Talk:John Neal (writer)

Overhaul underway

To whom it may concern in the small world of people who give a damn about John Neal:

I'm the guy who deleted the two-sentence John Neal (writer) stub article in 2006 and published the comparatively longer, albeit poorly written and completely uncited, article in 2006. Thanks to help from others, this article has improved some over time, though it still is basically the one that my excited, young self authored, with many additions and corrections.

Over the last few weeks I have undertaken a lot of research to prepare for overhauling this article. While doing this research and reading more on Wikipedia best practices I recently made a few edits to this article, but I will soon be adding a bunch of new sections to this article and to re-writing much of the existing content so it can better serve the public and achieve a higher grade on Wikipedia.

Expect big changes soon!

Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have now completed the big changes I referred to in my 6/20/20 post. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Copied Peer Review

The conversation below is copied from User talk:RobDuch since it relates to this article. -Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, RobDuch! Could I interest you in participating in a peer review of John Neal (writer)? I recently overhauled the whole thing, replacing the article I wrote in 2006 and that you, among others, have helped to slowly improve over the last 14 years. I think the new article is a major improvement and hopefully worth getting the article's status upgraded, but before I request that upgrade, I put out a request for peer review.

I am asking you since you made a helpful edit in 2016 about Neal's gym at Fort Sumner (Maine).

The peer review request is linked at the top of talk:John Neal (writer).

Thanks in advance for the help!

-Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy: Despite my being a bit prolific on WP, I'm not well-acquainted with many WP: policies. I'll give your article a read-through in the next couple of days. My immediate impression is that the lead section needs some citations, at least one per paragraph, though I don't know what the WP: policy is. I'm pleased that Neal was one of the few to recognize Poe early on. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 01:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@RobDuch: - Your question about citations in the lead is a valid one. Thanks for bringing it up! When I was writing the article, I was operating on something I read about how the lead needs citations only for quotes or information that is not included elsewhere in the article. Looking it up now, I see conflicting information. Wikipedia:Citing sources#When not to cite validates what I just said, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations says I should cite anything that looks challengeable. I think the latter is probably what I should do, which would be easy given my familiarity with the rest of the article. I look forward to hearing any other feedback you might have! -Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy: I've read most of the article. I think overall it's exceptionally well-written and well-organized. I've just made a few edits, mostly linking various items and fixing what I thought were a couple of awkward phrases. There are alternate approaches in those cases where I "fixed" the grammar. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@RobDuch: Wonderful. Thank you for taking the time to read through the article and making those changes. It is very much appreciated. -Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DATERANGE

Please have a look at MOS:DATERANGE regarding the ranges and the formatting of dates in the table in the "Editing" section (this should have been raised at FAC). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, SandyGeorgia! I believe that table now follows MOS:DATERANGE. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. No agreement as to whether the writer satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• John Neal (writer) → John Neal
• John Neal → John Neal (disambiguation)

– I believe John Neal (writer) to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of any other article from the relevant disambiguation page that would use the "John Neal" article title. This move request was recommended during John Neal (writer)'s recent FAC. I offer these reasons to justify the recommendation. 1. More articles link to John Neal (writer) than any other that would use the "John Neal" title (266 vs. 148 for John Neal (footballer, born 1932), which is the runner-up) 2. The article gets the most traffic of all that would use the "John Neal" article name. 3. In a Google Books search, 8 of the first 10 are books by or about John Neal (writer) while neither of the other 2 seem to be about the other John Neals on Wikipedia. 4. Google Trends shows the basic "John Neal" search to be much more prevalent worldwide than the "John Neal English Footballer" search term (the only other John Neal-related term to pop up as available, which seems to be a decent approximation for the second-most visited John Neal article, which is John Neal (footballer, born 1932)). 5. An encrypted basic Google search brings up 3 first-page results related to John Neal (writer) and none related to the other John Neals on Wikipedia, though the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th images in the sample image results are John Neal (businessman). The first is John Neal (writer). 6. The topical and geographic scope of John Neal (writer)'s relevance seems to me to be the broadest of all other articles that would use the "John Neal" article name, producing a longer-lasting relevance that I anticipate will outlast any WP:RECENT bias that the more recently-alive John Neals may present. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. JHunterJ (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support mostly per pageviews, I think Neal the writer is the primarytopic here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm happy to be challenged about long-term significance, but in terms of page views the writer does not appear to more popular, see massviews. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • What I find is that primary status by page views is less clear as you go further into the past, but looking at the current year, the writer article is clearly most viewed. I'm curious how that affects your assessment of the writer's potential primary topic status. I'd also like to hear your thoughts on the other primary topic criteria like long-term significance. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Here's another view. The writer has certainly surged in popularity in the last 6 months—I can't explain why—but it remains to be seen in the long term if he is more popular than all other topics combined, so I don't think a usage argument (your point 2 and Eddie's point) could be used to justify a primary topic. I'm neutral on long-term significance, and I'll happily give way to such an argument if others agree to it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @Shhhnotsoloud: Are you persuaded to support by Mirokado's comments below about Google Books search results and the breadth of articles linking to John Neal (writer) or do you still oppose? Given this is the only move request with which I've involved myself, but when I look at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I see so many criteria aside from page views and those other criteria seem to paint a picture to me of John Neal (writer) as the primary topic. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
      • You're asking me to assess an argument on long-term significance: I am neutral, I'm afraid. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support I don't think this is as clear-cut as some page moves, but I'm persuaded by the apparently increasing popularity Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Shhhnotsoloud. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This is a less easy decision than I had expected. I think the recent increased page views for John Neal (writer) (JNw) can be explained by the increased edit count (see page statistics), although the views are not dropping off again now there is less editing. Before mid-2020, John Neal (footballer, born 1932) (JNf) was getting more views. The Google book search is a bit loaded with books by JNw, counting those introduces an author-bias, would be a bit like asking how many goals each person had scored. As far as I can see, JNw has more books about him than other JNs early in the Google list and this supports the "overall and historical significance" argument for JNw. Apart from just the number of pages linking to each article, JNw has incoming links from a wider range of subject areas, even including sport (Gym)! --Mirokado (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The link from Gym was added by the nominator in August. Some of these links could be removed and the pageviews will go down. Coin (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Coin: Do you feel that John Neal (writer)'s mention in Gym carries undue WP:WEIGHT? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support As per reasons stated by the nominator.Freezingwedge (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The reason why the writer is getting more views seems to be because Dugan Murphy added many of those links this year.

Some of the links added by him this year include:

1) The first 10 pages that show up on Special:WhatLinksHere/John_Neal_(writer): August 25, Edgar Allan Poe, List of English-language poets Gymnastics, List of humorists (reverted then added back), Nathaniel Hawthorne (later added Neal's picture which was reverted), and Short story.

2) Several list articles, see List of poets, List of historians, List of feminists, etc.

3) Linked from 32 "in literature" articles, see List of years in literature, 1825 in literature, etc.

4) More significant people like Walt Whitman (way more well-known writer with 1,000+ views per day) and John Tyler (American president with 2,000+ views per day).

Probably more than a few of the links / mentions in other articles could be removed. The source for "Writer and activist John Neal, who chaired the delegation from Maine, claimed to have been instrumental in securing the votes needed to nominate Tyler by negotiating with the chair of the New York delegation." in John Tyler was John Neal's autobiography. Coin (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Coin: Is your argument that too many of the Wikilinks to John Neal (writer) could be removed because they have had insufficient time to be reviewed by other editors, that too many were added by one editor (me), or that too many may be backed by inappropriate references? I'm not sure what point you're making with your four-item list above. You pose a good theory that the increase of Wikilinks to John Neal (writer) has caused an increase in views, but that doesn't sound to me like a reason to oppose the move request unless you also think many of those Wikilinks ought to be removed.

In the case of the sentence I added to John Tyler a few months ago, I just swapped out the autobiography citation for a more scholarly source, per your request on that page. I appreciate you bringing that up. I'm assuming everyone in this discussion is acting on WP:GOODFAITH and I hope you're offering me the same as you review my contribution history. If any editor believes anything I've added to any article carries undue WP:WEIGHT, or is supported by inappropriate references, I'm happy to discuss and participate in ongoing editing. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2020 (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.

Lydia Neal Dennett

@Megalibrarygirl: Thank you for creating Lydia Neal Dennett! I formerly knew nothing about her but her involvement in the will of her father and John Neal's uncle, Stephen Neal. Though mentioning her in the "Feminism" sections makes sense since that was an area she was involved late in life, I haven't seen any evidence that Neal and Dennett crossed paths outside the probate issue, so I just removed what you added, but added mention of her in the "Family and civic leadership" section. If you'd like to discuss further, feel free to do so here! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy: Wherever you think the information about her fits best is OK with me. It seems like they may have crossed paths since both were involved with women's suffrage in Maine. Hopefully I'll stumble across more information as I go. :) Thanks for dropping a line. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Great article

This article is very well written and fun to read. I felt like I gained a lot from reading it. Well done. TheWikiJedi (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've rewritten it a couple of times. But it improved a lot going through two recent FA nominations, thanks to comments from reviewers. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2024

• John Neal (writer) → John Neal
• John Neal → John Neal (disambiguation)

– Previous discussion four years ended in no consensus, since then the writer has gotten more pageviews which combined with long term significance makes them the primary topic. Sahaib (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support on the grounds that John Neal (writer) (JNW) meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. More specifically:

1) As Sahaib said, JNW has by far the most views of all the John Neals over the last 4 years. That has a lot to do with JNW being linked from the main page a number of times in that period, which creates giant spikes in clicks. However, you can zoom into any time period in the last few years and find JNW getting the most clicks of any John Neal – on average, about twice the clicks of John Neal footballer born 1932 (JN32). That also bears out when you look at mass views.

2) More articles link to JNW than to any other John Neals. Currently, JNW has 537. The runner-up is JN32 at 174. The other John Neals have far fewer.

3) Searching Google Books for "John Neal", I find a few books by and about JNW, but I can't find any others about any of the other John Neals.

4) Searching Google Scholar for "John Neal", the first few pages of results brings up a few items written by or about JNW, but nothing I can connect to any of the other John Neals.

5) Doing a basic Google search for "John Neal", I see lots of links and images relevant to JNW, one image of JN32, and a couple of links relevant to a bookseller who isn't any of these John Neals. Because these results are affected by Google Personalized Search, I invite anyone else to do their own search to compare.

6) The topical and geographic scope of JNW's relevance seems to me to be the broadest of all other John Neals, producing a longer-lasting relevance that I anticipate will outlast any WP:RECENT bias that the more recently-alive John Neals may present, like John Neal (businessman).

7) I think it's worth noting that until 2016, JNW was simply John Neal until this undiscussed page move in 2016. So Sahaib is basically proposing a revert of a page move that was done without consensus.

8) At the risk of sounding petty, I think it is also worth acknowledging that the most vocal opponent to the 2020 proposed page move was a few months later blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely to prevent vandalism.

In sum, all the John Neals are pretty obscure figures on a global level, relatively speaking. But I think these above reasons show pretty clearly that JNW is the primary topic. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Dugan Murphy's compelling case. My google searches agree that the writer is the primary topic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose JNW —> JN': Although Dugan Murphy’s point about the John Neal should be redirected for being the main topic is valid, it is worth noting that it would cause confusion for the average viewer. Those looking up John Neal as a writer are most likely going to do that to begin with since John Neal as a writer is what he is commonly known for.

Your it would cause confusion for the average viewer argument sounds to me like WP:NWFCTM. Rather than rely on any one editor's gut instinct of what the average viewer is looking for, policy says we should be looking for global, unbiased indicators like the ones I listed above. Do you disagree that you're making a NWFCTM argument? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree on the aspect of NWFCTM, under the aspect that I just stumbled upon this article somehow somewhere (I believe from the random article page) and saw it was under review to be moved. As I got no familiarity with the topic, I wouldn't really think that guideline applies.

However, upon further thought, if I recall correctly, titles are supposed to be concise. I do question if this would fall under the common name guideline or primary topic guideline

I know it seems to apply to primary topic but as for whether that or the common name guideline would apply in terms of making sure the article title is concise and accurate is a totally different matter. I support the theory idea of doing the disambiguation as hatnote, but I also like the idea of the other idea as an option. Honestly, this is kind of a sticky situation as it seems like under the concise guidelines, the (writer) would be needed but in this case the concise guideline and the primary topic guideline contradict each other.

I support either option honestly, but I do think it needs to be decided if we are going to reject the primary topic guideline or concise guideline for this move. Reader of Information (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Support JN —> JND: To put JNW as a JN would just cause so much confusion. I would support having it as a redirect for a disambiguation as his name clearly resides with multiple people is the best way to go. Just because John Neal (WRITER) is the primary topic doesn’t always mean it needs to be strictly followed. Remember it’s a guideline not meant to be taken as fact.

On the contrary, I would point out that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly states that the primary topic "is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article." Since we are all in agreement that JNW is the primary topic, policy clearly states that John Neal should lead to that article. I agree that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are flexible, but I believe we need a good reason when not following them. Can you elaborate on why we should reject policy in this case? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

More to your point that the proposed move would just cause so much confusion, I think a hatnote like the one at the top of Birmingham would address that after the move. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

As long as the guideline that primary article is redirected is followed, and the hatnote example is implemented, I have no objections.

I have no particular reason on why we should reject policy coming to mind. As stupid as it sounds, I wanted to make sure that the arguments here considered the fact that the policies are meant to be flexible, not concrete. Using the policies to advance your position is indeed wise, but it also should consider options that might be more optimal even if it rejects the policy. I don't have any suggestions on what could do that as in this particular case, the policy seems reasonable and doesn't need to be rejected in my honest opinion. Reader of Information (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

SIDE NOTE: I have no beef with Dughan Murphy but I need to call their opinion into question under bias purposes. They edit a lot of things relating to JNW so I’m kind of questioning if their claim is impartial? Plus the claim of the vocal opponent really seemed odd to me as the opponent being blocked doesn’t disqualify their arguments. Just some strange behavior but then again I’m a newbie and they’ve been around for 18 years but from what I see, that does seem objectionable.

You're certainly correct that I am the primary editor on many articles relevant to JNW. As much as that makes me look like a biased JNW booster, it also indicates my extensive familiarity with the topic in question. Is there a policy I'm not aware of that would discount my opinion in this case? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say it discounts your opinion but I suppose it does support your familiarity with the topic.

Reader of Information (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: English is my second language so if there is a grammatical typo, please let me know and I will correct it or clarify if it is confusing

That is my honest two cents on the nomination. I am more than willing to respond with any concerns or arguments you have and debate it.

Cheers,

Reader of Information (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Reader of Information: I have responded to a few of your comments. Do my responses sway your position? I appreciate your willingness to discuss. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy: I have responded with two comments on your points. I support both ideas but I do think there are two ways to go with this move. Reader of Information (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Reader of Information: Thank you for the reply! If I understand you correctly, you support the proposed move, so long as a hatnote is added to the top of the JNW article. Is that right? The hatnote would read something like This article is about the American writer. For other uses, see John Neal (disambiguation). Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I do support although upon further thought, I do feel that this is a sticky situation as I noted above, the situation causes two different policies to contradict each other. I would like to kept that pointed out for future reference if someone decides to try to revert the change by any means.

Cheers!
Reader of Information (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

To be more concise since I can be confusing. Yes I support as long as the hatnote is added. The two policies part is just a comment and has nothing to do with my reasoning for supporting it. Reader of Information (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

After further discussion with @Dugan Murphy:, I withdraw my opposition and support the move as long as the hatnote is added.

Cheers!
Reader of Information (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)