Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry

Quotes from memoir

Dear User:voorts, I've reverted your deletions, and here's why: the short passages I included from von Sternberg's autobiography (and they are only a few bytes) where cited by the sources I used to build the article. Save one, I did not simply pick and choose by own passages.

Note that User:BoyTheKingCanDance, prior to your deletions, emphasized the titles for these excerpts, a clear approbation of the material in the article. I regret that you failed to recognize that fact. Lord Such&Such (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Lord Such&Such. Thank you for starting a talk page discussion. First, the fact that the quotes were cited by the sources [that you] used to build the article is not sufficient reason to include those quotes in the article in their own section. According to the guideline on quoting primary sources: Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other primary source material. In Wikipedia articles, quotes of any original texts being discussed should be relevant to the discussion (or illustrative of style) and should be kept to an appropriate length. Additionally, WP:INDISCRIMINATE provides that data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. For those reasons, we do not include sections that are purely quotations taken from a book in a Wikipedia article about that book. If you'd like to put quotes from the book somewhere, Wikiquote would be the place to do it, and there's a {{wikiquote}} template that you can place in the article; below the infobox would work.

Second, the fact that @BoyTheKingCanDance bolded the text is not a clear approbation of the material in the article; it appears that those edits were to match earlier ones you had added that used bold text. In any case, that use of bolding is improper per the Manual of Style; see MOS:BOLD. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

We'd like to see User:BoyTheKingCanDance chime in as a 3rd opinion.--Lord Such&Such (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for third opinion at WP:3O. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am replying here in response to a request for a third opinion at WP:3O. The issue appears to center around and be limited to the inclusion or exclusion of five short quotations in one section, as can be seen in this diff. Wikipedia's relevant style guide is MOS:QUOTE, which notes, Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. As used in this diff, these quotes do not serve any of the purposes given in the manual of style. They are contextless: except for a few words establishing the subject, there is no indication why these specific quotes are important to understanding the subject (which is the memoir itself). Wikipedia's foundation is secondary sources that discuss a topic, not the topic itself. Rather than using these quotes, consider instead paraphrasing the secondary sources that cite these excerpts as pertinent, and using that analysis within the main article body rather than having a separate section. VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @VQuakr. @Lord Such&Such: will you agree to remove the quotes and, as VQuakr suggested, discuss what secondary sources have to say about those quotes? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @VQuakr for your opinion. The quotes do, contrary to your remarks, serve the purpose of providing "an understanding of the subject." The memoir is out of print and not available online to my knowledge. The brief quotes are useful to Wikipedia patrons interested in the topic of filmmaker Josef von Sternberg and his artistic outlook. Paraphrasing his remarks involves the editor's interpretation; better to allow the artist to express these matters directly in short passages, here less than 100 words.

The point here is not to impose Prosecutorial discretion on the article, as Voorts argues, but to improve it. Cherry-picking Wikipedia rules to suppress passages cited by the sources lacks objectively and proportion. "Legally" you have the "right" to remove the section. Rationalize this as you wish.--Lord Such&Such (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lord Such&Such: I do not understand what you are trying to say regarding prosecutorial discretion, which I don't see mentioned elsewhere in this discussion page. Please remember to assume good faith and avoid antagonistic accusations such as "cherry-picking". There is no cherry picking going on here: Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia, a tertiary source based primarily on secondary sources, is the first pillar of its five fundamental principles. VQuakr (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

VQuakr: Kindly refrain from making further accusations of bad faith. That sad, Voort cautioned that content contributors "should use quotations sparingly, and only when needed in context." My use of brief quotations, within the "context" of a memoir/autobiography serves to enhance the understanding of the subject of the article. What could be more 'in context." Let's focus on the "fundamental principle" of improving this article.--Lord Such&Such (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, removing these extraneous quotes is a clear improvement. Kind regards. VQuakr (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lord Such&Such: Since you're not swayed by the third opinion, I'll start an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC on "Selected excerpts" section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Fun in a Chinese Laundry (memoir) § Selected excerpts be removed from the article? See discussion above. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a middle ground solution here? (Summoned by bot). Personally, I find there are merits in both of the positions that have been put forth here. If I'm forced to endorse one perspective over the other, I would have to go with VQuakr and Voorts' read, as being, at least ever so marginally, more in alignment with the plain meaning in the MoS. That said, we need to recognize just how thin that guidance is: 1) it's very limited in detail and scope, 2) it is general style guidance rather than a firm proscription in a content policy, and 3) the wording of the section is, with regard to the contextual utility of such quotes, fairly ambiguous and does not really contemplate this particular use case. Honestly, there doesn't seem to be any particularly strict guidance codified anywhere contemplating whether independent quote sections are inadvisable. That said, if we are going to look to custom in such articles, it's clear such material is exceedingly rare. And arguably MOS:QUOTE's reference to encyclopedic tone is support for Vquaker and Voorts' read.
  All that said, there is something to Lord Such&Such's utilitarian argument that, at the end of the day, some of these quotes are likely to enhance the reader's understanding of the subject matter. Given the (relatively) niche interest for this article, and the artistic and textual nature of the subject matter, I can well imagine that some of these quoted observations would be of benefit of (and welcomed by) its typical reader. So there's something of an WP:IAR argument to be made here, especially where the 'R' in this instance is a very brief and somewhat vague and noncommital section of language in the MoS.
  So I wonder if I might propose a means of threading the needle to address the editorial concerns of both of the original participants of this discussion, as well as the 3O. VQuakr and Voorts seem to be primarily concerned with the lack of context/connective tissue for the quotes, and perhaps secondarily concerned with the volume.
  So can I ask, LS&S, is there a means to more tightly connect some of these quotes with commentary on the autobiography found in the applicable sources? You noted that you only used those quotes which sources themselves employed, so eliminating the separate section and integrating these quotes more tightly with the rest of the article's summary of the autobiography. Honestly, I think you might want to abandon the dispute with regard to the first three quotes (which happen to be those focused on other figures): they are too narrow in focus to be good candidates for discussion on Von Sternberg or his memoir generally; they are honestly, if anything, more suited to articles about those individuals. However, I feel like the last two quotes provide substantial insight into this auteur's views on his craft, and thus have higher potential utility to the reader of this particular article (and, helpfully, more likely to have a 'hook' of sorts to link them into the rest of the content somehow). My read on Vquakr and Voorts' perspectives as shared above suggests to me that they would be more comfortable with just these two quotes, worked into other sections, especially if you can make a strong link between the quotes and the commentary of the RS.
  On a side not, Lord Such&Such, let's please try to keep the discussion at a comfortably chill temperature. While you have shown openness to discussion and even conceded that the other side has the support of what guidelines there are covering these circumstances, there have been a couple little moments where there was an ever-so-slight sense of hostility to your tone ("Cherry-picking Wikipedia rules to suppress passages cited by the sources lacks objectively and proportion.", for example.) I get the thrust of what you are advocating for here and to some extent support it, but I think Voorts and Vquakr are also applying their best analysis of community consensus on such issues in good faith, and quite politely and civilly. I honestly don't think you are all that far apart and I really do think there might be some sort of reasonable compromise approach here that best serves the needs of the article and its future readers, but it will take still a little more openness (and collegiality) to close that small remaining gap. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, there is certainly a middle ground here. In my 3O above when I noted Rather than using these quotes, consider instead paraphrasing the secondary sources that cite these excerpts as pertinent, and using that analysis within the main article body..., the word "rather" was probably too definitive. In the context of secondary analysis that is 1) looking at specific section of the subject, and 2) is discussed in our article in the main body as opposed to a dedicated quotes section, there is opportunity to use quotes from the subject that support the secondary analysis. That would be an example of using quotes in a manner compliant with the MOS. VQuakr (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this completely. Those quotes should be worked into prose. I'm not opposing having the quotes in the article, I'm opposing a completely separate section that is just devoted to quotes. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes per my comments in the discussion above and VQuakr's 3O. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise-Your comments are apropos, and balanced. The issue seems to be whether content contributors (of which I am one) are limited to creating homogenized versions of, in this case, a major American filmmaker's autobiographical work, or if one may provide a brief sample the directors commentary on his career. If you have read the sources material I have cited, you will discover that his critics repeatedly stress the tone of his memoir. That can only be demonstrated by quoting him directly. I recently read Sternberg's autobiography in its entirely, not because I am a "fan," but in the interests of grasping the nature of the work. My sources, who have read the book, no doubt would agree with me.--Lord Such&Such (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

...his critics repeatedly stress the tone of his memoir. That can only be demonstrated by quoting him directly. This is incorrect and a misuse of a primary source. We communicate this viewpoint by quoting or paraphrasing the critics who make this analysis. VQuakr (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, the section and its contents should absolutely be removed. Quotations without analysis serve no encyclopedic purpose. Use of quotations must adhere to Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, which is a stricter interpretation of fair use. That article mentions the US case of Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises where a 300–400 word quote from a 500-page work was found to be a copyright infringement. The section of this article under discussion has about 300 words of quotations with no analysis. I feel that's a pretty strong reason for removal. Note that I'm not saying you can't have any quotes, but that they have to be encyclopedically relevant, being an illustrative specific example of something which is summarized generally by the article. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Addendum: Just to be clear, copyvio is important enough policy-wise for immediate removal without discussion. Rather than trying to create content to justify specific quotes, I would suggest placing efforts on generally expanding the article from RSS and only then, when that is done, to look for illustrative quotes, images, etc. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The quotes provide insight and understanding with respect to the article, namely, the nature of Josef von Sternberg's autobiography. A summary of the quotations is to eliminate evidence of the author's idiosyncratic voice. The quotes are brief and to the point. Reigreg's caveat "without discussion" is rather disturbing. Even an attorney for the von Sternberg estate, or a proxy acting on their behalf, would never dare impose that condition. Allow me to remind editors that our mission here is to improve the article.--Lord Such&Such (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's servers are located in the United States and must comply with US copyright law. Anything in violation of said law must be removed immediately. Period. Wikipedia's non-free content policy takes a stricter stance than US fair use, and violations are likewise subject to removal without discussion. These policies are in place for a reason and I suggest you pay heed to them. If you can't accept Wikipedia's policies, I suggest that you create content for another platform. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me understand you: short quotes from published works less than 95 years old are prohibited on Wikipedia? Prove it.--Lord Such&Such (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The burden is on you to demonstrate compliance with WP:NFC and convince others of this compliance, not on others to "prove" to you that there's a problem. More generally, no one is under any obligation to ensure that you are satisfied with an answer. Though beyond the copyright concern there are also stylistic reasons, expressed above, not to retain the quotes as currently formulated. VQuakr (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lord Such&Such, Wikipedia articles are meant to provide a summary of the article's subject. For a memoir (or any book for that matter), that usually means a summary of its plot, a discussion of the memoir's development/writing process, and summaries of themes and critical reviews. Your claim that the quotes show the writer's unique style should be supported in text by independent, reliable sources. If you can find a source that analyzes individual quotes from the book, then it might be appropriate to briefly quote that quote in the context of the analysis. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a place to post a collection of favorite quotes from a book. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Violations of Wikipedia policy (in this case Wikipedia's non-free content policy) are prohibited on Wikipedia. Quotations of non-free material must be justifiable under fair use, as with media. The section fails fair use on both the total size of quotations and the context (or lack thereof) in which they are used. It is a flagrant violation of policy. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you guys/gals earlier. Been busy improving Wikipedia. I'll get back to you on your concerns as soon as I can spare a moment from my busy schedule. Persevere. --Lord Such&Such (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Lord Such&Such, there's no need to respond to everyone who posts here. The RfC will play its course and consensus will be evaluated by a neutral editor. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.