Talk:Law of holes/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Well
What if you're digging a well? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Then you're doing well. Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's a simplification of a deep subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2422:4CA9:AD75:64BB:3BA5:86E6 (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else wish to weigh in on the recent attempts to delete the main image for this page?
The fact that it was re-reverted despite the Wikipedia policy at WP:TALKDONTREVERT and the essay at WP:BRD makes me dubious about whether we can reach an agreement on this particular content dispute, but I am open to any policy-based argument, or failing that, I would like to seek a consensus and of course I will follow that consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to weigh in at this point. I'd like to remain neutral. I've fully-protected the page to stop the edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- This issue is as clear as crystal. I have no idea why Guy Macon is edit-warring to put flagrantly inappropriate content back in an article. The image and caption are clearly supposed to be "funny"; Macon's first revert states that in the edit summary. Encyclopedia articles are not for humor.
- There is absolutely no evidential basis for the claim as given by Macon in the image caption that the digger in question continued to dig once it had sunk into the peat; to do so is original research, as flimsy justification for adding a wacky photograph to this article. — Scott • talk 11:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Scott, please consider the possibility that your conduct might possibly show a battlefield mentality. I would much rather spend my time discussing the content dispute itself in a calm, collegial manner in the hope of finding a consensus.
- You are the one who decided to not follow WP:BRD. You made a bold change, I reverted it and instead of discussing it you reverted me, thus starting an edit war. You and I both know that it is BRD, not BRRD. Please note that after you started the edit war I took it to BRRRD, which was equally wrong, and that "he started it!" is no excuse. I apologize for that.
- Then you made the claim
- "There is absolutely no evidential basis for the claim as given by Macon in the image caption that the digger in question continued to dig once it had sunk into the peat"
- The problem I have with this is that I wrote nothing of the sort. What I actually wrote was
- "The alt text clearly explains that it fell into a hole it dug, and I just fixed the image description to say the same".
- I would very much prefer that you not put words words into my mouth, but rather to address what I actually wrote.
- Then you made the claim
- You also claimed that
- "Encyclopedia articles are not for humor".
- Can I have a citation to the Wikipedia policy that states that, please? As far as I can tell, Wikipedia:Humor#Humor in articles There is no clear consensus as to when and how humor should be included in articles.
- You also claimed that
- Getting back to the content dispute, I think that any reasonable observer would say that calling an image that has been in the article for six months "flagrantly inappropriate content" is a bit over the top, and I have to question why it is suddenly so important for you to delete the image that you violated Wikipedia policy at WP:TALKDONTREVERT rather than discussing it in a calm, rational manner.
- You do make an an interesting claim that on Wikipedia images cannot have humorous captions or that said captions need to be literally true and supported by citations to reliable sources. Clearly they are allowed in some places on Wikipedia. For example:
- Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert (an essay I highly recommend to you for other reasons) shows an image with the caption "Meh...what harm could it do?" despite clear evidence that thermonuclear bombs can indeed do harm.
- Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass has an image with a caption that claims to be an image of "an early Wikipedian coming to the realisation that dead horses can't be made to go anywhere" despite there being no sources for Wikipedia existing in 1876.
- Now of course those are in the Wikipedia namespace, not the article namespace. Examples from the article namespace are far more sparse. For example:
- Spherical cow has an image with a caption that claims to show a spherical cow jumping over the moon despite there being no sources for leaping bovines achieving escape velocity.
- Wine humour has has an image with a caption that claims that "Fairview's goats do roam" despite there being no sources for them roaming or not roaming.
- This leads me to a couple of possible ways of resolving this content dispute. Perhaps we could change the caption. The current caption was chosen by the photographer who took the picture. Perhaps "A backhoe that is in a hole and has stopped digging"? That is fully supported by the image itself: You can see that it is a backhoe. You can see that it is in a hole. You can see that there is no operator at the controls.
- Another way of resolving this content dispute might be to split it into a mainspacee article with no image, as you prefer, and a Wikipedia space article with the usual "This page is intended as humour" disclaimer. I would be happy to create that article if this is an acceptable compromise.
- Needless to say, we should have had the above Discussion after your Bold edit and my Revert. The following two reverts and subsequent page protection were completely unnecessary. As Toddst1 correctly pointed out, two highly experienced editors should not be edit warring over this. Again, I apologize for my part in that. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Requested move 30 July 2015
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) kennethaw88 • talk 04:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Law of holes → Wikipedia:Law of holes – The article seems to be little more than a dictionary entry and brief etymology. Further, it seems to be used more as a wikipedia essay than as an encyclopedic article as evidenced by having no mainspace links (all are talk or wikipedia space links). After the move, I don't think cleanup will be a problem as there are less than 50 pages that link here so I don't see that as a problem. Wugapodes (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose move.. Lack of mainspace links is not evidence of lack of notability, nor is it evidence that an article is not encyclopedic. This page is as encyclopedic as the other pages in Category:Adages. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - just because it is a short article, does not mean it is not encyclopaedic. See Missing no. for example. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 12:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per the reasoning above and per the multiple examples to be found at Category:Adages. Keri (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: I think this is a general law and it can be useful for general public also not only for Wikipedia editors. This principal deserves place in mainspace and should also be read by non-Wikipedians. --Human3015Send WikiLove 12:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose We do not move dictionary entries into WPspace. There's something called Wiktionary that takes phrases and dicdefs. You would use the TRANSWIKI process. This is clearly not an essay, and WP-space is not a place to stuff articles. Not having mainspace links is a maintenance issue, we have a cleanup template for that, {{orphan}} -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm of the opinion (and have been for a while) that there should be a separate essay at Wikipedia:Law of holes (shortcut: WP:HOLES). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
... and nothing but the truth
I'd like to put on record my gratitude to the person who arranged for the photograph of the backhoe that is in a hole (having stopped digging). Without that illuminating image, I would have no clue about whatever it is the proverb is about. And that's the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2422:4CA9:AD75:64BB:3BA5:86E6 (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Some holes are useful
Wells, for instance, and tunnels. Just because someone may not understand why someone else is digging a hole doesn't mean they are doing it blindly. - BilCat (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Those are cases of the exception that proves the rule 15:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC).
Another real-world example
"To construct a no-expense-spared new basement, the digger has to go so deep into the London earth that it is unable to drive out again. What could be done?" http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2014/06/bizarre-secret-london-s-buried-diggers --Guy Macon (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- London’s Very Own Urban Legend :D Keri (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- (Homer Simpson voice) D'OH!! :(
- Here are some more that might be real... [ http://mentertained.com/23-tractors-caught-in-sticky-situations/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Is it an adage or a proverb?
Guy Macon said it's an adage, not a proverb (Wiktionary), when changing the category from Category:Proverbs to Category:Adages, but didn't change anything in the article, which still uniformly uses the term proverb. So what is it? --Pipetricker 07:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- The two are largely interchangeable, but the description in adage ("a short, usually philosophical, but memorable saying which holds some important fact of experience that is considered true by many people, or that has gained some credibility through its long memetic use. It often involves a planning failure such as 'don't count your chickens before they hatch' or 'don't burn your bridges'.") fits the Law of Holes better that the description in proverb ("a simple and concrete saying, popularly known and repeated, that expresses a truth based on common sense or the practical experience of humanity. They are often metaphorical.") I just changed "proverb" to "adage" in the article. Sorry about not doing that earlier. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Source?
I've seen this paraphrased as something like "That's an impressive hole you're in. May I suggest considering the ladder instead of the spade?" Unfortunately I can't find a good citation for it. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I did some research on the source of this saying.
- First, three claims that are almost certainly not the source:
- "The first thing you ought to do when you find yourself in a hole is quit digging. Instead they are looking for a bigger shovel." -- Bill Clinton, speech at the Families USA health advocacy conference in Washington, D.C., Reported by Reuters ("Bill Clinton takes aim at Bush tax cuts") on 23 January 2003.
- "The most important thing to do if you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging." -- Attributed to Warren Buffett by various sources, no indication as to source.
- "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." --Attributed to Will Rogers by many sources, including the California Dept. of Parks and Recreation,[1] no indication as to source.
- Finally, from the Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs, edited by Jennifer Speake[2] and the Wordsworth Dictionary of Proverbs, edited by George Latimer Apperson[3], we have:
- "It is a good thing to follow the first law of holes; if you are in one, stop digging. --Denis Healey, Sayings of the Eighties, edited by J. Care, 1988
- "When you're in a hole, stop digging" --Denis Healey, U.S. News & World Report CVI. iii. 46 (headline), 23 January 1989
- "William Hague seems to have forgotten the first rule of politics: when you are in a hole, stop digging." --Denis Healey, Times 15 September 1997
- "Parliament would be unwise to hand to somebody in Tehran, Lambeth Palace or Salt Lake City the power, by pronouncing something hateful, to create an offence under English law. You're in a hole, Home Secretary. Stop digging." --Denis Healey, Spectator 1 December 2001
- And
the winner is... (unless someone has an earlier source)...
- Denis Winston Healey, Baron Healey of Riddlesden, CH, MBE, PC (1917-) British Secretary of State for Defence, 1964-1970, Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1974-1979, Member of Parliament (Labour) , 1952-1992.
- --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The quote is found in The Bankers Magazine, Volume 166, apparently unattributed from the excerpt displayed, circa 1964. Unfortunately, I don't have online access to that volume. LFaraone 18:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Washington Post October 25, 1911 (see here): "Nor would a wise man, seeing that he was in a hole, go to work and blindly dig it deeper..." Also, the 1964 ref that Faraone mentions predates Healey's first quoted use and specifically uses the name "law of holes." Keri (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, I always knew it as Healey's Law of Holes, but I got that from Private Eye so didn't want to assert it as true! Guy (help!) 14:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Will Rogers?
@Guy Macon: I have a real problem with this. It's not up to us to decide which is correct. That would be WP:SYN at best. We write what is WP:V. That different sources attribute the origin differently, is verifiable. That it is misattributed to Will Rogers is not verifiable - rather the contrary. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source for the attribution? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, but if you read the article you might find it there. It's one of those sources not listed on WP:RSP - the State of California with specific attribution to an historian: Will Rogers Legacy. California Department of Parks and Recreation
- [personal attack redacted]
- Nice personal attack there. Asking for a reliable source when someone cites a dubious source is not tendentious editing. Please report me for my "tendentious editing" and see how far you get.
- A park web page is not a reliable source. There is zero evidence that "Randall Young, Will Rogers Historian" is an actual historian.
- What are his credentials? Where was he educated? What has he published? Has he ever written anything other than a page on the Will Rogers State Historic Park website?
- Do you know of any legitimate historians who fail to include their credentials or the sources for their claims?
- Is there a shred of evidence from any other source that Will Rogers ever wrote or said that? It's easy enough to do a search of all of Will Rogers writings, which I did. It isn't there. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Another example
The Worst Excavator Recovery Of My Career --Guy Macon (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Image change
Should we use this?
or this?
I myself am partial to the excavator image, because the soldier image really doesn't show a situation where it is clearly time to stop digging, but whatever the consensus is is fine with me.
BTW, please use alt text when adding images to Wikipedia pages. It helps the visually impaired. Something like "alt=Overhead view of a soldier in camouflage digging a hole with a shovel" would be good. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Deletion
Common adages do not seem to warrant an article. This should be deleted or moved to a list page. 2601:191:8200:12A0:F5A3:A995:6D1F:9EE0 (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)