Talk:The Land of Painted Caves

Reception

Shouldn't there be a reception section in this book to discuss how it was universally panned and pretty much hated by everyone? Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.84.24 (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Genre

User:Debresser, I am inviting you once more to discuss. Revert once more and you'll break the WP:3RR rule.
1. There is no source provided for placing the novel in any genre whatsoever, never mind historical novel. Assessing the genre of the novel without a source is an interpretation on someone's part, that is, original research. That is the primary reason for removing it. If you can find a reliable source which defines it as that, or indeed any other genre of fiction (there's more than one that can apply, like speculative fiction for example, and romance), then by all means go to town and add all of them.
2. If you look at the same article you pointed me to, you'll see that the definition includes a reference to the specific period of history being depicted in a historical novel, which is what makes it historical. If I set a novel in the Viking Age, that's historical fiction because there is such a recorded time as the Viking Age, that's a real time and place based on historical documents, sources, paintings, etc. If I say my novel takes place a long time ago, further back than recorded history begins, then it's simply not historical, but speculative. Ayla is not actually the first person to invent the sewing needle, nor the first person to tame a horse or a wolf. If the whole novel took place during the Jurassic Period and all the characters were dinosaurs, sort of a White Fang without humans, would you still insist on it being historical simply because it takes place "in the past"? Star Wars takes place "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away", but that first part does not make it historical. Early Doctor Who stories which lacked standard science fiction elements may be regarded as historical fantasy, since they involve people consciously meddling with the past but they're not strictly historical fiction either. Auel's Clan (Neanderthal) exhibit race memories--that is speculative fiction, some would say science fiction. Another label that gets put on these books is alternative history but that is unjustified for the same reasons.
Those are my personal arguments, but the main one, above, is what's important. The fact we disagree about what to call this is a question of interpretation and that's why genre assessments require sources.ZarhanFastfire ([[User

Novel series is classed as prehistoric science fiction by the scholarly Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, 3rd. ed. (here: http://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/auel_jean_m). I've made additions to the series article (Earth's Children and the first novel article, and am now calling it a night. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that when you change a consensus version, the burden of proof is on you. Please see WP:BRD, that you are not supposed to insist on your changes, rather obtain consensus first.

I have added two sources to the statement that this is historical fiction. It was very easy to find them. If you had done some looking around, rather than insist on what you think is The Truth, you could have avoided all of this WikiDrama. Debresser (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Debresser, you seem to be projecting. The burden of proof was indeed on me and I found sources where there were none. You've just decided to thrown them out without any explanation. Now, in future, please be WP:CIVIL and rather than accuse of me of creating drama, please also note the following:

1. There was no consensus to go against as there were no sources. Anything unsourced may be challenged and removed. You know this. You were very quick to revert my changes but made no answer to what I had to say here (other than to say 'bogus'), the substance of which you have not refuted. Since you weren't answering, I did research, and yes, I saw, the GoodReads reference, and considered it may not be reliable for reasons I'll get to; I did more research and found two references, one from the author's own website, both of which you have now simply thrown away and replaced with your own. What makes yours better than mine? Your own opinion? What makes historical fiction from GoodReads more reliable than a scholarly encyclopedia or for that matter the official website of the author? Is Goodreads a proper scholarly source or is it more akin to YouTube and IMDB, i.e. content is created by the readership? We now have conflicting sources. There is no consensus. You have removed sources, replaced them with your own--without consensus. Your other source may well be more signficiant, but it doesn't simply cancel out the one I found. We don't suppress conflicting sources, at least without discussion. At the very least we need to discuss that.

2. I am not the one refuting an argument by using words like 'bogus' nor claims that the other person is engaging in 'drama'. I am also not the one who is not seeking consensus. If you are serious about this, you'll present and discuss your sources and we'll discuss them both together like a pair of Wikipedia editors in a collegial manner, perhaps calling an RfC if we could not agree. As I said above, a novel can be more than one genre at the same time, hence the useful textbox.

3.To that end, I will point out to you that prehistoric fiction is not unrelated to historical fiction. In a sense, you might say it's a type of historical fiction, or that it's more specialized. I have found a proper source for it with respect to the novel. The Encyclopedia of science fiction is written by known scholars of the genre and they know what they are talking about, I've got no idea who GoodReads are other than a site where people can talk about books they like. I may have to consider your second source, but you need to also consider mine.

4. If sources are found to be in conflict, it's our job as editors to weigh them and judge which is more likely to be correct or useful to readers. I ask you, which more accurately describes the content of Earth's Children? Historical fiction or prehistoric fiction? The content is prehistory, not history. You have one source accurately describing content, the other not, so which is more reliable on its face? So, prehistoric fiction, at the least. That's one part. Do you agree to that? If so, we can then talk about the rest (sf). If not, we should call an RfC as there is no one here but us at the moment. We could move it to the Earth's Children's page as it affects all these pages. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

My two-bits. Good Reads is not a reliable source in and of itself (looks to me like it's user generated content). However, if you follow the link to an interview they conducted, the author says that it's prehistoric fiction, so it can be considered "historic fiction" in that sense (see Stonehenge (novel)). Also, keep in mind that anything and everything can be challenged, and the correct protocol is to cite a reliable source when challenged. DonQuixote (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

In addition to my post above. We have a historical fiction and prehistoric fiction, the latter being a sore excuse for an article. We have Category:Historical fiction with a lot of subcategories and articles, while Category:Prehistoric fiction is a redirect to Category:Fiction set in prehistory. These small facts in itself already make a strong case against calling this "prehistoric fiction". Debresser (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That a WP category or article for prehistoric fiction has received less work from editors than the article on historical fiction is to be expected: there are far fewer novels set in prehistory than in history. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist and has nothing to do with this novel's classification, much less the sources for that classification. Even if no such thing existed in WP, that would have no bearing on anything, as WP is a tertiary source and a work in progress. Lack of an article or a good article or category or a redirect doesn't negate the existence of anything in the real world, or in this case a genre attested by, among others, the author herself and scholarly sources. Lots of WP articles are a complete mess, but that has nothing to do with the quality or validity of their subjects; nor is their current state pertinent to sources for any other article. The quality of many comic book character articles is deplorable, full of fancruft and comic-bookish language, but that says more about the editors who've been working on those particular articles than it does about the subject. We're all volunteers here, and there's more work to be done than time to do it. If that article needs work, then by all means, work to improve it; don't confuse its content (badly written, poorly organized or lacking in references) with its subject. These small facts have nothing to do with what this novel is. Again, it's not about what you or I think, or what you think of the WP articles. It's what the weight of reliable sources is telling us. At present, the sources we have are weighing towards prehistoric fiction. You have yet to explain why you are ignoring sources--deleted the ones I supplied, in fact--and now appear to be ignoring the evidence of one of the sources you found.

A question: do you consider westerns to be a type of historical fiction? If this were a western (Shane, say) would you insist on historical fiction and delete 'western', even though the sources use both terms?ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

1. This is not a Western, so the question is hypothetical.
2. There are plenty of sources that call this series and the books "historical fiction". I brought one of the best in my edit. You brought no sources. Debresser (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

1. It's called an analogy; you are not doing yourself any favours by ignoring it, and so much else.
   
2. You've cited two, one of which contradicts itself. And seriously, I brought no sources? What's this, then, from the top of the talk page?
   

Novel series is classed as prehistoric science fiction by the scholarly Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, 3rd. ed. (here: http://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/auel_jean_m).

Go back and look at the edits you reverted which had two sources: the one I just cited, and the one from Auel's page concerning the term epic; I have referred to them regularly in this discussion. It's getting increasingly hard for me to assume good faith on your part, as this is classic WP:IDHT and it simply won't wash. You are refusing to take this seriously, which actually surprises me as you are an experienced editor. Till now, I assumed we got off on the wrong foot and that you'd be willing to engage, meet me half way, as I have with you (notice I'm not "insisting" on the science fiction element--that can go in a text box, with the source above). In other words, I accept that I was hasty, even impatient, and I understand you being hacked off to start with, but I also assumed you'd get over it. An experienced editor like yourself would rise above this kind of behaviour.

By the way, since this discussion is ongoing, you probably should be waiting till it's over rather than continuing to revert more of my edits on the articles for the rest of the series. If you believe in consensus, there are two editors here who disagree with you unless I misread User:DonQuixote's views above. I note in passing that you saw my source on the Earth's Children article, and in your reversion, you decided it was "fringe" (a scholarly encyclopedia in its 3rd ed.?) without discussion and then misrepresented what the source said that it "wasn't really sf". That's another discussion which I don't care to get into right now, other than to point out to you that if you are also saying prehistoric fiction is a "fringe" view of the novel you are effectively saying the author's own view of her own work as fringe. At the moment, we do have sources for both prehistoric fiction and the more broad historical fiction. I agree with DonQuixote that prehistoric fiction is, for our purposes, a type of historical fiction, just as western is a type of historical fiction. They're both more specialized versions of the same thing. Describing them as such, per sources and the author, is just the right thing to do. I don't know how that's not clear or anything other than everyday Wikipedia activity. That's why I brought up western, and why I asked the question you refused to answer. Since we don't call westerns historical fiction instead of westerns, we shouldn't do the same here, as that is to insist something against the author's term as well as a scholarly source (the one you say I never produced).

I propose that we say prehistoric fiction in the lead, per the two sources we have so far, and also have historical fiction in the text box, and any other genres which may apply, strictly per sources. This is a perfectly reasonable solution. It's not a question of only having one or the other. Can you agree to that? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see some outside input on this. I posted a request for edits to give their opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

inbreeding

This is what is written in the article

and subsequently leads to the need for monogamous relationships to reduce jealousy/possessiveness over sexual partners and for fathers to take responsibility for children

I believe this should be changed to include

and subsequently leads to the need for monogamous relationships to reduce jealousy/possessiveness over sexual partners, inbreeding and for fathers to take responsibility for children — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40E:4000:1AE0:5AA:3217:D7AA:14C4 (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)