Talk:Isle of the Cross

Weakness of this article

This article should be deleted, as it only consists of speculation. There is no evidence that Melville ever wrote a whole novel and destroyed the manuscript without having it published. And what it says about Bartleby is unconvincing as well.MackyBeth (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

this Google books search found 3800 hits for '"Isle of the Cross" Melville'. However, the article could use better referencing. RJFJR (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Google link. If you take the trouble to just read the first five or so results, you will find out that its existence is controversial among scholars. Result nr. 3 is Elizabeth Schultz pointing out that there is "only tentative evidence" that it existed, and result nr. 4 is the signalling that scholar Robert Milder did not include The Isle of the Cross in his book.MackyBeth (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As long as it is well sourced speculation, it might be ok for an article anyway. Hershel Parker (source for first sentence) seems to be a notable opinion on the subject, but I have no idea how accepted his view is. Is he the only one who thinks this? Are there scholars that argue against him? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Herman Melville bibliography source Isle of the Cross to: Robert S. Levine, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Herman Melville. Cambridge, England and New York City: Cambridge University Press (1998), xviii. ISBN 0-521-55571-X. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And THAT source (thank you Google books) says that "Evidence suggests that he completes a book manuscript, The Isle of the Cross, which the Harpers choose not to publish." It seems WP is overstating its sources on this book. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed the point is that there is no general acceptance among Melville scholars that the title refers to a book. Otherwise you would find plenty of references to the title that do not lead to the same scholar.MackyBeth (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a deep breath! Wikipedia policy requires that editors NOT come to conclusions, only to report and summarize WP:RELIABLESOURCES in a way which reflects Neutral Point of View. To do otherwise is Original Research, which in these parts is the next thing to Original Sin. We must report minority views in proportion, but we are not required to give equal time to Flat Earthists or outliers.

We report the controversy, we do not take part in it. A better way to handle this type of article is to have a flat statement in the lede, then a section called "COntroversy" or "Disputed Arguments."

In this case, Herschel Parker is a recognized authority, published in a peer reviewed journal, and Levine's Cambridge Companion is likewise a Reliable Source. The 1991 American Literature piece should be given proper citation, with author and full title so that its dissenting argument can be fully used.

So to answer the question, the mark is appropriate because we do not know who Stephen Scott Norsworthy is and why we should give his blog credence. On the face of it, the arguments stated in blog piece are detailed and weighty, but we have no way of knowing any background.

While on the subject of NPOV, it is admirable report the criticisms and disagreements with Levine and Parker, but the use of words like "purported" and "allege" is not.

Finally, I am flabbergasted that an outstanding, hardworking, and well intentioned editor such as MackyBeth would even think of deleting an article because it contains controversy and ideas she or he disagrees with. ch (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I inserted "purported" in the lead sentence, since I think it reflects the sources used there (one which I added). If you remove that word, you say something the sources don´t. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right. My objection was that there were a whole bunch of judgmental words, but now "purported" is simply reporting. ch (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Friends: I took the liberty of making a few more nips and tucks without, I think, changing the balance of the article. I hope that adding the names of the particular scholars makes it more clear what their issues were without taking sides. ch (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the recent amendments have improved the article. As for my reasons for requesting to delete it, the article as it originally stood was taking sides, because its mere existence would suggest that there was no question that The Isle of the Cross existed. I would still prefer to see this article gone and its contents integrated into the Herman Melville page. But this fine for now. Let's move on, because there is still an enormous amount of hard facts about Melville and his works that should be added to articles on him and his works.MackyBeth (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation from Norsworthy

I added a sentence from Norsworthy and in note 11 that sentence is attributed to the link in note 10. So I don't get why the word [who?] is added to my sentence, for I thought the source is clear enough.MackyBeth (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I gave my two cents on the question above, but can also comment on how to make the sourcing more clear. The format for multiple citations of the same source is given at WP:CITE#Inline citations, section 3.1.4. Cheers! ch (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I took the Stephen Scott Norsworthy bits out. He wrote a book [1], but just blogging on this subject doesn´t make him a WP:RS. For him to be used here, there need to be more than a blog-post. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Wiki-link on Citations, I indeed need to consult it. And as for the Norsworthy deletion, there is indeed so much scholarly material available for Melville that we seem not to need to rely on blogs for sources, but I must add that but a few scholars have gone into the Isle of the Cross.MackyBeth (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)