The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Latest comment: 5 months ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Hello @Who-knows-nose; I applaud your effort to cover an important piece of history. It's interesting work, but I have some feedback because I think issues are piling up as the volume of the article increases.
There are too many side notes and tangents (often in parentheses; these are in nearly every sentence, with some sentences having multiple side anecdotes). Wikipedia guidelines suggests we be selective about side details and only include what's strictly needed to get the main topic.
Many occurrences of flowery writing. Example: Häyhänen padded his "legend" by going to extreme lengths, even though he had one significant advantage over the Pole as Soviet agents. Reino spoke Finnish as a native speaker. This has a bit of a dramatic flair that isn't encyclopedic WP:TONE.
Also, I haven't seen the source used for this sentence, but want to verify: is this the opinion of the scholar you're citing or is it yours? If the former, you should say "x scholar argues that y", and not present arguments such as these as fact per WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.
There are issues with Wikipedia:WORDSTOWATCH. Examples include interestingly, unfound treasure trove, fell victim, and much more. This is a pretty significant issue that's present in most sentences in the article; addressing this will take significant effort.
all of these are standard English!! It's not flowery language, it's simply language with one adjective. Look up "interestingly" and " treasure trove" in the dictionary. "Padding one's legend" is a very standard phrase, much of this is, are phrase from people in intelligence and securities studies. Did you see the fifth EASI article? Some of the same language is there and it comes from people working in the security. The article and two others by Chang were approved by afio of the United States. They use this language too. I see no problem wiyh it. There is to be a sixth article on EASI, (E Asians in sov intel) called, "EASI: A Study of Five Soviet Naturals." Have a look at the AFIO articles by Chang. AFIO has a committee, they review the articles before approval. AFIO is the Association of Former Intel Officers (all branches). If the language used by me passes their criteria, and afio are experts in their field, why do need you need to question this. The Wiki page is about intelligence, not biology, each field has its own register. Biology is boring to read, intelligence has it own language. Don't try to censure others please, what are your qualifications? Languages has dif registers, diction for dif levels and dif fields. Let it be. I am the author and the researcher. 24.28.41.42 (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok I wanna take a step back. I'm not trying to censure you, please don't take it like that; in fact I'm encouraging you to continue writing. I know feedback isn't always fun and my post is seemingly filled with criticism (when really I do want to compliment you and your fascinating research).
This is what I'm trying to say: on Wikipedia there is a relatively narrow range of editorial styles. There is flexibility, yes, but you'll notice a lot of articles across subjects use very similar voices. But WP:WORDSTOWATCH is set policy; it doesn't matter what writing voice you have. If you do not abide by it, other editors are not only allowed to but even encouraged to modify your work so that it abides by it. If you protest it and get more eyes on it, other editors will support policy over your opinions. It doesn't matter if you wrote/researched the topic, you don't own this article or Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy is king; that's how the website works.
These editorial standards have been heavily debated and are constantly modified; they've been built by 20 years of consensus. I don't always agree with all the policies, but once you start reading them you realize some of them are really clever and well thought out. They're a huge reason why Wikipedia is a decent website.
Please slow down. I'm on your side and I really like your work. On my main account I've made 70,000+ edits; I'm talking to you from experience about editing on Wikipedia. I'm not questioning your writing skills; your writing is great but Wikipedia has unusual and strict rules.
If you haven't already, I strongly encourage you to read the links in my original post very carefully. I've basically memorized a lot of these policy pages because that's functionally required to have your writing last on this website. I'm not planning on revising this article, but someone will come around eventually and do it. Reading these policies and applying them gives you the opportunity to be that person. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This experience supports my message: technical wikipedia bureaucracy stuff matters. I know it's boring and sometimes feels arbitrary, but those are the rules that 20 years of debate created. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how to format correctly. Can I give you the two urls and you add them in for me please!! You are maddening, if you see there are errors, just help-- the word is to "HELP AND ENCOURAGE" others. What you are doing is DELETING OTHERS darn it! I am going to give you the two urls now. This formatting that you call it, is basically programming, but easy code. I have no experience, but with Ray, I learned to do the Maki Mirage page. You have done the programming/formatting for the "Racism in Soviet Union" page differently. It's confusing to us MERE NOVICES.
On the "Racism in the Soviet Union" page right after fn3 for Chang (who is me by the way, I am the researcher), add the following [just format it correctly please]:
I edited your comment with the fixed code. Know that you asked me for a favor then called me maddening. Help is a favor, not an unquestioning obligation. Please do not treat others like that on Wikipedia again. Also, I'm not the one who removed that info from that article??? I have no idea who Ray is and I have never edited the Racism in the Soviet Union page; you may be confusing me for someone else. And if you don't understand the formatting, make more of an effort to learn it. I learned it on my own, you can do the same. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay thanks for the help.
Let's return to what you called "flowery language." I contend instead that this is the proper register used by professionals in intelligence and intelligence studies. Take for example, this issue of Studies in Intelligence, an academic journal published
by the CIA previously classified. Page 1 is the article "Colonel Abel's Assistant," by W.W. Rocafort.
In the article (please download), the author use the word an agent's "legend" at least 5-6 times. I stopped counting after 5 times in the same article by page 9 or 10.
Here is the 2nd CIA url for the article which lists the word "legend" referring to an "illegal" placed in a foreign country using
false documents and building up a fake or false background history in the foreign country based off of the first set of forged documents.
I will amend some words such aa treasure trove, but I am not understanding why you cannot accept that you were simply wrong. This is not "flowery language" as you put it. It is language specific to a field of study or occupational field.
Now have a look at the primary researcher on the Maki Mirage page, he has several articles published academically and by AFIO (Association of Former Intelligence Officers, USA). The articles use some of the same vocabulary which is specific to this field or occupation. This is in linguistics is what is known as a "register." It is not "flowery language" but language which is field, task, occupation and by specialty specific!! There is a committee at AFIO before an article is published, the committee is made up of former US Intelligence officers. If they have approved the language, so too should you. It is "the norm" for that field, hence a "register."
One librarian (such as you) should not determine how the rest of us write and speak! This is not language! You are creating Orwellian speak this way (1984 style).
Replying to this point specifically: just because a phrase is common doesn't mean it's neutral. WP:WTW and WP:NPOV. On an encyclopedia we have to try hard to avoid the appearance of sympathy to any side; "victim" carries emotional weight. And again, this isn't my ask, it's Wikipedia's. I like your research, I'm trying to help your writing stay up on Wikipedia. Less patient editors are likely to significantly change your writing to make it fit the standards. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for discussing this with me. I'll emphasize this again: this is Wikipedia's writing standards, not mine. You're correct about this: your writing is normally acceptable in many serious academic venues. But we're on Wikipedia, so we follow Wikipedia standards.
WP:TONE: Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.
I repeat: this is Wikipedia's standard, not mine. Accusing me of trying to force something upon you is unfair to me; I did not create this style. If you don't like the style, you can post on the talk pages for the style pages and try to get them changed. But it'll be really hard; countless people have debated these for 20+ years.
I will say I think the style exists for a reason. Each of these links has guidelines and explanations for why these guidelines exist: WP:WTW, MOS:EDITORIAL, WP:NPOV.
.svg){kind=small}
