Wikipedia talk:Don't call a spade a spade

Discussion

Nice essay! *Dan T.* 13:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of moving the Vasily Grossman quote from Life and Fate over here from the WP:SPADE essay, since it seems to dovetail more fittingly with the point being made here. Any strong feelings? MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the quote. I wouldn't suggest removing it from there just because you add it here, though. Someone can remove it if they disagree with it there, but for now it's doing no harm. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The real problem lies in the social dynamics of witch hunting. Group solidarity in finding the enemy within. WAS 4.250 17:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

See "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street", as well as The Crucible. *Dan T.* 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• There's no need to deliberately goosestep around saying the word "spade", but it certainly is not always useful to say anything about it in the first place. -Amarkov moo! 00:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Calling someone a "spade" is irrelevant, useless, and reflects poorly on the person bringing it up. The last thing I want people to take from this essay is that I'm advocating any kind of soft-pedaling of language. What I'm advocating is professionalism, which Call a spade a spade seems to be a direct argument against. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • So in other words, you're likening SPADE to DICK, where referring someone to "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself? SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Um... is this a leading question? Yes, I think that WP:SPADE is essentially a dickish essay, but I'm not trying to call anybody a dick. I suspect people who cite or believe in the essay do so with the best of intentions, I just think that they're misguided or mistaken. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
        • It's not a leading question or a loaded question. Or at least I didn't intend it to be. I had a valid point, but I kind of FUBARed the phrasing of it. Let me think about a better way to phrase it and get back to you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Let's try this again. In WP:DICK, they say that telling someone not to be a dick is a bit of a "dick-move" itself. Thus it's not a recommended course of action. Thus, like in DICK, calling a spade a spade, like telling someone not to be a dick, may not be a good course of action. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, I think that captures the spirit of this essay. In WP:DICK, they say that telling someone not to be a dick is a bit of a "dick-move" itself while Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade says any name calling at all is generally counter productive. WAS 4.250 15:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have my own views

about how to resolve certain disputes over content of articles. I have been following (as a lurker) the development of the article Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. What you read in this article depends on the date and time - the content changes at least five or six times every day. The talk page contains mountains of well-intentioned but often acrimonious polemics, and those polemics spill over into the article, making many sections bloated with loaded fact and counterfact.

In my view, the opposing views of al-Husayni's role in Middle East history are as much a key part of the article as the few unchallenged facts of his life (his birthday, for example). Yet the current editing strategy of Wikipedia - seek consensus, collaborate, NPOV - is in this case a roadblock, preventing a clear presentation of those views and foiling any effort to create a cogent and readable article.

I would like to propose a different approach, one that I believe would help the editors and, most important, would allow the readers to best understand the issues and reach their own informed conclusions. It is the side-by-side article, that looks something like this:

---

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (ca. 1895 - July 4, 1974, أمين الحسيني, alternatively spelt al-Husseini), Mufti of Jerusalem was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and a Muslim leader in Palestine and Egypt. His life and his role in Middle East history are hotly disputed. Pro-Israeli analysts consider him a viscious antisemite and Nazi collaborator, who incited to riot, massacre and genocide of all Jews. Palestinian nationalists view him as one of the fathers of the Palestinian national movement, who fought selflessly against what he saw as an impending catastrophe for his people - their subjugation and expulsion from their own land.

Amin al-Husayni, Father of the Palestine National Movement

Here the pro-Husaynians write their article. They have to make every effort to write a fair, unbiased (in their eyes), well-documented account of al-Husayni's life.

Amin al-Husayni, agitator and Nazi collaborator

This side is for the anti-Husaynians. The rules of engagement are: you cannot edit the other guy's side. You can engage in angry polemics, and challenges of sources on the talk page, but you can't edit war. You have to make an effort to be fair, but that is different from NPOV - you needn't abandon your point of view but you must make it explicit.

---

I think this approach could lead to a stable, good, and interesting article. But when I suggested it in another dispute, I was roundly shouted down. It is, I admit, radical. It is, in a sense, an admission of defeat of the NPOV ideal. It is different from the kind of articles you see in other encyclopedias. But think about it - wouldn't this be a better solution than an article that changes five or six times a day, and is so overloaded with polemics that it is almost unintelligible?

--Ravpapa 06:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more on that. The problem is in our society we expect "experts" to attest to what is true and untrue, to provide us that which is fact and which isn't; and yet none of these experts are going to be concerned with stating the obvious. (in most cases) They have their own agendae: they hardly want to be remembered for saying that which everybody already knew, and those that might not be so legacy oriented are more concerned with rehashing the observations of those that are! (this from my personal experience with both types.)

As it stands on Wikipedia, if an expert (or a reliable source -- an even HIGHER threshold because to get in a reliable source you have to overcome mountains of bias usually -- a POV warrior/extremist who has managed to make it to a decision-influencing decision will torpedo the expression of ANYTHING they find threatening) OKs an idea -- or claims it for their own -- that's OK. Which would be fine, except there are never enough experts for the job! Instead we need a middle ground for those ideas and ponderings the experts don't have time for or even feel they'd be humiliated over saying, given our current cultural standards. Tcaudilllg 00:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Essay!

Bravo! I have linked this to my user page, as this is one of the BEST essays I have read in a while. Good job! We need a WP shortcut for this... it is that good IMHO. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is... WP:NOSPADE the shortcut you're looking for? Thanks for the comment and the link. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Perception is important

Calling a spade a spade allows the person who confronts the extremist/POV warrior (that's another word for extremist) to at the least be confident in the knowledge that others are aware of what is happening. You are assuming that the person involved with the dispute knows they have the support of the community, that they don't need to question whether others share the same perception of the situation? That may well be acceptable for the author of this essay, who appears to my mind community-minded by nature and knows how to appeal to the same, but for others the situation is not so simple. At the very least the approach this essay offers does not address their concerns.

Al Gore may be respected today for drawing attention to a problem of our society; but for a long time he was regarded by the community as a robotic enviro-nut. Perhaps those of similar mentality to Al Gore's own -- those who attest to phenomena -- want something better? Certainly the innovations the community prizes would not have been possible were not the relativistic "conditional realities" the innovative would otherwise embrace clarified and stabilized by those who saw reality for what it was? What would Einstein's work have been if no one had attested to c at 186,000mps?

Behavior may drive perception, but perception also drives behavior. Tcaudilllg 00:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain I understand your concern. At what point is it necessary to be certain that the person with whom one is dealing is, in fact, an extremist or POV-warrior? Why does that "fact" (if it be factual) have to enter the equation at all? It remains the case that we're trying to build a free encyclopedia of facts that are verifiable in reliable sources. How does identifying different editors as certain "types" help with that project?

I appreciate that you want to address the concerns of those who are less sure of themselves when dealing with "extremists". I do not see, however, why it matters whether the community shares their perception of some editor as POV-warrior. Isn't it far more important (in a ratio of infinity to zero) what the community thinks of the content, rather than what we think of the contributor? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Extremists deny the very existence of facts they don't like, because they sense that the very substance of the facts is something they are ill-equipped to deal with and unable to successfully apprehend, leaving them vulnerable. The point is this: where there is extremism, there is no peace. The fewer extremists exist in a community, the more peaceful it will be, because common ground outreach will be made from all sides. Extremists do not compromise on their positions, no matter what. Tcaudilllg 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're making assertions without proof. As far as I can tell, these are faith-based statements. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Isn't it far more important (in a ratio of infinity to zero) what the community thinks of the content, rather than what we think of the contributor?" -- Indeed it is. But when you govern by consensus, each contributor is important. The problem happens when we try to please everyone, then realizing this is impossible, sue for a false peace that seems more comfortable to us than the expression of simmering conflicts. Tcaudilllg 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware that we try to please everyone. I think we try to please WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Can you provide an example of the problem you're talking about: some situation where "extremists" (from your perspective) need to be identified and removed? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The little considered "case b"

Good essay, but this section.... I guess it's supposed to be ironic, or something? It think you are being too circumspect. Many of the folks who are eager to call a spade a spade truly don't consider the possibility that they might be wrong; and this section may sail right over their heads. My suggestion: change It profits little to think to It is worth thinking Dlabtot (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that section doesn't do much for the page. If you can think of other improvements for it, I'd say go for it. I think that's about where I ran out of steam writing the thing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought I'd try to spiff it up a little by adding a couple of metaphors..but it's late and I should really be in bed instead of trying to be clever..sooo...forgive me if it's quacked up... Dreadstar † 10:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cognitive biases

I think the fundamental attribution error helps to explain why we are all so prone to "calling a spade a spade". Another problem is that we hardly ever get feedback telling us that we were wrong when we did so. If an admin blocks a new user who is just clueless indefinitely for "obvious trolling", then the new user will either leave Wikipedia completely or start again with a new name. In either case the admin will never know they were wrong. Déformation professionnelle and moral credential effect are two other biases that seem highly relevant in this context.

I would like to see these things mentioned in the essay, but I am not sure how to do it. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a spade. --( fi ) 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a great essay until...

This is well-written. However, it glosses over one of the most important problems with this approach. After you've successfully avoided edit-warring, name-calling, and so forth and demonstrated that your position is reasonable and consensus is on your side, what happens to the other editor? Very few such editors will admit defeat and trudge off into the Wiki-sunset. Most will refuse to accept any amount of consensus or outside input. The essay rather lamely concludes: "Any problem with the editor's behavior has now been seen by more eyes, and he will eventually use up the community's patience that way." In reality, the "more eyes" will typically move on to other things, leaving the problem editor free to continue to, well, be a problem. At some point, someone has to suck it up and pursue the more advanced and personalized parts of dispute resolution - that is, a user-conduct RfC or Arbitration case.

In those settings, it is pretty much a necessity to focus on the problem editor's conduct, and to characterize the behavior as disruptive, tendentious, agenda-driven, designed to provoke, etc as the case may be. For better or worse, the final steps of dispute resolution resemble court cases, and it's not possible to use them without focusing on the editor in question - particularly as ArbCom generally rejects content-based disputes and deals with user conduct. These users don't just go away when it becomes apparent that they're wrong or that consensus is against them. I think the essay fails to deal with what happens next, and does a bit of a disservice to editors who find themselves in situations (WP:RFC/U, ArbCom) where clearly and concisely characterizing the problematic dimensions of an editor's behavior (with supporting evidence, of course) is a necessity. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In practice, if you take this essay and AGF seriously, the problematic editor can become a constructive, albeit somewhat abrasive, member of the team. Of course we only have a chance to achieve this if it is what we want. Yes, it's much easier to wish the problematic people to hell, and you are right that they rarely do us the favour of going there. But in most cases the problem is not that they are not going away (or that we are not going away, to describe the situation from the other side), but that we are not prepared to suffer their presence.

But isn't all of this off-topic anyway? As I understand this essay it gives the advice to avoid one specific behavioral pattern that is much more destructive than most of us realise. (Otherwise you wouldn't hear half of all parents in the world saying things like "You naughty, naughty child!" to their own offspring.) Your concern sounds like it belongs in the essay WP:How to prepare your case for dispute resolution. If this kind of thing doesn't exist, it's certainly worth writing. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree

Suppose someone had replaced a page with, say, "Mary is hott", and the bots don't realise it for some reason. In fact, no-one realises it except you. Then suppose a newbie came along and asked "What's this edit?". Suppose you said "It's just an ordinary everyday edit". Then suppose the newbie says "Oh" and corrects the misspelling of 'hot'. The thing is, honesty is the best policy, which means that you have to call a spade a spade. Is Wikipedia Wikipedia? Yes! Is it Uncyclopedia? No! A spade is not soil, and soil is not a worm! In my opinion, the most important thing is to tell the truth. Smartguy777 (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Honesty is the best policy does not mean that you have to "call a spade a spade". Honesty doesn't mean saying anything that you happen to think - there's still a question of whether stating something honest is at all helpful. I might think the judge in court is ugly, but if I decline to tell him that, am I being dishonest? I think not.

I don't see what your example has to do with this essay. If someone replaces a page with, "Mary is hott", that's not an encyclopedia article, and we can change it back without calling the person who did it anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre

This essay could be reasonable, instead, it advocates more appeasement than Neville Chamberlain. For god's sake, WP:CIVIL is not the overall purpose of Wikipedia. We're here to build an encyclopedia, remember? Some editors are genuinely disruptive, and they need dealt with. Telling people - possibly newbies, that they are not allowed to take any measures whatsoever against them, because that would be incivil, is losing sight of any goal beyond having tea with a queen, and does not help build an encyclopedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility != weakness. Assertiveness != concession. Professionalism != appeasement. ATren (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, have you ever edited alternative medicine articles? Evolution-related ones? Any of the really contentious articles on Wikipedia? This goes - well, went, I went in and tweaked and edited until I felt I could be happy that it was reasonable guidance - beyond civility and into the realms of advocating being a doormat. I've edited it a bit, removed some things that I (having actually edited in controversial areas like Intelligent design and Homeopathy) felt were completely unsupportable for anyone working anywhere controversial (and you can't presume they aren't), so I think I can live with it as it stands.

Civility is not a weakness. This wasn't advocating civility, this was advocating letting people walk over you - it didn't even offer any advice on getting help, so if two users were at an article, one a POV-pusher, another following this guideline, the one following this guideline would be hurt.

And, again, professionalism does not equal appeasement, but these guideliens did not resemble any professionalism I ever saw.

I don't understand how your other inequality applies here, and expect you made a typo.

In any case, I've added a note about contacting admins for help, and made a lot of other edits, so I think it be solved. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have been involved in contentious debates here. More than that, I've been involved in Real Life disputes, e.g. contentious engineering discussions. In both types of situations, I've found that coolness, assertiveness and professionalism are always more effective in resolving conflicts. I can't imagine sitting in a work meeting and calling a co-worker an idiot, or publicly berating them for something they did. This is even more true in academia, where professional respect is the norm even among intellects who disagree.

Wikipedia seems to have drifted towards the contentious speech of attack politics, where people are routinely (and sometimes viciously) attacked for their positions and associations. Do we want to be Koppel or O'Reilly? Do we want to be NPR or Fox News? That's what this essay is about. Really, do you not see the similarities between "call a spade a spade" and the No Spin Zone?

So if you like, feel free to write a separate essay on your views. Even better, go to WP:SPADE and change that back to the way it was (I never felt that should be changed either) and then people can decide what camp they're in. But this essay should remain as it was. ATren (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people should be uncivil, but it's irresponsible to tell people that they're not allowed to respond in any way to bad users, and must calmly endure, hoping someone will eventually rescue them. I find that repugnant in the extreme. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point completely. The advice is "do not attack", not "do not respond". Did it ever occur to you that aggressive editors are trying to get you to respond with a counterattack? Have you considered the possibility that they are simply baiting you, and when you attack back you are taking the bait?

Again, you seem to think this essay is about weakness but there is nothing weak about conceding a position temporarily with a warring editor, in order to avoid a protracted conflict in which will ultimately weaken your own position. Consider a game like chess, where winning strategies often involve what appear to be short term losses. To observers who are inexperienced in the intricacies of chess strategy, sacrificing a piece may look like a bad move, even if it puts the player in a superior position for winning the game.

Chess is an oversimplification, of course, but life is filled with other examples. Think of it this way: calling a spade a spade might be a tactic that wins the battle, but in the long term it is strategically unwise. This essay advises: when another editor is edit warring, don't take the bait. Strategically withdraw, wait for the other editor to finish his/her rant, perhaps seek reinforcement from other reasonable editors, but don't fire back or you will appear to be just another duck, which hurts you in the long run.

I have reverted your removal of the advice in this essay. I fail to see how that advice could be considered in any way "dangerous". If you disagree with this essay, feel free to write a counter-essay. ATren (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Show me one place where it says "temporarily". This essay is written as if the conceedatory behavior is to be permanent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Learn to love the wrong version, in the short run, as a means of getting the right version in the long run"
• "Once it's clear that the consensus is on your side in the content dispute, and that's been made clear on the talk page, you've essentially won."

Both of those clearly state that the long range goal is get it right. Neither uses the word "temporarily", but they both imply it. If you think that point is unclear, than perhaps you can add some text that makes it more clear without changing the underlying meaning. Given that you seem to have misinterpreted that section, it probably could use more clarification. It's a little bit wordy as it stands now, and that may dilute its effectiveness. I may tackle it in the coming days, if you don't. ATren (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also really concerned about things like "How to win a content dispute" - that's a very poor way of phrasing it, and seems a bit like a Civil POV-pusher's manifesto, given the spin that section applies to it, e.g. "See? Be civil, and your hated opponents will fall before you!" Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a valid point - describing it as "winning" is probably not the best way to do it. I believe the "winning" stuff was added as a response to people who mistakenly viewed this as a concessionary approach: the term "winning" was meant to emphasize the point that NOTSPADE is not synonymous with surrender. But I think perhaps it does go too far, and I've always been a little uncomfortable with that particular term. Again, I think that whole section can probably improved, but the underlying meaning is sound and consistent with the crux of this essay: that disputes can be better resolved by not engaging in name calling and insults, no matter how irrational or agressive the other editor may be. ATren (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go. Pharased like this, I don't have half - or really any problems with that section. I expect it will contnue to be tweaked, but if you're reasonably happy with this, I think we can consider this conflict resolved. I suppose that having dealt with a civil POV-pusher for the last two, three months, I'm a little ready to leap off and attack anything that seems to advocates for that, or which suggests that civil POV-pushers cannot ever be confronted. Probably doesn't help that I think I'm coming down with some sort of illness again, leaving me a little grouchy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Some ideas

I think on the whole that section is now better, but I disagree with a few of the other edits you made. For example, I don't like toning down some of the advice that says never to do it. The idea of this essay is that WP:SPADE is never, ever the right thing to do. It's never OK to say "so and so is a POV pusher" instead of "so and so is inserting unsourced material". The former is WP:SPADE, the later conforms to WP:NOTSPADE. This essay asserts that you should always say the latter, without exception, because it says essentially the same thing without incitement.

Consider the two scenarios:

• WP:NOTSPADE: you say simply "the material is unsourced". There is no disputing this fact - just look at the article and notice the lack of links or ref tags. Now, in some cases it may be that there are reliable sources "out there" which confirm the edit - if so, then this polite NOTSPADE statement may encourage the other editor to correct the problem by providing those sources, and the issue is resolved to the betterment of the encyclopedia; if not, then the other editor is forced to either give up or continue to try to push unsourced material - at which point, you have policy grounds to remove the material, and if the problem continues to escalate it will be obvious to casual observers that the problem is sourcing, because that's the only issue at hand.
• WP:SPADE: you say to the other editor "you are a POV pusher", or you report on a noticeboard that "so and so is pushing his POV". Now, you have made an unprovable allegation about the intent of the editor in question. You have put him on the defensive and opened yourself up to accusations of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, perhaps WP:BITE. The debate has shifted from the true problem - sourcing - to the unanswerable question of this editor's intent. Much back-and-forth conflict follows trying to address this essentially useless question, pushing the debate far away from the real problem. Uninvolved editors arrive and have to wade through endless threads of allegations in which you appear to be the aggressor, all of which conceals the real problem of sourcing. Much drama ensues, possibly duelling RFCs, maybe even an arbcom case - all of which is damaging to your own reputation, and which could have easily been avoided by showing a little patience and resisting the temptation to label another editor.

Consider these two scenarios from a strategic standpoint. Your opponent has a weakness: poor sourcing. Your best option is to expose that weakness, by simply asserting that the material is unsourced and inappropriate per WP:RS/WP:V. SPADE is wrong in that it not only diverts attention from you're opponent's weakness, but it also exposes a weakness of your own which your opponent can (and will) exploit. SPADE almost invariably weakens your position.

So the point of this essay is that SPADE is NEVER appropriate from a strategic point of view, and that point should not be watered down here.

(Sorry for being so wordy. :-) The crux of it is, I agree with most of your recent edits, but there are a few things I disagree with, which I may work on in the next few days.) ATren (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you pretty much copy-paste your explanation into the essay? Because it's a lot clearer than anything currently in there at explaining the alternatives and reasons for using them =) And, by the way, have you looked at WP:SPADE recently? I've been editing that too, and as it is now, it just points out that telling editors (politely) what they're doing wrong is important because otherwise, how do you expect them to change? Which is as lot better than the bizarre state that it was in before, which basically went "It's okay to call a spade a spade - BUT PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T! YOU'LL BE BLOCKED! AAAAAAAAH!!!!!" Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've glanced at SPADE occasionally, but it seems to change its meaning every time I look at it. :-) Personally, I've never much agreed with the sentiment of SPADE, but I also disagree with changing its meaning - it was written in support of calling a spade a spade, and I think it should more or less stay that way.

But if you say that SPADE is now more along the lines of non-attacking advisement now (as opposed to editor labelling), then perhaps it makes sense to merge the concepts into one coherent essay. I've seen the proposal to merge, and until recently I didn't think it would have been appropriate to merge, but maybe the time is right. It's very touchy though - because people are quite passionate about their spade/notspade allegiance. :-). Maybe a new article that drops the spade analogy entirely and speaks of assertiveness?

In the meantime, I'll see about incorporating my paragraphs above into the essay. ATren (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a lot more SPADE-y than it was before I set to work, which had had every single bit of SPADEness immediately followed by a sentence saying "Don't do it, you'll be blocked!" or the like. And I do plan to expand it a bit to cover places where calling a spade a spade is useful, for instance, when dealing with editors you know, telling them honestly about problems in articles or edits is usually more helpful than meandering around the issue. Still, I think in the end, these ought to approach each other somewhat, neither advocating rudeness, nor going into hand-wringing worry. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they should stay separate. There's a contingent that believes any remark characterizing any editor in any remotely unfavorable light is inappropriate, such that an offhand "Thanks for the report, I blocked the vandal" from an admin would be uncivil. There are those who believe in letting the chips fall where they may. There are others somewhere in the middle. I think they should each be allowed to have their say, instead of trying to shoehorn them all into a single essay. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is true that any such contingent exists that hold the viewpoint that you have articulated. Could you please name some of the members of this alleged contingent so that we may ask them if you have correctly characterized their view? Dlabtot (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How bizarre

All the changes to these two essays had got very confusing, but now there seems some stability and differention. latest and 15 May. Maybe this works? I really like the explanation which was posted above by User:ATren [17:17, 4 May 2008] for this essay, it makes a lot of sense. --NewbyG (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker suggested I add that section to the essay, but I couldn't figure out how to add it in without bloating it. It's already pretty wordy, and adding that section would introduce redundancies. Perhaps it could be integrated with a good trim/copyedit on the rest of the essay, to avoid repetition. Feel free to take a stab at it. Or, I had also considered creating a new essay with that as a basis - "Guide to Strategic Editing" or something - and link to NOSPADE. ATren (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

rename

this is an essay on WP:NPA, not on WP:SPADE. Needless to say, WP:SPADE never advocated discussing presumed qualities of editors, since discussing editors isn't within the scope of WP:TALK to begin with. It is still ok to call an edit worthless junk if it happens to be worthless junk, without indulging in second-guessing the contributor's motivation, intelligence, childhood or sanity. If people add junk and then go about crying "NPA" for being asked to refrain from adding junk, this is their problem, and a misapplication of NPA. --dab (𒁳) 11:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the intent of WP:SPADE, this essay was written in response to those who interpreted WP:SPADE as an essay encouraging the labelling of editors. I am reverting your change to the "nutshell" line, because your version doesn't talk about NOSPADE at all, and the previous version properly qualified that it addressed the misapplication of WP:SPADE anyway ("When calling a spade a spade means applying labels to an editor...") ATren (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A-Bomb picture

The picture is distracting. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the point. It brings a little humor to a serious subject that causes a lot of conflict. When I saw it, I smiled, then returned to reading. Humor puts people at ease and makes them more open to what they are hearing or reading. Seregain (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

"If you are not willing or able to put forth such effort it may be best to seek help from other editors."

Whether you are seeking help from other editors via user pages or email, it seems like this might border on canvasing. If not, how is it different? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ditto

"If he continues, seek outside opinions...." Stuff like this needs to somehow indicate why it would not be canvassing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Roosevelt quote

I removed it. There is no source, and see http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/18/great-minds/. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

An idea for a briefer nutshell

Instead of using

, we could instead use

. It's significantly shorter, and the actual article, besides the lead, doesn't seem to mention the embarrassing consequences of failing to follow the advice.