Talk:Autobiography of Mark Twain

“POV” and “Original research” templates[change source]

This article is summarizing the content of a long source. I am not pushing a point of view and have done no original research. Since I have gone out of my way to write well, the “POV” and “Original research” messages feel sophomoric. In the interests of fair play you should remove those templates from this article. I assure you, I am writing well and accurate. The article is a first draft and unfinished. I am almost half way through the source, which was given me for Christmas. --Chuck Marean (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online version of the source at [1]. As always, you maintain that no original research has been done ad nauseum; however, the entire "Copyright page" section is not stated in the source. It is your personal analysis that while "the Mark Twain Foundation claims copyright and dramatization rights to Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume I... all of Mark Twain’s work is arguably in the public domain." In this entire section, you lay out the format of the book, saying "A couple of pages later", "a couple of pages before the copyright page", and a "copyright page even smaller". On Wikipedia, we say what the source says, not our own conclusions about the work. If reliable sources state that Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume I has a small copyright page, it is not necessarily encyclopediac but would not be considered original research since sources explicitly so stated. With regards to non-neutrality, words like "arguably" and "admits" indicate a non-neutral tone; see WP:CLAIM. A few more examples of original research (problematic components in bold):

Over 100 years after his death, the Mark Twain Project, Berkeley California, is publishing his autobiography in its entirety. This is being done by “his editors” (fans?) rather than his heirs or assigns.

They sound rather truthful at first; then, perhaps more like an unfinished novella, with “General Grant” the working name of a character – a kindhearted man swindled by the narrator.

It also includes several gossipy newspaper clippings...

One may wonder if it is not hyperbole, or if his actions did not include writing with a pencil, smoking, looking out the window, some billiards, and putting the writing back into its folder.

From the captions may be deduced the following, although they do not state it explicitly and this interpretation may have some mistakes. [This is the most egregious of them all—you admit that you are doing original research.]

Please rectify these issues, or I will take further action on your flagrant disregard of core policies. Goodvac (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your examples of what “original research” and “non-neutral” means. I will get to rewriting after a while. The article is still a ruff draft, half finished. I am still in the middle of reading the source. My plan is to read the source and summarize what I read, posting paragraphs as I go along, then reading the entire ruff draft to see how it sounds, and for what editing is needed. Without your examples I would not have known what you meant. I supposed “non-neutral” was like the way a conservative talk show host pushes his platform and that “original research” would need a control and a variable and a scientific journal. I will keep your fine examples in mind, especially when I finally finish reading the source. --69.3.114.87 (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)--Chuck Marean (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. However, your approach in itself to writing an article about this book is not the way to do it. For example, see the featured article To Kill a Mockingbird on en. The book itself is used as a citation only for quotes. The bulk of the article is based on sources that critique the novel or news reports about the novel. It is original research in a sense to summarize each chapter of the book and divide it into sections. Please keep this in mind as you work to rewrite the article. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the corresponding en article will serve as a better example. Even though the article is not fully flushed out and there are some unsourced statements, the article rests largely on third-party sources about the work, not the work itself. Hopefully, this gives you a better idea of how to write about books on Wikipedia. Goodvac (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best I (one person rather than a class project) can do is tell what it says, without giving my opinion or that of others. The only article about it I found was by Garrison Keillor; it was very biased and did not sound like he had read the book. If you read my article, please do so for what it says. I'm giving references and am not being biased so I'll remove the tags and try to write as well as one person can. The book is hundreds of pages long, and I do not have subscriptions to newspaper and magazine archives.--Chuck Marean (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plan for this article[change source]

I’m reading the book and telling what it says.
I’ll try to read some reviews of the book for free, and tell what they say, based on what I know about the book from having read it.
If I can’t find any reviews easily and for free, I’ll just add a section heading labeled “Reviews” for people who can afford to read reviews.Chuck Marean (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary too heavy?[change source]

This article seems to be too heavy on plot summary, and to digress into matters that belong in other articles. In addition, it needs to be simpler and more concise Purple backpack89 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]