Talk:European Parliament rejects computer-implemented inventions directive

Reasons

I removed:

The choice to vote for a rejection was due to the obvious impossibility of getting a clear majority to block the amendments suggested by rapporteur Michel Rocard on one hand, and dissensions within the block on the other. Toine Manders explained his motives as follows: "A chaos is threatening ... in Strasbourg. Because of the large number of amendments, the directive could shoot in all kinds of directions like a firecracker and we want to prevent this."

as I have no idea what that means! Who are these people? What is a rapporteur? What blocks? What amendments? Dan100 (Talk) 6 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

Heh. So, basically, you remove things because you are ignorant? That's cool; maybe I'll do the same in the articles about ITER and superstrings, because I sure as hell have no idea what half of the names and terminology there means...

In fact, if everybody deleted the things they don't know the meaning of on the wikipedia, imagine how much ignorance would be reduced!

• This is Wikinews, not Wikipedia. And Dan100 removed the text because it was incomprehensible, for the reasons that he stated. Uncle G 11:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

And being wikinews, what does that changes to what I said? "For the reasons that he stated"...well, that was "what is a rapporteur?' etc. Thus, he doesn't know. Thus, because he doesn't know, he deletes it. Thus, what I said was correct: because of his ignorance on these subjects, he deleted them. If such a thing is accepted, then this bodes not well, for, being consistent, it would mean he could as well delete any news about subjects he doesn't know anything about.

A rapporteur, my dear, is the chairman of a commitee (of the EU) which has been given the order to (re)search a certain (often legislative) issue or proposal, and make a report of it. Now, that's the name used in EU for such a person, period. The fact that *DAN* doesn't know what the word means is not a reason to delete it. Or else, one should fear the day DAN will have to 'edit' an article about fusionreactors or stringtheory, which, no doubt, will be incomprehensible to him too.

• I think the point is that the "average joe" doesn't know what it means, so it should either be explained or removed. Explained being preferable. "Being explained" may well be as simple as linking to Wikipedia information, including a brief definition in brackets or simply replacing the word with the definition: "...the chairman of the EU research commitee, Michel Rocard, on one hand..." Krisjohn 00:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• • If that is the point, then it remains the same problem. What is the 'average joe' going to know about fusionreactors and stringtheory? Heck, I'm more then average interested in science, but even I don't understand half of what is said about the M-theory, for instance. If one would be consistent, with this as reasoning, then anything complicated that goes over the head of the average joe should be deleted. Which, effectively, would undermine providing news of complicated or scientific matters. Worse, it would undermine the possibility of the average joe TO know something more about it. The only good answer is the one you gave yourself; if one thinks it's too complicated, then additional explanation should be given - NOT deletion. Leave it as a stub, and let it become betterexplained (just as in wikipedia, indeed). -- CGorman

Vote counts

{{editprotected}} The article said 14 absentions and 18 for. But the sources indicate 14 for and 18 abstentions. Shmget (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted a correction, now awaiting review. Thanks! --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)