Talk:The Temple at Thatch/Archive

Really? Featured Article Status?
The fact that this article attained Featured Article status really reduces, in my eyes, the credibility of such status for identifying articles of quality. It is not that the article is poorly written, it's just that it is questionable that such a subject really meets the requirements of notability to merit a separate article of its own. An entire article on an unpublished manuscript that was subsequently destroyed, and, as the article says, the "only information as to the novel's subject comes from Waugh's diary entries and later reminiscences"? This information should have been merged into the main article on Waugh himself, not be a standalone article. I know that articles like this fall through the cracks all the time, but one becoming a Featured Article? It's very concerning. I would start a merge discussion on this article, but I know what would happen - the majority of the !votes would say "but it has been a Featured Article" - and the merge discussion would die - when the real discussion should be an apparent breakdown in the standards of Wikipedia's Featured Articles nominations.Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please try to assume good faith of other editors; no one is trying to sabotage the wiki. Also remember that Featured articles are chosen for how well they are written not how important or significant their subjects are.  If you really feel that the article is not up to standard then you need to list it at featured article review.  Cheers! meshach (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Telling people to "assume good faith" has practically become a verbal tic on Wikipedia, so much so that the admonishment gets employed where it is not appropriate, as you have. I haven't accused anyone of bad faith, merely bad judgement. I have no doubt those who nominated or selected the article for FA status thought it deserved it. The only one who failed to assume good faith here is you, when you put words in my mouth by claiming I was saying someone was trying to sabotage the wiki. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A snarky title is not a very positive way to begin a discussion, but let that be. Without wishing to examine Myers's credentials for deciding what is or is not notable in the field of English literature, I will remind him/her that Waugh is one of the greatest, some would say the greatest, English novelist of the 20th century. It is of considerable interest, not just to Waugh scholars but to the intelligent reading public, to know about this early, failed attempt to write a novel. That it is why it is mentioned in nearly all the books on Waugh, and has been the subject of scholarly research. It may seem trivial to someone without an interest in these things, but indifference is a poor basis for judgement.  The article did not "fall through a crack"; it was promoted on the judgement of a consensus of experienced WP editors whose integrity is beyond question. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Self important much, Brian? 79.97.92.28 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously.Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yery uncivil tone, Brian. Remember that Wikipedia has no policy on credentials. Remember, too what Jimmy Wales said:
 * Your reaction to any questioning of the importance of this unpublished novel that no living person has read indicates a passion that may be undermining your objectivity.Edit: Ahh, now I understand it. After looking at your user page under "Achievements to date" I see you proudly displaying that you were "nominator and main editor" responsible for making this an FA. So you are one of those "experienced WP editors whos integrity is beyond guestion" that you are so quick to defend. Now I understand the reason for your snit, and see my hunch about your objectivity was on the money. You might want to try not to get so emotionally involved in your articles. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was getting a little concerned about page ownership after the issues with the sentence about suicide, but at least those are resolved. Some guy (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"parasuicide"
IP editor 79.97.92.28 wishes to change the last line of the opening paragraph to "This and other personal disappointments were followed by a parasuicide". The present version is "In a fit of despondency from this and other personal disappointments, he then made a half-hearted suicide bid before returning to his senses", which while longer is I believe more informative. The shorter version introduces a passive voice, and is I think inelegant and unnecessarily brusque; above all it introduce an obscure term that will require most readers to use a wikilink. This should not be the case in any article, featured or not. If the IP can produce a better wording that does not require a wikilink, then let's have it here. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no qualms with this sentence until "before returning to his senses". This sounds much too colloquial and subjective for me, what do others think? LazyMapleSunday (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed "before returning to his senses" (because this is editorializing and inappropriate) to "but abandoned this course and returned to writing", but Brian undid my edit without legitimate explanation. I'm open to wording it better if that's desired. Some guy (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was stressed by the insistent "parasuicide" interjections. I don't think "returning to his senses" is editorialising or inappropriate. It is a paraphrase of Waugh's own words: "a sharp recall to good sense". The present version reads rather weakly; it does not indicate why Waugh "abandoned this course". And to say he "returned to writing" is not accurate. He resumed his teaching career, with occasional attempts at writing that eventually bore fruit, but in no sense can it be said that he "returned to writing". I would obviously prefer that my own version be reinstated, if necessary with Waugh's precise words if my paraphrase is thought colloquial. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with parasuicide? It's not that obscure at all, and it seems to me to be the most accurate term (although I admit that the wording in my edit was somewhat sloppy). "fit of despondency" "half hearted suicide bid" and "returning to his senses" just sound unencyclopaedic to me. 79.97.92.28 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those terms all refer to Waugh's state of mind as he described it, and thus reflect the sources. Using the term "parasuicide" involves making a judgement that Waugh intended to harm himself without actually killing himself. There is nothing in the sources to suggest that is the case, so the term is inaccurate as well as obscure. Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're presenting what is apparently Waugh's opinion/language as a truth. You can't just say "came to his senses" without adding a qualifier such as "before he, according to his own words, 'came to [his] senses'", because otherwise you are appearing to define what his senses are based on your own opinion and it reads as editorializing. I just went with "returned to writing" because that's the impression I got from skimming the article, as I said I'm open to rewording. Some guy (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Brian, I suggest you quote and cite Waugh's diary if you are describing Waugh's state of mind - the sentence is otherwise hearsay. Secondly, did he or did he not attempt suicide??  I don't know what a "half-hearted suicide bid" is if it isn't an attempt at suicide.  If he did attempt suicide, IP's suggestion of parasuicide is accurate and its meaning can certainly be inferred by the context of the sentence.  Further the prefix "para" is widely known as is the word "suicide".  If you are still troubled by the connotations of parasuicide then I suggest the sentence read something like "In a fit of despondency from this and other personal disappointments, he unsuccessfully made an attempt to take his life."  If Waugh did not make a suicide attempt then I suggest the article just mention his depression and move on.  Whatever your course of action the sentence ought to be changed.  LazyMapleSunday (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First, Waugh's diary is not the source, it is his memoir A Little Learning, which is fully cited in the main article. Secondly, the attempted suicide episode is fully recounted in the "Rejection" section; the lead account is only a broad summary. The term "half-hearted" suggests, accurately, that Waugh was not certain of his intentions; his indecision is fully recorded in the last pages of his memoir, and I  think "half-hearted" is a reasonable description to employ. Thirdly, the term "parasuicide" is not just another term for attempted suicide; its specific meaning is deliberate self-injury or self-harm not intended to lead to death. That does not match the facts here. I still believe my original wording is justifiable, but in the interests of closure I suggest the following: "He records that in a fit of despondency from this and other personal disappointments he began a suicide attempt before experiencing, in his own words, "a sharp return to good sense". The verbatim quote will be cited.


 * You are reading parasuicide narrowly but I will not push the matter, I personally am not a fan of the term. I picked at "half-hearted" because it seems as though you don't think he truly meant to off himself.  Your original wording was problematic because it was unclear that you were paraphrasing Waugh.  As a result, on its face, the sentence appears to assume that all suicides are out of their senses.  I agree, we must move on.  I suggest that you pare down your sentence - if you quote and cite I don't think you need the "he records" or "in his own words" which are implied by the quotation marks.  Perhaps simply "In a fit of despondency from this and other personal disappointments he began a suicide attempt before experiencing "a sharp return to good sense." LazyMapleSunday (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have adopted the phrasing you suggest, though it is necessary to attribute the quoted phrase to Waugh to avoid all misunderstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Waugh is quoted in the article as saying " Did I really intend to drown myself? That was certainly in my mind". Which to me sounds as if he was unsure about whether or not he was actually intending to kill himself. If he was not, it was certainly not a suicide bid 79.97.92.28 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)