Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird/Archive 5

Numerous recent edits to this featured article
I am very concerned about the many recent edits to this featured article written by one of our best editors.

''Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed as featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria.''

I did revert some but not all of the edits. I had hoped to leave a few changes but they seem to be going on and on and I've had about enough. Unless the editor that makes changes in style has a few featured articles under his/her belt as well, I believe they should consider that "improving" this article left and right is not a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * On 16 March 2014 I made a number of edits to the attached article; then on 17 March 2014 I made two more.
 * When I did so, I acted entirely in good faith and with the highest of intentions. Specifically, I sought merely to correct inaccuracies in the facts and errors in grammar and composition, not merely matters of personal preference.  [There was truly a large number of such errors and inaccuracies.]
 * Further, I did so not as a newbie or as an untrained or uneducated person but rather as one with a handful of credentials and qualifications, including extensive practical experience. First, I've taken part at the Wikipedia since 03 September 2008; I've written several articles and made positive and constructive improvements to many others.  Further, I've worked in writing, rewriting, ghostwriting, editing, and proofreading since 1953, and I've taught grammar, composition, and communication at the college level since 1977.  During those years I've earned degrees at the baccalaureate, master's, and doctorate levels.  You can feel sure that I know my stuff.
 * If anyone wishes to check some of my work, please go to my website, entitled Bluehounds and Redhounds.
 * On 13 April 2014 another user, Gandydancer, reverted most of my work in two steps, here and here. Gandydancer did not discuss any specific point among his reversions; instead in an edit summary he categorically described my work as "very poorly written".
 * This afternoon, 17 April 2014, I started reinserting my corrections, carefully doing so step-by-step and writing informative explanations in the edit summaries. [Unfortunately, the space limit on the edit summaries caused me to make many short edits rather than longer inclusive ones.]
 * Several hours ago, still on 17 April 2014, while I continued working, that same other user, Gandydancer, made a few more reversions in two more steps, here and here, again without discussing any specific point but by implying that my work is "needlessly tortured and scrambled".
 * What matters here is not what I think, not what Gandydancer or any other user thinks, not what the major contributor wrote in the plot summary in the first place, not who wrote it, not the background of that writer, and not whether the subject article is a featured article.
 * What matters here is whether the facts in the summary are correct, and whether the text in the summary is correct. That includes the questions of whether the text complies with the accepted principles of grammar and composition, and whether it presents the material in a clear and understandable way.
 * If Gandydancer or any other user wishes to challenge any specific point in my work, please do so, but please do so point-by-point, and please do so by presenting clearly articulated explanations based on accepted professional standards rather than personal beliefs or feelings, not by hurling general insults, as did Gandydancer. I invite your scrutiny – as long as you express yourself in a cordial and civilized manner.
 * If anyone shows by a persuasive argument that I've wandered from a correct path at any point, I'll gladly and cheerfully recant.
 * Meanwhile, best wishes to all, as always,
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Please take a look at your March 16 edit summary in which you called your edits Agreement in case (objective case) between pronouns and antecedents; parallelism between two relative clauses; correct use of commas; correct form for singular possessive noun; tense sequence; other smoothing and polishing. Since you (correctly) pointed out that my edit note was not very clear, please note that your March 16 edits were clearly far more than smoothing and polishing.  As for my snarkiness, I do apologize for that.  I learned long ago to never edit when I am feeling angry, but I went right ahead and did just that, even though I know better.  To me, it just seemed so arrogant that anyone would make so many changes in a featured article.  Looking at your edit summaries reads to me like something that I might have seen on one of my high school English papers, not something I'd expect to find here for a feature class article written by a professional-level writer.  I'll get back to this tomorrow as it's getting late here. I really do dread going through all of your changes edit by edit, but I'll do what ever needs to be done to restore the article to its previous wording where that is appropriate  Gandydancer (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Gandydancer:
 * This morning I see that you've already begun making unilateral reversions of my corrections to the article.
 * Further, your edit summaries fail to specify exactly why you object to my corrections; instead you use general expressions without explanations, using the expressions, for example, "unnecessary", "different", "did not improve", "best", "unneeded", and "not an improvement".
 * When you make such pronouncements without defending them, supporting them, and explaining them, your descriptions are merely expressions of your personal preference. That reduces your part of this discussion to a matter of your saying just "yes, it is" or "no, it's not".
 * As I suggested last night, if you wish to challenge or contest any of my corrections, please do so by presenting clearly articulated explanations based on accepted professional standards rather than personal beliefs or feelings.
 * In my edit summaries of yesterday and last night, I briefly but carefully explained exactly why each of my corrections follows the established principles of grammar and composition, and why each one is a positive, helpful, and constructive improvement.
 * Again: If you find any of my edits to be incorrect, inappropriate, destructive, or counterproductive, please give a clearly articulated explanation for your position on each point, just as I did in my edit summaries – not merely by saying in effect "no, it's not".
 * Another facet gives me concern: During the 33 days since 16 March 2014, when I introduced my corrections, you still are the only person who has objected to my improvements.
 * That raises this: If my corrections are bad or wrong or inappropriate, then why has nobody else stood up and spoken up?  Where are the other watchers?  Why has nobody else objected to my work?  If the article or at least the plot summary were previously as wonderful and untouchable as you seem to feel, then why has nobody else yet jumped up and started hollering about my work?
 * I respectfully recommend and request that you forbear from making any further immediate reversion. Please wait – wait for the dust to settle – wait for several other interested users to offer their views – wait for a few others to share their wisdom and relevant experience with us – then let's proceed in a careful and measured way in compliance with accepted principles, not personal feelings.
 * As I mentioned last night, regardless of the identity of the writer of the original plot summary or the nature of the reputation or other accomplishments of that one, what matters here is whether the summary truthfully and accurately recites the events, and whether it presents that material in a correct, precise, and readable way, following the principles of grammar and composition.
 * Unfortunately, the previous form of the summary contains a large number of errors – both errors in the facts and errors in grammar and composition, despite its authorship and despite the reputation of that writer.
 * Should we allow those errors to continue to stand, merely because you or anyone else likes or respects the first writer, or should we correct those errors?
 * One might wonder how the article acquired the label of a "featured article" despite the surprisingly large number of errors, even in basic high-school grammar.
 * Many of the errors in the plot summary closely resemble the mistakes which I often see in the work of my college students. [Several years ago I retired from full-time work, but I continue to serve part-time as an adjunct professor.]
 * Will one or more well qualified people please offer advice, comments, or suggestions – about the principles involved, not merely personal beliefs or feelings?
 * As always, best wishes to all,
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your response. I will reply as soon as I can find the time.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If any other user feels any interest in this matter, one might wish to see another relevant discussion on the talk page of Binksternet.
 * Best wishes to all,
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

Although DocRushing says "I sought merely to correct inaccuracies in the facts and errors in grammar and composition, not merely matters of personal preference", that is not at all what I found his edits to be. In fact, I found them to be primarily personal preference edits. I'll copy the March edits with the corrections in bold below:

Because Atticus does not want them (want them not) to be present at Tom Robinson's trial, Scout, Jem and Dill watch in secret ("in secret" deleted) from the colored balcony. Atticus establishes that the accusers—Mayella and her father, Bob Ewell, the town drunk—are lying (have continued to lie). It also becomes clear that the friendless Mayella was making (made) sexual advances towards Tom and her father caught her and beat her. Despite significant (much credible) evidence of Tom's innocence, the jury convicts him. Jem's faith in justice is badly shaken, as is Atticus' (Atticus's), when a hapless Tom is shot and killed while trying to escape from prison. The children feed each other's (one another's) imagination with rumors about his appearance and reasons for remaining hidden, and they fantasize about how to get him out of his house. Following (After) two summers of friendship with Dill, Scout and Jem find that someone is leaving (leaves) them small gifts in a tree outside the Radley place. Several times, the mysterious Boo makes gestures of affection (fondness) to the children, but, to their disappointment, he never appears in person.

I reverted these two "corrections" for several reasons. In the first place, this section was written by an editor that has written numerous GA articles and this is a featured article that has remained quite stable since the author left WP in 2012. Also, although DocRushing states "there was truly a large number of such errors and inaccuracies", besides the knowledgeable editors that vet WP articles for FA and GA, thousands and thousands of Wikipedia readers have not found reason to make such a long list of changes either.

Looking at the changes, the "want them not" wording does not make any sense at all to me. "Secret" was deleted when in fact Atticus and his sister were not aware that the children were watching from the balcony and the housekeeper brought a note from Atticus's sister to court in which she says the children can't be found. The change of "are lying" to "have continued to lie", is IMO, a needless change which does not improve flow but rather quite the opposite. You changed "significant" to "much credible". I suppose that either one will do, but why the change? I prefer Moni's wording and I'm sure that there are some that would prefer your wording. Considering that Moni apparently preferred "significant", per WP guidelines a featured article should not see changes without good reason and there is none in this instance. You changed all of the "Atticus'" to "Atticus's", however that is your preference, not Moni's preference. Furthermore, the changes would have had to be made throughout the article to keep it consistent. I prefer your change of "each other's" to "one another's". I believe that you later explained your reason; if it really does go against some sort of carved-in-stone rule, fine--if not, it should be left alone. You changed "'Following" two summers" to "After" two summers. Once again, there is no good reason--it is just your preference You changed "is leaving" to "leaves"--I much prefer "is leaving" which I believe is equally correct.  And finally, your change of "affection" to "fondness" is just  one more example of what I see as an arrogant, authoritative position that you used in making your mostly unneeded March edits of this article.

Real life leaves little time for WP right now. I will post this for now and finish with a second response that will hopefully cover the rest of DocRushing's requests. Thank you for your patience. Gandydancer (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To continue: DrRushing has asked: "If you find any of my edits to be incorrect, inappropriate, destructive, or counterproductive, please give a clearly articulated explanation for your position on each point, just as I did in my edit summaries – not merely by saying in effect "no, it's not"."

Looking at my April 18 edits, I deleted the copy, "in the southwest corner of Alabama, roughly between Mobile and Montgomery". To note that the town is the county seat is ample to give a reader a picture of the village, one need not know whether or not it is between Mobile and Montgomery since, unless one lives in Alabama, the reader most likely has no idea where Mobile and Montgomery are located. I sure don't, and even if they were linked I would not have any interest in that information. Considering that this is a plot summary of an entire book condensed to just a few short paragraphs, does one really need to know the exact location? Also, I note that this editor changed the word "Following" to "After" with the edit summary, In this context "after" and "following" are synonymous, but "after" contains fewer letters and fewer syllables, and brevity matters.

I reverted to Moni's wording, "The adults of Maycomb are hesitant to talk about Boo, and, for many years few have seen him.", as I do not believe that "The adults of Maycomb are hesitant to talk about Boo, and few have seen him in many years" is an improvement but merely a shuffle of words to please one editor over another.

I also returned (in bold) "Atticus agrees to defend Tom to the best of his ability. This wording was deleted by an earlier editor, not DrRushing.  It had stood out to me when I read the plot section (in an earlier version before it was removed) because it illustrated the fact that Atticus would not only be  going through the motions of defending the black man, he would be doing it to the best of his ability, just as he would for anyone, black or white.

In this sentence, "Jem's arm is broken in the struggle, but amid the confusion someone comes to the children's rescue.", DrRushing added "left" arm. This edit summary suggested that Moni's wording implied that Jem had only one arm. This is silly because nobody is going to think that Jem has only one arm.

In this sentence, "Atticus eventually accepts the sheriff's story that Ewell simply fell on his own knife", DrRushing changed the word "story" to "interpretation". "Story" is the better term because the sheriff knew full well that Ewell did not fall on his knife--it was a "story" that he made up to avoid killing a mockingbird. This is important because it goes right to the heart of the book. IMO, anyone that misses this, misses the most basic meaning of the book.

In this sentence, "Boo asks Scout to walk him home, so she does; after she says goodbye to him at his front door, he disappears again.", so she does was added with an edit summary: '' "So she does" fills a blank; Boo asks Scout to walk him, SO SHE DOES. A comma and "she" increases clarity and avoids a potential ambiguity. The proper tense sequence requires here the present perfect (rather than past) tense.'' Sorry, there is no blank or ambiguity that needed fixing. Furthermore, "so she does" sounds quite odd. Like so many of DrRushing's edits, this is just one more example of what he likes or does not like. While he expresses shock at how bad the article was before he came along, he refuses to accept the possibility that his edits, for the most part, are an attempt to change Moni's style to his own. Incidently, I spoke earlier of the edit regarding the use of "each other" and "one another". I looked it up and found the following:

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.) says the distinction between the two “is often ignored without causing confusion and should be regarded more as a stylistic preference than a norm of Standard English.”

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, says “each other” means “each of two or more in reciprocal action or relation.” And “one another,” the dictionary says, means “each other.”

In short, this is an issue of style rather than correctness. There’s no harm in following that “traditional” rule if you like, but there’s no harm in ignoring it either. 

I'm sure I left a few things out. As time permits (today) I will again read DrRushing's post and answer any further questions that he has. Gandydancer (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have found time to again go through the requests and I seem to have covered them all other than the question "If the article or at least the plot summary were previously as wonderful and untouchable as you seem to feel, then why has nobody else yet jumped up and started hollering about my work?". Well, obviously I don't agree that I've been jumping up and hollering, nor do I believe that the previous wording was so perfect that it was untouchable. As to why some other editor has not objected, it is not at all surprising. Many times I have later come to realize that an article on my watch list has had gross "improvements" that I somehow missed at the time they were made. Gandydancer (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Gandydancer:
 * Within a reasonable time I'll make a full response, including complete answers and explanations for your questions and concerns.
 * However, this week I must wind up one term at school and prepare for a new term next week.
 * Further, I must look after several personal matters, including the terminal illness of one of my sons.
 * Still, though, I'll write again after several more days.
 * Thanks for your patience.
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Sure, please take your time. I will make no further edits till you have found the time to continue with the discussion.  However, considering that you felt it important to pull my request for help from another editor to the notice of this talk page and will not be able to post for some time, I would like to discuss my post at Bink's talk page.   At his talk page you changed my heading from "Help please", the very same way I head all of my (frequent) help requested posts, to "Help, please!!!".  And to my amazement, you saw nothing at all wrong with your edit and treated it as merely a matter of personal choice.  This action on your part suggests to me that you are completely unaware of, or just choose to ignore, Wikipedia's clearly established talk page guidelines that state that no editor should edit the words of another editor.  This is so basic that it does suggest to me that you may not also be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines that state that extra  caution should be used when changing the copy of a GA and even more so an FA, or just choose to ignore them.


 * Although you state that "Gandydancer has chosen to react in such an emotional and immature way", I believe that I am editing in a manner that Wikipedia guidelines have carefully written to attempt to both improve Wikipedia and insure that articles of good and excellent quality are not hacked to death by well meaning editors that, for instance, question how this article was promoted to an FA article "despite the surprisingly large number of errors, even in basic high-school grammar". I'm far from a grammar expert, but I do find it very hard to believe that of the thousands and thousands of people that have read this article you are the only one to find around 50 (not an exact count) errors in just one section, the plot section. Gandydancer (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Gandydancer:
 * This afternoon (Saturday), after a full and busy week, I began my next comments about my changes to the article.
 * I've made much progress.
 * Tomorrow (Sunday) I'll continue.
 * Soon I'll finish them and post them.
 * Thanks again for your patience.
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Gandydancer:
 * After another busy work at school I've finished writing my response to your complaints about my work and objections to it.
 * Next I'll add some links to my answer and otherwise wikify it.
 * Very soon I'll publish it.
 * Thanks again for your patience.
 * I see that you've contacted yet another user, Eric Corbett, again seeking help or support in your campaign against me and my changes to the article.
 * Since then Eric has read the article and has made a number of his own changes to it; however, most of his edits lie in the sections other than the plot summary, where I did my work.
 * He made just a small handful of edits to the plot summary, including only three reversions of the changes which I had made to it.
 * Eric also restored the essence (“one of Jem’s arms”) of one my edits (“Jem’s left arm”), of which you've made much fun, and for which you've made fun of me.
 * Smiles!
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * I just want to make it clear that I've got no dog in this race, and I'm certainly not part of any campaign for or against anyone. Eric   Corbett  22:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Eric: Roger.  I understand.  Thanks.  Doc – DocRushing (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC).