Jump to content

Talk:Roald Dahl revision controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

The 'revisions' section of the article is quite lengthy and I do believe that using so much of it is against our non-free content policy, on the basis that there is far more quoted text than is necessary to convey the same information. Many examples can be reduced to prose instead of copying verbatim from both the original works and the updated ones. E.g. Similarly, masculine pronouns were changed in certain general circumstances: -> "Similarly, masculine pronouns were changed to be gender-neutral." 82 words from copyrighted(?) works is not necessary and serves the same purpose. (I would argue that prose would be better.) SWinxy (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I am going to disagree with you here. I think each and every one of these examples provides context as to the removals mentioned in the article. Further, they definitely kept me engaged while reading. The examples definitely make the controversy more tangible in my opinion.
Regarding the copyright issue, you do bring up an important point... I love the examples but perhaps they could be slimmed down to a smaller selection that has parts of quotes, like in this article on The Catcher in the Rye?
Maybe we could consider starting an RfC about this, if not for the purpose of ironing copyright things out policy-wise. What do you think @SWinxy? — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) (contribs) 06:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of quotes are fine with me. But if we can, we should just describe the changes if it's simple enough (e.g. pronouns or gender). SWinxy (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO satisfies WP:NFCCEG and no further trimming is needed A09 (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully with your first paragraph and would go so far as to say that the article would be largely worthless without the quotations. People coming here to learn more about the controversy want to see the changes that actually kicked it off, not a page of waffling prose which describes the revisions only in general terms. Descriptions are no substitute for actual examples. Zacwill (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, there can be a balance between having examples of the changes and featuring so many of them in exhaustive detail. This is a page designed to give an impression of the changes and subsequent controversy, not be a database of every little change made. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of copyright, I'm not seeing a need to quote these comparisons in full.
The earlier version of this article with collapsed examples went against MOS:COLLAPSE ("Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading"), but it could at least be comfortably read, as thirty short sentences giving an overview of the changes, with the quotes themselves acting as a kind of optional footnote.
The current version of the article, showing the tables in full to comply with MOS:COLLAPSE, is exhausting, and requires an eagle eye to keep track of the points being made in between the large tables. I agree that it should be reduced to prose as much as possible. Belbury (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced the tables of examples to readable paragraph summaries, quoting a few of the clearest examples. Belbury (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although arguably too detailed and too long, that section was extremely informative. Why not edit it instead of deleting it entirely? 176.85.135.205 (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete it entirely, I've just removed the tables of 8000 words of before-and-after quotations, and stitched the sentences that introduced each table into readable paragraphs. I've worked what seemed like the strongest examples into the text. Belbury (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I had returned to this page looking for a specific reference ("brown teeth" being changed to "rotten teeth") and I was frustrated to find it gone. 176.85.135.205 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's still accessible through article's history. A09 (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Thanks. 176.85.135.205 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's edits like these that make me wish there was an "unthank" button. Good job trashing the article. Zacwill (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Trashing" it? The point of the article is not to document every single change made, but to give an impression of the changes made, and the controversy surrounding them. I'm fine with keeping the tabled comparisons, but just cutting down on the amount of examples given. Like I said earlier, it's a balance. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't the article provide a detailed record of the changes made? This information isn't necessarily easy to access for those without a subscription to the Telegraph, which made Wikipedia's presentation of it highly valuable. The fact that a reader came to the talk page to complain as soon as the edit was made should speak for itself. Zacwill (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:QUOTE is probably the simplest reason. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement.
It's handy if the internet hosts a non-paywalled copy of the particular list of changes that the Telegraph found when they looked, but there are several reasons why that list shouldn't be included in full in the middle of a Wikipedia article. Belbury (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roald_Dahl_revision_controversy&oldid=1204969112"