Talk:France Winddance Twine

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Resume-like comments 

message: Substituted at 15:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment