This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for your modifications and amendments to this page. I tend to agree with most of them or at least the character and intention of what you are saying. I appreciate the "guide" style of such a document and it is good to encourage best practice wherever possible. We might differ slightly on what that best practice might be, but aiming for the best is always the best! Thanks :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 08:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried not to delete any of your recommendations outright but rather offer alternatives until we can hammer out a "best practices." I moved the "infobox" section to the end of the page so that editors will focus on the article first and the layout last. Also, infoboxes are optional. Awadewit 15:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I will look forward to it, especially since I've never heard of her apart from through your articles. Give me a little time because I will be slightly quieter on Wikipedia for the moment (I'm going to be indulging in that old-fashioned thing called reading—whole books, no note-making, in the garden: oh, the joy of it!). qp10qp 13:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it. And no rush. I myself am busy dissertating. Awadewit 15:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I straightened both images in article. Eliminated the directions "click image to enlarge" (or whatever it said), as it seemed distracting. Anyway, I feel the symbol on bottom right of thumb box lets people know that's what to do. :) Hope that's OK. - Jeeny ^-talk- 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Someone else put that other image up - I'm not sure why they thought the enlargement bit was necessary. Awadewit 16:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit, I realise you have a busy talk, and are besieged by requests, but you are a particularly insightful reviewer, and I would value your input on this peer review. Thank you. Ceoil 22:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil, I would be happy to. I studied art history as an undergraduate as well as English literature, so it will be a pleasure to dive back into that field. Can you give me a few days, though? My dissertation is calling out to me. Awadewit 03:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Eeek, dissertation! Not a problem, it'll be a few weeks yet before I take it to FAC. I'll talk to you when you have time. Ceoil 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Posted the peer review. Let me know if you have any questions. Very good article. Awadewit ^Talk 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your ce and constructive review, the suggestions you made are very helpful. Ceoil 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank you for all of the help you have given to the article Plymouth Colony. I have taken all of your suggestions, and made significant changes to the article. I removed the sketchy sources you objected to; I added a whole bunch of information from new print sources; rather than just Philbrick, I have made extensive use of John Demos's A Little Commonwealth and James and Patricia Deetz's The Times of Their Lives, plus small contributions from several other sources. I have also expanded the article to include demographic, economic, and social history as well. If you could find the time, I would appreciate it if you could give the article a once over for copyediting, especially the new sections, and make any comments on the talk page for any improvments you see it still needing. Thanks again for all of the help you have already given me, and thanks in advance for any help you can give in the future.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can wait a few days (like a week or so), I can do this. I am consumed with dissertation work right now. Awadewit 06:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I learned my lesson in rushing the article to FAC the first time. I want to take it slow this time and present the best article I can for the second nomination. Whatever time you can give, and whenever you can give it, it would be MOST appreciated. I am in no rush.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 16:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started copyediting now. I am going to work from the middle of the article back through to the beginning. I am putting some little internal comments into the article as I go as well. When I am done copyediting, I will put my comments on the talk page. I looked up some reviews of those two sources - they look good. But I am still concerned that you are working with only three major sources. For Plymouth, that is not many. Are you sure you know what the scholarly consensus on some of the thorny questions is? Why did the colony fail, for example? Does everyone agree on this? How many different theories are there? Do they represent different historical methodologies? I noticed, for example, that Deetz is an anthropologist and archivist of a very specific kind when I read the reviews (apparently he invented a whole type of history - historical materialism or something). If you read histories done with other methodologies, they are bound to come to different conclusions. I just want to make you aware of how difficult it is to really reflect the consensus. It takes a lot of work on a large topic like this and I'm glad that you are putting in the effort. I myself am struggling with John Locke's Two Treatises of Government right now. The page is disorganized and there are so many different interpretations that I have to take into account. Eek. So, I feel your pain, I really do. Awadewit ^Talk 07:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit,

I have to travel soon to see my sister graduate from college, so I'll be gone for a while. :( My family's rather old-fashioned, so I probably won't be able to write again until next week sometime. May I ask a favor, though?

Equipartition theorem seems to be in good hands now with Geometry guy, a wonderfully good-natured and insightful mathematician, but I'm still concerned about the article's intelligibility. Does it read OK to you? I know that your dissertation is calling out to you, and I hate to importune you at a key moment; but if you had a free moment sometime, I would be grateful if you could advise us on how the article might be made more inviting to a wider audience. Thank you very much, and good luck with all your labors, Willow 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. La Lectrice is excellent! :)

Willow, I will move it to the top of my list. I don't know how much I will be able to offer, though. Shall I post my comments at the FAC? Have fun at the graduation. It is definitely graduation season. I pretty much don't leave my apartment until all of the undergraduates and their parents have left town. There are swarms of them. (Not that you will be part of that swarm or acting swarm-like.) Where I live, it is hard to get around when the parents descend. Awadewit ^Talk 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Awadewit! Any ideas you had would be very welcome and I'm sure they'd help the article. Posting at FAC seems good, or else on the Talk page of Geometry guy, who's taken equipartition theorem under his wing.

I promise not to act too swarm-like at graduation, and I'll try to be especially nice to any English-lit graduate students that I happen to meet. Talking of swarms brought to mind our discussions of Lewis Carroll's puncturing poems

“

How doth the Missy Bumbleflea reprove each sliming Dower!

”

Wait, is that how it goes? ;) Willow 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the Isaac Watts originals that Carroll was parodying? They are fascinating - Divine and Moral Songs (1715). They were still so popular that in 1865 Carroll could parody them and every child and adult would know what he was referring to. Some of them are truly scary: "Thank you God for making me British and not a heathen..." (I'm paraphrasing here). Although perhaps that sentiment is still with us in various forms. I have "How doth the little busy bee" tacked up by my desk for inspiration - it seemed appropriate for my dissertation. Awadewit ^Talk 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I know snippets from the Annotated Alice, which I got for my birthday a few years ago, but nothing else. Now I'll have to go looking! The Watts quote reminds me of the Orthodox prayer, "Thank You for having made me a man and not a woman..." sigh. I've heard the rationalizations, but the sense of it defeats me. :( Gotta go pack, happier thoughts await! :) Willow 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For when you return: Orthodox what? There are a lot of "Orthodoxes" out there. Awadewit ^Talk 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit!

Sorry to leave you in suspense! :) I'll answer your question here, and then put the more fun news on my Talk page.

The prayer is from Orthodox Judaism, although I'm sure that you'll recognize the sentiments elsewhere. ;) It's from the Berachot Hashachar, the "morning blessings" that should be recited every day, which are described in the Talmud (Menachot 43b, Berachot 60b). The word berachot (blessings) comes from the stem for "to bless" (b-r-ch), as seen in the name Baruch or the epithet "Hakadosh baruch hu" (the Holy One, blessed be He); sometimes it's transliterated to birkot, b'rachot, etc. The singular form is often written "bracha".

There are 15 standard morning blessings, the last three of which read

Baruch atah Hashem Elokenu melech haolam, shelo asani goy.

— Praise to you, the Lord Our God, King of the universe, who did not make me a gentile.

Baruch atah Hashem Elokenu melech haolam, shelo asani aved.

— Praise to you, the Lord Our God, King of the universe, who did not make me a slave (originally, "idiot").

Baruch atah Hashem Elokenu melech haolam, shelo asani isha.

— Praise to you, the Lord Our God, King of the universe, who did not make me a woman.

Women are enjoined to say the same prayers but, instead of the last one, they say

Baruch atah Hashem Elokenu melech haolam, she asani kirtzono.

— Praise to you, the Lord Our God, King of the universe, who made me according to Your will.

The rationalization is that more duties are enjoined on men than on women in the Torah, so they have more opportunities to fulfil good obligations. It is often stressed that people should not assume that this bracha means that men are superior to women; women are considered to have an intrinsically higher spiritual nature and, thus, do not need the spiritual purification that comes from obeying the commandments. However, the interpretation also seems to be that a woman who does an equal amount of good as a man does not receive the same honor for it, because she is not under compulsion to do so. (If you understand this, please let me know. ;)

The prayers have been made positive in recent years, so that both sexes can now say

Baruch atah Hashem Elokenu melech haolom, she asani Yisrael.

— Praise to you, the Lord Our God, King of the universe, who made me Jewish.

Baruch atah Hashem Elokenu melech haolom, she asani ben chorin.

— Praise to you, the Lord Our God, King of the universe, who made me free-born.

Baruch atah Hashem Elokenu melech haolom, she asani b'tzelem Elokim (b'tzalmo).

— Praise to you, the Lord Our God, King of the universe, who made me in the image of God (His image).

I like listening to people talk of their various faiths, which means that I hear this sentiment surprisingly often. For example, not too long ago, I heard the same ideas expressed with earnest sweetness by a Mormon missionary, who surely knew nothing of the berachot hashachar. He was explaining to me why Mormon men, but not Mormon women, can assume their priesthoods. Another facet, perhaps, of the pervasive idea of congenital roles for the sexes. I try to use my wits and strength to open minds, but this is the Leviathan, as I'm sure you know.

Thoughtfully, Willow 15:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft is listed in WP as the "Mother of Feminism". You reverted my entry saying this information is "unnecessary". Please explain what is "unnecessary" in an article, citing appropriate WP policy. (Should we go into Robert Goddard for exdample and remove the statement that he is considered one of the "fathers of modern rocketry"? Thanks. Gekritzl 22:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a reliable source. To include information in an article, it must come from reliable sources. In this case, from scholarship on Wollstonecraft. WP:RS Since you want to include this tidbit, you are required to find the scholars who refer to Wollstonecraft as the "mother of feminism."
• Your sentence is a vague statement - "Wollstonecraft is the 'mother of feminism'"; the third paragraph of the lead explains in more detail exactly what Wollstonecraft's relationship to feminism actually was, so it is preferable to your sentence. WP:LEAD and general writing guidelines.
• Your sentence was written in a colloquial style - it included an abbreviation ("PI"). WP:MOS
• Your sentence was POV; whose opinion is it that it is "somewhat ironic" that she was called the "mother of feminism"? WP:NPOV

In short, the thrust of your sentence is already covered by the third paragraph and your wording introduced commentary into the lead. Awadewit ^Talk 05:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a good defense you put up in the AfD discussion. I was wondering, is it just general knowledge that literary critics reject the idea that there is a canon of great writers, or are there some debates or notable writings on the topic? Anyone that would be worth reading?- BillDeanCarter 10:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the general public knows that there is no longer a canon, but it is generally accepted amongst literary critics. I will work on assembling a reading list for you. Such a list is difficult to assemble because the "canon wars" as they are called developed out of a confluence of events: the arrival of French theory in America, the development of feminist criticism, the development of race criticism and many other strands of thought. I will think about what might be the best things to start out with. Awadewit ^Talk 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Are the canon wars worthy of a Wikipedia article (I'm not suggesting you write it. I'm simply not a lit major, so I don't know)? I found some mention of the canon wars on the web, but it would be great if you could assemble a reading list. I'd like to see the arguments that were used to pull apart the idea that there is a canon of great writers.- BillDeanCarter 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a short list on your talk page. Yes, there should be a page. Yet another thing I don't have time to do! Awadewit ^Talk 02:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I may start with Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory: An Introduction and then read Leslie Fielder, What Was Literature? Class Culture and Mass Society. I've been reading some of your many articles on 18th century brit lit, and they're very good. You've come up with a good format for writing about novels, and If I ever finish Anatomy of Melancholy I may try to do the same for that novel's article.- BillDeanCarter 19:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. We need more good novel articles. Most of the novel articles around here are pure plot summary. Awadewit ^Talk 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and extremely useful comments (especially those from the peer review) on the Uncle Tom's Cabin article. The article has just been promoted to featured article status. Best, -- Alabamaboy 12:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I hope you continue to work on other literature articles as wikipedia is sadly in need to good literature editors. Awadewit ^Talk 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for ce Battle of Greece and for your remarks. I'll copy them to the article's talk page, and I'll soojn start working on them! Cheers!-- Yannismarou 18:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome! Awadewit ^Talk 20:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I truly appreciated your direction on the Adrian S. Fisher page. I have made structural and editing changes, and agree with you that the article can be enlarged. This is an ongoing process and I would hope you could re-evaluate your hold. Best! Sclarkson

As you will notice from the talk page, the article is no longer on hold but was failed. I failed it since no one was responding to the request to improve it within the week allotted for improvements. I'm afraid that you will have to renominate the page. Awadewit ^Talk 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking of posting the article to the mainspace. Your suggestions have been most helpful. I divided the text up and hope it has not become too scattered; it is, I hope, easier to navigate. I would appreciate a final once over, if you have the time and inclination. Oh, another thing: you have asked for peer editing on at least one of your articles, I think? How did you find that? I am a little hesitant to bring attention to anything to do with women's issues after the recent weeks of controversy over categories, but if you have found it helpful perhaps I should consider it. — scribbling woman 18:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I will add it to my list of articles to review. I might not get to it for a week or so - I am deep in the throes of revising a dissertation chapter and need to focus on that. I have submitted five articles for peer review. I don't think that you will encounter the same hostility that you encountered at AfD/CfD. I was surprised to see that discussion after having gone through the peer review process because I hadn't seen such misogynistic attitudes expressed there. Peer reviews can be helpful if a good reviewer reads your article. Over time, I have found some (see list on my userpage). You might ask some of them to review your article - mention I sent you. I would encourage you to take the article through the peer review, GA and FA processes because historical literature is sorely underrepresented in the FA list and when statistics are assembled on the quality of wikipedia, the rankings (however arbitrary), are often used. A well-researched, well-written article will not have major trouble in these processes - you might run into editors who have hobbyhorses (a la Tristram Shandy) regarding dashes or diction, but, by in large, I have found the various review processes helpful and rewarding. Awadewit ^Talk 19:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No rush at all. I will take your advice about the peer review. Best of luck with the chapter! — scribbling woman 23:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually my first comment was about the literature as such, not the authors. And where I live it is hard enough to get such books, leave alone reviews of them. (And like you said, there is a lot said about the authors of golden age science fiction but there is little commentary on the internet about the novels. It is difficult even to get ISBN numbers on the internet for some books published in the 60's and 70's. On the other hand, for a book published in the past 10 years or so, there is all kinds of info). So in a way your proposal to concentrate on the author pages is the only feasible solution in such cases I guess. But I think this is a temporary solution; ultimately, old novels of average- and borderline importance will find no mention whereas lots of trash from the last 10 years or so will be everywhere on WP. - TwoOars ^{( T | C)} 21:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I apologize for misunderstanding your post. As to acquiring sources, I suppose it depends where in India you live. I would imagine that the universities there might have research collections that cover this area, but I do not know if everyone has access to those. And, yes, I do believe that creating pages that focus on a whole host of writings is a temporary solution. I have had to employ it myself (see Anna Laetitia Barbauld and Sarah Trimmer). There is simply not enough scholarship written on these authors' individual works to justify an entire page (in my opinion, anyway) the way that there is for something like Uncle Tom's Cabin. I understand why so many editors are creating pages on recent novels (they love them), but since I am a literary scholar, I would be reticent to do so because the sources would be so limited and the page would either devolve into a plot summary or a fan site. I have seen too many of these, unfortunately. Awadewit ^Talk 22:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the universities would probably have them. - TwoOars ^{( T | C)} 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• On a separate note, are you particularly interested in science fiction? If so, I can ask some friends of mine who are researching that topic for their dissertations what sources are available on the internet. Perhaps they may have run across some sites you haven't encountered yet. Awadewit ^Talk 22:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I created a stub on Kris Ottman Neville and a bit more info and references would be nice. I also plan to create articles on Robert R. Olsen - SF author, Ted Thomas - SF author and Joseph Olander - SF anthologist. It would be a help if you (or your friends) could get something on them. Thanks. :) - TwoOars ^{( T | C)} 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I will get back to you in a few days. It is finals time here, so everyone is kind of crazy. Awadewit ^Talk 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, no hurry. And good luck with your dissertation. I too hope to be able to make a serious study of literature somewhere in the distant future. :)- TwoOars ^{( T | C)} 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, hi, Awadewit, I have a really embarrassing favor to ask. About a year ago, when I was a complete newbie, I wrote a controversial knitting article on a whim, inspired in part by my students' stories and stories I'd heard over the years. Anyway, some people love it or at least have fun with it, but others don't like it at all. I'd like to amend that as best I can, but I'm afraid that I've become part of the problem in some ways.

Would you be willing to give it a quick survey and maybe make suggestions for its improvement? I feel awful to distract you from your thesis for something this silly, but I would be terribly grateful; I do care for the little article and would be very sorry to see it deleted. I'm leaving tomorrow morning again for another graduation and won't be back until next week again. :( But you'll have my warmest thanks when I return. :) If you can't do it, that's fine, too. Willow 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. You should ruthlessly delete any parts that strike you as unworthy of Wikipedia. I'm maybe too biased to notice those by now.

I'll see what I can do. Again, if you give me some time, I can probably be of more help. Awadewit ^Talk 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Awadewit! Please take your time, and don't let it worry you; I think the immediate danger may be past. Whenever you get the chance and feel inclined, the article will be waiting. I would love to hear your ideas, however critical; I'm sure that you'll bring a different perspective to the article, which will only grace it. Willow 02:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit,

I really appreciate your taking the time to review sweater curse so thoughtfully. I know that your review will bear good fruit and bring about a better article.

The graduation was wonderful! My friend is really smart and fun, and her parents likewise. Her dad and I had grand time talking about woodworking; or rather, him teaching me about woodworking. ;) He made it so engrossing; I had no idea of all the complexities and beauties of various types of woods, and how they're combined, and the nature and use of each type of tool. I find myself staring at wooden objects now, and thinking up WP articles that I might like to learn about and write up.

I suggest brazilwood. Apparently almost all really good bows for classical string instruments are made out of it, but the tree is almost endangered. It is all very fascinating. Awadewit ^Talk 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there perhaps a special article or idea that you would most like to read about, or see improved here at Wikipedia? Writing is more fun for me (and goes faster!) if I feel that I'm writing for someone, especially someone I like. I have a few debts still on my docket, but I would be happy to (try to) dash off something nice for you, if I might. Let me know of anything beguiling your fancy into smiling, now or later...

If you want a big project, try natural philosophy (appalling at the moment), or if you want something small, try Joseph Johnson. I frequently link to these pages but despair of their quality. I myself have not gotten around to improving them yet (long lists of other pages to improve). Joseph Johnson was one of the important publishers of radical materials in late eighteenth-century Britain. He knew everyone, as we would say now; he had these cool dinners where he would bring together thinkers and writers that he thought should meet. As far as I know, there is only one really good biography of him, which is why I say that it is a smaller project. If either of those topics interests you at any time (even years from now), that would be fantastic. Awadewit ^Talk 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

...and best of luck with all your thesis work, Willow 22:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. What I need right now is some sort of deleting algorithim. My chapters so far are much, much too long. Lovely flowers, by the way. I live in a tiny apartment. Some day I will have space and perhaps a porch. And maybe tenure. :) Awadewit ^Talk 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the wonderful suggestions! :) I'd never heard of Joseph Johnson before — after all, he's not in the 2007 Encyclopædia Britannica ;) — but I'm delighted with him already, and think I might be able to touch up his biography a bit. I'll have to go further afield to find that Tyson book, but I might be able to make it on my next trip to town.

It should be in any respectable academic library. :) Awadewit ^Talk 22:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I also starting brainstorming (well, in my case, more like brain-drizzling ;) on natural philosophy, but I'm a little unclear as yet on what the term means. I'm taking it to mean "philosophical issues related to the description of Nature", but perhaps I should read up more on it.

Ah. Natural philosophy is a precursor to science. People like Boyle and Newton (and even further back) called themselves "natural philosophers" rather than "scientists." It reveals that "science" at the time was all muddled up with philosophy and theology in a way that it is often is not now (at least in the disciplines themselves). Even people like Locke could call themselves "natural philosophers." It is a very confusing term, but a very necessary one for understanding the history of science. One of the editors on the talk page, ragesoss, is a great editor. He's written some top-notch pages on Johannes Kepler and the history of biology. I'm sure if you ask him for research suggestions, he would offer them. He's in history and philosophy of science. Perhaps he would want to work on the page together. Tell him I sent you over, if you want. Awadewit ^Talk 22:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with the brachyology. If it's any comfort, I met a young professor once who told me that his thesis had to be bound as three separate volumes, being well over 1000 pages. With self-effacing humor, though, he added that an academic's starting salary declines by $50 for every page over 200. ;) But maybe your advisor will forgive its length, if your writing sparkles and flows strong, swift and sure? Anyway, kind wishes for lots of inspiration and luck, Willow 22:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, there is an article that is having its problems. I thought of you, because you are so good at this sort of thing, biographies, and writing. While I don't expect it, I ask that if you would take a look and see if you can be of assistance to Garrett A. Morgan. I know you are very busy, but I can't think of anyone else to ask. I am not a writer, and am concerned with the article and the editors involved. If you would just take a brief look at the talk page, and disagreements, plus read the whole article and rewrite it, then look and read every single reference to check if they are in fact valid, reliable, etc. lol. I'm kidding, kinda. If you just take a peek when you can, I will be grateful, just a peek. - Jeeny  ^Talk 18:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can give me a few days, I will see what I can do. Awadewit ^Talk 18:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. (coy smile) - Jeeny  ^Talk 19:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit, would you mind chiming in with a Keep again? This list unfortunately 9 days later has been renominated for deletion.- BillDeanCarter 22:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your troubles. I have registered my keep vote. scribblingwoman went through something similar with the category "women writers" although that was deleted, reviewed and renominated for inclusion. What a harrowing process. They were claiming, among other things, that having a "women writers" category would make wikipedia sexist. It would seem that many people who vote on AfD, RfD and CfD (or whatever those acronyms are) know nothing about art and literature and/or the study of it. Awadewit ^Talk 23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It really is insane. In Bruno Maddox's case a List might actually be the best way to cover him. There's little to write about him, so a list of all his writings annotated with what is known about his biography would be the best way to do it. Lists of songs and Lists of writings seem to be under attack recently.- BillDeanCarter 02:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I thought I would notify you (per your notice) that there is now a new procedure under way. A merge of the main article and the list of writings. I suppose I also have a deletion review to look forward to next week sometime. I have to get this list to WP:FLC as soon as possible.- BillDeanCarter 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mm, not that specialist knowledge of art and/or literature is germane to specific issues of the application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in this or any other AfD. That being said, since the most recent AfD is closed, I thought I would respond to your question to me here. Indeed, AfDs should be based on the merits of the arguments rather than upon sheer vote counts, but when a closing admin proffers "no consensus" as the sole reason for his decision, it's safe to assert that consensus is the goal he seeks. Truth be told, I've yet to see a closing admin say "I know 80% of the editors voted this way, but their arguments are unconvincing and I'm going with the other way instead."  RGTraynor  03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that specialist knowledge is required, but I do think that those who chime in at AfD, etc. should consider the opinions of those who write these articles as well as the scholarly literature. Oftentimes editors who write the articles have a more informed perspective of how to address the issues raised by a particular problem (such as how to handle an extensive bibliography). In the two debates I have been most involved in, I have found that an ignorance of the field of literary studies has led to poor decisions. Even when alerted to the fact that scholars study "women writers" as a category, for example, many people insisted that it was an illegitimate category. Since wikipedia is supposed to rely on outside sources, I found that debate particularly frustrating. The category was deleted and only reinstated after a long, arduous process; some people from the first debate said that they wished they had known it was a legitimate field of study and how the field worked in the first debate because they would have voted differently. That suggests that informed "voting" is preferable.

It does seem to me that the decision should be made on the merits on the argument. What would happen if 90% of the "delete" votes said that the page said it was a directory (it clearly does not fall under that definition) and 10% of the "keep" votes said that page should be kept because Monahan is a writer and having a list of his writings is a sensible addition to wikipedia that many other artists have and that discriminating against Monahan is POV and not in line with current literary criticism (hypothetical)? Tyranny of the majority can be fatal. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. Awadewit ^Talk 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In what context or by what comparison is he a truly major writer of screenplays? (Is it as a writer of screen plays, or is it primarily as a critic or a columnist) I am a little puzzled. From the main page, his primary claim to notability is one AA screenplay. Shall everyone who wrote an AA screenplay have 2 pages? From the list page, almost everything there is a newspaper column or a short story. I accept that those interested in him will view things very differently and we should not go by my or others prejudices, but perhaps you should make a comparison. I mean not by how much you like his work, but with respect to other writers in the same genre. I recognize that this will be impressionistic, which is why I am asking here, not at the talk page for the article, but I am sincerely trying to get some idea about what's going on. If I going to discussthe merge, I at least want to understand it. DGG 01:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is his career as a journalist is quite notable. It is in fact more notable than his screenwriting career to New Yorkers who know Monahan's stuff from the New York Press but I believe we are moving away from notability being a requirement for a list of works and simply settling on aesthetic reasons.- BillDeanCarter 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad that you really want to understand. Let me start out by saying that I know nothing more about Monahan than what I read in this article. I worked with BillDeanCarter as he was taking it through FAC (I did some copyediting). So, I do not have a personal investment in Monahan. I didn't even know who he was until I looked at the FAC. Awadewit ^Talk 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• To answer your first question - what makes someone a major writer of screenplays? I think that there are at least two answers to this question. 1) Someone who has written an important screenplay (Monahan goes in this category since he won an oscar). 2) Someone who has written a lot of screenplays. There are probably more, but those are two I can think of now. Awadewit ^Talk 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Monahan came to attention as an oscar-winning screenplay writer, a critically-acclaimed novelist and a columnist. All of his writings are related to each other and bear on each other. If someone wanted to understand his unique screenwriting philosophy (see article), they would no doubt have to read his other works as well. A screenwriter who has written newspaper columns and a novel is going to be a very different kind of screenwriter from one who who wrote sitcoms, for example. To leave all of the information out regarding his publications does a disservice to the interested reader. To use Charles Dickens as an example. Dickens was a novelist, a short story writer, a magazine writer, a magazine editor and a co-author. To include only his novels in a discussion of his writings because that is what the general public is familiar with does a great disservice to Dickens the writer. His writing was shaped by those other genres, particularly his novels. The fact that he was a magazine writer and editor, for example, suggested to him the idea of publishing his novels serially in magazines. Many of them were written in installments (in fact, some of them respond to readers' criticisms). To discuss them outside of that context would be ridiculous. This is why I say that to divorce Monahan's other writings from his screenwriting is ill-informed. There is obviously not a large body of scholarship on Monahan yet to explain these kinds of connections, but it can and probably will be done in the future. Wikipedia should enable that by providing tools to researchers, tools such as bibliographies. Awadewit ^Talk 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• And, no, I don't think that everyone who wrote a screenplay should have two pages, but I do think that every artist who has a substantial list of works which would clutter up their biography page should have two pages. Can you explain to me why the two-page thing is such a big deal when wikipedia is not paper? Awadewit ^Talk 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten Sarah Trimmer and will get to it today or tomorrow. I got into a crazy reading/edit buzz with Anne of Denmark, as I think you've noticed, and I'm a bit tunnel-visioned. I'm going to put that one up for Peer Review today or tomorrow, and I would very much appreciate your input, if you have the time. Cheers. qp10qp 11:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That is fine. I am busy with my dissertation right now, anyway. I will put up a review as well when I done reading Anne. Awadewit ^Talk 16:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on a policy addition to the above policy page at the head of the Bibliographies section. I would like it if you could take a look at it, fine tune it if you can, so that it could have more consensus. Hopefully this will clarify a pro-bibliography position at Wikipedia.- BillDeanCarter 01:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. This is clearly important. Awadewit ^Talk 02:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the start of an alternative proposal there. DGG 05:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted notices at the music and film projects, but for some reason I couldn't post on the books talk page. Awadewit ^Talk 07:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, cheers. Actually I didn't contribute to the Chekhov bibliography, which is an atrocious page; but I'll have a look. qp10qp 14:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for condensing all those banners. One had to scroll down 8 or 10 inches to get to the menu. Well done, sir! --- Cathal 04:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Awadewit ^Talk 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)