Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information
- Request made by: Vizjim 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- House Made of Dawn ( Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Native American writer N. Scott Momaday)
- What's going on?
- The page was rather long (110Kb+). I saw it as unwieldy, and a great deal of the material it contained was, again in my view, either unencyclopedic literary analysis or material that really belonged in other articles (e.g. Native Americans and World War II). So I deleted a fairly huge whack of material and moved what was in my view rescueable to new articles.
- This work got the article's status changed from a "Start" class article to a "B" class.
- HQCentral, however, reverted the edits wholesale. Despite various attempts by myself and a couple of other editors, he believes strongly that his original work was encyclopedic, useful, and should not be deleted or hived off to other parts of the wiki.
- What would you like to change about that?
- I would like this dispute mediated. I believe that HQCentral has not fully understood the ways of Wikipedia, and I would like someone independent to work on this understanding. However, if I am using faulty logic or understanding of policy, I would very much welcome an independent mediator telling me so!
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- No need for discretion that I can see.
Mediator response
I've taken the case. Currently I await for the response from both sides. CP/M ( Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Since consensus was reached, specifically keeping the analysis separated, with short summary in the article, the case is closed. However, I'm ready to help if anything is needed. CP/M comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
This is not actually a compromise, but rather some policy-conforming suggestions.
It's quite clear that the way it is now the analysis doesn't fit Wikipedia standarts. It's a good work, and we actually value original research. There's WP:IAR, and no rules are strict boundaries, but IAR works when there is no controversy or doubt about positive effect. Since several editors argue the analysis is not for this article, it is the case when the policies take priority.
The article is excessively long, and the complete analysis makes it hard to read, but, being valuable for understanding the book, it must be kept. First of all, I suggest you make a brief summary of it, restricted to about 1-2 kilobytes, and just mentioning what are the main concepts of the book. This analysis will be kept in the article.
For the full analysis, I suggest two main options:
- If your analysis is based dominantly, especially in conclusions, on other publications, please wikify it and add inline references, mention authors of specific arguments and conclusions in the text, and so on. If this is done, the article can be put in the main namespace with name like Analysis of House Made of Dawn. The section with brief summary will link to it as the main article (see World War II as example).
- If your analysis contains original thought, it's fine, and it can be stored in Wikibooks, which has less restrictions. Formatting is still needed, but referencing sources in the corresponding section is more than enough. See the Bookshelf for similar works. Either me, other editors of the article, or some editors at Wikibooks can help you with formatting. In this case I suggest we don't creep the guidelines and anyway keep it as the main article for the analysis section.
So it will be not much difference for article readers, it's just about how much original thought was applied. I personally feel the second option offers much more freedom in editing and requires less effort.
CP/M ( Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- It looks as though the first option is acceptable to HQCentral, and it's equally acceptable to me. So, is everyone agreed that we can:
- 1) Go ahead and delete the Analysis section
- 2) Carry out most of the other changes (hiving stuff off to other parts of WP)
- 3) Give HQCentral time to write a summary of critics' work (around 2 kb long)
- 4) HQCentral to place his original analysis section with [1]?
- If everyone agrees here, then the only thing left to do is to thank CP/M for some superb mediation, which has tackled all concerns about length and original research, while ensuring that not one iota of HQCentral's hard work was lost. Vizjim 13:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me too. ::
Kevinalewis :
(Talk Page)/
(Desk) 13:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I never said that I would compress the analysis section. I said I could add alternate POVs and make it less of an assertion.--
HQCentral 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- The length issue is still there. Adding something would make the article even more oversized. While many editors (including myself) are well used to handling large amounts of text, most readers prefer smaller articles. A technical/scientific subject or a historical article may go up to 100 kilobytes and beyond, but it requires specific style and specific context. Literature-related articles aren't such exceptions, and, honestly, I don't think most readers have read the entire article. The analysis is a good work, and we'll make it readily available to anyone who wishes to read more, but a small, condensed introduction would be useful and could interest more readers.
- However, your suggestion below isn't worse, though it would be harder to implement.
CP/M
comm |
Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK. How about I split it off into another article with a subheading pointing to it, e.g, "==Interpretation== / ''Full article: Interpretations of ''House Made of Dawn'' / [Shorter summary]''." A shorter summary would point to the main article, then.--
HQCentral 01:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's almost exactly what I suggest. It's the common way for doing it: under the section name you write Main article: House Made of Dawn interpretations (or different name), and that article would hold the entire analysis. The section would only summarize it. It's just like the way it's done in articles on complex subjects. CP/M comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK. How about I split it off into another article with a subheading pointing to it, e.g, "==Interpretation== / ''Full article: Interpretations of ''House Made of Dawn'' / [Shorter summary]''." A shorter summary would point to the main article, then.--
HQCentral 01:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I never said that I would compress the analysis section. I said I could add alternate POVs and make it less of an assertion.--
HQCentral 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me too. ::
Kevinalewis :
(Talk Page)/
(Desk) 13:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
The article is 110 kb, but none of the disputants has offered to split it up. I agree, though, that it shouldn't be split up unless the new articles would form seperate subjects. For example, "analysis of House Made of Dawn" is not a new subject. However, the others claim that the material doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all. The novel is very symbolic, making analysis essential for understanding it. Most of it is not original, and is based on research done by others. (I listed my sources at the bottom of the entry.) The wording can be rephrased to be more neutral if necessary (e.g., "most scholars believe x").-- HQCentral 00:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The actual question is not about length, but about sources. If you could add inline references, it might help. CP/M ( Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. It is about both things. The content is one thing and the general tone of the piece bears all the hallmarks of Original Research, although it may not be! To this end the use of inline referencing is vital! Our originating editor may know everything there is to know about the subject of this novel, but demonstrates a lack of experience editing for wikipedia, in my view. The length is another thing, if we get past the content issue the pure scale of the article is offputting to anyone other than the most dedicated reader. Surely the way to approach is (if the content is to remain) would be to find logical units into which the article can be divided. providing links to and fro to the elements. Yes "this is not a paper encylopedia" and that is exactly the point we should let the technology assist us in rethinking how the data in presented to us and navigated around. Generally speaking is is unhelpful to have wiki articles go much long than the odd screen page or three. We "need" to seperate out the two issues and both have significant contributions to make to improve this article (n.b. which is my only aim). :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I wrote the analysis a while ago as a school paper. So, adding in-line references is impractical unless I were to go back and look at all of the references again. Here's another idea for a compromise: I can write an alternate interpretation so that the article isn't biased in one direction or the other. I can remove the background information as Vizjim's split is OK. I can also rename the "Analysis" section to "Interpretations." It can be a straightforward account of what different critics think.-- HQCentral 23:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you can do that, with referring to sources (either by inline refs or by mentioning authors in the text), it would be fine. I guess it would take a considerable amount of time, but the article would clearly be improved. In case you do it, however, please keep it more condensed, with total article size no more than 60-70 kilobytes, so length issues don't rise again. CP/M comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Length
- Contrary to HQCentral's assertion above, in my original pruning back of the page I created the articles Jemez runners and Native Americans and World War II as well as inserting deleted factual material into Navajo people and a couple of other places. I believe that this amounts to the entirety of the factual material worth saving that was not already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. I also added a "See also" section which would point the researcher in the direction of new and pre-existing factual articles that illuminate the book (e.g. Jemez Pueblo). The material on Relocation I thought to be poor and not worth saving, as a good researcher would have to go into Dawes Act etc, not make do with a bald and largely unsourced summary. If HQCentral wishes to add this material elsewhere, I have no objection. However, it adds totally unnecessary bulk to the article. Vizjim 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Analysis
- The literary analysis, by contrast, simply does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia's pages, as per WP:OR. Also, 13,000+ words of literary analysis mean that the article is simply too long for most readers, as has been repeatedly commented upon by all editors other than HQCentral, who appears to simply be ignoring the issues. Vizjim 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
HQCentral
We've discovered that HQCentral ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock puppet of notorious plagiarist Primetime. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime. The material he sought to add was undoubtedly copied from someone else. - Will Beback 02:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information
- Request made by: Vizjim 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- House Made of Dawn ( Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Native American writer N. Scott Momaday)
- What's going on?
- The page was rather long (110Kb+). I saw it as unwieldy, and a great deal of the material it contained was, again in my view, either unencyclopedic literary analysis or material that really belonged in other articles (e.g. Native Americans and World War II). So I deleted a fairly huge whack of material and moved what was in my view rescueable to new articles.
- This work got the article's status changed from a "Start" class article to a "B" class.
- HQCentral, however, reverted the edits wholesale. Despite various attempts by myself and a couple of other editors, he believes strongly that his original work was encyclopedic, useful, and should not be deleted or hived off to other parts of the wiki.
- What would you like to change about that?
- I would like this dispute mediated. I believe that HQCentral has not fully understood the ways of Wikipedia, and I would like someone independent to work on this understanding. However, if I am using faulty logic or understanding of policy, I would very much welcome an independent mediator telling me so!
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- No need for discretion that I can see.
Mediator response
I've taken the case. Currently I await for the response from both sides. CP/M ( Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Since consensus was reached, specifically keeping the analysis separated, with short summary in the article, the case is closed. However, I'm ready to help if anything is needed. CP/M comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
This is not actually a compromise, but rather some policy-conforming suggestions.
It's quite clear that the way it is now the analysis doesn't fit Wikipedia standarts. It's a good work, and we actually value original research. There's WP:IAR, and no rules are strict boundaries, but IAR works when there is no controversy or doubt about positive effect. Since several editors argue the analysis is not for this article, it is the case when the policies take priority.
The article is excessively long, and the complete analysis makes it hard to read, but, being valuable for understanding the book, it must be kept. First of all, I suggest you make a brief summary of it, restricted to about 1-2 kilobytes, and just mentioning what are the main concepts of the book. This analysis will be kept in the article.
For the full analysis, I suggest two main options:
- If your analysis is based dominantly, especially in conclusions, on other publications, please wikify it and add inline references, mention authors of specific arguments and conclusions in the text, and so on. If this is done, the article can be put in the main namespace with name like Analysis of House Made of Dawn. The section with brief summary will link to it as the main article (see World War II as example).
- If your analysis contains original thought, it's fine, and it can be stored in Wikibooks, which has less restrictions. Formatting is still needed, but referencing sources in the corresponding section is more than enough. See the Bookshelf for similar works. Either me, other editors of the article, or some editors at Wikibooks can help you with formatting. In this case I suggest we don't creep the guidelines and anyway keep it as the main article for the analysis section.
So it will be not much difference for article readers, it's just about how much original thought was applied. I personally feel the second option offers much more freedom in editing and requires less effort.
CP/M ( Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- It looks as though the first option is acceptable to HQCentral, and it's equally acceptable to me. So, is everyone agreed that we can:
- 1) Go ahead and delete the Analysis section
- 2) Carry out most of the other changes (hiving stuff off to other parts of WP)
- 3) Give HQCentral time to write a summary of critics' work (around 2 kb long)
- 4) HQCentral to place his original analysis section with [1]?
- If everyone agrees here, then the only thing left to do is to thank CP/M for some superb mediation, which has tackled all concerns about length and original research, while ensuring that not one iota of HQCentral's hard work was lost. Vizjim 13:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me too. ::
Kevinalewis :
(Talk Page)/
(Desk) 13:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I never said that I would compress the analysis section. I said I could add alternate POVs and make it less of an assertion.--
HQCentral 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- The length issue is still there. Adding something would make the article even more oversized. While many editors (including myself) are well used to handling large amounts of text, most readers prefer smaller articles. A technical/scientific subject or a historical article may go up to 100 kilobytes and beyond, but it requires specific style and specific context. Literature-related articles aren't such exceptions, and, honestly, I don't think most readers have read the entire article. The analysis is a good work, and we'll make it readily available to anyone who wishes to read more, but a small, condensed introduction would be useful and could interest more readers.
- However, your suggestion below isn't worse, though it would be harder to implement.
CP/M
comm |
Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK. How about I split it off into another article with a subheading pointing to it, e.g, "==Interpretation== / ''Full article: Interpretations of ''House Made of Dawn'' / [Shorter summary]''." A shorter summary would point to the main article, then.--
HQCentral 01:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's almost exactly what I suggest. It's the common way for doing it: under the section name you write Main article: House Made of Dawn interpretations (or different name), and that article would hold the entire analysis. The section would only summarize it. It's just like the way it's done in articles on complex subjects. CP/M comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK. How about I split it off into another article with a subheading pointing to it, e.g, "==Interpretation== / ''Full article: Interpretations of ''House Made of Dawn'' / [Shorter summary]''." A shorter summary would point to the main article, then.--
HQCentral 01:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I never said that I would compress the analysis section. I said I could add alternate POVs and make it less of an assertion.--
HQCentral 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me too. ::
Kevinalewis :
(Talk Page)/
(Desk) 13:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
The article is 110 kb, but none of the disputants has offered to split it up. I agree, though, that it shouldn't be split up unless the new articles would form seperate subjects. For example, "analysis of House Made of Dawn" is not a new subject. However, the others claim that the material doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all. The novel is very symbolic, making analysis essential for understanding it. Most of it is not original, and is based on research done by others. (I listed my sources at the bottom of the entry.) The wording can be rephrased to be more neutral if necessary (e.g., "most scholars believe x").-- HQCentral 00:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The actual question is not about length, but about sources. If you could add inline references, it might help. CP/M ( Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. It is about both things. The content is one thing and the general tone of the piece bears all the hallmarks of Original Research, although it may not be! To this end the use of inline referencing is vital! Our originating editor may know everything there is to know about the subject of this novel, but demonstrates a lack of experience editing for wikipedia, in my view. The length is another thing, if we get past the content issue the pure scale of the article is offputting to anyone other than the most dedicated reader. Surely the way to approach is (if the content is to remain) would be to find logical units into which the article can be divided. providing links to and fro to the elements. Yes "this is not a paper encylopedia" and that is exactly the point we should let the technology assist us in rethinking how the data in presented to us and navigated around. Generally speaking is is unhelpful to have wiki articles go much long than the odd screen page or three. We "need" to seperate out the two issues and both have significant contributions to make to improve this article (n.b. which is my only aim). :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I wrote the analysis a while ago as a school paper. So, adding in-line references is impractical unless I were to go back and look at all of the references again. Here's another idea for a compromise: I can write an alternate interpretation so that the article isn't biased in one direction or the other. I can remove the background information as Vizjim's split is OK. I can also rename the "Analysis" section to "Interpretations." It can be a straightforward account of what different critics think.-- HQCentral 23:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you can do that, with referring to sources (either by inline refs or by mentioning authors in the text), it would be fine. I guess it would take a considerable amount of time, but the article would clearly be improved. In case you do it, however, please keep it more condensed, with total article size no more than 60-70 kilobytes, so length issues don't rise again. CP/M comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Length
- Contrary to HQCentral's assertion above, in my original pruning back of the page I created the articles Jemez runners and Native Americans and World War II as well as inserting deleted factual material into Navajo people and a couple of other places. I believe that this amounts to the entirety of the factual material worth saving that was not already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. I also added a "See also" section which would point the researcher in the direction of new and pre-existing factual articles that illuminate the book (e.g. Jemez Pueblo). The material on Relocation I thought to be poor and not worth saving, as a good researcher would have to go into Dawes Act etc, not make do with a bald and largely unsourced summary. If HQCentral wishes to add this material elsewhere, I have no objection. However, it adds totally unnecessary bulk to the article. Vizjim 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Analysis
- The literary analysis, by contrast, simply does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia's pages, as per WP:OR. Also, 13,000+ words of literary analysis mean that the article is simply too long for most readers, as has been repeatedly commented upon by all editors other than HQCentral, who appears to simply be ignoring the issues. Vizjim 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
HQCentral
We've discovered that HQCentral ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock puppet of notorious plagiarist Primetime. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime. The material he sought to add was undoubtedly copied from someone else. - Will Beback 02:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)