Talk:Discovery! The Search for Arabian Oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Saudi Arabia Portal This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Can't seem to figure out how to make a contents box. Usually they just appear when you title things with two == ? Or no....? stan goldsmith 23:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I can't upload a picture via wikicommons cause a bot keeps deleting it, there is a pic on the publisher's home page (and one on b & noble too), could someone else put one up ? stan goldsmith 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section format

Seems to me the Controversy section ought to run as a single paragraph, because it is referenced by a single footnote. Breaking it up makes it appear as if the citation only covers the last sentence.Barte 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section--does it deserve a place?

I relocated the following thread from my own talk page with the kind permission of Stangoldsmith. Barte (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Bonjour Barte. While I think the controversy around Discovery is interesting do you think it deserves a place on wikipedia at all? Now that I think about it the controversy is just some people "questioning" an aspect of a book, without coming to any strong conclusion. Their questions surrounding what the author originally intended could be also asked of basically any book published since the dawn of publishing and therefore I think their "controversy" isn't that interesting, nor should it be on wikipedia, an encyclopedia, (and not a blog.)

Therefore I nominate the controversy section to be taken out. What do you think?

Perhaps the Washington Post article could be linked to the article under external links but apart from that there aren't any strong statements that deserve encyclopedic inclusion. The "controversy" is interesting given that one of the people involved in it is releasing a Stegner biography in February (and this is prominently mentioned in all of the articles I've read), seems like marketing rather than any real substantial information. stan goldsmith (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The controversy has now been covered by the Washington Post and the AP (thanks for adding the link). The LA Times has also covered it here. Those secondary sources are notable enough to make this a credible controversy and an indelible part of the book's history, which is why I added it and think it should remain. Of greater concern, to me at least, is the article's lack of footnotes. (The Washington Post citation I added is the only one.) That, more than anything else, undercuts the article's strength as a verifiable encyclopedia entry. Barte (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I suppose it is a noteworthy situation because it's written about in these sources but it isn't concluded at all, so in essence anyone questioning anything about anything that is written about in major newspapers could likewise be a "controversy" even though the only "sure" thing is that the book is published and Wallace Stegner wrote it. I'll add some footnotes for the article as well, though most everything in the article is well covered in the external links and in the source material (the book itself) (is that enough to be footnote-esque?). stan goldsmith (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The book is certainly published: we can agree on that. And I think we can also agree that Wallace Stegner's intended version was never published: it resides at the University of Utah. And that at least three people--his son, his former agent, and a biographer--contend that only that version should carry Stegner's byline. These are now all pretty much sure things.

Are they correct? Is the publisher corrrect? I don't know: as you point out, the controversy hasn't been resolved. But this unresolved controversy speaks to larger issues, which, I think, is why it has attracted the attention it has. When a film director doesn't agree with the final cut, the Director's Guild has a procedure for substituting a pseudonym in the credits. Is this the literary equivalent? Should there be one? Are there other instances involving authors where this situation has arisen? These questions resonate in this dispute, and a resolution--at least here and now--isn't required to make that resonance interesting. As encyclopedia editors, we can't anticipate what readers, now and in the future, will find of value. Nor can we second guess the motives of the people involved. All we can do is summarize what notable secondary sources (the heart of Wikipedia research) have reported.

The footnote issue is more clearcut. Footnotes have become Wikipedia's best answer to the ever-present question about verifiability wp:v: how do you know what you read is true? And articles that lack footnotes eventually get tagged: {{unreferenced}}, which places an unattractive box at the top that says: "This does not cite any references or sources." I don't think the lack of footnotes was always called out so blatantly, but as Wikipedia has grown in popularity, it has also attracted more scrutiny. The answer to that is better scholarship.Barte 06:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Barte. Another important point I'd like to make is that it is for "certain" that the author Wallace Stegner did sign off on that draft of the book to be published (because it was and he was paid for it, twice). The magazine version for sure and the Beirut version at a much later date (1971) (he even supplied an additional, new introduction). So it seems that not only did he write it but he was ok with the publications as they were, which would seem certainly contrary to this "controversy."stan goldsmith (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the article doesn't properly reflect the state of affairs, you are of course free to revise or add to it. Just be sure to add the appropriate citation(s). As Jimmy Wales likes to say, "cover the controversy". We probably won't resolve it here. Barte (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No original research

The additional paragraph interpreting the controversy seems a clear violation of Wikipedia's no original research WP:NOR provision:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented...

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

You could, as an alternative, cite the Selwa blog about the publisher's objections. But as an editor, you cannot make the argument yourself and, in any case, you really need to start using footnotes.Barte (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Barte, thanks again, can you add the following which would remedy the situation? : Stegner himself states in a letter published by NPR: "I honestly will be content however you want to do it." here is the letter: http://media.npr.org/programs/day/features/2007/dec/Letter_stegner.pdf

stan goldsmith (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the section needs to be reworked and will try my hand at it if I get some time The key here, per WP:NOR (which I hope you'll take a look at, so that we're on the same "page) is that secondary sources are the meat and bones of Wikipedia articles. NPR, The Washington Post, the AP, et. al. have all done stories on the controversy, and that's why this is, in the Wikipedia universe, a true controversy, not just a "controversy." As editors, you and I are pretty much obligated to summarize what those secondary sources have reported, rather than trying to "synthesize" (WP:SYN) a position--pro or con--based on primary sources such as the letter. I think that's what you have done here, and no matter how well intended, it doesn't work. I know this sounds like legal mutterings, but "no original research" is a core principle of this place and worth understanding. Technically, of course, the publisher's blog is also a primary source, but his response is a clear, contemporary representation of his position, so I think it's fair game to mix in. Stegner's letter, by contrast, is more of an historical record and would make a good external link. But we--as editors--should resist the temptation to build a case around it. Barte (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, thanks for clarifying. So instead of an editorialized rebuttal from me as an editor we can supply Barger's side of the argument as long as it is properly footnoted. And forgive my lack of wiki-ability (ie footnotes, etc.) I am still learning. stan goldsmith (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes: I think Barger's blog, as well as his public quotes, are grist for the mill here. Ditto, of course, the quotes on the other side of the controversy reported since the Washington Post story. The footnote format is a pain. At the very least, nest the reference [[URL]] between a pair of brackets. Again the key: report on the controversy, don't argue it yourself. You seem to have an opinion on the matter, but really, as an editor here, you should try to maintain a neutral point of view WP:NPV. Barte (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. I deleted my addition because after re-reading your section on controversy I think it considers both sides as is. Thanks for the tips! stan goldsmith (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I still think the section could stand some clarification: it conflates the legal issue (does the book violate the contract) with the ethical one (does the book fully disclose that this is not the author's original version). Not that I have answers, but there do seem to be questions. Barte (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)