Battle of Round Mountain

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. University of California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women scientists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. African diaspora This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Does this article really need a list of every single lecture this person has ever given? --BigDT (416) 15:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is an encyclopedia article, not a curriculum vitae. The article should describe this person, not act as a resume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.37.200 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 25 April 2007

The resume-like detail has now been removed from this article for a second time. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 06:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why a list of publications and lectures should not be a part of an encyclopedia article. I included these things because it is exactly what I look for when I am researching a particular scholar. In order for an article to be useful to me I expect it to provide more than just the "greatest hits". I look for complete lists of works with scholars, composers, writers, etc. I could simply go to a University web page for such superficial information. And I fail to see the concern of editors for removing detail when a casual search will reveal details of every basketball, soccer, rugby, etc. player as well as complete lists of characters for every video game. Should an encyclopedia be concerned about too much detail? And how do we decide what subjects get detail and what subjects do not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canticle (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Under Wikipedia Verifiability standards, specifically the section on "self-published" sources, I would say that the resume-like content in this article is inappropriate under Wikipedia guidelines. I submit that the resume-like content on this page is unduly self-serving. Furthermore, Canticle's analogy to articles about sports players and video games is specious; if comparison is necessary for justification, we should compare articles about living academics with this page. On that basis, no other article on Wikipedia about a living sociologist has this level of detail (see Cornell West, Mitchell Duneier). Overall, there is no compelling reason for every article about every living academic on Wikipedia to contain a full curriculum vitae of the living academic's career. Academics have personal webpages where they may place a CV -- there is no need for Wikipedia to endeavor to make CV's available. Wikipedia users are best served by having a brief description of each scholar's main works and contributions, not an exhaustive list of every review, presentation, and course taught over a scholar's lifetime.128.111.222.146 21:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that calling my comparisons "specious" misses an essential point. I think that wikipedia should be inclusive and provide complete data where available. Granted there needs to be limits but the edit has removed nearly all the data once available, data for which I have received appreciative comments from some folks who utilized this page for reference. Further I made the comparison to sports and games to raise an issue regarding the intellectual scope of wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with completeness in sports or pop culture issues nor should there be with articles such as the one in question. It should also be noted that this is the second time that such a criticism and edit has been done. A similar change was reverted with administrative oversight and approval. Also I have noted that many academic web pages fail to make such information available and I am attempting to obtain information about many people (including academics) to put in wikipedia in the hopes of making it a superior reference rather than a more generic encyclopedia article. I have not attempted to revert the changes because I don't want to start an "edit war" but I feel strongly about trying to provide as complete a set of data as is available for any given article. I would like to see the edits reverted to once again include the data even if decisions must be made about what to include. I look forward to further discussion and resolution of these concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canticle (talk • contribs) 02:53, 5 May 2007

The resume-like detail is too much for an encyclopaedic article; the article should summarise her achievements. Please provide other peer-reviewed examples of an academic's article that have this level of detail, rather than using your own articles to support the detail in this one. When the similar change was reverted previously your mentor was not an admin, so please do not make false claims of authority. And, when appropriate details are included they should be fully referenced per WP:BLP. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attempting to make "false claims of authority" and I find your comments aggressive and condescending when I am trying to have a reasonable discussion. Please control your tone and show respect in kind. I am attempting to write and contribute to quality article on wikipedia and would like to be supported in these efforts.Canticle 03:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing aggressive or condescending in my comments. You stated that "a similar change was reverted with administrative oversight and approval" which was not true. So again, I'll ask you to provide other articles that have this level of detail, as a precedent for the discussions here. Your statement that "wikipedia should be inclusive and provide complete data where available" is patently against the policies of what we are building. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, your assertion that your comments are not aggressive or condescending is simply a denial of my perceptions. Second, a misstatement is not by itself a false claim of authority. That is your characterization. Third, I do not believe that the "indiscriminate" policy to which you referred me necessarily excludes the additional data I included in the article. It refers to the article not becoming a textbook but does not explicitly preclude bibliographic lists and more than it would preclude say, a complete list of a composers works (which I am attempting to do in other articles). But I believe that the "civility" policies might find your tone to be inappropriate at times and I would appreciate equal attention to this policy as you do to content policies.Canticle 04:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, back to the issue in hand. Wikilawyering, in your argument that because bibliographic lists are not explicitly excluded they should therefore be allowed, is generally frowned upon. So again, I'll ask you to point to an example of a peer-reviewed academia article that includes the level of detail you are proposing. Have a look at Stephen Hawking and the use of selected publications, as an example. And, for the detail that is to be included, the article needs verifiable, 3rd party sources, per policy. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 05:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why all bibliographic references were simply removed and I am suggesting that, even though other articles do not establish such a precedent, it might be useful to readers and researchers to have this information available. I would like to be able to find such references on subjects listed here on wikipedia. I am not just arguing for this article but suggesting that more detail would be useful.Canticle 07:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me declare my interest; User:Canticle wasa my adoptee when he first joined the project, and I did provide him with some help in producing and improving this article. Can I suggest that there is a middle ground here? Clearly there is no need to insert details of every single article and book chapter that Ms Twine has written; is it not reasonable to allow as part of the article a list of her major publications, of which there are a significant number? We are, after all, producing an encyclopedia, and articles therein should contain enough relevant information to make them valuable, without containing so much minor detail as to make them unreadable. Come, let us compromise here.--Anthony.bradbury 10:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, that's not a compromise, that's exactly what I've been suggesting; that this article needs a selected list of fully referenced, key publications to summarise her achievements. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:France Winddance Twine/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 04:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)