Talk:Lumumba Government

Source

• [1] -Indy beetle (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Size

Hi Indy beetle, I am responding to your post at MilHist TP. While I have not looked at the article in the fullest detail, I hope that I can offer some useful observations.

Firstly, I have been subject to similar observations re size for two articles I have been involved in. On the subject of the lead, you appear to have resolved this, though I sense some dissatisfaction with the compromise result. Four paragraphs for a large article is somewhat arbitrary. The writing of analytical prose has an introduction body and conclusion. Paragraphs within the body represent "key ideas" (from the article) and logically, this defines the number of paragraphs. One might simply combine paragraphs to reduce the number to satisfy an arbitrary limit but to me, this goes against the underlying concept of what a paragraph is. To me, it might be better to allocate a percentage size range (ie 5-10% of the body, for example). WP "rules" are rarely meant to be hard and fast but they are often interpreted as such. Personally, I would be more interested in the size of the lead and would not be hung up on whether it was four or five paragraphs.

The two articles of my experience are Battle of Buna–Gona and Kokoda Track campaign. In the case of Buna-Gona, the initial article only dealt with the fighting at Buna in any detail, while the Kokoda article only dealt with the Japanese advance. In both cases, there were significant issues to discuss (such as logistics and command) which developed through the course of the fighting. Dealing with these was a substantial part of the article. Kokoda was fairly linear in time and space, with a number of engagements in succession. I was relatively easy address size by creating sub-articles for the engagements. Buna-Gona was more complicated since it was conducted concurrently at three major locations but the actions at each location were not discrete and independent of each other. While size has been addressed by moving issues to Battle of Buna–Gona: Japanese forces and order of battle and Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle, the article remains large, in consequence of the network relationship of events in time and space. It is all very good to make generalisations about size and strategies to deal with size but the problem with generalisations are the exceptions.

I do see some potential to reduce the size of the article but at the end of the day, It may still be a large article. Firstly, there is the distinction between total article size and readable prose size. I see some parts/sections of the text which are tabular in nature or dot points. IMO, these are not truly readable prose but are formatted in such a way that they are counted as such. Identifying, quantifying and/or reformatting such text may address the issue of readable prose size to some degree.

I see a number of large sections and particularly, some large sections with existing "See main article". Where such an article already exists, this article might rely more on that existing sub article for detail. The section herein might be substantially parsed. It may, however; require some editing to ensure that the sub article contains the detail being parsed from here. Other large section herein might represent potential sub articles for development or sections for development within other articles. The formation of the government of independence might become a separate article, as might his dismissal? Patrice Lumumba might also be parsed down in consequence?

I hope this might be of some assistance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Synecdoche

Hi Indy beetle, thanks for getting back and explaining! I still think the sentence is an odd one to have in the main text of an article that isn't about literature. I would suggest doing one of two things; a) removing the reference altogether on the ground that it's excessive detail (as you know, in most countries the words "ministry" and "government" are synonymous, and does it really help our understanding of the subject to tell us that it's different here?) or b) expand the sentence with an explanation, as in the edit summary, but relegate the passage thus created to a note rather than the main text.

You'll notice I managed to reduce the size of the article somewhat. I think the text was short of commas, the addition of which makes the text flow much more smoothly, and I think all my wording changes are preferable even if not strictly necessary. Easy readability in long articles is not something to be sacrificed!

BTW do you know of the existence of an English translation of De Lumumba aux colonels? Harfarhs (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harfarhs: On second glance I see your point; "synechdoche" is a lot to chuck into the first sentence and while it's technically more precise than "also known as" it isn't really necessary. As for De Lumumba aux colonels, I do not know of an English translation, though I do own a paperback copy of the original in French. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for getting back with the information! I think what you describe is for the best - the article is marvellously detailed but doesn't need that particular detail. A propos of the book, despite having studied French at school I struggle with anything aimed at French-speaking adults, so I was hoping for an easier way of getting the information - but I'm clearly out of luck! Harfarhs (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harfarhs: Through editing Wikipedia I've learned a few French phrases, but other than that I rely on Google translate. Kashamura does have some interesting detail, but Thomas Kanza's book (which is in English) provided much more and I would definitely recommend it. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)