Talk:Short-short story

Moving forward

I've pared the article down to cut out the redundant scene-setting definitions of the short story (which are obviously covered more appropriately in the short story article), and to cut out the original author's citation of his own thesis (per WP:RS). The telltale lines that "[there are no] short-short story theories, only collections and anthologies of examples" and "this new literary genre has not yet been studied in depth by the academy" suggests that we really don't have enough material to write about short-short stories as a genre, though. (Certainly not a genre distinct from flash fiction, nanofiction, microfiction, Drabbles, and everything else.)

Perhaps the best direction is to pick an academically dominant name for this type of writing, and build a single article that covers all aspects of it (in the way that flash fiction tries to currently, although its sources aren't great). Or even to lump all flash fiction, microfiction and short-short fiction into a single section in the short story article, given that flash fiction doesn't actually have a lot to say. What do other editors think? --McGeddon (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work with the editing, I was looking at this earlier today thinking about doing the same thing. Honestly, I think moving the lot of these articles into short story makes the most sense, I don't think we'd need more than a paragraph or two to handle it. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I have to disagree. I'll stick to the editor DGG's contention on the genre. Is DGG an editor? The short-short story has already been an independent genre for more than a decade. Wikipedia as an eletronic encyclopedia that is updated VERY often should follow contemporary times.

I reasearched on the short-short story for more than two years and I assure you it is the greater genus. Flash fiction and the others are sub-genres. See Gitte Mose's paper in the references of the article short-short story. See my own master's thesis with plenty of references on the topic. Of course I would not say the short-short story is a major genre; it's a minor one; however, short-short story is the dominant term for this form of writing and it's widely accepted by the academy and its scholars. Short-short is its nickname. I understand that it is not possible to have editors that would be 100% knowledgeable in such a vast field as literature. But I'm sure you are humble enough to accept suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 21:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If might suggest, please sign your edits with four tildes. To answer your questions, yes, DGG is an editor here on Wikipedia (as are we all), although I think you may mean editor in the sense of editing literature.

Regarding the article, perhaps I wasn't clear, my notion is that we should work towards moving short-short, mico and flash fiction into Short Story, in a variants section--it's not a question as to which might be the "greater genus", but rather what results in a better encyclopedia. You are certainly welcome to participate in discussions, but you should keep in mind WP:OR and WP:COI. Also, I'd suggest being cautious in making any assumptions about the knowledge of other editors--for what little worth it is here, I spent over ten year studying comparative literature and hold a masters degree. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest, José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães, that you not use your own thesis as a source for your edits. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Does a masters thesis meet WP:RS?

Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship says that "Finished Ph.D. dissertations, which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes." - does this also go for masters theses, or is the policy deliberately ruling those out? --McGeddon (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I´m sorry,McGeddon, but I have to say. This "Nuujinn" is weird! He is the one that is extremely IMPOLITE when approaching someone´s contribution; and when we reply in the same way he is offended! You must investigate, I warn you, he might not be a real editor but instead a member of those nazi groups who hate Jews, gays and people from different ethnic groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not offended in the least, and I'm sorry if I've offended you. I can assure you I'm neither a Nazi nor a hater of Jews, gays and people from different ethnic groups. I think your thesis would qualify as a reliable source, my point is that it's your original research, use of which is prohibited by WP:OR, and thus you should not be citing it in an article with which you have a close connection so as to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

As for McGeddon's question, that's an interesting point. Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship doesn't mention theses, but mine is published (three copies only, however, one for me, one for the department, and one for my uni library). I doubt anyone would quote from a typical thesis from the US, but it would be worth asking over at WP:RSN. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize then, Nuujinn. Regarding master's theses, I guess it's the same down here in Brazil. I had to turn in three copies to my school. I think one copy to the library, one to the Pós-lit (Post-graduation department on literary studies), and the other I don't know where it was supposed to go to. Of course, I made a copy to myself as well. Nevertheless, the department of higher studies from the Education Department has a public site which is an eletronic library of theses and dissertations. Mine is filed over there, too. I guess, in three months, it has had 45 accesses. [1] Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 03:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:RSN link, I didn't realise there was a noticeboard dedicated to this kind of thing. Digging through the archives, it turns out that this has already been discussed - although consensus there is a little shaky, it seems that in general we shouldn't cite masters' theses unless they're historically significant or providing important raw research which isn't available elsewhere. I'd suggest paring the article down to ensure that it relies entirely on existing sources independent of Mr Guimarães's thesis - if that just leaves us with "various authors have written very short stories" and "some collections have referred to very short stories as 'short-short stories'", then I'm not sure we have an article.--McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not only that! Please, do not oversimplify the matter! What about Gitte Mose's contention on the topic? She is a great scholar! Furthermore, have you not read the Afterwords of "Sudden Fiction: American Short-Short Stories", from 1986?! The finest American writers utter their opinions on the genre short-short story! There are thousands of articles on the internet on the short-short story! For instance, what about Jason Sanford's understanding on the short-short story? Take a look. http://www.storysouth.com/fall2004/shortshorts.html

Isn't he a reliable source? He is quoted in my thesis a few times. DGG, where are you?! Please, help me! Poor short-short story! I'm not sure whether I'm a good defendant's lawyer. Do not murder my favorite genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 09:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have some time, since the article just survived an AFD. What you need are a few high quality sources, see WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CITE, if you haven't read those through, please go do that first. Also, since you have a conflict of interest, please emulate Tacitus in your writing style, and stay away from your thesis--it would help your case in general if you redact references to your work. Find a few good sources showing significant coverage, the Sanford article you posted is pretty good--it would be perfect if it were from the New Yorker or similar. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Why has McGeddon erased the reference to my master's thesis? I don't think this is fair! The whole article, all the words, are from my master's thesis and now there isn't a single reference to it!!! McGeddon is quite explosive! Tranquilizers are pretty cheap over there in the US, buddy. Make good use of them. I just changed the citation. The one he had chosen was not proper to hold the reference to my thesis. I then chose a better one. That was all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 06:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your edits with four tildes. I imagine the McGeddon removed the references to your thesis because it is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if we're misunderstanding each other - I assumed from your "what about Gitte Mose and Jason Sanford?" response that you accepted your thesis shouldn't be used as a source. Browsing the WP:RSN archives, it seems there's a general consensus (for example: here) that while a PhD thesis is a reliable enough source for Wikipedia, a masters thesis isn't (unless it was written by a historically significant figure, or has some valuable raw data that isn't available elsewhere). --McGeddon (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you at least read my thesis? How can you say it's not a reliable source if you have never read it? Yes, it does have some raw data that isn't available anywhere. It was quite difficult to write and research on the short-short story. There is very little theory on the genre. I don't know why but it hasn't aroused interest in the academy. I even talk about that in my thesis. READ IT before weaving any comments ON IT, please!!!!!!!! You've made a terrible mistake when you deleted the reference on my thesis. I can't understand why anyone would contribute for the wikipedia if there are no authorial credits! Even a reference! Weird! —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 06:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS is clear about what is and isn't a reliable source - there is rarely any need for editors to read a source in its entirety to decide whether or not it fits the criteria. My understanding is that although a PhD meets the criteria for WP:RS, a Masters thesis does not, except where it is being used to source useful raw data which cannot be sourced elsewhere.

Raw data would be something like statistics on the lengths of all stories published within a certain context. You appear to be using your thesis to source the bulk of this article, including statements like "journalistic writing has influenced the short-short story", "the short-short story is deliberately unconventional, eccentric, and formally experimental" and "stories of one to five pages or 1,000 to 2,000 words [are] called new sudden fictions". If these are purely your own thoughts on the genre, which nobody else has ever explicitly written, then they are inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. --McGeddon (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out two things: 1). If you edit from IPs without logging in, you'll appear to be a sockpuppet, and that's not a good thing. 2). Since you did your thesis on this subject, you should have at hand plenty of secondary sources that are appropriate here--the articles and books you used in your research. If your goal is to help improve wikipedia, by all means add those sources here. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• My thesis is raw data since lots of its content cannot be sourced elsewhere. But nobody creates anything from nothing. I'm very sorry for the wikipedia's editors. They're sooooo raw!!!! "journalistic writing has influenced the short-short story....." This is not my thought. Study, man. This is Gitte Mose's thought. "Stories of one to five pages or 1,000 to 2,000 words are called new sudden fictions..." This is that rude and stupid editor's words. One who does not appreciate who USED to appreciate him. What's his name? Robert Shapard. Or maybe his partner said it - James Thomas. I guess you don't read, do you? You don't even read what I've written at former talk pages or your memory is rotten. Well, any decent country has authorial laws, because lots of what I've written at this article - the short-short story, IS MY THOUGHT AND THEREFORE THERE SHOULD BE A REFERENCE FOR THAT. At least one. I understand this site is a wiki site. But anyway, there is a citation there. Or many of them and then there should be a reference. Even if it is from a MA thesis. What I see is that you're very envious. I don't care whether your MA thesis is in a run down library of a run down university and will never be published but if someone wrote an entire article and quoted his work many times, there should be a reference to his work. I've written about 20% of the article short story, too. I know very well what I've written. I've added some lines to the article flash fiction as well. Then, I'll give you 7 days to add a reference to my thesis in the articles short-short story and short story. And please, don't add it to a stupid citation. Add it to a smart one because I'm not stupid as you are. If you were not stupid you didn't have this kind of job. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, not my thesis. There is a huge misunderstanding here. At least, that's what any decent university states and thinks. During my whole MA program we were not allowed to quote anything at all from wikipedia because it it not and will never be a reliable source. If you don't add references to my thesis in the short-short story and short story articles, I'll delete everything I've written in the wikipedia. I know very well what I've written. And if you put it back disrespecting my authorial credits as you've done enviously deleting the references I've added, I'll move a lawsuit against you. I've gone to court in the US against owners of store and landlord when I lived there. My best friend is a lawyer in the US and she is in Brazil right now. Take heed to what I'm saying. I'll not contribute to wikipedia anymore. I'm very busy with my Ph.D. project but I'm sure there will be someone who will read my thesis, someone who is not lazy, and will add more data to the article short-short story and short story. But I'm sure no one will help if there are no authorial credits. Please, treat your repression. Your envy, in psychoanalysis may be called "repression." You are not what you wanted to be. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 09:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must have missed this comment when you posted it. I won't add your content back, but you should be aware that every Wikipedia edit page says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." at the bottom.

So should we take José blanking the page as an author requesting deletion, and remove the article? It looks like "IS MY THOUGHT AND THEREFORE THERE SHOULD BE A REFERENCE FOR THAT" is an acknowledgement that the article contains material only sourceable to Guimarães's WP:RS-failing thesis - WP:OR is still WP:OR, even if the editor writing it also put it in a masters thesis once.

I think we can pick out any useful material from May or Gitte or the others and merge it with short story. Any thoughts from other editors? --McGeddon (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• PLEASE, LEAVE MY FAILING THESIS ALONE!!!!!!!!!!! YES, THE WHOLE ARTICLE CONTAINS MATERIAL ONLY SOURCEABLE TO ME; THEN, PLEASE, LEAVE IT ALONE, DELETE IT OR GIVE REFERENCES TO IT. IF YOU WANT TO USE MAY OR MOSE, NOT GITTE, YOUR STUPID. GITTE IS HER FIRST NAME, YOUR ILLITERATE. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU GUYS, AT LEAST THE COUPLE OF YOU WHO WROTE HERE ARE EDITORS!!!!!!! IT'S AMAZING!! AGAIN, IF YOU WANT TO USE MAY OR MOSE, YOU CAN'T USE THE WORDS FROM MY WORK; IF YOU DO, YOU HAVE TO GIVE A REFERENCE TO MY WORK. HAVE YOU NEVER SEEN AN MLA GUIDE BOOK????!!!!! I'VE TALKED TO MY LAWYERS IN THE US, THEY'RE IN BRAZIL RIGHT NOW. YOU BETTER DELETE THIS WHOLE THING OR YOU'RE GONNA BE IN TROUBLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you to please calm down, this is nothing to get excited about. Yes, as a matter of fact, I have seen and used an MLA guidebook, since I have an advanced degree in comparative literature. Also, please note that making legal threats here can result in banning, see Wikipedia:Legal. Also, as McGeddon pointed out, I believe that by placing material here, you make it available for reuse under the creative commons license, see Wikimedia's terms of use, please make sure your friend is aware of that.

All of that being said, I endorse editor McGeddon's suggestion that we delete the article. I suggest we wait a day or two and then prod it, if that seems appropriate to other editors. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this followup at the bottom. I've already gone ahead and redirected it, after the lack of any interest since the 6th, at Talk:Short_story#Merge_from_Short-short_story. I think we can live with it as a redirect. --McGeddon (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent reversion

I just reverted User: José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães's edit that restored the article. Does anyone have an objection to my action? --Nuujinn (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• A second attempt to post a good and decent article on the short-short story. Now all will depend on the likely interventions of the editors. If the interventions are proper, polite and decent, I may contribute with other articles; otherwise I'll be definitely out of the project. I want a peaceful dialogue but editors must not be so primary and naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The problems with the article remain--you have a conflict of interest, and you are using your own research as sources for the article. Problem is, your thesis does not rise to the level of a reliable source. The Mose and Sanford sources look good, but the other do not appear to directly treat the subject of the short short story. Much of the article does not have sources. Without additional references that treat the article's subject directly and in detail, this article should be reduced to a short short article. My feeling is the redirect was a good idea, and my suggestion would be that you restore that, and work in what little of this article can be reliably sourced to the short story article. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree entirely. Sorry. What we see in the history of literature is that every genre has a trajectory in which a form develops as a deviation from an earlier one, reaches its peak of quality, and then is so repeated that it becomes overused and begets its successor. It has happened with the novel that in a certain way engendered the tale which engendered the short story which then, roughlly, gave birth to the short-short story. Obviously this is a very simple and brief explanation. There are other sources of influences. But that is what is happening, currently, to the short-short story which begot the flash fiction and the new sudden fiction, sub-categories, the latter, unfortunately, may end up as a miscarriage. If you merge the short-short story into the short story you will be drawing back, walking backwards, acting against the nature of Art and Literature. And it will be a huge step back since the flash fiction is already a settled genre as much as the short-short story. Let's walk forward! No drawing back, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 02:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

None of that matters. Nothing you said above is relevant to this discussion. The article must be properly sourced, and your thesis is not, in my opinion, not a reliable source according to wikipedia's standards. As it stands, I believe that the article has two sources that would be considered reliable. The other sources do not, as far as I can tell. treat the subject short short story directly, and you are using them as the basis for your original research. That is not appropriate per policy. You also have a clear conflict of interest, and we strongly discourage editing in areas where such a conflict exists. I also believe that your actions can be taken as self promotional, which is also a violation of policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I also see that the text here is substantially the same as the text at [2], which carries a copyright notice. I've tagged the article and made the appropriate notifications, I think. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've just read what the editor Nuujinn has written and I do not agree with anything he/she has said; therefore I do not permit the re-use of the article "Short-short story" under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License. No deal with the Wikipedia.org. PLEASE, DELETE THE ARTICLE since it carries a copyright notice and I AM THE AUTHOR. José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães.

(sigh). If you are the holder of the copyright, you have already released the material under the Creative Commons license, if you will read carefully between the edit box and the edit summary when you submit an edit, you'll see "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Crossed fingers don't count, and I believe that this aspect of wikipedia has been explained to you before. But if you want to withdraw the material a second time, that's fine by me. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)