Talk:Arie Family/@comment-26484417-20160405071834/@comment-26484417-20160408003303

I already accounted for the possibility that the first (= the long named) technique is indeed merely White's speciality and otherwise may belong to the Arie swordsmanship; the admission is included in my first reaction. However, this doesn't provide justification for the remaining three techniques that not only differ in the naming convention, but also share common theme (i.e., "of the dead" in the name) that isn't shared by the first technique. In other words, those three techniques are clearly set apart.

Derivation is also fine with me; I'm not against saying that Arie swordsmanship is the parent style to White-style; parent style is used to denote both the superset and the common core, so there is no problem. My issue is with the indiscriminate mixture of the two.

Oh, I still have issues with the list of Wonsul techniques, but there was no point in an ongoing discussion. The thing is, there should have been no discussion like this (or that) in the first place. If the reason for including content is nothing but some assumptions, it either shouldn't be included in the first place, or it should be included only for as long as no one disputes the decision. After all, unless one assumption is clearly ludicrous, it's an opinion vs. an opinion situation. Not to mention that no harm can be done by omitting the information or moving it to the Notes and Trivia section. The moment someone presents a logical argument that contests the original assumptions, there are only two valid courses of action: (1) The content is taken down, or (2) there is a discussion to properly examine the validity of the argument and / or to refine the argument that challenges the assumptions. If the argument can be faulted, or it's refinement ultimately supports the originally disputed content, then the content may remain with potential benefit that it no longer relies on assumptions alone. Otherwise the content should be removed or moved to Notes and Trivia until new information suggest otherwise.

I can understand when my or another's reasoning and argumentation alone aren't enough to convince people that something should be included on the wiki. But I seriously cannot understand when I or anyone else present logical argument for why something shouldn't be included (i.e., default, non-misleading state), the only counter-argument is that the original reason for adding the content is some variation of "it's not that bad", and yet people still insist the content should remain.

By the way, you must be aware that the majority rule can only reveal popularity, not the truth. In fact, statistics consistently suggest that—with the same starting information—majority is more likely to reach incomplete, inaccurate, or outright incorrect conclusion. So is the wiki meant to be filled with popular content or with accurate content?

PS: You cannot really pair something you describe as duty with condition "my discretion" without making it sound like a license to abuse your power.