| Revision as of 20:15, 9 June 2008 editJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →inadequacy of article: new section← Previous edit |
Revision as of 22:54, 9 June 2008 edit undoHroðulf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,829 edits →Let's start over: in the spirit of 'let's start over' all off-topic comments, including mine, removedNext edit → |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
==Let's start over== |
|
==Let's start over== |
|
I've removed all the WikiProject ratings on this talk page and archived all the old discussions to ]. Can we get back to focusing on the encyclopedia's articles? '']'' <sub>(])</sub> 08:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
I've removed all the WikiProject ratings on this talk page and archived all the old discussions to ]. Can we get back to focusing on the encyclopedia's articles? '']'' <sub>(])</sub> 08:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
:That's a good idea. There are potentially interesting differences in outlook revealed by that last disagreement, but I suspect only others observing them will be able to have the discussion. ] (]) 11:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:There are more than "differences in outlook". There is the question as to whether an individual who seems to accept the word of the DNB as an act of faith, despite the fact that there are any number of articles in it which are no doubt written by editors who are not primarily interested in the subject of the biography per se, but rather in the period, era, or some other related matter, have to have their word accepted as a final authority. Also, are we to assume that, in the future, any and all future assessments of the article, by whomever, will be treated to the same removal, because on editor on the basis objects? Are we thus, in effect, giving that individual the right to have his opinion, and only his opinion, on the quality of the article matter, in effect granting him ] of it? Oh, and to answer the charge regarding "plagarism", I have to acknowledge it might be true, although I don't remember all the details at this point. I personally very much disclike having to fill in the {{tl|citebook}} template any more often than I have to. I added the material which could be verified by both sources, used the template once, started the article on the book, adding the distribution figures from this article and a citation to the DNB, and then further developed that article. I was still a minute or so from filling in the template a second time, for the other source on that article, when the power here kicked out. Also, I cannot see how what I said was an insult, but rather a statement that qualified, neutral editors on each and every life included in the DNB is necessarily going to be possible, which you, in what seems to me to be a clear and explicit failure to both AGF and also insistence on taint someone else's statements with your own possible prejudices, had to rephrase in a prejudicial manner. Had it not done so, I would have, on completion, added that template to this article for the relevant passages which were sourced by it. ] (]) 13:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Still attacking, still insulting, still wanting to fight? Monomania is an illness. The ''new'' ''DNB'' is current scholarship. Now, ''original research'' is possible, of course. A person could go read primary sources and either be credulous or suspicious, but, without any training in the era or further reading beyond those, it's likely to be mistaken. As for the ''DNB'' authors... I'm rather astonished that, having tried to insult me repeatedly, you now find that you must insult them, too. There is no "need" for "citebook" formatting. That's all ornament, unless there are multiple sources used and ''statements that are '''likely''' to be challenged.'' No statements here have been under challenge. Instead, your ability to be the Great Assessor and suffer no disagreement has been. I'm shocked to see how much you are over reacting to having your assessment challenged. You would go so far as to leave all of your interests and try to learn all sorts of things just to prove yourself right, when you originally acted out of ignorance and, seemingly, still out of pride. I'm sorry to watch this discombombulation. ] (]) 16:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And still misrepresenting the truth, at least you. I asked questions regarding whether you are being allowed the last say, and asked whether any future assessments by anyone would be treated in the same way, both of which are reasonable. Your response clearly and explicitly seeks to insert over and above that your own preconceived notions. Also, I cannot see how what I said was an insult, but rather a statement that qualified, neutral editors on each and every life included in the DNB is necessarily going to be at best difficult, possibly impossible, particularly when the subjects are of minor notability, which you, in what seems to me to be a clear and explicit failure to both AGF and also insistence on taint someone else's statements with your own possible prejudices, had to rephrase in a prejudicial manner. I agree monomania is an illness, and that there is no point in further fighting. I wish you did. The one thing I unfortunately still do see is the almost religious faith in the DNB which you have displayed throughout. ] (]) 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
I am tempted to delete (not archive) the above 4 comments as they seem (to me) to be way off-topic. --] (or Hrothulf) (]) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Make that '''five''' comments, and your own ('''six'''), and I won't care. ] (]) 19:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Feel free. I will acknowledge this as notice to follow ]. The other party has already received notice regarding his conduct regarding this discussion. ] (]) 17:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*Ah, that other party. Well, I have said, above, that it's fine to start over, but not to start up again. John seems to still be ... agitated. Currently, with no assessment at all, the article is doing just fine. It has gotten as few readers as it would have otherwise, conveys information to the same degree, and seems perfectly healthy. If John Carter is going to do some original research and bring it here, then that's ''possible'' to do, but ill advised. (Doing some OR is not the same thing as violating WP:OR. It depends upon whether or not major claims are involved, whether the article's conclusions are OR, etc. A detail here or there that can be attributed properly is fine, but the problem with OR is that it requires heavy qualifications for the researcher, or the results will be gibberish or worse.) I'm content with the article as it is. John ''seems'' to have many, many problems with it, all relating to books that ''could'' exist and ''might'' be read and which, when once obtained and read, ''might'' say something that will blow the lid off this ''DNB'' veneer. <shrug> Even ''nDNB'' has mistakes, but it takes a ''trained'' eye to spot them, and, once found, I recommend a submission to ''Notes & Queries'' and a real world publication for John. ] (]) 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:And Geogre seems to be ignoring his own regular impugnings, accusations, and insults, and then calling others "agitated"? LOL. It should also be noted that it has only been after demanding that it have additional information added to merit a B that it was added. And Geogre, once again, seems to have '''very serious''' problems refraining from directly insulting others, impugning their characters, and in general, seemingly, recognizing ] and ] apply to him. ] (]) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== inadequacy of article == |
|
== inadequacy of article == |
The article as it stands says that the subject wrote anonymously, based on being in the "public life". What exactly does that mean? There is nothing in the article to indicate it. Was he successful in the public life, or not, and to what degree? Did he have any particular achievements in public life? We have no indications of any? Did he get paid for the publications or not? If not, how did he acquire money, or even did he? All these are reasonable questions, and the fact that there is no answer to any of them in the article as it stands makes this, I believe, a far from "complete" article. Also, as I have demonstrated, I have found to my own displeasure that the DNB can be in at least some cases neither complete nor neutral. Therefore, I have very serious questions how anyone else can claim, on the basis of using that same source, that an article, which doesn't even include all the information to be found in that source, is somehow of B-class grade. I have asked these questions before, and received no direct answers. I am therefore asking them again, hoping that in this case the responses deal with the content, rather than further I believe unwarranted aspersions on my character. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
