Talk:Frankenstein authorship question

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 4 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ilee679, Viktordiaz2727.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I asked for help on the Fringe theory noticeboard

Regarding if this article is being appropriately handled. Wickedjacob (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Problems with article

There are quite a few problem templates on the top of this article but there is no discussion present on this talk page. I'd encourage users (particularly @Stolengood: who added them) to discuss how the page could be improved. At present the article remains the same as it was before all the templates were added. Hopefully we can improve this page or at least determine its legitimacy. Thank you. Tkbrett (✉) 22:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It can be improved by deleting it. The article cites almost no decent secondary sources and therefore largely counts as original research. The "Sources" in most cases are either centuries old speculation with no real evidence or in a couple of cases contemporary articles that merely claim that Percy Shelley's contribution but not that he should get credit for the book. The article is riddled with WP:WEASEL words in support of the argument. Verlaine76 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Verlaine76 and I'm not clear why this topic is its own page, as it is primarily based on a single major source (Lauritsen's book, which, itself, inexplicably, has its own page The_Man_Who_Wrote_Frankenstein) and one dissertation that sought to bolster its thesis. The evocation of Charles Robinson on this page as supporting evidence misrepresents Robinson's position on the subject--it is based on the fact that he released an edition of "The Original Frankenstein" as credited to Mary with Percy Shelly, but Robinson never claimed that P.Shelly wrote it, only that Percy helped substantially edit it, and he maintains that Mary was the author but Percy was an advisor/collaborator. Assuming that this is in fact a notable debate worthy of its own Wikipedia page (I remain unconvinced from what is here on the page, but I confess that do not know enough about English Romantic literary criticism to know if this is a substantial active debate), at minimum this page would be improved by a Content heading "Arguments for Mary Shelly's authorship" and not just a sentence that says "Critics of Shelley as author or contributor, however, dismiss this evidence outright..." as if the critics of this particular thesis are just plain wrong. Robinson's actual argument should also be better represented. Cubanabop (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed {{BLP sources}}, {{disputed}}, {{third-party}} and {{tone}} from the article. I can see no effort to discuss these issues before the tag-bombing and Alexbrn has now removed much of the unsourced content as well as the OR. If problems remain, then they should be either fixed directly or discussed on talk. Assuming that the topic is notable, the solution to issues will always be to examine the best quality sources: there are presently 18 citations and a large bibliography, much of which might be useful to contribute further or improved content. --RexxS (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Uncertainty

The article supposedly refers to the question of how much the authorship of Frankenstein can be attributed to P.B. Shelley. As long as authors continue to write concerning the amount Shelley contributed, the question as to authorship and amount authored by each Shelley continues. Then existed is inaccurate per the article's title and ongoing scholarship. (I see an article as recent as 2017). Using "existed" pointing to, the authorship question is over, is a subtle POV edit.Littleolive oil (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no "ongoing scholarship", just a very few fringe outliers. The article title is POV anyway - it's like have an "Obama nationality question" or "Moon landing authenticity question" title. Alexbrn (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Then change the title, but I am concerned that you are attempting to control the article in terms of your viewpoint. There are still authors dealing with "the question" which does not mean they are supporting the idea that P.B. Shelley wrote the book but simply writing about the question. If the article were about Obama's nationality the article would and should deal with how there is no support for the question itself. I do agree the title is misleading. The fringe outliers, one at least is a RS, and a summary of that book is included in the article. The introduction to the article should summarize what is in the article even if distasteful to editors. We aren't here to prove Mary Shelley did or did not write the book but to simply present the arguments. I have no interest in fighting this one out with you. As I said not attached to the edit but do feel its too bad that fringe is being used here in a way that is was never meant to. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

There was uncertainty in the past, with the work on the manuscripts the question was settled to the satsifaction of all except a few (I think 4) true believers outside of serious academia. The view that the book was written substantially by Percy is WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

That a book is fringe to the mainstream does not restrict its use nor should it, if a RS and if used in the accurate weight to the article and other sources. Using fringe as a derogatory term is what bothers me. Its just a source; its not personal. And in my own small academic career I have seen so- called fringe ideas that become mainstream. If we are to have an article that chronicles the questions surrounding Mary Shelley's book then we have to do just that-laying out the multiple views per weight. And honestly using the term True Believers has zero meaning except to a few Wikipedia editors and is meant to insult. So why? As for my position I could care less, although an interesting discussion, except to try and make sure the article is neutral. The question of how much was written by P Shelley is an issue as is what constitutes substantial. I took authorship to mean the input each had rather than who wrote most of the book and to whom authorship can be attributed. One is an ongoing discussion and the other a definitive. I believe the article to be about the ongoing discussion.Littleolive oil (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It was between 5,000 and 6,000 words, all well-described in the Robinson source. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding, deliberate or not I don't know. I'll leave you to it. The win here is whatever is an accurate and neutral article.Littleolive oil (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)