User talk:Jguk/Maurreen and jguk

This page (created by jguk and not as yet agreed to by Maurreen) is a forum in which Maurreen and jguk can discuss their respective positions. It is hoped that this page will be short lived and will be deleted as soon as the aim of this page has been reached.

Jguk's aim is for Maurreen and himself to reach a mutual understanding of each other's positions. Whilst this page will contain discussions on how each of us has interpreted the other's actions, these comments are made in the acknowledgment that each of us has almost certainly misunderstood the other's actions and views, and are made in the spirit of trying to reach a mutual understanding.

Note in particular that this page is not a forum for personal attacks, and no users other than jguk and Maurreen should edit it or offer any comment on it. Any such edits will be removed.

My outlook (by jguk)

My view is that Wikipedia is an international collaboration that is read and edited by English-speakers worldwide. The international aspect of the collaberation is one of its strongest points. Therefore my outlook on the WP:MOS is that it should permit any form of standard English as long as each article is internally consistent. However, articles should be as understandable to as wide a range of English-speakers as possible. So where a particular phrase or word is peculiar to one form of standard English, that phrase or word should either be replaced by a suitable synonym, or alternatively should be explained.

In terms of the WP:MOS itself, I feel we should have a stronger requirement. We want everyone, wherever they are to be welcomed and encouraged to use the WP:MOS where necessary. Avoiding overt American, British, Australian, etc., etc. references is part of that. Also, I feel the WP:MOS itself should be written using linguistically neutral words, phrases, grammar, etc.. By linguistically neutral, I mean words, phrase, grammar that are common to all forms of standard English. This is because it avoids giving the impression that Wikipedia (despite comments to the contrary) does in fact prefer one form over another.

I do not feel this is not a difficult or unreasonable requirement. In fact, we are very nearly there. Referring to "full stop (period)" is the closest we can go to neutrality on that point - there is no neutral term. That is why I proposed the "full stop (period)" formulation. There is no suitable synonym and that formulation explains the term "full stop" to those unfamiliar with it. Of course, "period (full stop)" would be equally acceptable. The only other change necessary to achieve this is removing the initial reference to the "Chicago Manual of Style". Opening the MOS with an American quote is not welcoming to non-American readers. Of course, opening the MOS with a Bristish, or Canadian, or South African quote would have a similar negative effect. That is why I am proposing to change this. As I say, apart from this one quote, I think the MOS is already linguistically neutral. (Indeed, I am not surprised you thought the MOS was in US English. I suppose it is. It is also in UK, Irish, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, etc. etc. English too.)

jguk's outlook on his own actions

Here I describe how I see my own actions on the WP:MOS and WP:MOS talk page.

My first amendment to the WP:MOS was as a newbie. It fairly quickly got reverted. Fair enough. I have discussed every other change which I consider to be substantive on the talk page first.

When you proposed your draft trim, I made various comments and further proposed changes. We discussed these and came to agreement and the draft trim got posted to the main page.

Later I proposed a draft trim of my own. I did this openly and set up a separate discussion page for it, linked clearly from the main talk page, and I invited comparison with the then existing main page by adding the main page into the draft trim history for ease of comparison. A number of queries were raised to the draft trim, some of which resulted in further amendments or some untrimming. Once agreement was reached on this trim, it was posted direct to the main page.

There were a couple of substantive changes I wished to make regarding using stops in the abbreviation "U.S." regardless of where it appeared in Wikipedia and the requirement to use Oxford commas even where there was no ambiguity that needed disambiguating. I felt that a substantive change to the MOS deserved a wide audience, and proposed a poll so that more than the three or four regular contributors to the WP:MOS talk page could contribute. Canvassing opinions amongst wider Wikipedians, I think, is reasonable in some circumstances, and I felt this was one of them.

The text of the poll was written by me - I deliberately did no write "against" sections as I would only write them from a biased perspective. No doubt Wikipedians who wished to write "against" would - as they did in their comments attached to their votes. Similar, some Wikipedians supporting the proposals also offered comments of their own.

Policies should have consensus, and the choices in the vote were pretty much black and white: to (1) reject current policy and either remove it or replace it with something else; or (2) to keep existing policy. Unfortunately the result of the poll was a tie - 50:50 on one, one vote in it in the other: neither existing policy nor the proposed replacement had a consensus. Neither should be policy.

My draft trim became live on 24 November 2004 (which as noted above, was after agreement had been reached on it between those choosing to comment). I then proposed the replacement of the quotation at the start. To be honest, I made a mistake here. I hadn't realised that Jallan had reinserted the quotation into the draft trim script before I let it go live. Maybe I should have left the point there for the time being. I was annoyed with myself and no-one ever thinks as clearly as they can when they were annoyed. Later, other Wikipedians, probably the majority of those commenting on it, have supported the replacement of the quotation with some "Wikipedia's own wording", but the proposal to change it was not introduced as well as it should have been.

On 26 November and 27 November 2004 [1] I made the following changes. The changes to "Italicization" were to shorten and better word the section. The reason for changing "period" to "full stop (period)" is discussed above. It could just as easily be to "period (full stop)", but like any writer, I tend towards my preferred style, which no doubt led to me putting the UK English word first. But also, as noted above, I do not think it too important which form comes first as long as the other follows it.

The amendment to "commas" simplified the structure and took account of the result of the poll (namely that current "policy" has no consensus and so shouldn't be policy, but the replacement version similarly has no consensus and also should not be policy). As noted above, excessive quotation of sources from one country gives a non-linguistically neutral feel, and three references for one point seem excessive. I accept that it is useful to give other guidance, and so later added a link into the Wikipedia article on the Oxford comma so readers wanting more advice can see it there.

The other change was to the "U.S." paragraph. This was a paragraph on which we had a poll where there was no consensus either to remove the paragraph or for it to stay. I updated the paragraph in a way that I saw as being in accordance with that poll. There was a minor wording improvement, but also the removal of the wording "we prefer it that way". I removed the phrase "we prefer it that way" because it is factually incorrect. The poll result showed that at least half of those voting do not prefer it that way.

After you opposed these changes on the talk page, I made comments in defence. In retrospect, I should not have been so eager to carry on commenting on them. I took offence as what I took to be your ignoring the position that most editors agreed with me on this change. Whilst I feel each of my comments in isolation is acceptable, I should not have felt a need to respond to each and every point you were making.

jguk's outlook on Maurreen and her actions

In making these comments, I fully acknowledge that I have almost certainly misinterpreted Maurreen. These comments are made so Maurreen can better understand the differences in outlook that we have. I hope Maurreen will make similar comments about me.

I know from your user page that you are a copyeditor by trade and can see your links to various websites for copyeditors. I can also see from your user contributions that all your changes outside the talk pages are copyedits. You have also taken a strong view on all style guides being prescriptive and prefer a prescriptive approach over the laissez-faire approach that I have. When you are at work, prescriptivism must rule. However, I do not think this applies to Wikipedia.

I'm sure that what I am about to say is not the impression you intended to give, but feel it would be useful to explain this so you can see where I am coming from. Put bluntly, I have formed the view that you try to stifle any proposals made to change the WP:MOS that you do not like. I do not feel this applies to me specifically as I have seen you take that approach with other users. I feel that part of the reason I end up in more disputes with you than with anyone else is because I propose more changes than others.

To my mind the stifling involves first outright rejection. If that does not work, sometimes, but not always, reliance is placed on another user, Jallan. If that does not work RfC and contacting users you feel will support you to come onto the talk page to offer comments. More recently, after questioning my changes of 26th and 27th and finding out the first three responses were actually in total support of my changes, I feel you over-reacted. Discussions on each of the changes made (except for the one on italics) were opened by you. A message was left on RfC. You proposed a compromise which was not a compromise (at least in my mind, since some of the changes were compromises in line with the poll result). Then, after lots of text, you have asked whether anyone actually agrees with me (despite comments from other editors showing the position was 5-3 in favour of my changes). Now, as noted above, I am sure that is not the impression you intended to give, and I know I would have done better to not have responded to each and every point you make. But this is where my thoughts currently lie.

I also feel that you object when someone takes an approach you do not like, even when you have adopted the same or a similar approach yourself. For instance, I felt you took exception to my proposing a draft trim even though you had proposed something similar yourself. You were happy to involve others in the page by way of RfC or leaving messages on userpages, but objected strongly to involving others by way of a poll.

Final comments

As noted above, I offer these comments constructively so that you can have a better idea of where I am coming from. I hope you will have read them in the spirit in which they were offered. I should also be grateful if you would make similar comments as it would allow us to gain at least a mutual understanding of each other, and hopefully lead to fewer disputes in the future.

Maurreen's initial thoughts

(An introductory note: I am writing this before reading Jguk's initial comments.)

Most, if not all, of our disagreements concerning the style guide could have been resolved amicably if you had discussed the matter first at the talk page before changing the style guide, and especially if you had gained consensus there. You yourself have enforced the "talk first" custom on the style guide.

But sometimes it at least appears that we interpret various things differently, such as what any consensus might be.

I am much more disturbed by your behavior than I am concerned about individual style matters in general, and all of those under dispute. I care very little about serial commas themselves. If any of your preferred style changes had gained consensus, I would have let it go.

In my perception, you are unwilling to let go. This is demonstrated by what I perceive to be your pushing concerning the issues of "U.S." and serial commas since October 17.

When you held the poll, which I consider sudden, I asked you specifically what brought it on. My hope was that finding out and discussing any underlying issues could have resolved that matter with less fuss. I have already noted various problems that I perceive related to that poll.

You take what I perceive to be an unwarranted nationalistic perspective toward the style guide. I have asked for specific discussion of the "neutrality" issue, as a productive, constructive measure. Neither you nor anyone else responded to that specifically.

In my view, any perceived American bias in the style guide is balanced by its style for quotation marks, a British practice.

In my perception, some things you have done are contrary to your professed preference for "neutral" language. These include:

• Changing the word "period" to "full stop (period)". My rationale for this I already explained on the talk page. In short, "period (full stop)" is inherently no better or worse. But it does follow the spirit of the style guide more closely. That is, if either British or American usage must be subordinated to the other, the primary usage should be that of the original author.
• Changing "Serial comma" to "Oxford comma". If nothing else, "serial comma" is more easily understood by those unfamiliar with the term than "Oxford comma" is by those unfamiliar with that term.

Further, in my perception, you have made mild but snide remarks about me. Your comments at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team I do not consider productive.

Your comment on the style guide talk page, that no one but copy editors cares about certain points, is at best contrary to your editing of the style guide, in my perception.

In my view, our initial disagreement, about the article title for the September 11 attacks, started our amicably enough. That changed when you deleted some of my comments from the talk page. I'm not referring to the accidental deletion, but something before that. Maurreen 21:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maurreen's response to jguk's outlook

I appreciate the constructive spirit and dialogue. I hope my comments come across the same way.

After reading your initial comments, I agree that we have misunderstood the other's actions and views.

Some points of yours or my own I am not addressing at this time essentially because I don't have the energy. That is not meant in any way negative.

The style guide in general

Concerning the style guide as a whole, I am generally less concerned with what the style is than how the style guide is developed and maintained.

About language neutrality as it relates to the style guide, I will neither agree nor disagree at this time. My concern is that, apart from this discussion page between us, the issue deserves its own specific discussion either on the style guide talk page or linked from it. I am less concerned with whether the style guide is linguistically neutral than how that is, was, or might be accomplished.

Response to jguk's outlook on his own actions

About the poll, I better understand your reasoning now. We disagree on when consensus is needed: Generally in my view, consensus is needed for change, but it is not needed to maintain the status quo.

I appreciate your acknowledgment of your errors.

Concerning the following sentences:

"After you opposed these changes on the talk page, I made comments in defence. In retrospect, I should not have been so eager to carry on commenting on them."

and

"Whilst I feel each of my comments in isolation is acceptable, I should not have felt a need to respond to each and every point you were making."

Those things did not bother me at all. I think that's perfectly fine.

Response to Jguk's outlook on Maurreen and her actions

I do not fully understand your comments in this section, especially that I stifle any proposals I dislike. Maybe it would be helpful if you can illustrate with an example from a style guide disagreement that I have had with another user.

I agree with this: "I feel that part of the reason I end up in more disputes with you than with anyone else is because I propose more changes than others".

You and I have differing perspectives toward any changes to the style guide. I take a more evolutionary approach. For example, there is at least one thing in the style guide that I disagree with, but I have not brought it up for discussion.

About your perception that I have double standards:

• The poll – I do not object to polls per se. I object to certain aspects of the one you held.
• Your draft trim – I did not object that you proposed a trim. I objected to calling it a trim when your proposed changes were much more extensive, in my view.
• Involving others – In short, I do not oppose involving others in and of itself. But you and I differ on details.

Discussing changes first

I disagree with this statement: "I have discussed every other change which I consider to be substantive on the talk page first."

That disagreement or misunderstanding is at the heart of much else.

In short, my view is that if a change is fully discussed first on the talk page, no one will be surprised by it. Anyone who disagrees with the change would know that it has already achieved consensus. But I have been surprised by your changes multiple times.

If we can clarify between us what we mean by "discussing something first", that at least has the potential to avert further bad feelings between us.

I'm not sure what to say to help us clarify that, although the following section might work toward that goal.

As food for thought, possibly it would help to make some procedural agreements between ourselves to handle disagreements. For example, either of us could ask, "Is there consensus on x?" and wait for a response by another user.

Jguk's changes of November 26 and 27

When I reverted your changes, I believe I said in the edit summary that I did so because they had not been discussed. In my view, the most appropriate response then would have been for you to bring up the issues on the talk page.

I did open the discussion, because I believe that discussion is often the best response to changes I disagree with. I did go to RfC, specifically because the responses to your changes were closely divided, in my view. I did not go to RfC until at least two other people had opposed your changes (although I don't think we need to get into a lot of specific counts on this discussion page between us).

Concerning this statement: "Then, after lots of text, you have asked whether anyone actually agrees with me." … My questions were specifically worded. I asked whether anyone agreed with you about certain aspects.

The versions that I used to replace yours were all suggested by someone other than me. My intention was to see whether anyone but you objected to those specific versions. In my view, no one objected to those specific versions in at least 24 hours.

Thus, in my view, those versions had at least two people supporting them (myself and the people who had suggested them) and they had only one person objecting to them (you).

P.S. I'd like to rephrase something from my first post above. When I said "any perceived American bias", I should have said "any real or perceived American bias".

Thanks. Maurreen 01:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)