Talk:Bovo-Bukh

Out of Hand Credits

User:Jmabel carefully put in precise citations for material in this article. User:Doops deleted them. This is exactly how "revert wars" get started, and I would hate to see that happen. Doops — you may have good reasons for removing the citations. But please, assume that Jmabel had good reasons for putting them in. I don't have an opinion, myself, because I do not know what the various reasons are. But this gets to my main point -- if all one editor is doing is deleting another editor's work, then the first editor really must explain why on these pages. Assuming that Jmabel did have good reasons, here is what I suggest: that Doops read over our cite sources policy, and then explain, here, why removing the citations improves the article, without violating our "cite sources" policy. And invite Jmable to respond to your reasons. What is absolutely crucial is that both of you want to improve the article, and that both of you want to comply with our policies, such as cite sources. If the two of you can agree on these two principles, you will start from common ground and whatever you end up agreeing to do, others can be confident that it be the right thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After Doops's edit, it is no longer possible to tell where in his rather large book Liptzin discusses the Bovo-Bukh. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:13, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

What would you think about one inclusive citation, e.g. (the following is taken from Liptzin 1972: 6-7) (or, you could change "following" to "preceeding" and put it where the last citation is)? I have seen this done in academic books. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doops, I reverted the deletion of the citations until you and Jmabel have discussed it. Perhaps it would help, as Slrubenstein suggests, to read through Wikipedia:Cite sources. Editors are encouraged to enter citations. If you feel that Liptzin, 1972 is repeated too often, perhaps just the page # could be used, or ibid. instead of repeating the name. However, the danger with doing that is if the text is expanded to include other authors, someone would have to go back and re-add Liptzin or watch that the ibids still referred correctly. SlimVirgin 20:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

At the very least, if we drop inline citation, the references section should indicate the page numbers (6-7). But my longer term concern is what happens once other material is added to the article? How will anyone know what came from Liptzin and what from elsewhere? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:43, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason that it can't be left as it is now. I don't think the citations cause a visual problem and they're useful. Otherwise, as you say, when more material is added, it'll be impossible to see where anything came from. SlimVirgin 20:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I say in my post below, I think there's a distinction between the discussion part of the article and the plot summary. Ideally, the plot summary shouldn't need to be cited at all. But my wholesale comment was based on the one at the bottom of old 1911 Britannica articles. I think the two situations are actually pretty analoguous if you think about it. At any rate, I am being bold and trying out my proposed compromise; I think it should work. Doops 20:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To make this distinction clearer, I've added a section break between the discussion and summary. Thoughts? Doops 21:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doops' achronological comments

Note: this post was written to fit after Slrubenstein's comment of 20:17 14 March 2005; but while I was writing it SlimVirgin and Jmabel made their above comments — so I had not yet read them when I wrote the following.

Hi. In the article as it stood, every single paragraph ended with a Liptzin citation, which looked pretty funny to me; that's why I said "out of hand." I wasn't trying to be rude. (And my changes do indeed have better grounds than how "funny" the article looks, I assure you — read on!)

In the introductory material, each of the citations is essential, since each one gives credit for a specific idea or opinion of Liptzin's. The story summary, on the other hand, is a summary of the ancient tale, not of Liptzin's intellectual work. Ideally, the summary shouldn't need to be based on Liptzin at all; but unless and until some editor reads the original romance and can write his or her own precis, we're forced to rely on Liptzin's account of it. Therefore it's certainly appropriate to credit Liptzin — and in my revision I did credit him, in the italicized note.

In the intro, all three paragraphs got individual credits, since there were three distinct nuggets of scholarship. But I think it's overkill to credit each paragraph of the summary separately, since it's really one continuous thing, divided into paragraphs for readability only. Perhaps Liptzin's book is large; but our citations aren't wide-ranging; pages 6 & 7 are right next to one another.

I suspect part of Jmabel's preference is tied in with the specific way he/she gives credit in his/her field and academic institution. People give credit many different ways; I'll mention three common ones— some (1) prefer to use footnotes, others (2) use parenthetical credits after every sentence that requires it. And some (3) use parenthetical credits at the end (and only the end) of every paragraph, listing several references if necessary for that paragraph. These methods all have their followings, and to my understanding different academic disciplines tend to favor one or another. I haven't had time to read Wikipedia's whole citation guidelines page; but I'm pretty certain that the third way I outlined above isn't mandated throughout the Wikipedia, since I don't think I've ever come across it before. So I'm guessing that Jmabel chose it as a matter of personal preference, not policy.

So for the logical reason I outlined above, I'm going to restore my wholesale way of crediting the summary; but bearing in mind Jmabel's cogent point, I'll include the page numbers. In my experience this sort of happy back-and-forth is far more common than edit wars: people revise each other's revisions and work towards a common solution by successive approximation.

Indeed, let me say a word about Wikipedia ettiquette — although Slrubenstein appears to think I was hasty in editing the article without a talk page consensus first, let me assuree him/her that it is very common and happens to me all the time. When people improve my work, I welcome it; when they do something which I am dubious about, I attempt to write a compromise version and/or start a discussion on the talk page — but I don't get offended simply because somebody has "been bold." Only in the most controversial articles is a talk page consensus needed before editing — otherwise edit summary comments are usually enough and talk page discussion is only necessary if it's necessary. Or at least that how it's worked on nearly every other article I've worked on. But again I'm sorry if you think I'm too impetuous. No personal slight is intended! :) Doops 20:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)