User talk:Nathaniel Dektor

nothing here yet --ND

Well, I'll fix that:

Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitions • add metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start, and see Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any user or the editors for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! --Larry Sanger 14:19, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Biographies

Hi Nathaniel, I notice that you've uploaded several articles (apparently from Wikipedia) about various living people. I can't detect any pattern. So, for lack of a better way to put it: what are you up to? Frankly, it makes me worried because we might have to really fire up our Policy on Topic Informants at a time when we can ill afford the time to do so. In the meantime, could you perhaps focus on some better-known people? Maybe some dead ones?  :-) --Larry Sanger 21:53, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the explanation. OK, the only other thing I'd like to request, if I may, is that you have a look at this page and expand the four WP-sourced articles you've imported. We don't want to create just a mirror of Wikipedia. TIA! --Larry Sanger 11:17, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Kilmer Middle School

Hi Nathaniel- My personal opinion on articles on things schools is that they should not be included as seperate articles unless they are notable, period. You said the following on my talk page:

Before that page hopefully gets deleted, I'd be interested if you had an opinion or nuances to add regarding what I said on its discussion page. I'll paste my comment here in case the original gets deleted too soon:

What's the use of merely documenting the bare existence of a school? Even if someone diligently maintained the list of faculty, and even a list of notable alumni, I still wouldn't see the appropriateness of such trivia. I'm particularly interested in seeing articles on schools that document the school's history and the ways a particular school is involved with its surrounding community, and its social contexts (generally speaking). I think any obscure school could make for a fine article as long as its history could be told such that its intersection with larger surrounding historical considerations are clear and worthy of note. If one could document, for example, the way a U.S. school handled racial and ethnic issues throughout the different decades of its history, or perhaps how its educational policies fared through different economic periods, I think that would make for a worthy article regardless of how obscure or typical the school may be.

I personally do not see any use in documenting the existence of a school by itself. I don't even want to take a stab to guess how many schools there are in the United States alone. The existence of a school does not make it notable in the least. Maintaining a faculty list alone can be uber-time consuming. If someone wants to call a particular faculty member or department head or even just find out who that person is, I think they would be more likely to contact the school through its website or by calling the administration office to get who they wish to speak with.

Reading about the history of a school is somewhat interesting, however I tend to think that unless there is a very rich, documented history of a school, it would be better to associate things like how a school dealt with a particular issue such as racial or ethical issues on the page for that issue instead of on a page for the school itself. That seems more proper to me than having an entire article dedicated to the school. I do agree that those types of things would be very interesting, but rarely sought after. I think someone looking for information on how schools handled something such a segregation would be more likely to search on segregation itself than to look up "Franklin Park Middle School" to see how that particular school dealt with it.

To me, the types of schools that could have thier own article would be schools with infamous happenings such as Columbine High School, not Kilmer Middle School. I do believe the many universities would probably "qualify" to have thier own articles since thier histories are usually very documented and notable; much more than a middle school or high school.

I just think that time could be better spent working on articles that will be more needed in the long run--especially in these early stages of development.

Anyhow, just my opinion.Kelly Patterson 18:34, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

That is basically what I'm saying: starters of a school article should either be ready to produce a rich, documented history of a school or not bother. I think even an obscure school would be fine (though not a priority on CZ) because that kind of history would intersect issues that have their own pages, e.g. segregation in America or what have you. Averageness itself can be exemplary, and worth having if not repeated too much. Nathaniel Dektor 18:50, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

See the Kilmer Middle School talk page. I guess we both needed a refresher on the policies. Kelly Patterson 22:38, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Just on criteria for deletion, I suppose. I don't think anyone wants articles on schools that merely document a school's existence, although that info is indeed maintainable. Nathaniel Dektor 23:04, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Crystal Palace

I understand that you insist on "active, economical prose", but Nathanial- at Citizendium it is not considered polite to make stylistic changes in an author's original work- especially just before final approval. Changing an author's work on the grounds that you are "activating the prose" in an well-written article by tenured literature professor is just not...respectful. In other words, I would ask you to reconsider changing Riussell Potter's prose in arbitrary ways. To say something is "palpably recounted" instaed of "recounted in a palpable manner" (I'm paraphrasing from memory), when an author has spent hours devoting an original work to CZ is not an improvement, but an imposition of one style on another, and is easily offputting to that author. The change is not a clear improvement, despite the avoidance of a passive tense. I know I would be, and have been, demoralized by such changes in my own writing. We have a goal to encourage articles and each other, here, and such arbitrary changes are far from encouraging. Would you please consider reverting those edits? It would be wonderful if you would contribute a new article or a start on one. I would do anything in my power to help you accomplish an approved article. It is not a question of ownership of articles, it is a question of respect for author's style and to allow an article to have a consistent voice. Nancy Sculerati 19:09, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I strongly disagree with the above. We are not here to write individual articles in our own style. There may be stylistic differences from article to article, yes, but there should be a common thread of standard copyediting applied to all of them. I have read the rewritten article, and I fully agree with 95% of the changes as being definite improvements. The only one that I find questionable is the "palpable" phrase, which I find awkward in any case. I think that all of us should inure ourselves to having our prose worked over and, hopefully, improved. Hayford Peirce 19:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, I do think that a modicum of "style", not to express personal peculiarities, but rather to make the prose memorable, readable, and effective -- is imporant! Eventually, of course, the style of a long-lasting entry will be collective, not personal.

In any case, Nathaniel, on careful reading, I think that most of your edits, do indeed improve the flow of the text, but I did revert the one edit (also mentioned by others) which I thought inadvertently distorted the sense of the entry -- it was the language of the Times which made the event palpable to its readers (including us), not the Times which had a sense of the events' palpability; the older wording seems to me to make this clearer. Just wanted to let you know why I reverted that one phrase.

The timing is a bit close to approval -- I'd just say, in similar circumstances in the future, a "heads up" note on the article's Talk page would be a good idea before making a large number of edits. But please, do not feel discouraged about such things -- we are all on a sort of learning curve here! Russell Potter 19:28, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Crystal Palace response

foax: I assure you I don't impose an arbitrary style but always aim to make the prose as clear and direct as possible, which is always desirable in good prose. I don't tighten up dilatory prose hastily, but consider my changes closely so as not to change meaning I don't intend to change. I would always state my reason for changing or adding meaning in the edit summary or talk page. Russell, you and Hayford are right about the "palpable" thing--definitely my error: oops. As for the rest, Nancy I assure I don't pursue some personal aesthetic vision of style; I am a professional and a Ph.D. candidate in a program leading to a tenure track position who has taught composition to hundreds of undergraduates at a quality university, and I have spent years honing my pedagogy, with my superiors' approval, to teach these people to communicate what's in their minds, but as clearly and directly as possible. I gave the Crystal Palace article priority precisely because it's up for approval consideration. I've also edited the dissertations of others and numerous articles in scholarly journals, so I know from experience that a fresh pair of eyes catch my own prose lapses the best, particularly when that person isn't overly involved with the ideas I'm expressing as I usually am. I apologize if you feel stepped on; I always feel a bit the same when someone proofreads me. If you ever feel that I've made an error, please fix it and alert me because even though I proofread others efficiently, I'm not above making a palpable mistake. Nathaniel Dektor 19:54, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Oops, I hope I didn't step in on anything.. but I changed one of your (Nathaniel's) edits back only because I thought it sounded better. Russell, please know that you can change anything you want; we still have three days to approve. I also agree that Nathaniel's changes were good.Matt Innis (Talk) 20:09, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Matt, I carried the discussion over to the page in question's talk page. You might also find this[1] interesting. Nathaniel Dektor 20:24, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Nathaniel, I understand your enthusiasm for grammatical issues -- but you should also be aware that I am a Professor of English and have taught English grammar at the undergraduate and graduate levels for many years. So I find your reference to some grammatical handout rather condescending; I'm sure we are all familiar with the general principles of English grammar, but the "holier than thou" approach of grammatical prescriptivism seems to me to be out of place here. Please extend the courtesy of assuming reasonably good intentions to other authors and editors here at the Citizendium, rather than taking the stance of delivering a lecture. The collective effort of people of good will, respecting the knowledge of experts in the field and avoiding "high horse" arguments, is the ideal in the collective world of wiki editing here at CZ. Russell Potter 20:30, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

(edit conflict) Russell, I take to heart what your saying. It's just that I saw from Matt's user page he's not necessarily a literature specialist, so I referred him to the first thing I googled. I really do try to avoid the holier than thou thing as no fun for everybody. I'm not a nut for grammatical rules, but more of a nut for clarity and straightforwardness. In fact, I'm also a great enthusiast for the kind of euphony Matt refers to, but in this case the sentence's syntax makes me do a double take. I regret that my words here gave an annoying impression. I'm not like that. Nathaniel Dektor 20:47, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Hi Nathaniel -- not to worry -- you're just experiencing some of the vertigo of wiki editing, I think -- you were right to spot problems with this sentence, and I've since entirely rewritten it and I do believe it it stronger as a result. Let none of us be holier than any other! Cheers, Russell Potter 20:49, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I might add that I very much appreciated the link! I aways wondered what a dangling modifier was!!! Not to mention a squinting modifier ;-) Matt Innis (Talk) 20:51, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Economical prose

You say "I insist on economical, active prose. While I am as prone to dilatory communication as many others, I have taught many composition courses and have extensive experience editing my own and others' prose for directness of expression."

That is, indeed one set of priorities, but please do be aware that one person's notion of what "economical", as well as one person's view of what is "dilatory," may vary. Collective work together is the best way to meld these perceptions. Think of the prose of John Lyly, and compare it with that of Ernest Hemingway -- both have their merits. I've also taught composition -- for 20 years -- and have found that there is no single, sharp-edged ruler by which all prose may be measured. When you are writing your own entries, you should by all means be guided by your own lights, but please do be respectful of the stylistic choices of others. At the same time, you should call it as you see it, just give everyone space to respond and re-think. Russell Potter 20:51, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

The latter was all I was saying, and I'm sorry I opened my big mouth, or (so to speak), hit the keys and pressed save. I don't mean to discourage you Nathaniel, and I think that the wiki has its advantages- really, I'm just urging us all to add to our slim selection here rather than modify each other's work without a clear mandate. It's nice to have distinctive articles, they do not have to have the same style, and there is room for us all. I will lift my fingers, seal my lips, think kind thoughts, and hope to see new articles from you both. Nancy Sculerati 20:51, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Good advice all around, though I don't think anybody discouraged Nathaniel:) Don't you just love collaboration! Matt Innis (Talk) 20:58, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

(edit conflict) I'd never presume to proofread a fiction writer or poet! I'm reminded of that scene from Amadeus where the emperor complained Mozart's music had "too many notes." In our collaborative project here, though, we all mutually presume to one degree or another. I'm happy to discuss any specific changes of mine people may question at articles' talk pages. I'm not married to my edits. Perhaps I raised people's concerns today by editing an article that's almost finished. I promise you, however, I have good intentions in pursuit of the best results, and not in some ascetic pursuit of the best record for following rules. Nathaniel Dektor 20:59, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I'd like to add that since I've been doing the economizing thing the last few days, I have remained aware of others' style and tried to honor it by preserving the tone they've set even in cases where I didn't personally agree with it or would write that way myself. The degree to which I altered the prevailing style (which I think was minimal in any case) corresponded to the need I perceived to streamline and clarify their expression. Nathaniel Dektor 21:07, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

As a matter of policy, Russell is certainly within his rights here. Please see CZ:Introduction_to_CZ_for_Wikipedians#Get_ready_to_rethink_how_to_write_encyclopedia_articles.21. Stephen Ewen 14:22, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I can't tell what rights you're referring to. I don't know what policy you intend to apply here. I'm reminded of problems at Wikipedia where supposed policy application is used for other purposes than to produce the best article. I do agree with the information you linked to that says, "You're probably used to well-developed Wikipedia articles being divided into many short sections, full of bulleted lists, and written in dense prose that shows off erudition more than really introducing a topic. We think Citizendium has a better way. We don't like to speak 'encyclopedese'. Rather, we want Citizendium articles to be lucid, highly readable introductions written in compelling, narrative prose that really does the job of introducing a topic to people who need an introduction. This doesn't mean our articles will have less information or be more lightweight. It means we simplify the difficult, engage our readers, and allow a narrative voice to come through. In short, we want to make it hard for anyone to click away from an article until they have read it all the way through." I refer you to the information on encyclopedese,[2] and note that it says "We can, and should, enliven dull prose and retain the personality and punchiness of livelier prose." That's exactly my aim, and it would be more helpful if you brought up, on the talk page of an article, where I failed to make prose livelier or more compelling, or removed information worth keeping, or failed to honor a prevailing narrative voice. Nathaniel Dektor 14:36, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I replied at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk:Stephen_Ewen&diff=100117612&oldid=100117611#avoiding_encyclopedese Stephen Ewen 21:49, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Please stop making substantial stylistic edits to Crystal Palace

Dear Nathaniel, I'm writing to ask you to please refrain from making further edits at this time to Crystal Palace. Your edits are now extending beyond copyediting to significant stylistic changes which, in my view, make the prose of the entry less effective, less elegant, and (in some cases) less accurate. Russell Potter 12:24, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Russell, as I posted on the article's talk page, I am contributing to the article in a carefully considered manner. As I explained at the talk page and in my edit summaries, I do not change the meaning or the prevailing style. Please stop systematically reverting my work. Nathaniel Dektor 12:32, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

As an Editor here at CZ, it's my job to oversee, guide, and shape the work of Authors. I have not reverted all of your edits -- if you look at the edits, you will see that, in cases where your changes have made things clearer without altering the meaning or style significantly, I have let them stand, but I insist that in the cases where I have reverted, your edits have made what to me are notable, paplable changes in meaning or style which I feel do not improve, but rather flatten and oversimplify the entry. Please respect these edits. Russell Potter 12:42, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

No problem, Russell. I posted on the article's talk page that I've finished going through the article, and I'd like my remaining edits to be considered as proposals I'm happy to explain if people would like to consider their merit further. Nathaniel Dektor 13:13, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I want to underscore Russell's point here. It is up to the editors to determine the style of articles. It is not helpful to dwell at great length on stylistic issues. I would also like to direct you to Professionalism--please pay special attention to the discussion of the "nocomplaints" template. If you wish to make a complaint about how you are being treated on CZ, we have a strict rule against this: the way to get rude behavior corrected is to e-mail [email protected] and have them have a look at the problem.

Also, I'd also like to point out that excellent style is not exhausted by the recommendations of Strunk and White. This is relevant here. --Larry Sanger 21:21, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I refer to exactly that on my user page. Nathaniel Dektor 21:30, 8 June 2007 (CDT)