Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Russian Booker Prize/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Russian Booker Prize

[edit]

Russian Booker Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 11:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I am sure it meets the criterions. Regards. Tomcat (7) 11:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All
;Comments:

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done the rest.--Tomcat (7) 09:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • There should be a small key indicating that the blue colour denotes winners (as per FL Arthur C. Clarke Award)
  • Section title should be "Winners and nominees" (again, as per the aforementioned FL)
  • "No person won the award more than once." – should be "has won", since this is presently the case.

—Bloom6132 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Tomcat (7) 13:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Object. (OK now). The list of winners lacks reliable secondary sources per the rules of WP:Verifiability. There is one secondary source for a winner. The rest are about runner-ups and the Booker Prize of the Decade. That means out of 20 years, only 1 year has a secondary source, or 95% primary source. PRIMARY policy says "be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]", and "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.". Secondary sources are available for the winners, for example:
  • Walden, George. "Russian Booker." TLS. Times Literary Supplement 5307 (2004): 15. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.
  • Tait, Arch. "The awarding of the third Russian Booker prize." The Modern Language Review 92.3 (1997): 660+. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.
There are others. It doesn't mean every single winner needs a secondary (it's possible some years don't exist), but where secondaries exist they should be included per WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]" - this is the case if the primary source(s) are unreliable or have questionable reliability. The Russian Booker Prize is definitely reliable. "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." - this is not the case. There are four secondary sources (why don't you count the Russian sources?)--Tomcat (7) 16:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears a large number of secondary sources have been found. Secondary sources are an important part of how Wikipedia operates. In particular for literary awards because the primary sources are non-critical by nature. Legitimate art criticism is found in secondary sources. Otherwise Wikipedia is just a mirror of the primary source and pointless redundancy. The point of Wikipedia is to use secondary sources. This is not my opinion it is written policy. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion is that references are designed, in this instance, to provide "legitimate art criticism" which they clearly are not. Is there a policy that backs up your statement? And your "cherry-picking" the actual policy when you claim "The point of Wikipedia is to use secondary sources"... WP:PRIMARY very clearly says: " Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." It goes on to say "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Which is exactly what the primary sources used in this list are intended to do. They are not being used to provide critical commentary. Please read the policies fully and quote them correctly in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I understand that rote reading, but the rules are generalized and each case is unique in how applied, we don't have specific rules for every type of article, but every type of article has its own needs. In any case, this article now has secondaries so the continued discussion here doesn't make sense. Will pick it up at Nobel. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Green Cardamom, could you explain how to access those "Academic OneFile" links? I can't find them in a quick search. Are they subscription only? If so, they're not actually that useful as third-party sources to the majority of our readers. Alternatively you could be helpful and tell us what the citations say so we can add them to the article. Also, for consistency, are you suggesting that List of Nobel laureates in Physics should be delisted according to your view of the criteria? Are you distrustful of the Nobel Foundation?
  • Tomcat7, Sources that you could use include This Guardian article which links to the Russian Booker website, giving some credibility to the reliability of the "primary source", This Guardian article cites the 2005 winner, This Guardian article tips a nod at the 2000 winner, This Guardian article discusses one of the nominees, This Guardian article cites the 2006 winner... Looks like The Guardian is a good place to start with GC's complaints. Try this and have a scan over the "Refine by date" section, looks like it'd provide you with plenty of non-primary sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes concern of sources is resolved. Re: offline vs online sources, there is no difference for Wikipedia. It's more than verification, it's completeness since this is featured content. List of Nobel laureates in Physics is also incomplete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point entirely. How can I or Tomcat find out what's in those offline sources? For all I know you could be making them up (I'm sure you're not), but how do we know what they say? How do we know what they verify? Just because they exist, it doesn't mean we should use them, especially if we can't get to them.... I look forward to you nominating List of Nobel laureates in Physics at WP:FLRC unless you're content to adopt double standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"How can I or Tomcat find out what's in those offline sources?" Some options: 1. Travel to the library and use the databases there for free; 2. or at home through the library website if available; 3. use the source request service here on Wikipedia to ask another member who has access, they'll send the documents via email. 4. Or, ask the person who posted the ref. There are probably other options. Although a lot of work on Wikipedia is done with stuff found on the Internet, that's not the only source or even the best. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read above where I said "Alternatively you could be helpful and tell us what the citations say so we can add them to the article.". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Academic OneFile doesn't have a full-text copy of this article on file, but they provide an abstract which says "The article provides a history of the Russian Booker Prize" which isn't much help though looks like a valuable article. Other databases may have a full copy, but I did find another source by George Walden, "Throwing the Booker", George Walden on the controversies surrounding the Russian literary prize, which seems like an important source, controversies should be part of the article, like in a controversy section. Most big awards have ongoing controversies. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstract: The number of new novels appearing in Russia in 1986-89 was very small. The Russian Booker Prize was insituted with the intention of promoting Russian fiction. It was first awarded in 1992. This article describes the controversies surrounding the choice of the short-listed books for the 1994 prize and reactions to the winning work, Bult Okudzhava's Uprazdennyi teatr. Brief plot synopses are given of all the works on the short list.
Full text: (can't copy here for copyright reasons).
Academic OneFile has at least 10 more English language sources, the two above are just examples. If I create a proper non-list article I'll use them. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a "main" article not a "proper" article, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW it appears Tomcat already requested and received access to the Arch Tait source[2]. Just noticed because I was going there to see if anyone had access to the first Walden source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - A large chunk of this article was deleted by Tomcat7 (who also wrote it). Here is how it looked previously. Question: Why was this material deleted? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As expected. You know exactly why. Please also respond to my question above. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I was to guess, it looks that sub-section content was deleted in order to make the article look more like a list so that it could be acceptable for FLC on stylistic grounds. However Tomcat may have had other reasons for deleting it, so that's why I asked first before reaching conclusions. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once again, you know exactly why. Perhaps you should refresh your memory by reading the last derailed FLC for this article. I do hope you won't be repeating the trick? If your suggestion is to rename this "List of winners of the Russian Booker Prize" so you can create a stubbish main article (a la Orange Prize), I would hazard a guess that Tomcat would just agree that's the best way forward. Then you can add back the content that Tomcat removed as a result of your comments in the last FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • If Tomcat wants a FLC but not a FAC, that would be a legitimate way, per the MOS definition of a list article and the scope of this article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • So let's get on with reviewing the list now shall we? If you want to create the main article, you are welcome to do so yourself. Let's now stop derailing this discussion. As you have done twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sure, no problem, if that is acceptable to Tomcat and yourself. Do we have consensus? I would like to do the split before the flc closes so there is not an ongoing content dispute. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Also, if you feel the need to roll this crusade out further, can I suggest you do it in a centralised location rather than at individual lists or candidates? It's clear you have a serious personal issue with this type of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Nah we covered this already, it's legitimate to question during FLC if an article should be "list" or a "main" - it's defined in the MOS - and since there is no mechanism to say all articles of a category are main/list, there is nothing to centrally discuss, it's done per article basis. And btw involvement in one article's FLC and another article's talk page - over a 2 year period - will hardly convince anyone of "crusade", stick to the issue not person WP:NPA. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The idea is that you have a concept for use of references (to provide critical/artistic commentary) and a lot of lists here use references to back up purely objective and factual claims. As is the case here, as is the case at Nobel. It's tiresome chasing you around Wikipedia with your version of how to use references when it's obvious a centralised discussion is the way forward. As for "what is a list", the community continually prove that this is reasonably flexible. It's unhelpful to attempt to make it otherwise. Please now comment on the content. I'll shortly be moving this discussion to the talk page because, as you can see below, it's putting others off participating. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OH FOR PETE'S SAKE! This is exactly why I didn't review last time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Russian_Booker_Prize/archive4&oldid=559040872"