Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I think that section is too clunky. I propose a more structured version:
I think that section is too clunky. I propose a more structured version:
{{Collapse|1=
{{Collapse|1=
== Trying to avoid a brewing edit war ==
Through my involvement at ] at has that {{user|Tomcat7}} has a long history on wikipedia of doing whatever he wants regardless of the opinions of others. We held a discussion at ] regarding a disagreement over whether navbox templates for individual works should be on the authors' pages. I felt they should, but Tomcat7, who feels they shouldn't has been removing them. 4 people ({{user|Sadads}}, {{user|GimliDotNet}}, {{user|Edokter}}, and {{user|Kuralyov}}) voiced opinions in favor of keeping them on the pages, 2 people ({{user|Deor}} and {{user|Truthkeeper88}}) voiced opinions in favor of removing them from the pages and one person ({{user|Drmies}}) supported a case-by-case analysis of inclusion on each page. Given that we are not dealing with controversial content and ] issues, there needs to be consensus to not ] content, be it prose, images, templates, tables or whatever. There was no consensus to remove the content and if a consensus of any kind existed, it was to PRESERVE the content at issue. Nonetheless, after these discussion responses came in, Tomcat7 saw fit to . I am restoring the content. If Tomcat7 insists on disregarding the opinions of others again and removes the content, I will initiate a discussion on his long history of behavior at either ] or ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
:TonyTheTiger, it seems to me that you are trying to get your way by means of a personal attack and a threat. What I see at that page is "no consensus yet". (You haven't included ]'s comment in your summary, by the way.) The answer to your question raised there -- "Does anyone know how I can get broader participation here" -- is to raise a full RFC, isn't it? Meanwhile, the way to avoid "brewing" an edit war, is not to make edits that fly in the face of the known opinion of an editor who has worked hard to progress an article, before there is a consensus in support of doing so. Imho he is no more disregarding the opinions of others than you are. --] (]) 14:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
::I do understand that well after Tomcat7 removed the content another editor opined in his favor as a third supporter of his arguments. No one questions whether Tomcat7 is a diligent worker. I have seen this both here and elsewhere. My point is that he has a history of doing things his way in the face of opposing viewpoints, policy and consensus. That kind of hard work should not be encouraged. However, I appreciate the advice to open an RFC. I will do so later today.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 15:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
:::I have commented there. I guess now we may as well leave things as they are until the RFC finsishes, and then implement its conclusion here. --] (]) 12:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fyodor Dostoevsky article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Fyodor Dostoevsky is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
"Why Misplaced Pages's Fans Shouldn't Gloat". The Atlantic. March 16 2012. Compare, for example, the depth of the Misplaced Pages entries for Fyodor Dostoevsky (5,542 words, 38 references) and South Park. (12,675 words, 215 references). It's true that the Britannica online academic edition article on Dostoevsky by Professor Gary Saul Morson of Northwestern is slightly shorter than Misplaced Pages's, but is different in kind. It may have fewer facts but it probes the writer more coherently and deeply. Here is the entire Misplaced Pages paragraph on Dostoevsky's literary legacy: 'Some, like journalist Otto Friedrich, consider Dostoyevsky to be one of Europe's major novelists, while others like Vladimir Nabokov maintain that from a point of view of enduring art and individual genius, he is a rather mediocre writer who produced wastelands of literary platitudes.'{{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
The "about this book" link claims the book was published in 1972, which is ludicrous since the works cited includes books published as late as 2005. And, for that matter, the text itself refers to a TV show in 2008. I didn't put a lot of time into this, but enough to show natural evolution. I seized on the phrase "despotic treatment", which is a striking one. That enters our article in 2006 as a major revision, here. We couldn't have copied from a book which mentions a 2008 tv show in 2006. But beyond that, we can see that some of the content that was merely modified is in the book as it was modified: " Dostoevsky below is quoted in describing the dilapidated barracks which, as he put in his own words, "should have been torn down years ago." becomes "Describing the dilapidated barracks which, as he put in his own words, "should have been torn down years ago", he wrote:" Sure enough, that's what the external source says. And speaking of that 2008 tv show, reference was added to our article here. The evidence strongly suggests that we had it first and they took it without attribution. --Moonriddengirl11:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
This article was copy edited by Stfg, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 12 April 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Previous copyedits:
/
This article was copy edited by Lfstevens on 17 March 2013.
This article was copy edited by Cocolacoste on 13 November 2012.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fyodor Dostoevsky article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
I think that section is too clunky. I propose a more structured version:
{{Collapse|1=
Disputed
During the GA review a number of factual inaccuracies were found. The nominator has checked with sources used, and has agreed that there are inconsistencies with the sources. The GA review has been put on hold to allow the nominator time to consult with sources, and improve the article. In the meantime the article has been tagged as possibly factually inaccurate to alert readers that the contents cannot be relied upon to be accurate, and that they should check sources themselves. This is only a temporary situation, as once the article has been checked through, and any remaining errors corrected, the disputed tag can be removed. SilkTork21:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC).
No, I haven't said that the sources do not support the information. All information should be accurate. The aforementioned examples are very odd. The article says he went to the Imperial Medical-Surgical Academy (an academy is a seminary, right?), and I explained the events with Marei. Before your copyedits, it stated "Mikhail was admitted to Moscow's Imperial Medical-Surgical Academy". --Tomcat(7)13:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
No, a medical college is not a theology college. I think having English as a second language is perhaps what has caused the problems here. Slight misunderstandings of meaning have led to factual inaccuracies. I think on the whole your work on Misplaced Pages is very good, and you have made many very impressive improvements to articles. But perhaps the nature of the subject matter here, and the complexity of the topic, have led to some misreadings of the source texts. The "dispute" is that one editor (yourself) has interpreted sources one way, and another editor (myself) disputes the accuracy of the interpretation. It's not that I am in dispute with you, or feel that you have done anything wrong. On the contrary, I feel you have worked hard to improve this article to the best of your ability. It's just that due to the language issue, some misunderstandings have occurred. Let me know if you wish me to keep the review open. SilkTork14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I am also curious why you stick so much to that seminary. The article does not even mention that information.--Tomcat(7)13:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Removing the dispute tag is not the way to resolve this matter. The article needs checking against sources. When I checked, I found a very high proportion of errors. I just glanced at the article, and it still states incorrect information about the execution. Sources show that this was a planned mock execution, and not - as stated here - that Dostoyevsky was actually sentenced to death and this was luckily reprieved at the last minute. It was always planned to be that way. Having the tag in place alerts readers to the situation so they can make an informed decision about how much to accept at face value what is said here, and also alerts editors who can assist in improving the article. The tag is designed to be helpful rather than a badge of shame - it just identifies what work needs to be done. SilkTork08:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Bald contradictions are rude and cut no ice. The GA reviewer has checked several sources and shown good grounds to require further source checks, therefore more sources need checking, period. Simply contradicting and reverting is edit warring. --Stfg (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem here is that if there is a problem of factual accuracy then a third party, preferably an expert in Dostoyevsky, would have to go through the sources and either list the problems or fix them. It is not fair to expect the nominator to fix factual accuracy problems without letting them know where such problems are found. But of course the article can't be a GA while there are doubts about accuracy. Which sources describe the event as a mock execution and which as an actual planned execution? Which reasons do we have to believe one over the other? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·14:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been watching this article since I was asked to review it several months ago. At the time, I had no idea how complex the subject is, which has been compounded by the Wiki-drama that's been well-documented. It's unfortunate because the subject is important and deserving of a high-quality article. To answer Maunus' question, though, it's my understanding that if there are two sources that are contradictory, first you accept the most reliable source. If both are equally reliable, then you state the contradiction in the article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I think making a call may be OK if there is sufficient reliable evidence for one or the other. But we'd have to see the sources to see whether there is. If they appear more or less equally reliable then yes, noting both is best.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
On the question of the mock (or otherwise) execution, SilkTork identified this source in his comment of 22:07, 18 June 2013, in the GA review, transcluded above. Since Tomcat did not reply to that comment, but nevertheless flat-out contradicted SilkTork today (just above here), I assume that Tomcat overlooked that comment and source. If this, then why not more? So I think that this does confirm the need for a third-party, preferably expert, review, as Maunus suggests. --Stfg (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I too have been watching since I did the very first peer review and then one of the FACs. I checked the sourcing then and posted this. (Note change of my user name since). Also there's this thread in the archives, , among others. I suspect the best way forward is to work from top to bottom and verify. Victoria (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Let me emphasize that I have used biographies in three languages, among of which was the original Kjetsaa biography. The reviewer still hasn't posted a single error, although he clearly stated there are a lot of them. The banner is meaningless and incorrect, and it distracts the reader from reading it. The aforementioned examples are not grammatical errors, they were probably misunderstood by different English speakers. SilkTork, you meant you have borrowed books from your library. If that is so, you may name a few more errors. Regards.--Tomcat(7)09:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Before this edit by an IP, the article read "A detective novel, Crime and Punishment describes Rodion Raskolnikov's life...". The source for this was (well, wasn't, more like it) Cicovacki p. 80, which says "... the title may suggest a detective novel. Nothing could be further from the truth", expanded on in a footnote: "... the view that C and P is not a detective novel follows A Cascardi ..." (emphasis mine). Given that SilkTork detected many inaccuracies in their meticulous review – none of which have been addressed – and this glaring factual error, wouldn't it be better to put the tag back again? I mean, how can we be sure, without checking everything against the sources, that there aren't more inconsistencies like this? Best, --Coco Lacoste(talk)16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821–81; depicted in 1872) was a Russian novelist, short story writer, essayist and philosopher. After publishing his first novel, Poor Folk, at age 25, Dostoyevsky wrote (among others) eleven novels, three novellas, and seventeen short novels, including Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869), and The Brothers Karamazov (1880).Painting: Vasily Perov
Archive – More featured pictures...