Talk:Discovery! The Search for Arabian Oil

message: :  Can't seem to figure out how to make a contents box.  Usually they just appear when you title things with two == ?  Or no....? stan goldsmith 23:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I can't upload a picture via wikicommons cause a bot keeps deleting it, there is a pic on the publisher's home page (and one on b & noble too), could someone else put one up ? stan goldsmith 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Seems to me the Controversy section ought to run as a single paragraph, because it is referenced by a single footnote. Breaking it up makes it appear as if the citation only covers the last sentence.Barte 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section format 

message: The additional paragraph interpreting the controversy seems a clear violation of Wikipedia's no original research WP:NOR provision:
:"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented...
:"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."
You could, as an alternative, cite the Selwa blog about the publisher's objections. But as an editor, you cannot make the argument yourself and, in any case, you really need to start using footnotes.Barte (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barte, thanks again, can you add the following which would remedy the situation? :  Stegner himself states in a letter published by NPR:  "I honestly will be content however you want to do it."  here is the letter:  http://media.npr.org/programs/day/features/2007/dec/Letter_stegner.pdf
stan goldsmith (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section needs to be reworked and will try my hand at it if I get some time  The key here, per WP:NOR (which I hope you'll take a look at, so that we're on the same "page) is that secondary sources are the meat and bones of Wikipedia articles.  NPR, The Washington Post, the AP, et. al. have all done stories on the controversy, and that's why this is, in the Wikipedia universe, a true controversy, not just a "controversy."  As editors, you and I are pretty much obligated to summarize what those secondary sources have reported, rather than trying to "synthesize" (WP:SYN) a position--pro or con--based on primary sources such as the letter.  I think that's what you have done here, and no matter how well intended, it doesn't work.  I know this sounds like legal mutterings, but "no original research" is a core principle of this place and worth understanding.   Technically, of course, the publisher's blog is also a primary source, but his response is a clear, contemporary representation of his position, so I think it's fair game to mix in.  Stegner's letter, by contrast, is more of an historical record and would make a good external link. But we--as editors--should resist the temptation to build a case around it. Barte (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I see what you're saying, thanks for clarifying.  So instead of an editorialized rebuttal from me as an editor we can supply Barger's side of the argument as long as it is properly footnoted.  And forgive my lack of wiki-ability (ie footnotes, etc.) I am still learning.  stan goldsmith (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: I think Barger's blog, as well as his public quotes, are grist for the mill here.  Ditto, of course, the quotes on the other side of the controversy reported since the Washington Post story.  The footnote format is a pain.  At the very least, nest the reference URL between a pair of brackets.  Again the key: report on the controversy, don't argue it yourself. You seem to have an opinion on the matter, but really, as an editor here, you should try to maintain a neutral point of view WP:NPV. Barte (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed on all points.  I deleted my addition because after re-reading your section on controversy I think it considers both sides as is.  Thanks for the tips!  stan goldsmith (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome.  I still think the section could stand some clarification: it conflates the legal issue (does the book violate the contract) with the ethical one (does the book fully disclose that this is not the author's original version).  Not that I have answers, but there do seem to be questions. Barte (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No original research