Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Introduction to general relativity

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

Continued discussion on introductory articles

[edit]
I'm afraid you're arguing against something that has become common practice. There are a number of these introduction articles now, and my view is that they're here to stay. Fact is that in order to be technically correct about science topics, you often have to be take a wider and more detailed view than is useful for a real beginner, and you may not be able to avoid jargon. That is why we have introduction articles. Regards, Spamsara 04:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't shift the goal-posts. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the question of introductory articles in some forum where such discussion is appropriate, but this is not that forum. The guidelines in their current form suggest the creation of "Introduction to..." pages wherever appropriate, and since the example given on that page is Introduction to special relativity, it is hard to argue that Introduction to general relativity does not meet the same criteria. --Markus Poessel 06:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent does not make something necessarily correct - some of the older featured articles are terrible and uncited, but that doesn't make this something to strive for. I do not believe that such articles have a place on wikipedia, and while WP:IAR allows such articles to be written, the same policy also allows me to object to such articles even where they are officially allowed by policy. I suspect that this objection will be over-ruled and the article go to FA anyway, but I maintain my objection. Such articles are against wikipedia's original aim for articles to be inclusive, despite mosre recent revisions to policy. I will object to any such article reaching FA. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly be satisfied if we can agree that the existence of Introduction to general relativity is officially allowed by policy, whatever your objections against specific parts of that policy. But in that case, I think it would be fair if you changed your "Oppose" to a "Comment". After all, your objections cannot be addressed by any specific changes to the FAC under discussion – only by withdrawal of the nomination. --Markus Poessel 12:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked into whether allowing such articles is wikipedia policy or not (no-one has linked so far to a wikipedia policy page stating it is), but if this is stated on a wikipedia policy page then I can hardly dispute it if this has been arrived at through consensus discussion. I still feel such policy is wrong-headed and verging on the ludicrous - the special relativity article in question actually has an apparently unironic suggestion on its talk page to create a *third* article on the topic, arguing "there is room for both a "less technical" and a "non-technical" approach" in addition to the "technical" main argument. This is one of those "is it just me?" moments. I would like to reiterate that my problem is with the policy, not the article per se, but that having a problem with the policy necessitates me having a problem with all articles that fall under that policy also. I have revised my objection comment to make this clearer to other readers. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page I cited earlier, Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible, which advises to create "Introduction to..." when appropriate, is part of the WP:MOS. I agree with you that the creation of such articles should be the exception, and reserved for special cases, but I am confident Introduction to general relativity is such a special case. The special relativity article is a bad example, I think – it is not non-technical enough for what I would see as a good "Introduction to..."; in that case, parts could indeed be merged with the main article – leaving room for a proper "Introduction to..." (though not a third intermediate version – that indeed sounds like overkill). Again in contrast, I think that the article we are talking about here does manage to cover the subject in reasonably non-technical language. The description "dumbed down" is something I resent, though – it takes a lot of effort to find the right balance between avoiding improper simplifications (which is what I would call "dumbed down") and still keeping the text accessible, and I think it doesn't do the result justice for you to tar all introductory articles with the same derogatory brush. --Markus Poessel 18:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(deindenting) The easiest way to think about these introductions is as a subarticle to the lead section. WP:LEAD sets out that an article's lead section is to summarise the rest of the content. If in doing so, it becomes unreasonably large, it should be split off into a separate subarticle just as with any other section. In the same way that the ==Life== section of Joseph Smith, Jr. can be featured on its own merits (Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.), the ==Introduction== section (which the lead is, even if it lacks the header for MOS reasons) of General relativity can also stand for nomination. I'm not really qualified to judge the article's quality, but in my opinion it certainly should continue to exist and I have no problem with this nomination in principle. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPINOUT for more on content forking. The difference between branching articles within a topic and this introduction article is that the Early life of Joseph Smith doesn't attempt to be another version of the article on Joseph Smith - it's on a detailed and delineated subtopic. However, as PocklingtonDan and I are trying to point out, this "introduction" article and the "primary" articles are covering the same topic. You wouldn't make a page called "Introduction to Joseph Smith" because the history and theology of the "Joseph Smith" or "Church of Latter Day Saints" articles were too impenetrable; you would fix the primary page! I agree that articles like History of general relativity or Alternatives to general relativity are completely legitimate under summary style guidelines because they are detailed and delineated subtopics of general relativity. However, creating an introduction article does not increase the detail with which the subject can be evaluated and there is no apparent demarcation between what is and is not "introductory" or "technical." Madcoverboy 23:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Math beyond trigonometry or calculus I = technical. I have just defined "technical". The fact that even excellent universities in the United States offer "physics for poets" classes suggests that such a page as this is necessary since many college graduates do not have the mathematical knowledge to understand the most basic of physics pages (see Columbia's physics classes. I quote from the site: "This course does not fulfill the physics requirement for admission to medical school. No previous background in physics is expected; high school algebra is required. An introduction to physics with emphasis on quantum phenomena, relativity, and models of the atom and its nucleus.") If any editors believe that having a mathematically-based page in addition to the introduction is harmful to wikipedia, I ask them to explain their reasoning. Awadewit | talk 09:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Awadewit about there being such an attribute as "technical" and that, for articles like this, it is quite clearly defined. As for WP:SPINOUT, that guideline is perfectly compatible with what GeeJo said: If a section is too long, you can make it into its own article. No mention that the lead section is exempt from this rule; nothing about a requirement that we can only be talking about "detailed and delineated subtopics". --Markus Poessel 10:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP readership, mathematics, and "Introductions to..."

[edit]

Since this discussion has grown in scope, and I don't want to scatter my arguments among so many different replies, I'll try to set them out coherently here. (And I would appreciate if those who comment on it would not insert their comments into the text, which would defeat my purpose of writing all of this out separately.)

Wikipedia's readership is quite varied, and that is a good thing. For instance, compared with all general dead-tree encyclopedias, we have an inordinate amount of articles about TV series, pop bands and other musical groups (for some musical groups, it seems that every album has its own article; for some TV series, every major character). If we had any space limitations, such as any printed encyclopedia has, there would be heated discussions about he appropriateness of such articles – should we stick to classic encyclopedia content? or, since the "curious average man" mentioned by Atropos is nowadays more interested in Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) (to take one pick from the list of featured articles) than in Prehistoric Georgia, should we drop the latter to accommodate the former? Luckily, we have no such space limitations. The different parts of the readership can coexist peacefully side by side; except for encyclopedia purists, no-one is going to be bothered if there are articles in Wikipedia you wouldn't find outside specialist encyclopedias in the regular book world. We should be proud that Wikipedia is so many things to so many people – a regular encyclopedia to those who want to save the space that used to be taken up by their Britannica, and a host of specialist encyclopedias to a variety of readers with more specialized interests.

Next, degrees of specialization: Are we writing for the college student or the "man in the street"? Again, since we do not have significant space limitations, that is usually not a problem. If you are someone like PocklingtonDan who is greatly interested in the Roman Army, so that you want to split the subject into detailed separate articles such as the structural, technical, campaign and political history, that's perfectly fine, go ahead. In that case, the target audience will certainly not be the "curious average man" any more, but that is OK – for the average reader, there will be the base article Roman Army; for the interested student or those with special interests who want to dig deeper, there will be the more detailed articles. No-one would ever demand to remove the more detailed articles on the ground that for all but a few readers, interest in the subject just doesn't run that deep – there is no conflict between the different audiences; the fact that there is material at the level of college textbooks does not harm the less specialized reader. The result is that, in subject areas like this, Wikipedia is a valuable resource both for college students and for someone who's just seen a History Channel program about the roman army, and now wants to know just a little bit (but not too much) more. Which is, again, a good thing, and something to be proud of.

Next, mathematical subjects – how to deal with those? Take an article like Lie group. For a certain subset of the Wikipedia audience, namely those who study college-level mathematics or physics, this is an eminently useful article. It is certainly not accessible to a general audience. Should it be deleted? So far it hasn't been, and a good thing, too. We have no space problem. The fact that this article is on Wikipedia doesn't take anything away from the "curious average man" (who will, in all but a very few cases, not even notice its existence), and it does give something to mathematically inclined Wikipedia users. In fact, many physics students (and researchers, come to that) regularly use Wikipedia when it comes to quickly looking up formulae or mathematical definitions. By including such articles, we can certainly no longer argue that all articles on Wikipedia must be in toto accessible to a general audience. Wikipedia is many things to many people, and it would seem both narrow-minded and pointless to restrict its usefulness to one part of the readership if no-one else gains by that restriction. Hence, the section in the guidelines, namely Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible, about Articles that are unavoidably technical, which says: If an article is unavoidably technical (advanced mathematics being the prime example), then so be it. The guideline also states that the technical part should at least be preceded by a more generally accessible introduction. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case for most mathematics articles yet, which is something to work on.

In all examples so far, the different readership groups have been able to co-exist without coming into conflict, either because the subject lent itself to splitting into an accessible general introduction and more specialized sub-topics (Roman Army), or because it was so technical that a general audience would have very little interest in it beyond a brief summary such as can be given in an accessible lead, which is then followed by a much less accessible main text. I put it to you that there are some – not many – subjects where this doesn't work, namely where

  • The "curious average man" is interested enough in the subject to want to know more than what is contained by a four-paragraph lead
  • The subject matter is complex enough (involving unfamiliar concepts such as those of advanced mathematics) that a four-paragraph lead simply does not allow sufficient space for adequate explanations
  • For the article to be useful to those with a more specialized interest, it must contain a considerable amount of information that is unavoidably technical; taking away that information significantly reduces usefulness

What to do?

  • Leave out the technical stuff altogether? That would certainly be a step towards accessibility, but would severely diminish the use of the article for more specialized readers. One major factor of what makes Wikipedia come alive are its internal links. If technical terms like differentiable manifold or tensor or differential equation are left out of an article on general relativity, you are tearing up that semantic network. Someone who's heard about tensors, and happens to be reading this article, is denied the crucial information that the one plays an important role in the other. If this were a strict trade-off, I would be all for making the article accessible to a general audience. But as long as there is an alternative solution, I don't see why we should not make both groups happy.
  • Include the technical terms in parentheses? Sometimes, that works. For instance, I would argue that the Structural history of the Roman military does not become markedly more inaccessible by including unavoidably technical terms like "hastati" or "socii". Sure, some readers might feel a bit overwhelmed, but all in all, it's a good compromise – the terms are there for those with a more specialized interest, and they do not harm those more superficially interested. But the main reason this works is the possibility of finding concise alternative formulations. If I talk about "a sword known as a gladius", that's certainly accessible. Everyone has a mental image of what a sword is, and one which is close enough to the more specialized usage to be useful. But what about, say, differential equations? Talking about "equations that involve not only functions, that is, descriptions of how one quantity varies depending on another quantity, but also rates of change of such functions, known as differential equations" is a mouthful, and not accessible at all. Sure, I can explain in more detail, which already makes the text more tedious to read for specialists. But even that isn't ideal. Just as a word-for-word translation of a text written in a foreign language is, in one sense, closer to the original, it is not in general a good text. Similarly, a series of term-by-term explanations of mathematical terms usually makes for a much, much less accessible explanation of the underlying physics than an explanation that does not slavishly stick to the technical terms, but instead makes an effort to convey the essence of the underlying physics. If I choose the latter variety, of course, I will need to leave out most technical terms altogether, so I'm making the text much less valuable for less specialized readers. Sometimes, there just isn't a good compromise.
  • Alternate non-technical and technical explanations. Can you write the article by developing the subject once (touching all the necessary bases), but at each step, first give an accessible account, and then follow up with the technicalities? I fail to see how, in the cases under discussion here, that can ever make for an excellent article. A reader without previous knowledge will, in each section or even in every other paragraph, be confronted with technical content he or she doesn't understand. Even if you tell that reader that, by just reading, say, the first paragraph of each subsection, he or she should get a good overview, this kind of reading is frustrating; if you do not explicitly tell the reader how to read, most are going to decide even after the first paragraph that this is much too technical for them to understand. For the most specialized readers, this is also sub-optimal. In browsing the text, they will encounter each explanation twice, which will certainly interrupt reading flow (not as bad as only understanding half of what is written, but still). Such an article will be mediocre for both groups, but excellent for none.
  • Non-technical first, technical later. This is much less frustrating for all involved: Add an introduction first, the technical stuff after that. General readers will read the introduction and be happy; the same step-by-step development of the subject will be repeated at a higher level afterwards for the more technically inclined, which will also be happy. Nothing against that – it's the logical continuation of the way it is (or should be) done for other unavoidably technical articles: General description in the lead, gory details after that. However, it's hard to see why this should be treated any different than other sections that have taken on life of their own and grown to significant size – as per WP:SPINOUT, a thorough introduction should lead to a spin-off article titled, well, "Introduction to...".

So what's wrong with "Introduction to..."? There have been a number of objections, but I think (surprise, surprise) none of them are valid. Let me address some of them.

I think there are two kinds of objections. Those who imply that the "Introduction to..." pages will make Wikipedia less useful for some readers, I take quite seriously. Those that, as far as I can see, argue merely on some abstract point of principle, I have difficulty taking seriously at all. If no user of Wikipedia is worse off if you have "Introduction to...", but some are definitely worse off if you don't, then the choice should be clear – live and let live.

  • "Information on the same topic shouldn't be mirrored across several pages." — That's exactly what happens with every other spin-off: Information that, on the main page, is given in summary form is expanded upon. In this case, it's the lead. What's the harm if the result is that it makes WP more useful than otherwise? Live and let live. Also, note that this is not part of some Great Law Written in Stone of what an Encyclopedia Should Be. Have a look at Encyclopaedia Britannica – they seem to have no qualms of having articles of different lengths and depths on the same subject (one in the Micropaedia and one in the Macropaedia). I think they're onto something.
  • "Introduction to..." pages are used as excuses not to make the main article more accessible. — I agree that this shouldn't be so and that, say, general relativity isn't as accessible as it could be. But I think that, in this and other cases, there are strict limits to what kind of compromise is possible and that, in these cases, you simply cannot write a single excellent "one size fits all" article (some of the reasons I have laid out above). In those cases, I don't care if you have the main article plus an "Introduction to...", or a main article and an "Advanced..." article, but I think it makes sense to have two separate articles for two very real sections of the Wikipedia readership.
  • "I do not believe there should be two articles on every topic, one and introduction and one the full article" — neither do I, and I have yet to meet anyone who does. Just as any other kind of forking, this should be subject to careful case-by-case consideration. I do not think there will be an epidemic of "Introductions...", and I don't think this is a "finger in the dyke" moment. But I think it's rather presumptive to opt for a total ban, which implies the secure knowledge that there are no cases at all where this is the best solution.
  • "A good scientist is no more intelligent and able to grasp ideas than a good artist, mathematician, linguist, historian, whatever, and it is scientific conceit to suppose otherwise." — I don't think it's a matter of intelligence, and I have not heard anyone in this discussion claim that it is. (As an aside, separating the scientists from the mathematicians regarding the question under discussion here appears to betray a certain unfamiliarity with where the "unavoidably technical" articles on WP really are.) If your subject matter can be explained using concepts that are widely familiar (swords, armies, allies, conscripts, tribes), all the better, and I don't see anyone claiming that it is less academic for that reason. But fact is that the concepts of advanced mathematics are further removed from everyday experience; this doesn't imply any value judgment, but it must be taken into account when talking about accessibility.
  • "General relativity may not have been trivial to figure out from first principles, but it is trivial to understand when explained properly." — I don't think it is trivial even then, and I have much more respect for those who show great skill in making this subject accessible (such as John Wheeler) than would be compatible with your attitude; I agree, however, that the subject can be presented in an accessible manner. Which is what Introduction to general relativity tries to do. But I think it is indisputable that such an article would be of much reduced value to someone who is coming in at a more technical level, and is looking for information at that level. As for why you apparently want to exclude that part of the Wikipedia readership, I'm at a loss — what have they ever done to you? In special cases like this, why shouldn't there be two excellent versions, aimed at two important sections of our readership? Who loses by that? Live and let live.
  • "I am in absolute opposition to any article reaching FA that is effectively a dumbed-down version of another article." — As I have written before, I find that quite offensive. There are bad simplifications (using skewed similes, incomplete and misleading analogies, "simplifying" statements so that they end up meaning something totally different from what is really the case — and I have seen quite a number of examples of this for relativity) and good simplifications. The former, I would certainly called "dumbed-down". Making good simplifications takes work, knowledge and skill, and the result should certainly not be denigrated in this way. Also, I find your argument somewhat inconsistent. You are arguing that the main article should be accessible to all. Surely that is the case with what you are now deriding as the "dumbed-down" version?

In summary, I think it is undeniable that, in some special cases, "Introduction to..." pages make WP more useful for a specific section of its readership. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that having "Introduction to..." makes WP less useful for anyone. That should be the main consideration, and arguments that fail to judge the matter by this standard are, in my opinion, no more valid than a purity campaign to exclude all articles about hit singles and popular TV characters on the grounds of "stuff like that doesn't belong into a proper encyclopedia". --Markus Poessel 10:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Excellent work. (Didn't I say the editor had carefully thought about the audience?) You should post parts of this as an essay on wikipedia. I only have one quibble. Can we please stop referring to "the curious average man"? I'll just start adding in "and the curious above-average woman" whenever I see it. :) Awadewit | talk 10:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! I missed Category:Introductions, though it is at least more fully populated now. Carcharoth 00:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my examples being physics- and math-centered. No value judgment implied; I agree that other specialist articles can be just as useful, yet technical. As for the discussion about general relativity, one of my mid-term goals is to bring the main article to FA status as well. That should show by example why I think that there can be no excellent article on this (and some other) subjects both for the "average curious person" and for more advanced readers, but that there can be one advanced article and one introduction, both (hopefully) excellent. I realize that it would be unfair to ask others to hold off their arguments for a few months (not now that I have taken the opportunity to set out my own arguments at such considerable length), but I do think that, if we were to wait that long, matters might become much more clear by example (and, presumably, nothing would be lost by waiting, unless there is a secret "Introduction to FA!" drive I know nothing about). --Markus Poessel 06:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not implying any value judgment, just pointing out another example. What do you think of the accessibility of aldol reaction? You also mentioned that "introduction to" is only appropriate in certain cases. There are nine examples at Category:Introductions and Category:Articles with separate introductions - are they all appropriate articles to have 'introductions', in your opinion? Where is the line drawn? The merged attempt to provide an introduction to subatomic particle is also instructive. See the history at Introduction to particles. Loom91 correctly identified the version before the merger as not an introduction (or trampoline) article. I suspect that Background and genesis of topos theory is also not a true introduction, but is, as the title says, more of a background history article. Do you agree with that? Carcharoth 12:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the accessibility of aldol reaction can be improved a lot; on the other hand, it's not as impenetrable as I had been afraid when reading your description. I don't get all the details, but I think I get the gist. My criteria for appropriateness are basically in line with Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible: There should be an "Introduction to..." (or, alternatively, an "Advanced....") for the main article if the topic is
  1. unavoidably technical (the nature and quantity of material that needs to be included for an excellent higher-level description makes it impossible to write one excellent article for both higher-level readers and the "average curious person")
  2. of sufficient interest to a general audience (for topics that aren't, such as Lie groups, it should be enough to make the lead accessible; only if the lead is too small to contain an accessible introduction of a length and depth commensurate with the interest should a trampolin be written)
However, I would see both criteria as a guideline rather than a policy – especially the second; – if someone invests the time and effort to write, say, an excellent "Introduction to Lie groups", I wouldn't say "no, sorry you have wasted your time here, do you want to delete it yourself or should I?", although I might oppose FA status.
As for the different examples you mention, my opinion is:
  • Aldol reaction – unless I'm greatly misjudging public interest in this topic, it fails criterion 2. – an accessible lead should be enough (which it doesn't have at the moment)
  • Introduction to particles: that isn't really an introduction or, more precisely, not developed enough so you could tell whether it would evolve into a good introduction for a general audience or a more specialized article. The current subatomic particle also seems a bit incomplete to me, hard to tell. Thinking this over, I think this topic must count as a special example in any case; at university level, the more general, less mathematical treatment is often a lecture Particle physics and the more rigorous theoretical treatment is Quantum field theory. With an accessible Particle physics article and an appropriately technical Quantum field theory article, you would effectively have an "Introduction to..." and an "Advanced..." for this field without explicitly calling the articles by that name. Subatomic particle could be merged into Particle physics.
  • Introduction to mathematics of general relativity is something else entirely – a page for those who want to understand gr at a higher level, not an accessible companion to a more technical article. It should probably become part of a Wikibook textbook on gr; Mathematics of general relativity should be merged with general relativity, in my opinion.
  • Topos should get an accessible lead; Background_and_genesis_of_topos_theory is not an accessible "Introduction to...", as you say.
  • Quantum mechanics and Introduction to quantum mechanics is a case in point, I think, with the introduction reasonably accessible and the main article containing all the unavoidably technical stuff that make it useful for more advanced readers (eigenvectors, Hilbert spaces, probability distributions...) but whose presence would make it difficult to read for a general audience.
  • Special relativity and Introduction to special relativity –I think the "Introduction to..." is somewhat more advanced. To be generally accessible, one should leave out the spacetime formulae altogether and focus more on the basics, consequences, experiments, applications, for instance that special relativity is the basis of modern particle physics, things like that. The current introduction would make a nice starting point for a Wikibook, though.
  • Introduction to genetics and genetics: Another pair that works. The introduction could be a bit longer, though.
  • Introduction to M-theory and M-theory: To be an excellent resource for advanced readers, the main article should probably be expanded; also, I think that an Introduction to string theory would be more appropriate (it encompasses M-theory, and its concepts are needed to give an accessible explanations), but yes, with these qualifications, I think it's a candidate for a useful "-introduction to...." pair.
  • Introduction to entropy and Entropy: since it's an important and fundamental, yet also unavoidably technical topic, I think this can work as well. In the current introduction, I think the section with the classical calculations should be merged with the main article, and the main article could probably be expanded a bit, but this can work, and work well.
  • Evolution and Introduction to evolution: I think these work very well. Too technical and detailed in its present form for a general audience (yet FA, and rightly so, for advanced readers), and the "Introduction to..." neatly provides the urgently needed accessible introduction.
...and no, I don't think there will be a proliferation of inappropriate "Introductions to..." --Markus Poessel 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old (though not very well-known) debate, afds have been fought over the issue, but never has consensus been found to delete or merge trampoline articles (Introduction to particles was not a proper trampoline). I think they are a very good idea. Often, concepts are not inherently unexplainable to a general audience, but to do so requires taking some space to give background and illustrations. In such cases, it is quite appropriate to fork off from the main article. I agree that no content should be repeated. Trampolines should not merely be rephrasings of the main article, but rather should strive to provide an explanatory, informal approach addorned with helpful examples, analogies and explanation of necessary background that would simply be inappropriate at the main article. But this does not mean the strict avoidance of equations.. The phobia of all things math is limited to a few parts of the world. The article Introduction to special relativity is quite accessible, as it rationalises the apparently counter-intuitive conclusions of SR using a geometric approach based on the Minowsky space and the Lorentz transformations. People with only the compulsory schooling in mathematics can understand it, as it avoids calculus. Also, I do not find Aldol reaction to be a very complicated article. Sure, it can be made more accessible. But in its current state it is understandable with a high-school level knowledge of mechanistic organic chemistry. Loom91 08:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

[edit]

I notice this hasn't been discussed for about five days, if there's a reason for the abrupt stop, such as its going someplace elsewhere, please tell me so.

"The ideal reader of an encyclopedia should be primarily the curious average man. He should only secondarily be the specialist and/or the high school student."
–Charles Van Doren

I am honestly a little surprised at the support Introductory articles get, because they just don't make any sense to me. Is it not obvious that someone interested in reading our article on general relativity is probably not going to already have a technical understanding of the topic? Do not most people lack the technical understanding necessary to comprehend the main article? As an encyclopedia, a source of knowledge, shouldn't we be writing for the unknowledgeable layperson? Is there really no better solution than creating a separate article that fills the purpose the main article should fill?

I wish I could write something half as long as Markus Poessel, but there's really nothing else I can say. My argument is this: As an encyclopedia, the main article on a general topic should be an introduction to that topic, so this article should be a superfluous clone of the main article, rather than a version of it that anyone who hasn't gone to college and gotten a bachelor's of science can read.

Comparing it to aldol reaction is the equivalent of comparing Gulliver's Travels to fiction or book. It is reasonable to assume that someone who wants to know about Gulliver's Travels already knows something about what fiction means or what a book is. It is reasonable to assume someone who wants to know about the aldol reaction already knows something about chemistry. To explain it there would make chemistry unnecessary. It is not reasonable to assume someone who wants to know about general relativity already knows something about general relativity.

To your credit, the science department is at least trying. As someone who plays no music and thought "hey, it would be interesting to know what music notes mean," I gave up on the article when its lead went heavy-handedly through the grammatical function of the word note, which I took to mean that a note is either a particular sound or the representation of that particular sound. But there must be a better way to deal with the issue than this. Atropos 04:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several of us are working on the article and there is an ongoing discussion about the article's content and wording at the article's talk page.
Would you be in support of a pair of articles entitled "General relativity" and "Advanced general relativity" (or something like that), with the main article being the one we are looking at now and the "advanced" one being what is currently general relativity? If so, I think that you should suggest a renaming of all such pairs so that the pairs are consistent across wikipedia (wherever such a suggestion should be made); it seems that the only problem you really have is the title. Is this correct? I don't much care what the articles are named, as long as there are two clearly delineated discussions, one for the lay person and one for the expert. Awadewit | talk 04:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Introduction_to_general_relativity&oldid=363138038"