Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:15, 4 July 2008

Jewish history Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

2003-2007

Description of book too short

The section on the book should be at least as long as the section on the criticism. Or else the article is just looks like a battlefield between a bunch of people over a controversial topic. I haven't read the book and have no opinion; I'm just passing through.--70.227.131.14 (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Other claims in book

Under the section name above, I added: The book also describes how Israel helped its ally Turkey deny the massacre of one million Armenians in 1915. "Acting at Israel's behest, the US Holocaust Council practically eliminated mention of the Armenians in the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Jewish lobbyists in Congress blocked a day of remembrance for the Armenian genocide." (p.69 of 2000 Edition)

1. The Other Side of Holocaust Denial, Henry Makow 2003. Verified 9th May 2008.

PR continues: The reference in this case wouldn't normally amount to an RS, but it's intended as icing on the cake, the page number and edition of this book are given and would be entirely adequate without the reference I've provided. The account linked to is by the grandson of Holocaust Victims and is interesting and significant in it's own right, fleshing out the claim that other descendants also have problems with "received wisdom". I can see no reason not to include the section (for expansion later), the particular topic and the reference. PR 08:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Please don't give your own summaries of the books contents; that, of course, is original research. Instead, please rely on secondary sources to give proper summaries of the salient points in the book. Jayjg 22:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this interpretation of policy at all. Merely describing or summarizing a book's contents cannot in my view be considered "original research". If the description itself includes original theses or analyses, then that obviously has to be dealt with, but mere description is surely not, as a matter of principle, illegitimate. Gatoclass (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to be "sorry" at all, Gatoclass. Summarising, paraphrasing and (sometimes) quoting sources is how we build the encyclopedia. Since this is an article about the book, it would be absurd to say that we cannot summarise its contents. But if anyone thinks the summary is inaccurate or misleading, then by all means bring it here for discussion. BTW, I haven't (yet) read the book, so can't express an opinion on the summary.

--NSH001 (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well exactly. I didn't think the summary was particularly good, but claiming as a matter of principle that summarizing a book's contents can't be done at all strikes me as an alarming misinterpretation of policy. Have there been any previous discussions of this issue? Gatoclass (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:PRIMARY:

"Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic... examples include... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs... Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors."

Any other questions? Jayjg 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've read the policy and I still think you are misinterpreting it (The Holocaust Industry is not a novel BTW), but I was actually more interested to know if there have been any previous debates about this, because I would have thought, if this was your position, that others would have challenged you on it prior to now, and so we might all save ourselves some time and trouble if we could review those previous debates first. Gatoclass (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, it's not a novel. However, when you are writing an article about it, it is definitely a primary source. Jayjg 01:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes teacher I have a question. Why did you describe Night (book) as your favorite article, given that the entire 5-part second section consists of summaries of the book, sourced to the book?--G-Dett (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it's brilliantly written and moving original research. And I'm so pleased you've followed me here to yet another page to "support" me in that mysterious way of yours that involves disagreeing with everything I say. Jayjg 01:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Diggin' the helpful hyperlink, but I didn't "follow" you here, I started watching this page after it was brought to my attention that you were harassing PalestineRemembered again.

For the record I'm not 'supporting' you, inverted commas or no. The idea that a summary of a book in an article about the book is original research is silly.--G-Dett (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, right, you followed me to Ryan Postlethwaite's Talk: page to "support" me there, and then waited several days until I commented here, before you suddenly thought to comment here as well, entirely unrelated to looking my own comment made here minutes before. Ah well, at least you've dispensed with that "supporting Jay" fiction, so things are more straightforward now. So, what do you think of PR's original research in this article - brilliantly written and moving? Jayjg 02:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It was alright. Not brilliant and moving – how many things are? (Nor was it original research, as you know.) I reserve those words for – I don't know – the last section of Sabbath's Theater, the last chapter of Ulysses, the last sentence of The Trial.

PR asked me to look at your report on him. As a whole, I found it failed WP:AGF. In one particular, I found it maliciously dishonest.

Why do you keep saying I'm "supporting" you when in fact I'm refuting you?--G-Dett (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't claim "I know" something to be true when it is, in fact, false. As for my report, it was true in each and every aspect. As for your question, why indeed to you keep claiming you are "supporting" me when in fact you're disagreeing with (though singularly failing to "refute") me? And finally, regarding the question of whether or not a summary of a book is original research, yes I say yes it is Yes! Jayjg 03:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your last seven words here are gallant and witty, my favorite thing you've said. If you love Leopold and Molly I may have to rethink my tone. If you can talk to me about Mickey Sabbath I'll hold my tongue for a month.

For the moment, instead of telling you you're wrong I'll ask you if you might be wrong.

Do you really think it's a violation of policy to summarize a book in an article about the book? Jay, look at me, honest to G-d cross my heart hope to die that seems crazy.

From a common-sense and precedent perspective, just nuts. I'll study the policy if you insist, but this is not the done thing, not by you, not by anybody.--G-Dett (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but regardless, will definitely have to rethink your tone, as this constant stream of insults and personal comments must end. As for your question, yes, I think summarizing books in articles is original research, as is summarizing movies, television program episodes, etc. I've said the same before, regarding articles entirely unrelated to the I-P conflict. How does an editor decide which parts of a lengthy work are relevant and worth mentioning, and which not? That should be left up to secondary sources. Should there be exceptions to this? Perhaps, but even then only for, well, brilliant and moving writing. Jayjg 00:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, to clear up an apparent misapprehension, let me state clearly that I had nothing to do with writing the book summary found in Night (book). I'm not nearly that good a writer. I made some minor formatting changes and the like to the article - dablinks, ISBN numbers, etc. That's it. Jayjg 06:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it's brilliantly written and moving original research

I can only assume from this comment that Jayjg wasn't actually serious when he claimed that summarizing a book's content is "original research", and that what really bothered him about the summary here was its quality. That's fine by me, but I'd really appreciate it if Jayjg were to confirm that's what he meant, because it may help to prevent future misunderstandings. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make false and pejorative assumptions about other editors, thanks. Jayjg 03:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Assuming you weren't serious is a "pejorative assumption"? That's a rather novel twist on an innocuous comment. I thought you were making a joke.

I am simply making what seemed a reasonable assumption in the circumstances, given that your comment regarding Night is completely inconsistent with your previously stated position, expressed only a moment earlier. Either you think summarizing a book's contents is "original research" or you don't. Arguing that such a summary is justified in one context because the "original research" is "brilliantly written and moving" is just nonsense in policy terms, as I'm sure you must realize. What else could I assume except that one or other of your statements were not serious?

So my question to you remains essentially the same. Which of the two positions do you sincerely hold? I think we're entitled to know. Gatoclass (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I see from Jay's comment above that he has already answered the question: apparently he really does think that summarizing a book's contents is "original research" and must therefore be excised - except, apparently, when it comes to a book summary he agrees with, in which case he is prepared to champion it. I guess the fact that holding such a position makes a complete mockery of his own argument simply doesn't bother him. However, he can hardly expect anyone to take his argument seriously when he plainly is not prepared to apply it consistently himself.

All the same, I would like to get this point settled because I myself am planning at some stage to add some book summaries to the project, and I fancy I won't be at all pleased if Jay decides to come along and delete it all as "original research". Is there some place this debate could be taken where we might test community consensus on the issue? It might conceivably save some future unpleasantness. Gatoclass (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I was quite serious. Jayjg 00:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please see my comment above. I didn't write the Night (book) article. Jayjg 06:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't write this one either, but it didn't stop you deleting it! Gatoclass (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because it was brilliantly written and moving prose. On extremely rare occasions WP:IAR trumps WP:NOR. Jayjg 07:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea that "brilliant and moving" will ever be a matter of consensus is beyond silly; meanwhile ignoring the rules ain't that rare in your case.--G-Dett (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. --G-Dett (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he may not have, but I'd like to think the community does :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Having book summaries in articles about books seems to be not only acceptable to the community but in fact quite standard, even ubiquitous. I can't imagine you'll encounter much resistance there. Personal attack removed. --G-Dett (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed ubiquitous, but that doesn't make it good practice, or in line with policy. Jayjg 00:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, Misplaced Pages policy is ultimately what Wikipedians do in practice... Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC) --G-Dett (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true, to an extent. Wikipedians also regularly do a lot of things that violate policy. There's no need to do so, in this case; plenty of comprehensive reviews etc. have been written about the book. BTW, here's an article about a fictional work that manages to rely almost exclusively on secondary sources: The Simpsons. Jayjg 07:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Using Holocaust denial sites as sources

Can PalestineRememebered or John Nagle explain why they are using Holocaust Denial sites as sources? Jayjg 22:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tone

As a reminder here, for best results, please keep discussions focused on the actual article content, and not the other editors. No more sniping please. --Elonka 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed Jewish history-related articles
• Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles