Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 May 20

= May 20 =

10:23:47, 20 May 2018 review of submission by SusanSoyinka
I am having a great deal of difficulty in amending my article on Albert Reuss to suit your requirements. My account was blocked for weeks on the grounds that I was using the same name as "a well known living person" i.e. myself. I have been accused of infringing copyright by quoting from the article https://artuk.org/discover/stories/albert-reuss-the-artist-as-refugee, and some of the wording which originates from that article has been deleted. In fact, I wrote the Art UK article myself, having been commissioned by Art UK to do so. Since that article and my Wikipedia article are about the same subject, it is inevitable that some of the content is similar or even identical. Following advice from one of your editors, I have been in touch with Art UK about releasing my text under an appropriate Creative Commons licence, and this has now been done, which should resolve the problem. I hope it will now be possible for you to restore most of the content which has been deleted, as it is essential to the Albert Reuss story. I have tried, unsuccessfully to do this myself, but have been unable to do so, as I do not understand your procedures. This has been dragging on for 2 months now, and we seem to be going round in circles. PLEASE PLEASE could you now undo these deletions and accept my article without further delay as this whole process is causing me great distress.

Should there be any further difficulty with my article, I would also like to say that my work is thoroughly researched and my sources are provided. I have carried out a great deal of original research on this artist which has included obtaining copies of much of his lifetime's correspondence from an organisation in Vienna called "basis wien", as well as his biographical information from the Jewish archives in Vienna (IKG). I have also interviewed many people who knew him, and have been in correspondence with his niece in the USA. My intention in writing this article is to bring to the attention of the public the life and work of a much neglected but important artist.

SusanSoyinka (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied at length on Draft:Albert Reuss. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

10:27:46, 20 May 2018 review of submission by LaundryPizza03
– Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 10:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Where do I request the creation of a template? – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 10:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . See Requested templates. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

16:55:04, 20 May 2018 review of submission by SusanSoyinka
Further to my question submitted earlier today, I have now been able to restore content wrongly deleted on the grounds of copyvio. (Please read my earlier submission). This has taken many months of hard work. Please could you tell me whether there are any other outstanding issues, or can my article now be accepted? SusanSoyinka (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - Hello - It's very clear you've put a lot of effort into the draft and he's an interesting subject. But I'm afraid I do see two significant issues. First, whole chunks of it, including whole sections, are still completely unsourced. Secondly, there is a lot of what looks like personal opinion/original research in the draft, and some rather unencylopedic prose. Take the, wholly-unsourced paragraph that begins "From a young age, Albert became estranged from his family; a frail, sickly and vulnerable child, he seemed neither to fit into nor to belong to the family into which he was born". Apart from the "dramatic" tone, how do you know any of that? More importantly, how will the reader be able to verify it? And a few lines later, "There can be few expressions of undying love and support made at the beginning of a relationship, which can be shown to have been fulfilled 55 years later." That's just too purple a passage for an encyclopedia. In my view, it needs a copyedit to tighten the prose and it needs more sourcing. I think the key problem is that what you are/have been doing is closer to original research than writing a Wikipedia article. We don’t do original research, we give an overview of what the secondary sources say about a topic. KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

17:28:37, 20 May 2018 review of submission by 129.133.196.249
129.133.196.249 (talk)

Hi. I have created this article Otake Chikuha in late March. My submission was declined by Heliosxeros, due to lack of adequate citation. I must admit I only have minimal citation, but I also feel it serves its purpose, and should be considered enough. Could someone advise me on the kind of edits I should be doing? Should I be citing more? Should I be looking for English sources? What is the best choice if I can't find much English material to work with?

129.133.196.249 (talk)
 * ✅  clearly meets Notability with many mentions in published works; any other issues can be sorted out now that it's published. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

19:47:44, 20 May 2018 review of submission by SusanSoyinka
-->}} Hello KJP1  and  Worldbruce. Thank you for your quick replies to my questions earlier today. Setting aside for a while the question of my style, I can vouch for every single detail I have written about Reuss's life because I have read a great deal of his correspondence between 1938 and 1975, as well as many other of his papers. These papers originated from Reuss's voluminous written estate in Mousehole, but were sent to Vienna in 1984 to someone who was supposed to write a biography but died. I obtained this documentation from an organisation in Vienna called "basis wien", and had to pay to get copies of them sent to me (some 8000 pages), as well as paying for the translation of many of them from German to English, and other expenses. (I obtained some funding for this from the Austrian government, the Anglo-Austrian Society, and the Q Fund in Cornwall). I also obtained other details of his life from the sources I have listed in "external sources", and have explained this in my article, in the "acknowledgements" section. The problem is that anyone who wanted to access these sources would have to visit these places or go through the same process as me. The information is all there, just difficult to get hold of. There is a very small amount of information about Reuss on other websites, but much of it is inaccurate. Mine is the FIRST AND ONLY serious and detailed study of his life and work, therefore I can quote no other reliable source, apart from my original sources. I am his recognized biographer. For Worldbruce to say that "Wikipedia probably should have a biography of Reuss, and any number of volunteers will be happy to write one" is wholly inaccurate. In view of this, are you seriously saying that my article cannot be accepted and no article can ever be written about Albert Reuss? I have written all my findings in my book "Albert Reuss in Mousehole, The Artist as Refugee". I assure you that I am not trying to promote my book, but simply trying to bring to public attention a much neglected but important artist. Neither am I trying to memorialize him, as suggested by Worldbruce and neither is Reuss a family member. I am a recognized author, with a reputation for meticulous research. I give talks about my books at numerous festivals, and only yesterday spoke about Reuss at the renowned Fowey Festival of Arts and Literature in Cornwall (formerly the Daphne Maurier Festival). Surely in a complicated situation like this, there is a case for accepting the work of a well known researcher and author? SusanSoyinka (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - I'm afraid that the short answer is no, there isn't such a case. And the reason for that is summarised in this policy, No original research. You're a published author, with your own Wikipedia page, although that is not without its own issues, but what you are endeavouring to do with the Reuss draft is put your own research onto Wikipedia. And that's not what Wikipedia is about. KJP1 (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

23:17:07, 20 May 2018 review of submission by SusanSoyinka
KJP1 Thank you once again for your speedy response. I forgot to say that there is an article on German Wikipedia about Albert Reuss which is entirely a summary and translation of my book, and my book is given as its ONLY source. So what do I do?? Ask someone else to submit my article, giving my book as its source, as has been done in the German article? This doesn't make sense. SusanSoyinka (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , - Worldbruce will know better than I, but my guess would be that the German Wiki has a more relaxed approach to sourcing than we do. That's actually quite common for foreign-language Wikis. KJP1 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. de:Albert Reuss would not pass muster here.


 * We require multiple reliable secondary sources to ensure that we don't parrot one author's point of view. This problem is compounded when you are citing your own work, and you say that you are the only reliable secondary source. It's good to hear that you aren't trying to promote your book or memorialize Reuss. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium, it is not even for bringing attention to neglected artists. For these reasons, and because you've said that the process is causing you great distress, I suggest you leave the writing of a Wikipedia article on this topic to someone else. I would give this advice to anyone I encountered who was repeatedly banging their head against a brick wall while exclaiming "Ow, this hurts!"


 * I don't know what you mean when you write that my statement "Wikipedia probably should have a biography of Reuss, and any number of volunteers will be happy to write one" is "wholly inaccurate". Three requested articles about artists were written last month. Wikipedians are always looking for suitable topics. Requesting an article might not produce immediate results, and certainly wouldn't produce the same draft you've written (but that's the point, since that draft is unacceptable), but there's no reason to believe that "no article can ever be written" about him.


 * With five and a half million articles, there are literally millions of ways to improve Wikipedia. I think you would find it easier to help by working on topics you are less deeply invested in. Ultimately, what to do is up to you. If you think you can change your approach, and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you are welcome to continue working on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)