User talk:Seoulseeker

I edited the introduction and entirely rewrote the plot summary for the page on Robert C. O'Brien's Z for Zachariah to correct factual errors. The plot summary contained many errors and omitted important details, generally presenting an interpretation of the text rather than a summary. This story is a first-person narrative with a demonstrably unreliable narrator. Many of the views and actions of the narrator, Ann Burden, are questionable in terms of reasoning and morality. Taking for granted the validity of her assumptions (especially those towards the end of the story) results in a very biased interpretation and misunderstanding of the main themes.

In response to your feedback

Hi Seoulseeker.... I think there will have to be a middle ground between being concise and fully explaining the plot! :) Unfortunately, that's one of the things that'll have to be achieved through consensus and collaboration.

I noticed you wrote a terrific explanation on YOUR talk page. You ought to put that same paragraph on the article's talk page so other editors can read and respond to it. That's where discussions about how the article is written take place. One of the editors mentioned Wikipedia's Manual of Style. You can find that on this page.

If you ever need any help with something, please feel free to let me know. Just click on the word, "Talk" after my name and you'll be able to leave me a message. I'm happy to help in whatever way I can. Cheers!

Wikipelli ^Talk 18:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and links to guidelines. I posted the explanation of the editing on my talk page because I'm new at this and couldn't find where to put it. Regarding the summary, I am working on reducing its length while keeping details that seem important for avoiding misinterpretation. The problem with this story is that readers tend to sympathize with the narrator rather than view her narrative objectively and critically. Facts that go against the narrator's assumptions tend to be completely ignored or distorted. If possible, I'd like to add more about interpretation, but it'll require some research and I'd want to balance it with some of my own interpretation if it's allowed.

I think it's great that you have such an interest (and expertise) in the topic. I want to let you know that you should be kind of careful in adding your own interpretations to the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and adding one's own views or interpretations is really not permitted. Wikipedia operates on verifiability. That is to say that additions to articles - particularly when you get into the realm of interpretations - must be cited to reliable 3rd party sources. Thus, it would not be good to add, "In this book, the author was contrasting good with evil". It would be better to say, "Some scholars (researchers/reviewers/whatever) have interpreted this book as a contrast between good and evil" and then cite the sources of the information.

This is a thumbnail of what you want to be careful of. If you follow the links above you can find a much better articulation of what is allowed and what is not.

As always, feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions! Wikipelli ^Talk 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your warning. I try to write objectively. However, I'm motivated to work on this because of the problem that the story is widely misinterpreted. Should the encyclopedia ONLY present standard views even if there is stronger textual support for a different interpretation? Through discussing the story on an educational website for a few years, I found other teachers who agreed. The story is interesting because it can act as a test of a reader's susceptibility to bias and wishful thinking.

You've kind of answered your own question above about including interpretations. You state that you have discussed the story with other teachers and they have a different view from yours. Clearly, it would be problematic for Wikipedia articles about books to present all interpretations. Again, I have to go back to venerability. If, in reviews published by reliable sources, various interpretations can be found, then those could be included (with references) in the article. But it would be very difficult to include everyone's personal interpretations. You might also wish to look over this page on including original research in articles.

Hope this is helpful! Wikipelli ^Talk 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of including "everyone's personal interpretations" about details. Any interpretation hinges on the reliability of the narrator. If an article assumes the viewpoint that the narrator is reliable, it is biased and misleading. To be objective, it should summarize the story matter-of-factly and explain interpretation separately. This article has existed for a long time with nothing more than a biased and factually inaccurate summary, so the result should be a more accurate and useful article.