Talk:At the Hub

Puffery

I have attempted to removed puffery (see WP:PEACOCK) but it has been reverted by the user who originated this article. An article about a poem doesn't need ten adjectives to introduce the author or editor or critic who is mentioned, especially if they are an exhaustive peacock list of that person's every award. The infobox doesn't need the weight and dimensions of the book. This article also lacks sufficient inline citations for many of these claims and is written almost entirely by a single user. Henry chianski (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, why doesn't an article about a poem "need ten adjectives to introduce the author or editor or critic who is mentioned, especially if they are an exhaustive peacock list of that person's every award?" Why doesn't the infobox need "the weight and dimensions of the book," especially if the infobox template comes ready-made with categories about these specific issues? Why are the categories removed from this talk page "not needed?" And what is wrong with the article being written by a single user?--79.178.24.71 (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE goes into this in detail. Simply put, it's undue weight within the article. Also, not every category in the infobox is needed on a page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The link you gave mentions not presenting fringe theories as if they were mainstream. It mentions nothing about the issues I raised. Again, what is wrong with or "unnecessary" about giving some background details about the persons mentioned? Why isn't "every category" in the infobox "needed on a page?" By the way, the editor who reverted my hard work also reverted my deletion of categories from articles about canonical works by Goethe and Joyce meretriciously listing them as children's books and even as "children's entertainment" because some random internet links mention them thusly. They must be spinning in their graves.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:PEACOCK, as mentioned above, regarding neutrality on Wikipedia. Also read WP:HTRIVIA regarding trivial details. Thanks. Henry chianski (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The link mentions that just stating facts is fine. Since, e.g., all the people mentioned in the article did indeed win those prizes, are indeed employed by these universities, etc., what's wrong exactly? You keep citing these irrelevant links or repeating empty slogans without explaining what's wrong with my hard work. Please give an actual reason for your reversions.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

We are giving you actual reasons: WP:PEACOCK and WP:UNDUE, which your edits violate. Don't add them again. SkyWarrior

I agree that the lead sentence was ridiculous and should have been cut back. Removing good-faith talk page discussions is also disruptive. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Another editor comes and does nothing but calling my hard work "ridiculous" ("unnecessary," etc.) without explaining why is it "ridiculous," "unnecessary," etc. I told you already: WP:UNDUE deals with promoting firnge theories as if they are mainstream. It deals with nothing else. Where have I done so? WP:PEACOCK deals with presenting opinions as facts. And nothing else. Are you saying that e.g. the people mentioned did not actually win those awards or that they are not actually employed by those universities? Nothing I have written violates any policy I am aware of. And I see nothing good-faith about repeating those slogans without any explanation or about linking to irrelevant policies. You might not like my style, though that's hardly reason enough, especially given the amount of time I spent writing it.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If you look at other WP articles, I doubt you will find more than a handful, out of millions, that try to fit the entire history of the subject into one lead sentence. To try to do so is "ridiculous". A properly written lead sentence summarizes - but does not repeat in their entirety - the most important points of the body of the article. Words like "greatest" should not be used in the lead, though may be mentioned in the body is suitably attributed (that is, not in "Wikipedia's voice"). — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

As reliable sources actually cited in the article note, Greenberg is, according to professional critics, indeed amongst the greatest Israeli writers, as well as amongst the greatest of all writers of the 20th century, alongside Joyce (who one editor here insists is nothing but a children's entertainer) and Rilke. Had Greenberg not been virtually untranslated and hence unkown outside Israel, I would have listed him myself as one of the greatest writers of the 20th century in the lead too. The rest of your comment cites no policy and just strengthens my feeling that you don't like my style personally and nothing but. Sure, fitting the entire history of the subject into one lead sentence might not be that common here, though I see nothing wrong with it, especially if there's no specific policy against it. I aim for as much information as possible.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I'm also going to say this. Do NOT delete any talk page comments again. There wasn't a need to archive the previous discussions either. This is starting to look like an issue with article ownership, and you need to listen to the consensus here that other editors are trying to set. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously, one day talk pages need to be archived, especially if (as with the already deleted comments) the issue is settled. Now, the consensus being formed here, unfortunately, seems to be borne out of nothing but a personal dislike for my style rather than by any actual policy. Why should it matter then? Can editors simply make any decision under the sun even if not supported by any policy if they're the majority? Yet another reason to archive those nugatory discussions.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This says "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." One day is NOT stale. There are plenty of articles that have discussions that remain on a talk page for weeks or months. Also, as stated above the lede should be a quick summary, and yes this IS a policy WP:LEAD. The flowery peacock language would be removed anyway. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is large enough already, especially if one factors in the already deleted comments. The original lead was a mere seven sentences (here's an article with fourteen): seems concise enough for me, and, anyway, supposing it's not, one could move the info about Greenberg's and Miron's awards/affiliations, Greenberg's style, etc., to the reception section, rather than outright deleting it. Regardless, even the link mentions it's not an absolute rule that the lead should be shorter than four paragraphs (mine was only one paragrpah-long!) and that it should not be too short. To reiterate: WP:PEACOCK deals with presenting opinions as facts and nothing more. Are you saying that e.g. the people mentioned did not actually win those awards or that they are not actually employed by those universities? Is mentioning these facts "flowery?" See also my comments above about how reliably-sourced professional critics actually do consider Greenberg to be one of the greatest figures in Israeli literature.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps also read WP:REL and WP:NOTEVERYTHING for clarification, and see example articles of Olio_(book), Versed, and Ozone Journal. These poets have all won plenty of awards and accolades, but in the articles about their works, their names are not preceded by lengthy lists of their every accomplishment, as such content is not necessary or relevant to that particular article. As another example, Neil deGrasse Tyson has won many awards but the articles about his books (e.g. Astrophysics for People in a Hurry and Welcome to the Universe) do not exhaustively cite all (or any, frankly) of his awards. Hope this helps. Henry chianski (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, again, this only reflects upon the choices made by the editors who wrote the articles you mentioned. A legitimate approach for sure, though still no actual policy proscribing anything I've done. It's hardly a universal style either (see e.g. here: the novel's author is presented as "Austrian Nobel Prize winner Elfriede Jelinek"). Thanks for the other links, though I fail to see how anything I wrote is irrelevant. For example, academic affiliations help establish the critics as reliable and not as some random internet hacks. One critic mentioned even wrote her Ph.D about Greenberg. That seem relevant to me. Don't think anything I wrote is OR/mere personal opinions either. For me it all boils down to this: Is there any policy specifically and explicitly banning in no uncertain terms anything I've done unequivocally? If no, then it all boils down to some editors' personal dislike of my style and hence my hard work should be restored. I am not aware of any policy saying one can't mention people's academic affiliations or prizes. WP:JUSTALINK is relevant.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Tell you what. Since it does seem like editors here can simply make any decision under the sun if they're in the majority, even though I can't find a single policy arguing against mentioning people's prizes/affiliations, etc., I'm disowning the article. Really, too much IRL issues for me to deal with this, especially given my odds. Opting out. Hopefully you'll at least archive these discussions now.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a step back. There is a policy regarding ownership (really lack of ownership) of articles that you seemed to not be not getting the spirit of and this was getting in the way. Although not exactly by majority, the content of the encyclopedia is based on a policy of rough consensus. Reaching consensus is not always easy. I want to address ways to improve the article in another section. We could still use your help. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Above I mentioned that if you consider the lead to be too long, you could move all information about affiliations, prizes, etc., to the reception section. That would be fine by me, as long as my original work remains in some form. Just one example.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Next steps for improving the article

The lead paragraph, in its various instantiations, has been trying to cover two different goals. The main purpose of the lead is to give a very short summary about the subject and, so long as it is summarizing material covered in the body, need not contain citations.

Currently, however, the lead is also trying to serve the purpose of fleshing out publication details, establishing how famous the author is, but fails to give much information about what the work is about, or how it fits in its cultural environment.

I'd like to suggest that the lead be cut back to just the following sentence:

At the Hub (Hebrew: בַּעֲבִי הַשִּׁיר: מבחר שירים, tr. Ba-'avi ha-shir: Mivhar shirim) is a lengthy 2007 Hebrew political poem written by Uri Zvi Greenberg.

I note that the infobox has been crammed full of (mostly) links to the subjects covered by the poem, but none of this is substantiated in the body of the article. What is needed is probably an Overview section that does this work. We also need a section named something like Publication to cover the details of editing and support that had formerly been trying to fit in the lead.

Since I don't read Hebrew, and there seems to be relatively little written in English about this work, making these improvements is not something I feel I can do. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The few subjects not specifically mentioned by critics cited in the reception section are mentioned in the foreword (plus a few others I meant to add yet now see no reason for obvious reasons). I used all secondary sources I managed to locate online and extracted all relevant info from them, so, I don't think the sections you mention could be constructed without it being OR (can't find the three other reviews mentioned in the further reading section online). Above I mentioned that if you consider the lead to be too long, you could move all information about affiliations, prizes, etc., to the reception section. That would be fine by me, as long as my original work remains in some form. Just one example. Anyway, as I mentioned, I have decided to opt out from and disown the article if my original work is not kept in some form or another, so, really, just do what you want, as, really, I see no point to continuing my presence here if my original work is not restored in some form or another.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

To a certain extent, the poem itself can be used as a source for what it is about. Secondary-source-based summaries would be preferable, to be sure, but it is quite common on Wikipedia for the synopsis of a book or film to be based on the work itself. Creating a synopsis certainly means exercising some editorial judgment about what to include, but does not necessarily run afoul of original research guidelines.

If sources are really this scarce, I begin to wonder if the work can truly meet the notability standard for English Wikipedia. That would be unfortunate for this article, into which you have put so much work, but sometimes it has to be admitted that the state of recognition of a person or thing has not reached the point where an article can be written about it. See WP:TOOSOON.

Your attachment to your contributions to the article is understandable, but unless you can set aside your sense of ownership of your contributions, you are going to find working on Wikipedia to be very frustrating. When you hit the "Save" button, you are agreeing to a license that allows others very broad freedoms in how they can use your work. You continue to get credit for your work, but you do not retain control over how it gets used. Please think about whether you can help improve the article without getting the final say. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe six secondary sources, all from reliable sources, are enough to keep the article. If primary sources can indeed be used, then, anything I wrote should be restored, for, as I mentioned, all I wrote is based on the book. My original version already covers the poem's main themes and, as stated, I meant to add some more.--79.178.24.71 (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)