that you still are not quite getting the difference. SCEPTIC magazine, The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, ABC Science, 50 Voices of Disbelief and Grave New World are all independent third-parties publishing a primary source. They are not produced by the article's subject or by someone affiliated with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"How do you read 'This concept [the concept of third party sources] is contrasted with the unrelated concept of a secondary source' in Wikipedia:Independent sources..." I don't. Wikipedia:Independent sources is an essay. Not a policy. Not a guideline.

"Perhaps our essay on Wikipedia:Party and person will help you to understand why we make this distinction..." Perhaps if you read the banner at the very top of that page, you'll see that Wikipedia:Party and person is also an essay. Not a policy. Not a guideline.

"Also, please explain how your claim that 'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it'...." That isn't a claim of mine. It's the directly quoted text from the General Notability Guideline from Wikipedia:Notability, which I made explicitly clear above. It's amazing to me that you quote passages from essays as if they're policies or guidelines, but when I quote a relevant portion of a page that is a guideline, you refer to it as "my claim". LOL.

"...would apply in my made up Washington Monument example." That would be an independent and secondary source, and would indeed go to notability. It is not a primary source, as you stated above.

"Likewise, Scientific American published Shermer's words (primary source), but Scientific American is an independent third-party." Wrong. The fact that it is a column by Shermer makes it a primary source, period. The venue in which he published it is irrelevant.

Hell, even the essays you cite back me up: Wikipedia:Party and person, for example, states that "Secondary sourced material is based on primary sourced material, and may include synthesis, but not novel conclusions." A column by Shermer in Scientific American is not "based" on primary material, because it is primary material. Wikipedia:Independent sources states that "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective." Neither Shermer, his column, nor the magazine that published it is "independent" of Shermer's Law, as both the author and the magazine have a vested interest in its publication: Both Shermer and Scientific American are interested in promoting those ideas and profiting from publication of them. A secondary and independent source would be one that has nothing to do with the column or its publication, but is in some way reacting to it, by way of commentary, rebuttal, analysis, etc.

Bottom line: For you to argue that the books and columns in which Shermer's promotes Shermer's Last Law are either secondary sources or "independent" of Shermer's Last Law, clearly shows that it is you who "are not quite getting" it when it comes to notability, just as your citation of essays as policy or guideline (and dismissal of a guideline as another editors "claim") shows that you don't seem to understand how policies and guidelines work.

And by the way, the name of Shermer's magazine is Skeptic. Not SCEPTIC. American spelling. Not British. Nightscream (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing I think is worth noting here is that a straight reprinting/republishing of an article is a very different thing re: notability than a comment on, discussion of or even introduced reprint (by which I mean an author saying "here's a thing I thought you should all read"). However let's move away from personal feelings to Guidelines. Starting at WP:GNG

• If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
• "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. ... Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.
• "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included.

Well, this isn't met. There's been limited coverage (which boils down to a single source) but nothing addresses the topic in detail beyond the article itself. The entirety of the coverage was produced by Michael Shermer himself, even though it's been published in multiple locations. The guideline syas with respect to including it in the Michael Shermer article

• Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

These provide limited guidelines for content inclusion. However they make it clear content should be featured in similar weight to the coverage. This article by shermer was published in a handful of sources and commented on basically nowhere outside the blogosphere and not ubiquitously even there. Vote below changed slightly. SPACKlick (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. A long-standing cliche known long before Schermer. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC).
• Redirect to List of eponymous laws or Delete. Not really notable. Could also be mentioned as a footnote in Clarke's law or Shermer's bio, I guess. I think we need to cut down on the vast number of eponymous "laws" that we document here. Too many of them are obviously non-notable. The aforementioned list could be a useful place to redirect/merge them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete article as not notable [and at most footnote on Shermer's page]. Having spent a fair amount of time researching this area I've not come across anybody discussing Shermer's last law other than Shermer and a subsection of the blogosphere. It doesn't get much traction or notability. SPACKlick (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki to wikiquote. No independent notability for this catchphrase has been demonstrated. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.