Talk:Redaction (editorial synthesis)
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Patrick Welsh in topic Requested move 6 July 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Redaction (editorial synthesis) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Redact which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 6 July 2025
edit- 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: moved. Moved to Redaction (editorial synthesis) per discussion. (non-admin closure) Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Literary redaction → Redaction (literature) – "Literary redaction" as a phrase is nearly never used in my experience, and the process in literature is analogous in every dimension I can think of to the broad concept described in the parent article. Remsense 🌈 论 20:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 02:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Bible and WikiProject Literature have been notified of this discussion. Remsense 🌈 论 20:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree that the current title should be changed. Given it's importance in Biblical study and criticism, however, as well as some academic texts (e.g., different versions of a scholar's lectures given on separate years), it might be better to go with something like "Redaction" (editorial technique). --Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, though I think "editorial" skips the boundary between "opaque schemes to take the scissors to documents (aesthetically interesting)" and the other article's scope of "opaque schemes to take the scissors to documents (evil but who cares)". I do almost think they should be the same article... Remsense 🌈 论 20:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's important to point out that this process is often benign. For example, when Hegel died rather suddenly of an illness, much of his philosophy existed only in student transcripts of lectures given 4–7 different years, sometimes varying rather considerably in focus and organization. Some of his better students (esp. H. G. Hotho) redacted these into versions that could be published and read straight through. It took over a hundred years before scholars were sufficiently interested in the lectures from individual years to begin constructing and publishing critical editions of these manuscripts. Only serious scholars with a well-established interest in the work have the desire and the patience to read multiple versions against one another. Even now, some readers are likely best served by the redacted versions Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Right, I was being very flippant but that's not often the most productive in RM discussions. Remsense 🌈 论 00:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- No worries! Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Patrick Welsh, have you had any further thoughts? I'm not exactly sure who else would be directly interested in this RM, but surely such editors would exist in reasonable numbers. Remsense 🌈 论 12:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- The original meaning of the word is the one described in this article: "To bring together or organize (ideas, writings, etc.) into a coherent form; to compile, arrange, or set down in a written document. Also: to put into a particular written form", sometimes (slightly later) with negative connotations (OED). That's from the 15th and 16th centuries. The sense of censorship dates back only to 1958. Both, however, have to do with preparation of a text for the public.
- So I think we need a qualifier broader than "literature", but not so broad as to include the sense of "censorship". Maybe "(editorial compilation)"? I don't love it, but I like it better than the current title or my previous suggestion, "(editorial technique)"—even though I do still think that would be an improvement over the current title.
- What are you thinking? It would be nice to get some additional input, but I'm not sure how to solicit that beyond what you've already done. Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- What about Redaction (composition)? I feel like it would be absolutely perfect if composition wasn't a peskily polysemic word. Remsense 🌈 论 15:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- In the editorial process, "composition" already has a technical meaning. It refers to the layout of the copy-edited text on the page as it will appear in print. For that reason, I'm disinclined. Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for further insight there. Hmmm, I'm going to the thesaurus now. (compilation) or (consolidation)? Remsense 🌈 论 15:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. One could make the case that this article should be just "Redaction" with the other article being retitled "Redaction (censorship)". We might run up against guidelines about the most common usage, however. Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- This may be a novel case where a basic ability to even find and navigate to this article trumps COMMONNAME. It's such a sticky wicket! Maybe the stickiest in my time here so far? Remsense 🌈 论 16:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've cast out a line at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should net us additional clever cookies. Remsense 🌈 论 16:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- To further complicate things: Talk:Redaction_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_5_June_2023. Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- I am almost certain an ideal solution, if there is one, involves going with no primary topic, right? Redaction (data security) and Redaction (text assembly)?? ? Remsense 🌈 论 22:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'd lean towards a merge. Since both senses are forms of preparing a document for publication, I think we'd be okay on WP:NOTADICTIONARY, but I'm not sure about this (never dealt with it before). No primary topic is definitely an option, but maybe a little clunky? Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hm. I'm just imagining all the material just concerning Biblical criticism that could be in this article, and I really don't think that would be a feasible option. I'm really not sure they are meaningfully the same topic, but instead there's been semantic extension here. As given away above, one is fundamentally understood as taking away for particular sets of eyes, while the other is very much a process of distillation, reshaping, and synthesis. When taking away, one does so to obscure, the other (ostensibly) to reveal, or at least communicate better. Remsense 🌈 论 22:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- (Ah! I don't think a single person has ever put it this way before, but our lot and habits as Wikipedia editors are essentially that latter process of redaction, much more than what I imagine the editor of a scholarly edited volume does.) Remsense 🌈 论 22:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Okay. How about just "(editorial consolidation)" then? --Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Editorial X seems very likely to work. (editorial compilation) seems a bit better, and I think my thesaurus is delivering diminishing returns. amalgamation? synthesis? integration? organization? harmonization? Remsense 🌈 论 22:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- "Compilation", at least to me, is merely additive. Even if it maybe wouldn't be wrong, I don't think I've heard putting together an anthology described as an act of redaction.
- "Synthesis", however, is good. I'd support
Redaction (editorial synthesis)
. Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)- You're always very helpful, thanks!
- If third parties see this later, I'm still definitely interested whether there's a better articulation out there, but I'm happy to sign off on these renames as they're worlds better for readers and editors than the present situation. Remsense 🌈 论 12:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! If you want, we can wait another day or two to see if anyone from the WP article titles board shows up. But it's been 20 days since this was opened, so I'd be fine implementing the change at any time. Cheers, Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'd be happy for you to go ahead with it now! Remsense 🌈 论 12:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! If you want, we can wait another day or two to see if anyone from the WP article titles board shows up. But it's been 20 days since this was opened, so I'd be fine implementing the change at any time. Cheers, Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- Editorial X seems very likely to work. (editorial compilation) seems a bit better, and I think my thesaurus is delivering diminishing returns. amalgamation? synthesis? integration? organization? harmonization? Remsense 🌈 论 22:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hm. I'm just imagining all the material just concerning Biblical criticism that could be in this article, and I really don't think that would be a feasible option. I'm really not sure they are meaningfully the same topic, but instead there's been semantic extension here. As given away above, one is fundamentally understood as taking away for particular sets of eyes, while the other is very much a process of distillation, reshaping, and synthesis. When taking away, one does so to obscure, the other (ostensibly) to reveal, or at least communicate better. Remsense 🌈 论 22:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'd lean towards a merge. Since both senses are forms of preparing a document for publication, I think we'd be okay on WP:NOTADICTIONARY, but I'm not sure about this (never dealt with it before). No primary topic is definitely an option, but maybe a little clunky? Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- I am almost certain an ideal solution, if there is one, involves going with no primary topic, right? Redaction (data security) and Redaction (text assembly)?? ? Remsense 🌈 论 22:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- This may be a novel case where a basic ability to even find and navigate to this article trumps COMMONNAME. It's such a sticky wicket! Maybe the stickiest in my time here so far? Remsense 🌈 论 16:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. One could make the case that this article should be just "Redaction" with the other article being retitled "Redaction (censorship)". We might run up against guidelines about the most common usage, however. Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for further insight there. Hmmm, I'm going to the thesaurus now. (compilation) or (consolidation)? Remsense 🌈 论 15:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- In the editorial process, "composition" already has a technical meaning. It refers to the layout of the copy-edited text on the page as it will appear in print. For that reason, I'm disinclined. Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- What about Redaction (composition)? I feel like it would be absolutely perfect if composition wasn't a peskily polysemic word. Remsense 🌈 论 15:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Patrick Welsh, have you had any further thoughts? I'm not exactly sure who else would be directly interested in this RM, but surely such editors would exist in reasonable numbers. Remsense 🌈 论 12:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- No worries! Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Right, I was being very flippant but that's not often the most productive in RM discussions. Remsense 🌈 论 00:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's important to point out that this process is often benign. For example, when Hegel died rather suddenly of an illness, much of his philosophy existed only in student transcripts of lectures given 4–7 different years, sometimes varying rather considerably in focus and organization. Some of his better students (esp. H. G. Hotho) redacted these into versions that could be published and read straight through. It took over a hundred years before scholars were sufficiently interested in the lectures from individual years to begin constructing and publishing critical editions of these manuscripts. Only serious scholars with a well-established interest in the work have the desire and the patience to read multiple versions against one another. Even now, some readers are likely best served by the redacted versions Patrick 🐈⬛ (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, though I think "editorial" skips the boundary between "opaque schemes to take the scissors to documents (aesthetically interesting)" and the other article's scope of "opaque schemes to take the scissors to documents (evil but who cares)". I do almost think they should be the same article... Remsense 🌈 论 20:55, 6 July 2025 (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.