Binksternet (talk | contribs) →Joseph Campbell: stays |
|||
Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
:Can you point out a historic version of the lede that is closest to what you want to see now? [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 15:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
:Can you point out a historic version of the lede that is closest to what you want to see now? [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 15:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Yes, it's on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=297419002&oldid=297402739 is an old version that I originally reverted to (not written by me). [[Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Moving_forward:_Proposed_new_lede]] is where I workshopped a proposed new lede, asked Skywriter for comment, got only a complaint about a single reference, and edited it in at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&oldid=297658605 . Which was promptly reverted as "vandalism" and against the "consensus" of, um, Skywriter and one other editor, who'd previously clashed a bunch with others on the talk page anyway. |
|||
::Thanks for your input; the current problem is that the new lede devotes literally all the attention to the oil company issue. This is a major issue, and arguably the biggest cause of the coup (I'd personally disagree, but it's close), but it'd be like having the lede on the American Civil war article spend all the time talking about slavery and none about state's rights or Lincoln. I'm not an expert on the coup, so I wish others would take the lead here, but I know enough to know a really unbalanced lede when I see one. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Joseph Campbell]]== |
==[[Joseph Campbell]]== |
Revision as of 20:58, 21 June 2009
History of this page |
---|
This page is now historical, new posts should be made at the dispute resolution noticeboard.
|
Noticeboard archives
OK, let's see if this works
OK, here's a "high end content question" of the sort I had in mind when I suggested this board:
At some point in the next couple of months, I plan to do a top-to-bottom strip down and rewrite from basics of the (currently horribly messy and rather dubiously 'sourced') Hampstead Heath – as a fairly high-traffic article (about 15k–20k hits per month) the state of this one has irritated me for some time. Should the rewritten version keep the Gallery section? It's an impressive bit of wiki-coding (each caption is a clickable link to the article on the relevant building) and must have taken someone a very long time to set up – but it a) must breach just about every bit of the MOS there is, and b) doesn't actually illustrate Hampstead Heath at all, but is an index of buildings visible from Hampstead Heath (well, buildings that would be visible if there weren't trees in the way). There's also a third "coward's way out" option of booting it across to the separate Parliament Hill article. Any thoughts? – iridescent 16:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I have no problem with galleries, but I know it's frowned on in FAC if you go that far with it. That clickable bit is kinda sick, it would be a shame to lose it. My one pet peeve with galleries is presentation -- I like when all the rows are full. rootology (C)(T) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- What actually is wrong with the article? It says the right sorts of things in the right order. The ending sections are rather scrappy, to be sure. (On the other hand, I know from experience that a superficially nice-looking article can grow zits and things on closer inspection). Interested that you cover both Chelsea Bridge and Hampstead Heath. Peter Damian (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- The faults with the text are mainly that it's very choppy; a lot of it is sourced to rather dubious sources that need thorough re-checking; there are glaring gaps in the history (the current article doesn't even mention Jack Straw, for example). I'm not suggesting a complete tabula rasa scorched-earth rebuild as I did with Battersea Bridge, but rewriting it with a more coherent structure – and a chronological ordering, rather than the current "list of places on Hampstead Heath" format – and then re-importing those parts of the original article that are legitimately sourced and worth salvaging.
- My geographic articles follow the rivers, as they make natural "mini-topics", so you have a broad swathe along the River Moselle (Noel Park, Broadwater Farm, Bruce Castle etc), and a whole batch along the Thames. Hampstead Heath and Lea Valley Park will probably be the first ones I do on the Fleet and Lea respectively. – iridescent 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have all 8 volumes of Hughson's London (1807) which has some very quaint illustrations - I think it's online but if not I can digitise them. Let me know. I do like Battersea Bridge. Peter Damian (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm some of it appears to be online, but not all of it, apparently. Peter Damian (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- For Battersea, I intentionally used Greaves's, Grimshaw's and Whistler's paintings to illustrate the old bridge; they neatly served a dual purpose in illustrating both what the old bridge looked like, and how/why there was such controversy about Whistler's intentionally unrealistic depictions of it in the Nocturne series (the first time a court had ever ruled on the quality of an art work). For most of the bridges, I find the Illustrated London News archive – already mostly online – to be the best source for early images, backed up with a couple of scans of old maps to give a historical context. – iridescent 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not fond of the Gallery in its current form on the Hampstead Heath article I must say. Looking over the article, I reckon there'll be a sizeable increase in size (needs ecology ++) so there might be some more text to slot stuff in against. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Believe me, it'll be huge; don't expect it any time soon. I dislike galleries – AFAIK I've only ever used one once (Hammerton's Ferry, and that was under unusual circumstances where most of the images really needed to be there) but the amount of time someone put into that cool absolute-positioned coding makes me a bit reluctant to delete the Hampstead one if-and-when the time comes. – iridescent 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not fond of the Gallery in its current form on the Hampstead Heath article I must say. Looking over the article, I reckon there'll be a sizeable increase in size (needs ecology ++) so there might be some more text to slot stuff in against. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- For Battersea, I intentionally used Greaves's, Grimshaw's and Whistler's paintings to illustrate the old bridge; they neatly served a dual purpose in illustrating both what the old bridge looked like, and how/why there was such controversy about Whistler's intentionally unrealistic depictions of it in the Nocturne series (the first time a court had ever ruled on the quality of an art work). For most of the bridges, I find the Illustrated London News archive – already mostly online – to be the best source for early images, backed up with a couple of scans of old maps to give a historical context. – iridescent 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are FAs with galleries, but they are mainly art and architecture articles. I don't see a reason why a gallery would be a bad thing, unless there are more gallery images than text. --Moni3 (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- My rule of thumb on galleries chimes with what Moni says above. Where the subject is a visual one a small gallery can be acceptable. But for a regular subject like Hampstead Heath I'd likely be objecting to the presence of a gallery. Galleries, IMO, are too often excuses for editors not to to be selective about the images that will best illustrate the subject. I generally recommend moving the gallery pictures to Commons and adding a link from the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Butting in here, I'm of the opinion that galleries should be used sparingly, and only when absolutely necessary to retain an article's comprehensiveness. We have Commons for a reason. Although, I've found {{double image}} to be useful. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Theory & policy question, good content by a later banned user? Prostitution in South Korea.
Echoed from this discussion. Yes, this was seen on Wikipedia Review, but it's a good question and discussion point, focusing on Prostitution in South Korea. I have no overall opinion (yet) on the content, and want to get a discussion going.
- Article on November 8, 2008. 1046 words readable prose, 13 sources.
- Article on November 20, 2008. 4375 words readable prose, 117 sources. Quick glances seem to show valid sourcing and content.
The 12 days' expansion was by Occidentalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was is apparently a sock of Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). These users are blocked, but looking at the entire history of the article[1] I don't see an obvious clue about them having targeted it before. This page was dramatically expanded (4.18x) by a now "banned" user. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) reverted it all here, citing "rv all edits by banned user, back to 9 November".
Here's my question, which seems to come up perennially: is this new content considered by anyone to be invalid since it was introduced by a "banned" user? Would it be against any policy violation if I, hypothetically, edited on this last Occidentalist version and hit save? I'm never sure where people stand on this sort of thing. The longer version of the article on the surface appears to be a much better article. rootology (C)(T) 16:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Policy actually is clear on this. Despite what some of our more trigger-happy editors think, there's no obligation to revert edits by a banned user – but if you knowingly allow them to stay knowing a potentially compromised source, then you take responsibility for verification. This used to come up with Peter Damian's edits quite often (i.e., people would revert his valid edits because he was zOMGbanned!!!). – iridescent 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- We have a reason we don't reinstate content from banned users: no other user should be brought into the situation where they have to waste time and energy debating them, if only indirectly through their proxies. I am personally by no means convinced this was good content. It seemed pretty tendentious, sensationalist and POV-pushy. But the nature of the abuse by that banned user means that I have no longer the slightest wish to get involved with the cesspool of that article, and would be surprised if anybody else who might oppose that material would want to. Which means that if you reinstate it now, you will have not only rewarded the banned user, but made their material de-facto unassailable, by rewaring the abusive behaviour. Personally, I would consider any such reinstatement of content in such a case a classical case of illegitimate "proxy editing". Just my personal opinion, and I will not comment further. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perfectly fine, well sourced and verifiable content should not be removed, period. There is no basis outside of your personal opinion that you engaged in edit warring with multiple users, indefinitely semi-protected a page (which I just had undone), and wholesale wiped content because you feel that everyone that engages you is now a "proxy." I'm not a proxy, yet I feel that you have abused your administrative powers in edit warring on this page and then protecting the "right" version, and others have felt the same in regards.
- I highly suggest that you open up a line of dialogue instead of throwing out veiled threats. You were recently admonished and stripped of your administrative privileges for similar actions. seicer | talk | contribs 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This is similar to work contributed about prostitution in the Philippines a year or two ago. Appears well-sourced, but blatant propaganda. First question: where are the good sources? Second, if they are good, is there any evidence of WP:SYNTH and all that kind of stuff? Peter Damian (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Having read the the reverted material more carefully, I tend to agree that it is sensationalist and pushy and dubious original research. The sources are probably good, but they are stuck together in an outlandish and hard-to-verify way. I would have reverted if it were not a banned user (which is the real test). Peter Damian (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Paid editing
Once the Olympics kept their ideals of amateur competition so stringent that athletes who had ever taken money for performing were stripped of medal (see Jim Thorpe), and even athletes who paid for professional coaching were regarded with some skepticism as if doing such a thing was one step toward cheating. Now professional athletes perform in the Olympics regularly; whether the Olympics is better off is a good argument to be had.
FA writer User:Nichalp has been editing under another user name and getting paid for it. See the Signpost missive about it. There's an RfC about paid editing here. It might be a more cut and dry situation with Nichalp that a company has hired him to see after their interests on Wikipedia.
So, you who eats cardboard and whey, what if a private grant offered you money akin to a year's salary to write anything you wanted as long as you produced a certain number of GAs and FAs? What if the parameters were narrower? What if you had to produce all your articles in the realm of chemistry, French literature, or Baroque composers? What if the Wikimedia Foundation started to offer monetary rewards for well-written articles? How would money change the culture of Wikipedia? --Moni3 (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- My opinion's no secret; whatever the Great Helmsman might say to the contrary, I don't see how "motivated by financial gain" is morally any worse than "motivated by an interest in the subject". Particularly if you're talking about FA level, enough people will pore over it to strip out any bias. Anyway, "you can't write about something you're being paid on because you then won't have a balanced view" is a bullshit argument; almost every music, literature and sports bio is written by fans, and presumably most contributors to Roman Catholic Church, Obama, Lesbian etc all have particular biases for or against. Wikipedia's critics have a valid point in that we're so big that the self-correcting mechanism breaks down on smaller low-traffic articles, but at the GA/FA level there are always going to be at least a few eyes on everything. – iridescent 17:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Iridescent, for the most part. It's nice money if you can get it, but I wouldn't automatically say that GA/FA will strip out bias. As long as such COI are plainly stated, I'm generally sure the regular policing can take care of it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I enjoy writing articles quite a bit, and clearly don't get paid to do it. I wonder sometimes if someone offered me money if I would be as productive as I am. Surely one of the first things to keep me from doing something is to order me to do it. I magically lose all interest. --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but nobody's talking about a Citizendium-style "get accredited or get out"; you'd write Torchlight to Valhalla because you were interested in it, and Air Products & Chemicals to pay the mortgage. This is the model plenty of print sources have used for decades; it's also the system that keeps most theaters and orchestras in business. – iridescent 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I enjoy writing articles quite a bit, and clearly don't get paid to do it. I wonder sometimes if someone offered me money if I would be as productive as I am. Surely one of the first things to keep me from doing something is to order me to do it. I magically lose all interest. --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've written an FA about a company. I didn't know the owner beforehand (even though several people accused me of being a operative for the company) but I did get to know him after I asked for free images and we started corresponding. I often think about how my attitude toward the article might have changed if he had said, "How about a lifetime 50% discount for writing the article?" or similar. He never offered me anything, nor would I have accepted it; I wrote it because I always liked the place. The article was more or less finished before I got to know him; now, I won't even edit the article because I feel uncomfortable doing so. My point is that even though we might tell ourselves we're not affected by the relationship, we can't be sure. --Laser brain (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd love to get paid by the U.S. Navy to write articles about their old battleships. Having said that, I think that writing about old ships is different than writing about current CEOs or companies. What I am trying to say is that I echo Laaser Brain above with the caveat that I think it depends on the topic. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The core issue is conflict of interest. And getting paid to edit something certainly creates a problem in that respect. What are the chances of it being NPOV and including alternate perspectives when it's being done under contract? Just look at the puffery that passes for polical articles when they're edited by partisan supporters and compare it to the hit pieces for figures that aren't popular with the Wikipedia set. NPOV is a core policy and it should always be encouraged. Paid editing is not consistent with the values espoused in this policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- The same could be said about "editing by fans of the topic", "editing by opponents of the topic", and so on. Just as a fan, opponent, etc can write an NPOV article if they are careful, a paid editor could do the same. Which is why WP:COI doesn't forbid COI edits, it just strongly warns about NPOV and gives advice on how to avoid problems. Anomie⚔ 17:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Internal links in footnoted references
Looking through FAs, there doesn't seem to be any common way to handle internal linking in footnotes, the most part are publishers and authors. Most articles are incoherent, with certain publishers linked, others not, and authors most often unlinked; while some at every instance. The general guideline on linking, Wikipedia:Linking, doesn't discuss this case, I suppose there aren't any guideline on this ? So how do you feel about this ? My preference would be to link any relevant link (of any type, not only publishers and authors) for the first time they appear in a footnoted reference. As it's a different part of the article, not the main body, the existence of the same link in the body shouldn't have impact, but for similar reasons to the article body, linking repeatedly the same item isn't necessary. Cenarium (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) would probably be able to explain that. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- As a general rule, I only link authors in the references. I haven't yet seen that linking publishers adds much to the understanding of the reader, but if someone links publishers on an article I've got watchlisted, I won't unlink either. As for linking terms in other things, my understanding is that, just like we should avoid linking terms in direct quotations, I avoid linking terms in the titles of books/articles/etc. But this is just my practice, others do differently. --Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't link terms in a title too, I meant for example locations (Geographical place of publication), they appear from time to time, and when it's part of a larger work, that work. As for publishers, some are often very topical to the subject, and would provide relevant information to the reader. On the other hand, some are very general, but which are relevant or less may be difficult to decide in certain cases, so the easiest way is to link them all at the first instance in footnotes. Cenarium (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I usually link journal titles when we have an article for the journal, authors as well (but less often). I think redlinks are a big no-no in reference sections. But I agree with all the above that practice varies. Physchim62 (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would think that internal linking of publishers would only make it more confusing for the reader to click on the hyperlink to the article or book. If there is no url, I don't think it would do any harm to link it, but then you run into a consistency issue. So, I'd say, don't link publisher names in footnotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I pretty much always link publications in {{cite web}}, mostly because with web sites I think it's best to have a page that allows readers to garner a more informed opinion about the site. Web doesn't have the prestige of print, after all. I do the same in {{cite news}} for plain consistency. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- As I'm involved with WP:JOURNALS I try to link journals every time I see them. Proc. Roy. Soc. London A vs. Proc. Roy. Soc. London A, or PRL vs Physical Review Letters (possibly piped as PRL or Phys. Rev. Lett.). This way, you don't have to figure out what the abbreviation means, and resolves ambiguities such as Phys. Rev. Lett. meaning Physics Review Letters or Physical Review Letters. It's also a fantastic way to get people to write articles about these journals, and helps to establish if the cited work meets WP:RS. I do the same for publishers. Some discretion is applied when linking truely non-notable organizations or journals. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's what I'm currently doing. I don't ever recall meeting resistance on bluelinks (although redlinks made some people twitch). The idea behind it (well at least behind my actions, can't speak for others) is that when I'm reading something, and click on say ref#73, I want the link there. If it's also linked at ref#24, it's of no use to me (or at least its a hassle to check if the link is present in one of the 72 refs that comes before ref#73).Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I strongly support adding links to all journal titles. Where this would introduce redlinks to featured content, we could add a subpage to WP:JOURNALS where FA editors give the name of the Wikipedia article and name of the journal, and WP:JOURNALS collaborates to create the stubs and add the blue link.
I think each footnote should stand on its own while the article is being brought up to FA level, but after that point the overlinking should be trimmed. My rationale is that prior to FA, cites are moving around a lot, and it is easier if citations are self-contained. I guess bots could help manage the journal title linkage to reduce overlinking, but we could also update {{cite}} so that links within the citation are linked but don't exhibit the visible properties of a link, such as underscore and blue. That way the link is there for editors, but not distracting for readers. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- There a bot compilation coming up (although it is not centered on FAs, it will allow the identification of the most popular missing journal articles). Also that "solution" is way to complex to be implemented or enforced. Bluelinks/redlinks are not that evil, especially in footnotes. No one reads footnotes for their litterary value. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think external links are sufficiently visible over internal links, with the font difference and the arrows, so it's not a problem imo. I'd argue that journals can be very relevant to the topic at hand, when they are speciailized in the subject matter or made substantial contributions to it, it's important to link them. It's also a form of credit, and same goes for authors of course. Many authors are scarcely linked, their articles would probably benefit in being linked in references. And as pointed out, if one reads a reference, it's that you're interested in the source, thus in the authors, journals, and publishers to a lesser extent as well. Cenarium (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- For hand-coded references which don't use any template formatting, I don't see the value of linking more than once to any single term in the footnotes/references section. Articles from The New York Times, for instance, need not be linked to that newspaper a dozen times in the same article. It can steal focus from the reference URL, if present. In many cases, clicking on the main URL will take the reader to a page that lists publisher or author.
- Unlike Ealdgyth, I'll link terms in a quote if their meaning in context is not entirely clear to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. For instance, I linked the word "exec" in a direct quote, so people with no military knowledge can follow along. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Theology
Most of my contributions are in the area of philosophy and medievalism. I wrote all of Medieval_philosophy from scratch. I never finished it and never bothered to submit to GA or FA because it seems an awful destructive process. I get even more depressed when I see Theology. What a mess. How could any work that pretends to be an encyclopedia have such an abomination? Tags everywhere, the footnotes are actually longer than the article. Half the paragraphs are just lists. Peter Damian (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- There have been lots of discussions about how some of the top-level articles (and indeed top importance) go neglected while people work on sub articles. The problem is that it's a Herculean effort to work on these major articles and many of them would take weeks of research by a collaboration of editors. It's difficult to wrangle all those people into a concerted effort. When and if they get to the GA or FA processes, they are given extra scrutiny because of how broad the topic is. I'm sorry that your opinion of the FA process is that it's destructive. It's not supposed to be! I'd love to see some philosophy and medievalism articles there. If you want to put together a collaboration to work on Theology, feel free to call on me for editing or whatever I can do. --Laser brain (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer. More generally, I would like to see some guidelines developed about approaching 'big' subjects (sample list below). One guide I always use is that the Wikipedia introduction to any such subject should not be a million miles different from how any other standard recognised secondary or tertiary source approaches the same subject. I.e. if I were to list the introductions of 10 reference works, including Wikipedia, it should not be possible to discern the Wikipedia one. Currently this is far from the case, and it is amazing how much resistance you meet when you suggest it. Mostly because the 'characters' that inhabit these pages have some very fixed and idiosyncratic and usually personal views about what these subjects really are, and they feel that Britannica or Columbia or other common reference source has got it wrong, and this is their chance to put it right. If there were a policy page one could point to, that would be a great help.
- WP:LEAD is slightly helpful, but more work needs to be done for the 'big' topics. The problem with these topics is that they are, well, generally very large and have a lot of history attached and have to be approached with generality, which is difficult. E.g. Space for example, goes straight in to the Islamic view of space, without even mention the considerable work done by the Greeks. The introductory definition 'Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.' is also quite strange.
Peter Damian (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- To some degree, we might point to Wikipedia:Summary style, which specifies that any article should essentially be a summary of its subtopics. One benefit we would have with these broad topics is that if their subtopics are reasonably referenced, we need not duplicate those references in the main article. I can see writing all those above as broad overviews and introductions only, giving enough information so readers can discover which subtopics they wish to explore. I concur that they should be similar in scope to other encyclopedias. --Laser brain (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think one problem with these articles is that everyone thinks they have an opinion on the definition of each of these topics! I could give you several of my definitions of "chemistry", which are (quite rightly) not included in the article! I can also point you the the FAC for chemistry. Most of the articles you cite have free standing WikiProjects devoted to the subject area, which would indicate that we have editors who know the main arguments. The GA/FA route seems a bad way to improve them, as that would leave the judgment in the hands of editors who (for the most part) don't have a clue what they're talking about, other than their vague memories from high school. Perhaps you should team up with WP:VITAL to see if we can get a general community push to improve these wide-ranging articles (there are many more than you cite). Physchim62 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- And if you left these articles solely in the hands of subject matter experts, you would end up with a quite interesting article, I'm sure, that no one save experts can read. It's important to get feedback from people with all kinds of backgrounds in order to make sure the article works on multiple levels, rather than risk creating walled gardens. That doesn't mean they have to go through GA/FAC, but at least they are a venue for attracting uninvolved editors on "neutral ground", so to speak. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Subject matter experts can often write in a way that is difficult to understand. That does not mean that non-SME's are automatically able to write in a way that is crystal clear.
- And if you left these articles solely in the hands of subject matter experts, you would end up with a quite interesting article, I'm sure, that no one save experts can read. It's important to get feedback from people with all kinds of backgrounds in order to make sure the article works on multiple levels, rather than risk creating walled gardens. That doesn't mean they have to go through GA/FAC, but at least they are a venue for attracting uninvolved editors on "neutral ground", so to speak. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think one problem with these articles is that everyone thinks they have an opinion on the definition of each of these topics! I could give you several of my definitions of "chemistry", which are (quite rightly) not included in the article! I can also point you the the FAC for chemistry. Most of the articles you cite have free standing WikiProjects devoted to the subject area, which would indicate that we have editors who know the main arguments. The GA/FA route seems a bad way to improve them, as that would leave the judgment in the hands of editors who (for the most part) don't have a clue what they're talking about, other than their vague memories from high school. Perhaps you should team up with WP:VITAL to see if we can get a general community push to improve these wide-ranging articles (there are many more than you cite). Physchim62 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Take e.g. the opening to Space. "Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent ...". But extension is space, so the definition is entirely circular (as someone else has already commented on the talk page). It continues "The concept of space is considered to be of fundamental importance to an understanding of the universe although disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework." This was clearly not written by an SME, who would have been careful not to put this word-salad into an introduction for beginners. Entity? Conceptual framework? What? The rest of the introduction is gobbledygook, plus a few straightforward grammatical errors to boot. And this is not because a non-expert wrote it. Peter Damian (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Or another example: We have an atrocious article Boolean logic, full of bullshit, written by a non-SME who believes he is an expert because he has taught the material in a school. Vaughan Pratt has three times rewritten the article as something that makes sense but is not sufficiently accessible. His attempts got better over time, but each time the owner of the atrocious article came back after a while and resurrected it as a POV fork. Vaughan Pratt's articles are at Boolean algebras canonically defined, Boolean algebra (logic) and Boolean algebra (introduction). This is the reason for the absurd disambiguation page Boolean algebra. Hans Adler 17:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's interesting. I note immediately that it satisfies Damian's law. This is the principle that people who don't know what they are talking about generally express themselves in unclear and clumsy ways and generally write badly in ways that are detectable to someone who is not an expert in the subject in question. The giveaway is the opening sentences "Boolean logic is a complete system for logical operations. It is used in countless systems.". I don't know anything about Boolean logic but the phrasing alone suggests that something is badly wrong. By contrast, the opening of Boolean algebras canonically defined seems perfectly well-written. The rule is not infallible, but is rarely wrong. Boolean algebra (logic) is quite well done also. Why am I saying this? Well, it is to prove that issues of content can be decided by non-experts. Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- My point wasn't to smack experts or the writing of said experts, I'm just saying that a couple fresh eyes almost always helps improve the article. It's the reason why WikiProject Video Games partners with WikiProject Military History for partnered peer reviews. I've often found MILHIST article leads rather confusing, and the MILHIST chaps are able to pinpoint parts of gameplay in video games that non-players would get mired in. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I totally agree. So long as the non-experts don't insist, for instance, that loads of unrelated stuff must absolutely be treated in the article because they feel it's somehow the same thing, their help is vital for improving our more technical articles. In most cases only silly non-experts are a problem. --Hans Adler 19:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- My point wasn't to smack experts or the writing of said experts, I'm just saying that a couple fresh eyes almost always helps improve the article. It's the reason why WikiProject Video Games partners with WikiProject Military History for partnered peer reviews. I've often found MILHIST article leads rather confusing, and the MILHIST chaps are able to pinpoint parts of gameplay in video games that non-players would get mired in. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's interesting. I note immediately that it satisfies Damian's law. This is the principle that people who don't know what they are talking about generally express themselves in unclear and clumsy ways and generally write badly in ways that are detectable to someone who is not an expert in the subject in question. The giveaway is the opening sentences "Boolean logic is a complete system for logical operations. It is used in countless systems.". I don't know anything about Boolean logic but the phrasing alone suggests that something is badly wrong. By contrast, the opening of Boolean algebras canonically defined seems perfectly well-written. The rule is not infallible, but is rarely wrong. Boolean algebra (logic) is quite well done also. Why am I saying this? Well, it is to prove that issues of content can be decided by non-experts. Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Or another example: We have an atrocious article Boolean logic, full of bullshit, written by a non-SME who believes he is an expert because he has taught the material in a school. Vaughan Pratt has three times rewritten the article as something that makes sense but is not sufficiently accessible. His attempts got better over time, but each time the owner of the atrocious article came back after a while and resurrected it as a POV fork. Vaughan Pratt's articles are at Boolean algebras canonically defined, Boolean algebra (logic) and Boolean algebra (introduction). This is the reason for the absurd disambiguation page Boolean algebra. Hans Adler 17:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Take e.g. the opening to Space. "Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent ...". But extension is space, so the definition is entirely circular (as someone else has already commented on the talk page). It continues "The concept of space is considered to be of fundamental importance to an understanding of the universe although disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework." This was clearly not written by an SME, who would have been careful not to put this word-salad into an introduction for beginners. Entity? Conceptual framework? What? The rest of the introduction is gobbledygook, plus a few straightforward grammatical errors to boot. And this is not because a non-expert wrote it. Peter Damian (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I was once involved with the initial effort to write top level articles for a competitive encyclopedia. My experience there was that experts are generally not good people to write articles of this nature & the experience in dealing with their attempts was so unpleasant I have rarely revisited that project. True, experts sometimes "write" good textbooks--but this is because of the extensive work done on them by professional editors in the true sense of the word, generalists with subject literacy who know how to express things clearly. There have been a few people in history who can do both. We would be extraordinarily lucky if there were such a person here, though perhaps one or two such people have sometimes edited inconspicuously. DGG (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is a POV disaster and a battleground. It needs work or deletion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Non-notable elephant in my books. Physchim62 (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with redirect. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
There's been some work in the last five weeks on American Dream where a couple of versions of a lead section have been put forward, each a synthesis of received wisdom, with slim reliance on sources. There was even a bit of original research with the addition of the phrase "ethos of prosperity" which doesn't appear anywhere in the literature.
I could use some help in whipping together two or three good lead paragraphs using the ten or so sources listed at Talk:American Dream, or other expert materials. I made a small start today, but expansion and adjustment is still needed. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Might I suggest you write the rest of the article first, the work on the lead? I find it's easier to figure out what should belong above the fold once you've sketched out all the rest of the content. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. Sometimes, when I'm writing a completely new article, the lead section initiates the article, catalyzing the search for content, then the content rebounds on me and demands its own shape, which of course requires changes to the lede. It's iterative; a bootstrapping process. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Who is in charge of swamijis? Should I prod? AfD? Leave it for someone else? Suggestions welcome. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would ask at WP:RELIGION or WP:INDIA. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Major dispute at this article over appropriateness of the lead section. Unfortunately seems likely to turn into an edit war, so we could use some second opinions here. Since Iran is in the news recently, it is important that Wikipedia have a good article ready to go- but the article has been massively overhauled in the past two weeks, and at least in the lede section is now much much worse.
I previously posted a request at the Neutrality noticeboard, to which an editor thankfully responded. The lede is now better following that editor's input (no longer a series of long quotes and accusations of Nazism without mentioning the historical context), but now is incredibly small. The lede currently doesn't even mention the Shah or that the coup restored the monarchy, instead inexplicably focusing on oil companies changing their name. I've been reverted several times.
Details are at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état#Lede paragraph . Bear in mind that the first posts there are in reference to a much worse lede section than the current (still flawed) one, as noted above. SnowFire (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you point out a historic version of the lede that is closest to what you want to see now? Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=297419002&oldid=297402739 is an old version that I originally reverted to (not written by me). Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Moving_forward:_Proposed_new_lede is where I workshopped a proposed new lede, asked Skywriter for comment, got only a complaint about a single reference, and edited it in at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&oldid=297658605 . Which was promptly reverted as "vandalism" and against the "consensus" of, um, Skywriter and one other editor, who'd previously clashed a bunch with others on the talk page anyway.
- Thanks for your input; the current problem is that the new lede devotes literally all the attention to the oil company issue. This is a major issue, and arguably the biggest cause of the coup (I'd personally disagree, but it's close), but it'd be like having the lede on the American Civil war article spend all the time talking about slavery and none about state's rights or Lincoln. I'm not an expert on the coup, so I wish others would take the lead here, but I know enough to know a really unbalanced lede when I see one. SnowFire (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am involved in a revertwar on the article about Joseph campbell with an anon user who blanks the in my opinion very notable, well sourced and well balanced section on post-humous controversy. At first I thought it was just a case of reverting a trolling vandal so I didn't pay attention to 3RR, but he is persistent and is resorting to different tactics to justify his blanking - among others he called me a "Jehovah's witness fundamentalist" apparently he has checked my edit history and seen I have been engaged in dispute resolution on that page. I need some third party to see what's going on on the page and decide whether to protect, block, or what ever. I won't revert him again.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- That whole section is a valid part of the study of Campbell's life. You're right; it should stay. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)