Talk:Matthew W. Bullock

Editing out extraneous details
As a new editor, I'm hesitant to remove info, but this article has far too many minor details. It is long, poorly summarized and poorly organized. The leader is too long. It needs to be re-written from scratch. LetsTalkAboutBears (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would urge caution on deciding what is extraneous. We've begun a maturation process in society that has been struggling with bias. And we can have bias in wikipedia; we are not immune. But I agree something better than mere information, even chronological, is needed. But, at a base level, the editors of the various sources already decided that mention of Bullock was warranted. But to the football enthusiast his career in civil service or status as a nationally ranked Baha'i is 'extraneous' or simply not on their radar, just as any of those are 'extraneous' to the others. We have the chance to cover him, himself. Access to digital media has transformed what is available - let's not cloud it with bias. Smkolins (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree - I do not want to delete things that should be there, and I'm trying to fully understand the difference between an encyclopedia entry and a biography. The details here, such as him receiving a "watch and fob" at one point, feel too detailed. I can't imagine reading a Britannica entry with that level of detail. I would not want to take out any categories, such as his religion, but to tighten up the writing to focus on notable facts and milestones. LetsTalkAboutBears (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up - the points of Writing better articles suggested in the flag on the article, to my reading, point out:

I agree with these principles and look forward to learning how to *write* better, not deciding something is trivial without a basis of deciding what is trivial. Smkolins (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * neutral
 * formal
 * academic but not too specialized
 * keeping an audience of the general reader in mind
 * businesslike (methodological, efficient, practical…)
 * Just one point from your comments - the lede is too long *and* the article is too long. Yet the lede is supposed to be proportionate to the article. So if the article is substantive at its length then the lede, to be representative, should also be long. I'm not saying either or both can't be shorter, but on an objective basis a long lede follows from a long article and a long article follows from having a lot of sources. Trimming sources to make it shorter… that circles back to the above. How to trim back. It matters. Smkolins (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out - that the lede and article should be proportionate. My writing style (not on WP) would be to keep ledes short, sort of like an abstract of a scientific paper, so I do need orientation to what the ledes should contain. LetsTalkAboutBears (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest in making this article better. I do not proclaim myself a great writer by any means despite having been at this many years and, regardless, there is always striving to make articles better. And I like to learn to do better. Perhaps you have an acumen of what it means to be a good writer and i can learn from you. That would be great.


 * Key points in the wikipedia environment, in terms fo things to avoid, are No original research and its subset WP:SYNTHESIS. What the first means is that the points made are sourced fairly - see Verifiability, not truth and Reliable sources. Obviously the mere act of writing something not written before is in some sense 'original' but the point here is that the point made is well sourced. An extension is that the point made itself is well sourced and not a merger of various sources making a new conclusion not in any of the sources. The method, speaking mechanically, the 'sausage is made' is to paraphrase what someone else has said without infringing copyright and in a readable way and giving the citation. This usually fuzzes out details which writers might feel adds value to their piece and is fairly easy to see as a copyright infringement. But here we have someone with fairly few summaries of his life. To avoid synthesis we need to respect the sources one by one or in a clear and simple group of them (like for example if a point is made about coverage across regions or time then the sources can make the point of coverage per state and list several or a particular period but then other periods.) This has to be transparently simple and not a sleight of hand trying to get away with something - ie trying to make a point that is not a fair use of the sources. I agree in principle that there is a difference between a biography and an encyclopedic summary, yet mechanically a wikipedia article summarizes sources and if the source has already made a summary of primary sources then the line between biography and encyclopedia, it seems to me, is fairly simple and let's call it 'traditional' wikipedia work. But where we have no filtering vetted source that has made editorial choices of what to include then it gets a bit weedy from my pov. We have to use sources cleanly which wikipedia can support because of reliance on sources but we cannot unjustly summarize, save that the lede should summarize the body of the article which then is well sourced.
 * As for the lede (aka lead, spelling varies) - here's the guidance on that: Manual of Style/Lead section.
 * I would point out your first editorial act was to remove a statement from the lede and not to remove the 'watch and fob' point. Do you feel the summary was inappropriate or did you just have a reaction to the point being made? Smkolins (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I started with the lede and got overwhelmed as I read further, so I stopped. If you are interested in actively working on this article, I'd be happy to work with you. It has a lot of information which would probably be helpful to a reader if it were better organized. Thanks for the links - I will read them as I get a chance.
 * I have not yet used my sandbox, but my thought is to copy and paste the article into my sandbox and work there to revise it. It still feels quite daunting as I do not have tons of time. If I were working with someone who has a good knowledge of the material, that would speed up the process. Is it possible to allow others to work with you in your own sandbox or would the collaboration happed in another space.
 * Thanks - I appreciate the collaborative nature of this site. LetsTalkAboutBears (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also - for comparison, I looked at another article, Steve Jobs - that lede is about 4 paragraphs, shorter than this one, which suggests that even with a lot of material, this is probably a bit long. My approach would be to re-write the body, then do the lede last, once I know the material better. LetsTalkAboutBears (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A sandbox is an excellent way to proceed and, by custom, it is appropriate to invite people to your sandbox to cooperate. I accept the invitation. I'm the one who fed in most of the material though it's been more than a year since I looked closely at it. But yes I'm more or less familiar and I'm sure it will come back to me as we go. I understand Jobs is more prominent so you'd think the lede would be longer but again there are biographies already written about Jobs so summarizing a summary is relatively easier to be brief than someone with fairly little summaries written where our summary here in wikipedia has to be more straightforward from the body of material. But it's a good thing to try. BTW I wrote that lede in the same manner you describe of writing the body of the text and then writing the lede. I will have intermittent time in the coming weeks to help and provide my input though from mid-November things get a bit busy so maybe more will happen in December after an initial start in the coming days. A tiny point - I suggest mildly renaming the categories at the bottom (i put an x at the beginning of them) so that the draft doesn't show up in the categories. It may not matter but it is my habit. YMMV. And I too appreciate the collaborative atmosphere when it occurs and it is something of a duty… like see Assume good faith. May I suggest returning to the original whole form before going through the re-write? You may yet see the reason for the sentence you removed even if it can be said in some better way. Smkolins (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Great - I'm looking forward to the collaboration. My jobs for the next week are to:
 * 1) undo my edits
 * 2) start the sandbox
 * 3) invite you to the sandbox
 * All new tasks for me - I'll figure them out.
 * I also need to read the article and take notes
 * 2 Questions -
 * 1) It would be really helpful for me if you could create on the sandbox a bullet list of what you feel are his most important accomplishments/life stages and we can use that as a starting point for organization
 * 2) Can you think of anyone who has similar accomplishments - although Bullock seems pretty extraordinary - who I might look to for comparison in terms of organizing the article?
 * I'm not sure what you mean about the Xs but you can show me when the sandbox is set up.
 * LetsTalkAboutBears (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't read past the lead, but I agree that it is disjointed and too long. A good lead, even for long articles, has four reasonably sized paragraphs. Currently it looks like the lead was written by several people adding parts over time without a coherent flow. Be bold and fix it! Cuñado ☼ - Talk  19:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info on a good lede. Smoklins and I will work on improving the whole article. I don't have enough info to edit the lede without diving into the whole - so it will take a bit of time. Appreciate the encouragement. LetsTalkAboutBears (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Let us know if you are proceeding with the sandbox. Live editing of articles is certainly possible, just usually assumed to be 'quicker' on the uptake. Sandboxes are not live so they can have less of a sense of pressure to get things done right. But either way. Smkolins (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I made the sandbox and tagged you in it (or thought I did). Here is the link
 * I read about how to use sandboxes and one page said not to cut and paste an entire article so I asked about it on the teahouse. I got some conflicting advice there but what seems most manageable is to work section by section. I've made some notes there -see what you think.
 * I will be out of computer range for the three day weekend so I'm not likely to respond until Monday LetsTalkAboutBears (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the appropriate amount of detail?
I began the edit with the childhood section. I tightened up the writing and removed some details that felt unnecessary to the entry although they might be relevant in a biography. I'm looking for feedback on the appropriate level of detail. My feeling about an encyclopedia is that 1) if it is too wordy, people will stop reading (I did) and 2) if people want more detail they can go to the original sources.

Example: a sentence I did not remove but in my editorial opinion does not seem important: "Bullock was listed as a member of the Center School Alumni association of the fall 1899." LetsTalkAboutBears (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be engaging, not a list of data.
 * If you have a reference with many pointers, you might want to use Help:Shortened footnotes instead of the tags. I converted an example to get the structure set up. Feel free to keep using that format if it's easier. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  23:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed on engaging and not a list. To me "Bullock was listed as a member of the Center School Alumni association of the fall 1899." means a few things like:


 * he was graduated by the fall of 1899, but the actual graduation isn't listed.
 * he remained in contact with the school post graduation by being a recognized alumni.

Is it a fair statement to say he graduated without a cite saying so? Is it fair to say he remained in contact with the school? I didn't but anchoring in what the source says, he was listed as an alumni. To me this 'data' is engaging. It punctuates his relationship with the school marking graduation and remaining in contact with the school. But it could be said better - but how do you say it anchored in what the citation says? Smkolins (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

From which I drew only that he was mentioned as a member of the school alumni association. So I agree there is some standard of what to include - there are things tangential to the topic of Matthew Bullock but being a member of the alumni seemed relevant to me. Note he comes back to serve at his high school too. But what is the standard of what to include and exclude that can be replicated across sources? Smkolins (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would leave it out entirely but I don't have strong feelings about it. We can infer that he graduated because he went to college. Being a member of the alum. assoc could be anything from paying dues and never engaging again to being president of it so on its own it is not notable. LetsTalkAboutBears (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Going back to the source, it says "The annual reception and business meeting of the Center school alumni association was held last evening in Arcanum hall. The reception committee consiste of the Misses Nowlin, Mirick, Hammond, Dodge and Brooks and Robert Forrest and Matthew Bullock. The officers elected were: N. Baker pres, Chester Washburn vice pres, Miss Ruth Brown sec, Miss Bessie Freeman treas."
 * I appreciate the context. Although we can be certain that it is accurate, I doesn't seem a detail that adds to an understanding of his life or accomplishments. I'm going to take a look at the Dartmouth U. paragraph now. I'll copy it to the sandbox and edit there in case I don't finish in this sitting. LetsTalkAboutBears (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)