Talk:Actions speak louder than words

Examples?

It would probably help for this article to offer a few examples. Here's one...

Even if right now some dude said 'I'm going to say a bunch of racist stuff but afterwards I'll give you a biscuit' I’d be like that’s a weird deal but I'll take it. Because I hate racism...but I love a good biscuit. - Aziz Ansari

...can anybody offer some better ones? --Xerographica (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's another one...

In name we had the Declaration of Independence in 1776; but we gave the lie by our acts to the words of the Declaration of Independence until 1865; and words count for nothing except in so far as they represent acts. - Theodore Roosevelt

--Xerographica (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM

The guidance says "This means that a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere." Actions speak louder than words is a proverb that applies to all kinds of situations: love, war, business, Servilius Casca, etc. Simply creating this article, which already is supported by a dictionary entry, is not helpful. For them to stay, the contributing editor must WP:PROVEIT.--S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Transwiki

There is absolutely no reason why this is not a Wikitionary article. Actually, a quote there might be relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

demonstrated preferences

Why is that link appropriate? That's a specialized term from economics, and this isn't about economics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Actions = demonstrated preference, words = stated preference...therefore, given that actions speak louder than words...demonstrated preferences > stated preferences. Your actions reveal your priorities/values because all actions require you to sacrifice alternative actions that you also value. The minute you spent creating this section could have been spent doing other things that are also important to you. But you chose to sacrifice all your other priorities in order to create this section. This is the basis for the free-market.

This is either the fourth or fifth time I've told you to research a topic thoroughly BEFORE you edit. Post your questions/concerns/doubts on the talk page BEFORE you edit. If you insist on editing economic entries...in order to actually make useful contributions...please read and reread and reread...scarcity, opportunity cost, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch and you can't have your cake and eat it too. Don't just read those entries...google and carefully read every single one of the top 100 search results.

You know why you won't do this? You know why you won't take these actions? Because you'll decide that you have more important things to do with your time. That's the opportunity cost concept. From my perspective you'll be making a mistake...but that's how freedom works. We're not connected at the hip...you can go down one road and I can go down another. Freedom means that we hedge our bets, we don't put all our eggs in one basket...which is why markets increase the probability of success. This is known as heterogeneous activity. --Xerographica (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

[[contingent valuation|stated preference]] is an WP:EGG. And, if this were economicsWiki, many of your edits would be great. However, it isn't economicsWiki, and not everything is (or should be converted to) economic terminology. For example, in terms of your attempt to add opportunity cost to You can't have your cake and eat it, you (1) should NOT quote long passages, whether or not from copyrighted references, and (2) should use trade-offs, instead. Trade-off quite properly links to opportunity cost. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If phrases have meanings that are important to economics...and there are reliable sources to support this...then the economic significance should be covered in the entries. If you knew the first thing about economics then you'd already have known about the opportunity cost concept. Given that you obviously don't know about opportunity cost...clearly you don't know the first thing about economics. So please, if it's not worth it for you to learn about economics, then stop editing things that have to do with economics. --Xerographica (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I know about opportunity cost. However, we have had a number of editors who added a lot of information, but required cleanup afterwards. After a while, some of them have been blocked as being WP:TE, if they don't learn Wikipedia norms. To put it another way, which you may be able to understand. Wikipedia is not a public forum or a nonpublic forum; it is a private forum (hmmm, there should be an article there), and, even more-or-less constructive edits which violate the rules and guidelines will likely be reverted. I would have accepted (but tagged) it if you had reverted to my reformatted version of your quotefarm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You know about opportunity cost? Really? So is opportunity cost relevant to actions speaking louder than words? --Xerographica (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

More irrelevant quotes

... reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are the quotes irrelevant? --Xerographica (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Because they're about the economic "use" of the term, or of the concept. This is a figure of speech. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You just admitted that they are relevant...you just don't want to expose readers to the economic significance of this expression...even though it's supported by reliable sources. --Xerographica (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No. You're confusing "related" (which they are, or would be, if a source were provided) with "relevant". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

AR is correct. Suppose someone is ostracized from a group (ugly, criminal, lacks social status, etc.) Or a child is spanked for misbehavior. Or a person commits suicide. Or any similar actions. Does the quote/phrase/figure of speech/idiom then become relevant to sociology, parenting, psychology, etc. to the point where we add sections and quotefarms to the article illustrate a supposed relevance? No. Especially when doing so is based on our own prejudices, world-view, etc.--S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The passages help readers understand the economic significance of the expression. If you think there are passages that more effectively convey the economic significance...then that would be one thing. But neither of you have ever ONCE recommended more appropriate/accurate/effective/relevant passages or sources. You know why? Because your lack of effort loudly conveys the fact that neither of you are interested enough in any of these concepts to actually research them. Not only that...but when you say PROVE it...and I do share the relevant RS...then neither of you bother to read them. That's why your "contributions", as well as AR's, simply destroy value. You guys are nothing more than VDEs...value destroying editors. --Xerographica (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend not having any passages; even if reliable, they aren't relevant. That can be easily verified without reading the sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you disagree with the economic meaning that I gave to this expression. So why not share your own? That's a trick question of course. You're not going to try and add anything of value to this entry because you're a VDE. --Xerographica (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree that the "economic meaing" of this phrase is worthy of mention here. Perhaps, as has been suggested, in an economics article. Provided, of course, you can supply a source which talks about the use, rather than just using it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So none of the RS that I supplied for this article talk about the economic meaning of this expression? That's another trick question. Of course they do...but you never bothered to read them. You know why? It's because you're a VDE. --Xerographica (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is not going anywhere. First of all, the article lacks even a basic definition/explaination of the proverb. Without such a foundation, this debate lacks relevance. I suggest taking a look at Don't judge a book by its cover. While this is tagged as a stub, it really has much more substance than this article. Second, comments about "VDE" are inappropriate. They are not focused on article improvement and only hinder efforts to improve the article and Wikipedia.--S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The only reason the entry lacks a basic explanation is because you removed it. Why did you remove it? Because you're a Value Destroying Editor. If you were a Value Creating Editor...then you would have replaced my definition with a better one. For the record, my definition was based on numerous RS which you never bothered to read. --Xerographica (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)