Talk:Joseph Henry Condon

Excessive detail/quotefarm

Pratyeka, I appreciate the effort you put into writing Condon's biography (which I'd wanted to do until I decided I didn't have enough sources to meet WP:NBIO), but I don't agree with the style. The article is very much a string of quotes, rather than an encyclopedic overview, many of them taken from a single interview that was never formally published. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I know better than to enter in to such discussions these days, but for the record, perhaps I shall respond briefly. Your claim that you wanted to write a biography is ridiculous as there are very good resources available and currently cited and the previous state of the page was that it was linked to from many others but forwarded to his father, thus confusing the reader and giving completely the wrong impression! If you thought that was a fair state to leave the page in, then I am rather uncertain whether our editing philosophies are similar enough to engage in constructive conversation. (I frankly rather suspect that your claim is fanciful and your reflexive deployment of wikinese references rather indicative of character, a character that I have previously encountered in other overzealous editors) Secondly, if you don't agree with the style, that's fine. Feel free to add further information. So far you have only removed information, which is not helpful or encouraging for those of us who add information, going out of our way to do so. Finally, it is perfectly acceptable for encyclopedias to include quotes, and it is even more desirable for Wikipedia to do so. For someone who had a long and glorious career, under ten quotes given in context (which you apparently removed asserting that you believed there were excessive sections) is not an excessive number. If you could, in future, refrain from making destructive edits on the basis of personal opinion relating to stylistic preference, it would probably be a good thing, particularly in cases such as this where your actions and associated comments show that you do not comprehend the subject matter at hand. Thanks for your understanding. prat (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I fear that, indeed, a constructive conversation will be very hard if you start off with personal attacks, and I request you refrain from those. I'll ask for a third opinion. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. Rather than address the personal attacks, I will ask whether there is any specific quote that an editor thinks should is excessive, or any other specific question that an editor has. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Be civil and concise. Civility is not optional in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

The main problem with the quotes, aside from breaking the encyclopedic tone, is that they are all from a primary source, Condon's own account in a transcript of an interview that was clearly not edited for publication.

Also, the final two quotes concern rather specific technical details of one of Condon's inventions. Do those belong in a biography?

I also think listing the man's hobbies is rather excessive and makes this page read like a memorial. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the last sentence about hobbies is excessive. I also agree that the final quotes about highly technical details of Belle are unnecessary. I will be removing the third opinion request as answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The context, which neither of you appear to recognize, is that Condon was an early collaborator on the culture that led to the Unix philosophy. He was simultaneously critically positioned as a hardware engineer, a shield from bureaucracy for those whom he collaborated with and an illicit supplier of computing power. When he states that his development methodology for a famed invention began with breaking from established principle, it is immediately illustrative of his character and pragmatism. This is also strong, primary, horse's mouth history. While paraphrasing is an option, it removes the character insight implicit in the short and targeted quotation. Removing it entirely is just destructive. prat (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Need I remind you that the use of secondary, published sources is policy, "to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources"? You're trying to push an interpretation of this man's work that is different from the one in the only secondary source that we have, the obituary. And yes, that's "the only", not "the only two": if you look at the Star-Ledger obit and the PhysicsToday one, you'll find that "Joe had a delightful sense of humor and unlimited curiosity" (which you copied nearly verbatim, making this even more of a memorial) and various other phrases occur literally in both, so they are not independent sources. This is what I meant by not having enough sources to pass the notability test. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)