User talk:Seoulseeker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I edited the introduction and entirely rewrote the plot summary for the page on Robert C. O'Brien's Z for Zachariah to correct factual errors. The plot summary contained many errors and omitted important details, generally presenting an interpretation of the text rather than a summary. This story is a first-person narrative with a demonstrably unreliable narrator. Many of the views and actions of the narrator, Ann Burden, are questionable in terms of reasoning and morality. Taking for granted the validity of her assumptions (especially those towards the end of the story) results in a very biased interpretation and misunderstanding of the main themes.

In response to your feedback[edit]

Hi Seoulseeker.... I think there will have to be a middle ground between being concise and fully explaining the plot!  :) Unfortunately, that's one of the things that'll have to be achieved through consensus and collaboration.

I noticed you wrote a terrific explanation on YOUR talk page. You ought to put that same paragraph on the article's talk page so other editors can read and respond to it. That's where discussions about how the article is written take place. One of the editors mentioned Wikipedia's Manual of Style. You can find that on this page.

If you ever need any help with something, please feel free to let me know. Just click on the word, "Talk" after my name and you'll be able to leave me a message. I'm happy to help in whatever way I can. Cheers!

Wikipelli Talk 18:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 

Thanks for your response and links to guidelines. I posted the explanation of the editing on my talk page because I'm new at this and couldn't find where to put it. Regarding the summary, I am working on reducing its length while keeping details that seem important for avoiding misinterpretation. The problem with this story is that readers tend to sympathize with the narrator rather than view her narrative objectively and critically. Facts that go against the narrator's assumptions tend to be completely ignored or distorted. If possible, I'd like to add more about interpretation, but it'll require some research and I'd want to balance it with some of my own interpretation if it's allowed.

I think it's great that you have such an interest (and expertise) in the topic. I want to let you know that you should be kind of careful in adding your own interpretations to the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and adding one's own views or interpretations is really not permitted. Wikipedia operates on verifiability. That is to say that additions to articles - particularly when you get into the realm of interpretations - must be cited to reliable 3rd party sources. Thus, it would not be good to add, "In this book, the author was contrasting good with evil". It would be better to say, "Some scholars (researchers/reviewers/whatever) have interpreted this book as a contrast between good and evil" and then cite the sources of the information.
This is a thumbnail of what you want to be careful of. If you follow the links above you can find a much better articulation of what is allowed and what is not.
As always, feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions! Wikipelli Talk 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your warning. I try to write objectively. However, I'm motivated to work on this because of the problem that the story is widely misinterpreted. Should the encyclopedia ONLY present standard views even if there is stronger textual support for a different interpretation? Through discussing the story on an educational website for a few years, I found other teachers who agreed. The story is interesting because it can act as a test of a reader's susceptibility to bias and wishful thinking.

You've kind of answered your own question above about including interpretations. You state that you have discussed the story with other teachers and they have a different view from yours. Clearly, it would be problematic for Wikipedia articles about books to present all interpretations. Again, I have to go back to venerability. If, in reviews published by reliable sources, various interpretations can be found, then those could be included (with references) in the article. But it would be very difficult to include everyone's personal interpretations. You might also wish to look over this page on including original research in articles.
Hope this is helpful! Wikipelli Talk 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of including "everyone's personal interpretations" about details. Any interpretation hinges on the reliability of the narrator. If an article assumes the viewpoint that the narrator is reliable, it is biased and misleading. To be objective, it should summarize the story matter-of-factly and explain interpretation separately. This article has existed for a long time with nothing more than a biased and factually inaccurate summary, so the result should be a more accurate and useful article.

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! Seoulseeker, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Seoulseeker. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Writ Keeper 19:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Seoulseeker. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Discussion with Robert C. O'Brien's daughter[edit]

Hello, as the main editor of the Z for Zachariah page, you might be interested in a discussion I'm having with one of Robert C. O'Brien's daughters about some edits she made to the Wikipedia page about her father, which might go some way to explaining the random edits I made to the Z for Zachariah article earlier today. You can see the back and forth of the discussion in the links above. Graham87 08:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17 concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17 concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Report from Group 17, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: A Report from Group 17 (March 24)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

Z for Zachariah summary[edit]

Your message: Hi. Seeing your notice, I shortened the summary quite a bit. Please check it again and remove the notice if it is concise enough, or let me know why it still seems too detailed. Thanks. Seoulseeker (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've complied with your wishes in response to your good faith efforts.--SidP (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)