Talk:Bulfinch's Mythology

It's all at Thomas Bulfinch
Thomas Bulfinch is not notable except for Bulfinch's Mythology. The scrap of text that currently makes this article has been cut n' pasted at Thomas Bulfinch.

This should simply be a redirect to Thomas Bulfinch, where some text on his Mythology has already been built up. I'm dropping this page from my Watchlist to concentrate on Thomas Bulfinch.--Wetman (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)--Wetman

The "Recognition" section
Somebody has twice deleted the "Recognition" section as "promotional". They should read WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, which specifically says that reviews and analysis should be part of any article about a book. In fact, reviews and analysis are essential, to show that the book is "notable" and worthy of an article. I suppose the section title could be changed from "Recognition" (which generally means awards) to "Reviews". --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That somebody with me. And for good reason: The section you're restoring is nothing more than a dump of a few random, glowing quotes, totally lacking in context or even textual attribution. Slapping together a few quotes from a Google Books search and putting a section header on it is not how encyclopedia entries are built. The section reads as a "buy me!" cluster of glowing, cherry-picked quotes on the back of a modern reprint. If you want to use these quotes, then build a section around them and paraphrase some with context. In doing so, don't present this mid-19th century general audience work as a modern academic source on the topic; it wasn't then, and it most certainly isn't now. "Thomas Bulfinch's study of mythology, which first appeared in 1855, is still the most popular and useful book on classical Greek mythology in English" is just ridiculous; apparently an opinion of someone who didn't know any better (it would appear that neither of the attributed authors are Classicists), but here flatly stated without direct, non-inline attribution, essentially as simple fact.


 * Getting reverted over what should be obvious to any remotely experienced Wikipedia editor (or anyone who has read an encyclopedia article) is exactly how experienced users are burnt out on this site. I'm not going to invest the time in doing this—I'm rewriting several articles at once that have more severe and time-consuming issues—but I will continue to revert attempts at letting this section stand as nothing more than quotes. Please don't waste your time or mine any further and pleae read WP:QUOTE and WP:MOS; your time is better spent improving this article rather than defending its problems. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your repeated blanking of the entire section--now done three times, with an explicit threat to continue despite the opinions of other editors--hardly represents an improvement. It leaves readers without any context at all. Discussing a rewording is fine, but these repeated removals of sourced material that adds understanding for the average reader unfamiliar with Bullfinch (and, sadly, there are many such, as the recent AfD shows) is not helpful or constructive. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article does not claim that it is a "modern academic source"; it is written for a popular audience and the article reflects that. The article is written in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines for a nonfiction book. Such articles ALWAYS include a section on "reviews", "reception", or some such heading, and are incomplete without such a section. That section often consists entirely of review quotes; see for example The Wise Men (book) orA History of Western Philosophy. Please set aside your dislike of Bulfinch as a scholarly source (which it obviously isn't) and allow this article to document its importance as a popular work of lasting significance. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rewrite, Arxiloxos. I assume that will settle the matter. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Arxiloxos, the rewrite is a step in the right direction, thanks. Melanie, if you've been building "sections" like that then you're going to see a lot more deleted sections. Crap content is worse than no content at all; only one of these quotes is of any use. The two sections you quote above are both also terrible; they're not something to aspire to. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton
Arxiloxos has removed the description of Edith Hamilton as a "Classicist", stating that it is an "honorific". This is incorrect. Hamilton was in fact a famous scholar of Classical studies, which her overview mainly deals with (she dips into the Germanic sphere but it wasn't her specialization); this is was her profession and is not an honorific. This needs to be restored. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the edit at issue, it isn't necessary and is potentially misread; it appears to make a statement that Hamilton is superior to Bulfinch because she has credentials. This would be unwarranted synthesis. The cited source doesn't say anything like that. Her books were successful not because of her credentials but because of their quality; lots of "Classicists" write impenetrably.   Nor is it obvious what are the standards gets to be called "Classicist" (with a capital "C", yet!) and who doesn't.  There's a full article about Hamilton that goes into detail about her background; better to leave it there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading too far into this. If someone is a doctor, we call them that. It just so happens that Hamilton's professor was Classical Studies (as in the Classical World), thus making her a Classicist in any neutral sense of the word. The fact that Bulfinch was not and Hamilton was is irrelevant. Calling someone by their undeniable, inarguable profession is by no mean WP:SYNTH. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Restoral of Inappropriate Reference
MelanieN has restored a work where two non-specialists make a sweeping (and transparently ridiculous) claim; that this Victorian mythology introductory text is "the most popular and useful book on classical Greek mythology in English." These authors are not scholars on this topic and cite no sources and present no data. This is an unverifiable, off-hand remark being presented as fact by two authors that are not a reliable source on this topic. Not everything you find on Google Books is appropriate for a Wikipedia article: This source needs to go ASAP. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your objection when you deleted it (per your edit summary) was that it wasn't clear which of Bulfinch's works was being referenced, and that the reference link required a page number. Both of those issues have been fixed. --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you seem to be confusing my edits. I have previously objected to and subsequently removed this reference for these very same reasons. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with MelanieN. It's a valid commentary on Bulfinch's standing. As the recent AfD showed, explaining Bulfinch's historic stature is necessary. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * RE: confusing your edits: OK, you're right. (That makes us even; at your talk page you several times accused me of edit warring, even though I reverted your deletion only once.) As for These authors are not scholars on this topic and cite no sources and present no data, you keep talking as if this was supposed to be an academic article in a journal or some such thing. It's not. It's an encyclopedia article about a popular nonfiction book. As such it needs sources that are independent and reliable, but they do not have to present data or cite additional sources or provide third-party evidence for everything they say. These authors are certainly independent. If you believe that the authors of a student textbook cannot be used as a Reliable Source, you are welcome to take that question to Reliable sources/Noticeboard for a consensus opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So you found two authers on Google Books saying something outside of their field and now we're using a quote from a very sweeping claim they've bade and presenting as if it were somehow relevant. Very nice. And sure, I might just do that. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The one response it got there essentially said that it was inappropriate. It still contradicts the sentence prior and the claim is still ridiculous. I'm deleting it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)