Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Philip the Arab and Christianity/1

Discussion between nominator and closing GAN reviewer

• G.W. has left messages on my talk page asking me to explain my review more fully. G.W. says that my reading that the points raised by other reviewers had not been addressed is incorrect. Sorry, but I disagree.
  • "The article is not readily accessible to the vast majority of readers. There is some jargon, but the main problem is a lack of clarity and fluency in the prose which makes comprehension difficult, especially for non-experts." - remains un-addressed throughout the article.
  • "The lede goes into lots of non-essential details. Cut these sections and turn them into summaries, not theses." remains un-addressed
  • "Copy-editing is not the problem; I find almost no grammatical errors, and the prose is technically correct. However, it should be accessible for more readers, and that requires cleaner and clearer writing." not addressed.
  • There are still inconsistencies in spelling: "honour" is British English, as is "favour", "colour".
  • Modern sources: Books published since the introduction of ISBNs should have them added, likewise journal articles should have issn and / or oclc numbers.
  • I concur with hamiltonstone's points above about unnecessary detail, it really is too much and not suited to an encyclopaedia article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  And now, to make another reply that my interlocutor will not read, as before:

  • "remains un-addressed throughout the article" is, again, a totally unsatisfactory response. You cannot make a blanket statement like that without giving instances and explanans; there is no reasoning here, so there can be no response.
  • I have already explained to Wandalstouring the significance of all the details in the lede. Do you wish me to quote my reply here? Again, you must give instances and explanans, so we can generate a consensus on what details are essential. Unsupported assertions like this are a totally unsatisfactory method of article review.
  • "not addressed". As above.
  • There are no inconsistencies in spelling. Nikkimaria already verified that the remaining instances are in quotations: one from a quotation of a British translation of a text, two others from Edward Gibbon. We cannot pervert the original spelling of cited texts to satisfy the MOS.
  • There is no requirement for these things. Thank you for the suggestion, but it is not required that I comply here. Not that you'll read them, but my reasons are as follows: (a) I do not have access to these; (b) I do not believe it actually aids anyone (humans search using titles and authors; we do not design our articles for cyborgs and macros); (c) I think it makes the text look ugly. (I don't like blue in the endmatter. Very unappealing.)
  • hamiltonstone's comments have been replied to above. As before, I say: give instances and explanans.

  These replies merely reiterate the very unsatisfactory review Jezhotwells has brought on this article, and so I must again make give the reply I gave to him above: "You have not made any of your points of contention clear at all; and where they can be read as clear, they are wrong." G.W. (Talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I must say that I am finding it difficult to assume good faith when I read comments like those above and receiving an apparently threatening message on my talk page this evening [1] after a series of mysterious phone calls where the caller hung up without speaking.

The faults with which I have concerns are throughout the article and encompass the whole article. It goes into too much detail. It is confusing to the general reader. It is written in a manner more suited to some scholarly journal. It is not an encyclopaedic article. G.W.'s responses to Wandalstouring's concerns were mostly arguments against taking the suggestions on board. That is not explanation, it is a lack of understanding of what the problems are. I note that the British spellings are in quotations, my mistake. Most worryingly, I note that G.W. states, with regard to the query about ISBNs, ISSNs and OCLCs, "I do not have access to these". If that is the case, how do I know whether those sources contain the supporting material? If G.W. has no access to the modern sources for the article, why are the sources listed? These identification numbers are of great help to the reader, linking directly to libraries where the material is available. The identifiers are easily accessible, they are printed in the books and journals. G.W. may believe that they are not useful. That illustrates a point of view that fails to take account of other points of view, indicative of a kind of scholarly arrogance that is un-encyclopaedic. Anyway, enough said. I will leave it to others to decide whether this artcile should be re-listed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I likewise am finding it difficult to assume good faith of an interlocutor who bears false witness and casts malignant suspicions on my person. I have replied to his fantastic paranoias on his talk page; they need not distract us here. Needless to say, I am not responsible for the phone calls, and do not enjoy the unhappy coincidence of my talk-page replies and the dialing of some wrong numbers to Jezhotwells' home.
• "The faults with which I have concerns are throughout the article and encompass the whole article." This is, again, totally inadequate. Am I speaking to a brick wall? Examples, man, examples!
• "It goes into too much detail." Nonsense. Literally, this is non-sense. There can be no legitimate conjecture of this kind, it is an un-real statement, it has no correspondence in reality. I am not sure what universe Jezhotwells is living in, but I doubt it shares a telecoms network with my own.
• "G.W.'s responses to Wandalstouring's concerns were mostly arguments against taking the suggestions on board. That is not explanation, it is a lack of understanding of what the problems are." Jezhotwells mounts a campaign against communication. If there is a lack of understanding of what problems there are, it is because Jezhotwells and Wandalstouring fail to explain them. Yes! I do not understand what problems there are, because you refuse to tell me. Let me do you: "Oh, I can't tell you where the problems are. They're everywhere and nowhere. They're like God." Jezhotwells makes a thoughtful silence, as if in reverence. He gives a grin. "But then, you wouldn't know anything about that." In another mood, I ask Jezhotwells the same question: "Oh, I can't explain the problems to you. Then you might actually fix them! We can't have that, now can we?" Jezhotwells is monkish in his mendacity and koan-like refusal to speak. I am not sure what his vows of silence cover, so I must prod him again and again. What is he saying? I am never certain, and the blank tonelessness of his text gives me no indication. It is not clear.

• But, in any case, I should address the positive matter at hand. My replies to Wandalstouring were full and legitimate. I took on many of his suggestions, but many more were unworkable. He suggested I look up a text in German, as a real "scientific" work, unlike my unscientific books. I said I don't speak German. Then he did not reply for some time; he posted to some long-gone editors with no apparent background who just happened to be on the WP:RELIGION userlist, and offered to give them the PDFs. I saw this and politely told Wandalstouring that these editors were inactive, and asked for the PDFs. Wandalstouring refused. So, for the count: Inactive users on an arbitrary list: 1. Users with an article and background knowledge: 0.
• Elsewhere, Wandalstouring made koan-like suggestions of the kind Jezhotwells is fond of. I tried to comply with his mysterious suggestions to the best of my ability, provided they were not against the sources or WP policy. I noted where I could not take his actions as a result. These are the "arguments against taking the suggestions on board" Jezhotwells alludes to. (Discussions of this kind, I'll note, are exactly how Wikipedia is meant to function: see WP:BRD, WP:TALK, WP:CONSENSUS, et al.) Some of his suggestions remained obscure, so I asked him to clarify. He did not respond. (I'll put in a sidenote here that Wandalstouring believed the article to be, I'll paraphrase, "nowhere near GA standard", but that I was the kind of editor who would resubmit it frequently. I suggest to the Reassessment community that this is the cause of his stonewalling.) I find it odd that Jezhotwells misunderstands this; it is very disconcerting.

• "Most worryingly, I note that G.W. states, with regard to the query about ISBNs, ISSNs and OCLCs, "I do not have access to these". If that is the case, how do I know whether those sources contain the supporting material? If G.W. has no access to the modern sources for the article, why are the sources listed?" Sigh. I have the papers, the books, etc. There might be a few I accessed in the library, and no longer have access to. (The review process was quite lengthy!) I just have no idea what on earth a ISSN or an OCLC is, and think it really dumb to demand an ISBN. Like, um. Is there some search engine that only has a space for ISBNs? Again, human beings use text. Oh well.
• I should note that it is illustrative of a larger problem here: Jezhotwells refuses to explain his large comments, but gives a lengthy defense of his miniature, unnecessary comments. If I put the (totally unnecessary) ISBNs in, would Jezhotwells accept this article? No, he would not. The ineffable but all-inclusive "problems" remain. This is why I sigh. Perhaps I cannot understand Jezhotwells because he cannot communicate his mystic experience of the ultimate ground of being. (He should read some S. Teresa of Avila. Some Simone Weil too.) Well! I can hardly accept GA reviews that are grounded in unexplained hunches, personal preferences, and incommunicable experiences of divinity.
• Jezhotwells states that I show a "kind of scholarly arrogance that is un-encyclopaedic". Well! I am sorry that I am not, in person, an encyclopedia. (I should say that Jezhotwells is not much of an encyclopedia himself.) But, um. I am not a scholar! I'm just a regular guy like you, a Joe Six-pack, a John Doe, a man in a grey flannel suit. I am Middle-American. (No, actually, I'm from Canada.) I am sorry if I am arrogant! I come across that way in person and on the Internet, but I don't mean to! I'm not really that way on the inside, guys. I have a very low estimation of myself as a person. Real self-esteem issues. But. None of this should have any bearing on the article!
• So, let me say again: Don't just say: this article is wrong. You have to explain. You have to explain why. You have to explain why this article is wrong. You have to explain why this article is wrong. At some point in that process, either in the explain, or in the why, or in the this article, or in the is wrong, you always break down. You haven't made a full sentence yet. Please explain! I want to make it better! G.W. (Talk) 01:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing comments on process

In view of the disagreement that prompted this GAR, I thought it might be helpful to make a few general process comments. In doing so, I am not expressing a view as to how or whether they apply in this particular case, as different editors are may have different views.

• Reviewing articles with specialist content can be challenging for both expert and non-expert GA reviewers. For expert reviewers, there is a temptation to require changes that go beyond the GA criteria, or even involve personal views on the content. Non-expert reviewers have to take a certain amount on trust, yet also be wary of argument from authority.
• GA reviewers, like all human beings, are fallible; further, different editors interpret the GA criteria in different ways. If some aspect of a review contradicts a previous review, that does not imply that the second recommendation is invalid (nor the first!). Discussion is needed to reach consensus.
• When raising a general concern about an article, it is helpful if reviewers give indicative examples, but it should be understood that fixing indicative examples does not necessarily solve the problem.
• GA's primary aim is to encourage article improvement through independent review. Thus many GA reviews involve formative assessment and article improvement. However, ultimately, the review is summative: does the article meet the GA criteria or not? If it does not, in the reviewer's opinion, that reviewer is perfectly justified in not listing the article. The reviewer should give reasons, but as a review is an opinion, disagreement with the reasons does not necessarily invalidate the review.
• When a disagreement arises and community GAR is needed to resolve it, then the disagreement should be addressed to previously uninvolved editors, as it is their view that is most needed. Continued argument between involved parties, while understandable, is only helpful to the extent that it clarifies the disagreement, and often it doesn't.

Finally, my view on the "personality clashes" that often occur on Wikipedia: I place the term in quotes, because I believe these clashes are exacerbated by the nature of text-based communication, in which misunderstandings easily arise and are not corrected by the cues we instinctively use in spoken or face-to-face communication. This is one reason that assuming good faith is such an important principle. Another principle, less enshrined, is to disengage when conflict arises. Even the passage of time can resolve a problem or bring a fresh perspective. Geometry guy 21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)