Jump to content

Talk:Helen Hooven Santmyer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Lack of reliable sources

Due to what appears to be an article laden with original research, a sources needed template has been placed at the top of the article page. One editor reverted, noting, "Statements on weakness, obscurity, Hollywood, chance are based on RS". That may be the case, however, since no sources are cited in connection with the majority of the article, it is imperative that such content be sourced properly and according to policy. As it is currently, the article is sorely lacking in references. This needs to be rectified before the template can be removed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • The "laden with original research" and so on is your wild and deliberately insulting exaggeration. You have made other errors, like not knowing what counts as "puffery" and what a "peacock term" is. There are also citations over at the novel's page. (Some of your edits were correct, which is why I only partially reverted.) And the details I mentioned were in the existing footnoted citations, but I have since added six RS. The Hollywood story, the original obscurity, and so on are told repeatedly in these and in the citations already in place. In fact there's lots more to the story, and all the people are named, and so on, but that level of detail strikes me as trivia. There were reports of a television miniseries in the works, but it never materialized. Perhaps that is worth mentioning.
  • I am for now mostly busy with exams—students do not know how easy they have it—extra office hours, and holidays at the moment. I have lots more RS to enter, and will eventually add URLs and inline the footnotes when I have time again, along with fixing everything to use properly templated citations. If someone else wants to wikignome all the details, have fun, but I will be getting to it.
  • Note that there is no requirement to inline the citations, ie, "footnotes". See WP:FNNR. It is a stylistic choice. Choor monster (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph re: "...And the Ladies..."

The text reads: "Her novel “... And Ladies of the Club” was published obscurely by Ohio State University Press in 1982. She permanently moved into a nursing home in 1983, nearly blind and weak from emphysema. By chance, the novel found its way to Hollywood people who saw great potential, leading to its republication in 1984, its being the main selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club, and a round of media frenzy. The novel became a monumental best-seller in 1984."

Full of not just unencyclopedic peacockery and gushing, but some of it taken directly from the referenced NYT obituary. It's not a copyright violation, but it looks like a paraphrase to me. And that goes against policy.

My previous version of this (prior to the edit-war reverting that took place) was written thusly:

"Her novel “... And Ladies of the Club” was published by Ohio State University Press in 1982. She permanently moved into a nursing home in 1983, nearly blind and suffering from emphysema. The novel was republished in 1984, becoming a main selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club and receiving media attention before becoming best-seller in 1984." My suggestion is that the above paragraph be kept as it is but expanded based upon the information in the obituary about the novel, It definitely should not include wording such as the following: "By chance..." (doesn't sound encyclopedic and is POV, not objective - how do we know it was by chance?); "found its way to Hollywood people..." ("Hollywood people"? Sounds like something a high-schooler would write); "who saw great potential" (bordering on peacocking); "its being the main selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club" (poorly written, stilted language - where and why should be obvious); "and a round of media frenzy" (sounds like something from a fan magazine rather than an encyclopedia). The other thing I would take out of the paragraph is in regard to her being in a nursing home and why, as it is pretty much a non-sequitur. Not to mention that the obituary states she was in the nursing home for 10 years. The content as it is currently contradicts that.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  • You keep referring to "doesn't sound encyclopedic" here and with other issues. That is simply your personal opinion, and is contradicted by widespread usage here on WP. For example.
  • In response to an edit summary of yours here: "Best-known" occurs in numerous WP articles in the lede so as to provide a convenient factual summary of what someone or something is known for. See, for example, Larry Hagman, Barbara Eden, The Who, Larry Niven, Darla Hood, Guercino, Thoroughbred, Brian Epstein, Best Brains. We can objectively determine that she is best known for this, just by looking at the proportion of space devoted to the details of her life described in her several obituaries, and by the fact that there are dozens of articles about her in RS all dating 1984 and later, and very very few before that.
  • "By chance" is part of the article title List of discoveries influenced by chance circumstances. It is used in the lede in articles like El bordo (band), Vettersfelde Treasure, Cameo (apple). You ask, "how do we know it was by chance"? We have a reliable source that tells us: the NYT obituary that you claim to have read: "The book's commercial publication resulted from a series of coincidences." That paragraph and the next then explain the series of coincidences, with mentions of Hollywood people and others.
  • The "media frenzy" is described in some detail in the Paul Galloway/Chicago Tribune article. She was on all three network news, and the ABC/CBS morning news shows, and received a 3-page LIFE magazine spread. He mentions that more than fifty journalists showed up altogether in two waves.
  • Here's another quote, referring to "scores of journalists" from People magazine: "No sooner had her 1,176-page opus,...And Ladies of the Club (Putnam, $19.95), been selected as a Book-of-the-Month Club main summer selection than scores of journalists rushed to Xenia to interview the 88-year-old author at Hospitality Home East, the nursing home where she has lived for two years."
  • This amount of coverage matches the definition given at Media circus (which Media frenzy redirects to). As the article says in the lede, "media circus" is a non-neutral term, comparing the media to a circus. In contrast, "media frenzy" is neutral and more objective: the media are indeed hyped up compared to their usual coverage.
  • Note that two RS found it worth mentioning that there was a lot of sudden media attention. Being WP, we follow the RS for what is important and what is not.
  • Note the last phrase from the People quote: "for two years". The NYT obit only says she lived in the nursing home for most of her last 10 years. You are reverting my wording when you can't even bother to read what the source actually says? WP:CIR.
  • Yes, "Hollywood people" is ugly. The various sources give their names and Hollywood job, like "producer-director" or "writer-producer-director" and so on. Their exact title doesn't seem to be important, and the various sources are not quite consistent. Spelling out the detailed blow-by-blow seemed like fan fluff, so I gave as little as possible while still preserving the essence.
  • What the Hollywood people actually saw was, as everyone knows, dollar signs. Lots of dollar signs. You can actually read the sources I provided. Again, I chose a minimal description, since giving the detailed blow-by-blow struck me as fan fluff.
  • The nursing home connection was emphasized by several RS, including bits about dictating changes to her book from her nursing home bed, interviews from her nursing home bed and/or wheelchair, and the like.
  • It is none of our business whether MSM made good calls or bad calls in their coverage of Santmyer. It is our business to echo their decisions. Choor monster (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my above notes on this article dated 7 October. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wording changes

Made some wording changes. Hopefully, these will prove to be good compromises. Some stuff I didn't touch (even though I don't agree with the wording) but placed cite needed tags with them so they can be verified to be what they wording claims. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Date of permanent move into nursing home

According to the cited Jan 1984 NYT article, it was "April of last year", that is, 1983, that Santmyer moved permanently into the nursing home. However, according to the June 1984 Life and Chicago Tribune articles, she had been living there for two years, dating her permanent move to 1982. It is possible the sources are contradicting each other. It is also possible they are not contradicting each other: perhaps she checked in during 1982, expecting it to be just another recuperative stay, accepted the inevitable in April 1983, and signed the "permanent" move-in papers and all that.

So, what exactly should the article say? Perhaps leave it as is? List two dates with each footnoted? Choor monster (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Change it to "by April 1983 she had moved permanently..." and use both references. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Content edits, citing

Have added some content (per suggestion of admin at 3RR noticeboard) and shuffled content around a bit with some rewording. Also took out the larger cites needed banner and added cite need tags at the end of paragraphs that have no cites attached. Placed and already existing ref at the end of the paragraph, removing it from mid-sentence where it was cumbersome. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. I have changed "known" to "primarily known" in the lede. She is "known" for other things, but none of them are lede-worthy, the NYT obit for example devotes more than half its space to the novel. I still have no idea of what your "not encyclopedic" objection to "best known" meant. As I documented, it is commonly used on WP. If you meant the phrase is too low-brow or something, "primarily" should be OK. I realized I don't like using "best known" and "best-selling" next to each other anyway. Choor monster (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

OSU Press and the nursing home

It seems easiest on readers to spell out Ohio State University Press only once, and use OSU Press or even OSUP thereafter.

She moved into the nursing home, that is, the one named earlier in the article, Hospitality Home East. Choor monster (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok on part one. Regarding the nursing home, saying "the" later in the article is poor grammar usage and will end up being confusing to readers, likely prompting readers/editors to "fix" it, as I thought I was. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Both "the" and "a" are grammatical, and have slightly different meanings. As it is, I am thinking ahead: material regarding Mildred Sandoe, who joined HHS at the nursing home (not at "a" nursing home), will be added also. I'll leave it alone for now, but will change it when there's enough new material that the name of the nursing home has to be mentioned a second time anyway, so this confusion can't really happen. Choor monster (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hah. It seems I too over-expanded OSUP, down in Legacy. Choor monster (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Trivial details

I have added several things, including what may seem like trivial "unencylopedic" details. There certainly is countless trivia reported in Quay's book, the tiny amount I have included is mostly writing-related. This includes obvious things like Thornton Wilder, and non-obvious things, like regarding her father. The non-obvious things are actually writing-related: they stand out as giant "aha!" beacons to readers of Ladies. I'm not sure if we should bother to spell out in any way shape or form these connections to Ladies. Done bluntly, it is WP:OR, done subtly, it is WP:BLUE. Not done at all, it may look like pointless trivia. Choor monster (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Your 10/14 changes

Your 10/14 changes were mostly good, some excellent. But I don't like changing the bit about OSU Press's second novel to include "only". It seems a bit Shatneresque on your part, as if you were auditioning for the job of NYT obituary writer. Speaking of which, I don't like their exact words, like "relative obscurity" and "chain of coincidences", even if they weren't lifted from the source.

As it is, I would prefer to trim down the details about Ladies here (ultimately back to "published obscurely", without explanation), and expand on them at the novel's page. It seems the "Life and career" section could be split into two or three sections, say "Early life, education, and writing"/"Long-term career"/"After retirement and late success", with the last section being receiving a tag to the Ladies page. For example, I can go on in regards to the obscurity: OSUP advertised in The American Scholar (along with a book on a turn-of-the-century Alaskan governor and one on some fine details of Descartes' philosophy), did not send out any review copies: Mildred Sandoe sent out typescripts for review. And being a librarian, she sent them to the journals libraries use to select their next books (like Booklist), not to anywhere that is read by ordinary would-be readers. Choor monster (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been asking myself if I should ignore your cutting, rude, and unnecessary remarks or address them. Rather than ignoring them, I've decided I'll take the low road and just say that for someone who obviously sees himself as the savior of this article, too many of your "improvements" have, frankly, sucked.
So, now that we have the tit-for-tat out of the way, let's move forward and forget the personal attacks, shall we? It was really unnecessary for you to critique and personally attack my editing the way you did. It's unproductive and serves no real purpose in regard to the betterment of the article. Abandoning such behavior in the future would be better all around, agreed?
As has already been pointed out to you by an administrator, "published obscurely" without context or explanation is not beneficial to the article or those reading the article. It's too vague and if left unexplained, then it shouldn't be in the article at all. That in mind, I can only say that I won't be okay with it going back to what it was prior to what it is now. As for the other changes you mentioned above, go ahead and do what you're proposing. We'll play with it later in copyediting fashion if it's needed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. I sincerely believed, especially after your 100% logically unnecessary posting to my talk page, that we had reached a level of mutual light-hearted badinage and incidental chaffing. In particular, instead of just saying your use of "only" was gussied-up overkill, I went for the gussied-up overkill myself. Again, my apologies.
Back on AN3, the admins in fact split regarding "obscurely": Bbb23, felt it was fine as was with the citation, and EJ felt more was needed. They both disagreed with your claim that obits aren't full RS. I am suggesting a middle-ground, of the sort commonly seen on WP: the short version here, the long version on the Ladies page (which, as I pointed out above, can get quite a bit longer), with a Main Article template. Not yet, though. (And note that EJ was not given the option of choosing the above middle-ground, so no deduction can be made as to what he would favor.)
The obituary column, by the way, was forever changed by Robert McG. Thomas, Jr. I wholeheartedly approve of his writing, however, such high-quality writing is not our goal on WP. I disapprove of fancy words when simple words work, except when the fancy word is 100% exact in context, as your use of "culminating" was. You throw out the charge of "non-encyclopedic" often enough, in many cases, you seem to mean "pedestrian prose", and there's nothing wrong with that.
Yes, lots of my edits suck. I'm not the least bit embarrassed or insulted to have this pointed out, so if you still want tit-for-tat, you're going to have to try again, you still have one free shot. In my real-life writing, pretty much nobody sees my first drafts, and very few even see my second drafts. Here on WP, everyone sees these early drafts. Sometimes I catch my botches—everything from bad English to violations of WP policies—a week or a month later and fix them myself, other times others fix them. It's all good. Choor monster (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't consider insults "light hearted badinage and incidental chaffing". Part of being logical, literal, and on the autism spectrum, I suppose (something I've noted on my talk page for quite some time, now; I guess you missed it?). Further, I would think that considering the prickly and somewhat combative relationship we've had up to now you would not think that I would suddenly recognize you were making an attempt at humor in the midst of your cutting remarks (taking me to 3RR very recently rather than discussing the situation with me on my talk page wasn't part of the "light hearted badinage and incidental chaffing", was it? no? I didn't think so). If, however, you were sincerely being "lighthearted", I can accept your apology. Based on all this, I hope you can now understand why your words and comments were seen and taken as personal attacks and rude insults. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen your talk page, read the essay, and yes, I've sometimes wondered what might work and what might not with my wording (but only sometimes). As it is, I admit that I honestly do not know what was insulting on my part. "Shatneresque"? What was insulted, you? Or your edit? (Personally, I cannot say, hear, read, or write the word "Shatneresque" without giggling a tiny bit.) NYT obit writer? Frankly, I wish I could write that well, but if I could, I would keep it off WP.
You should not complain about 3RR. You went there without discussion. You then broke the rule EJ laid down, and the worst BOOMERANG you got was a stern warning and the restrictions were flat-out lifted—yes, we're free to rewrite and even revert each other without asking first—partly at my request. Since I claimed the "light hearted badinage and incidental chaffing" was what I engaged in after your 10/14 post on my Talk page, it makes no sense for you to mention 3RR from way before as some kind of hypocrisy on my part. So again, I cannot fathom what your complaint is. Choor monster (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Too Much Information

You made various changes way back when that I would like to reverse: you included extra bits of information that can easily be left inside a pipe or at worst, a link away. I find these disruptive to reading. The whole point of hypertext is to split up information when possible. (This is why I want to do a "middle-ground" above.) The changes I would like to make are:

  • Scribner's publishing --> Scribner's
  • G.P. Putnam's Sons --> Putnam
  • General Association of Regular Baptist Churches -> a Baptist association (or group) (or ???) (wikilink to full name)

Regarding the first two, both publishers are well-known. In the case of Scribner's more context (describing her job, and mentioning that she did some work for F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway) might render "publishing" unnecessary anyway. In the case of Putnam, the publisher only lists "Putnam" on the cover of my copy of Ladies, so why should we out-Putnam Putnam? In each case, a wikilink suffices for readers who want more information.

Regarding the name of the Baptist association: this complete naming perhaps violates WP:UNDUE. None of the Santmyer sources I have encountered have bothered to name which Baptist group bought Cedarville College. The only point of interest about the group in any Santmyer source was the reason she quit: the new owners laid down strict "no smoking, no drinking, Biblical literalism only" rules.

On the other hand, I'm not sure about

  • American Civil War --> Civil War

There certainly have been plenty of Civil Wars in history, and WP does not assume an American perspective, but I assume a reader understands this article implicitly has an American perspective, so it would be acceptable to use just a wikilinked "Civil War". Choor monster (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I say 'no' to all the changes you want to make. These inclusions are not too much information. They are explanatory and give context. An unfamiliar and non-U.S. reader will better understand what's being referred to as well as readers unfamiliar with the subject and sub-subjects mentioned in the article. Rule of thumb is to write so that the average 6th-grader will understand what is being said. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
"Scribner's publishing" and "American Civil War" do give context and are explanatory. In the former case, I am thinking of a different way to give context and explanation. In the latter case, I was assuming the average 9th-grader.
I do not understand in what sense the other two long forms give context and are explanatory. Who is enlightened by referring to a publisher by its full name—rarely done outside the small print—instead of its common short form? Like I said, the publisher itself just put "Putnam" on the spine of Ladies. And to pretty much any reader, US or non-US, 6th grade educated or PhD, all the different Baptist groups are random something-or-others, and again, naming it seems to be skirting WP:UNDUE issues.
Is there something unacceptable about mouse-overs? Choor monster (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I already explained weeks ago why specifying that GARB was in charge of the school is an important distinction. I already explained weeks ago why specifying the publisher is important. You don't like my answers. Big surprise. Frankly, I'm starting to find your behavior in asking my opinion and asking me to help you fix stuff trollish. You ask, I answer. You say you want to work together, you insult me when I try to work with you. In other words, you use these things as an opportunity to attack. Don't want my opinion? Don't ask for it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
You have never explained why the full name of the particular Baptist association was an important distinction and you have never explained why giving the full name of the publisher is an important. In particular, why these can't be hidden inside a wikilink?
That you meet simple requests to justify such details with this blatant lying and personal counterattack is uncalled for. You are the one being deliberately uncooperative and trollish. So, how about giving your opinion on these two items, instead of inventing reasons to be offended? Choor monster (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I most certainly did in an edit summary several weeks ago.
And, if these personal attacks from you don't stop immediately, back to a noticeboard we will go. I have given my answers, you just don't like them. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
A "phrase" is not an explanation. You simply shared your opinion, and have never given one indication why any rational intelligent person would actually want to have that opinion.
In particular, the NYT, Trib, Quay manage to make do without naming the Baptist group. (And People, Life didn't even mention "Baptists".)
It's a simple request. Choor monster (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Help me not suck

I added a sentence referring to HHS's grandfathers, whose stories would be influences on Ohio Town and Ladies. But it reads somewhat clunky to me. Choor monster (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Done and reworded. What you wrote didn't "suck", it just needed a little tweaking. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your changes have made it worse. The string of nouns in apposition you use is harder to parse. In particular, it requires extra care to realize that both grandfathers are mentioned (my version was triply redundant). Worse, it narrows down HHS's derived inspiration to mere stories she could recycle, when that is just part of her grandfathers' influence. The very idea of living history is important in her later writing, and part of what makes it so special. Choor monster (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to imagine how someone whose writing, at times, has been as bad as yours is seriously thinking what I changed your poor-construct to is worse than what it was. Don't ask for my help again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't like the semicolon blend between different time frames, nor the immediate reuse of "inspiration". However, the faults I identified in your version are rather objective worsenings. Choor monster (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • And let's not forget who added the content in the first place: that would be you. What's worse? Improving badly written prose or adding content that is original research? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
      • When writing about HHS, you ought to familiarize yourself with the HHS sources, and also the English language for that matter. My version was properly sourced, and was a paraphrase of what Quay wrote. As I pointed out, your rewritten version narrowed down what the sentence was saying about what the grandfathers' influence was, and when I later doublechecked, I noticed that your version's quite-specific assertion is not supported by Quay. My version still reads a bit clunky, but it does not have a string of nouns in apposition, and it does not have any original research. Choor monster (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

California context

Moving to California and back is certainly not trivial. It is certainly quite relevant to HHS's career, especially her long break in writing: she was mostly living off her father until 1935, then she began supporting her parents. She had no need for a permanent job until her father was unable to work. Choor monster (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The detail is unnecessary, trivial, and unrelated. Adding it does not enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject. California, yes - rope factory and specifics on her father? No. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Try not to show off your ignorance about HHS. At least not while editing HHS. Rope factories are of central importance in Ladies, and as such, her personal connection is not "trivia". Her almost complete cessation of writing from 1930-60 is certainly of greatest interest in her career, and is closely related to the specifics of working for a living, as she stated in several of the sources. Both are essential details. Choor monster (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Then make the content work by drawing an obvious correlation between the two rather than dangling it out there with no obvious purpose. Don't expect someone reading the article to figure it out on their own. If an individual reading the article is unfamiliar with Santmyer and the novel, educate them via the article. That's what an encyclopedia article is supposed to do, yes? Gawd. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Good thing there is no deadline! Of course, if sentence by sentence gets reverted by someone who has absolutely no idea of how relevant something is, just guessing in the dark, then it's going to be rather difficult to get further detail in that gives the full context. Especially if more time gets wasted explaining things like this. How about, instead of reverting and rereverting something you think is "trivia" (as opposed to actually know), use the Talk page. That's what it's for, yes? Jeepers.
By the way: note the context I've explained. You haven't bothered to explain context for the spelled-out name "General Association of Regular Baptist Churches", and how that isn't random trivia. Try it. If you cannot and will not actually justify the change you made, then it should be undone. Choor monster (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that I've explained this to you before. I am going through the sources, including material that may look like pointless trivia, but which stands out because it has significant connections with her writing. As to how to explain such connections, I am putting this off to later, since it comes close to WP:OR. Like I said, it's a good thing we're not on a deadline here. Choor monster (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are such a proponent of no deadline, then why are you in such a hurry to edit war and revert content back to your preferred version rather than just discuss? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It's incredibly easier to discuss and improve a sentence that is there than a sentence that is not there. If you do revert such an item that you call "trivia" in the Edit Summary, and I revert back by saying "not trivia", that should tell you with absolute clarity that I have read your concern and you should then use Talk if you want to know the details. All in all, it's much simpler to just ask here on Talk. Like I said, the sources are filled with trivia. Example: her college nickname was "Santy". She was a Cincinnati Reds fan. I could go on. And I might let something like this slip, and if you revert something like that, I'll thank you. Choor monster (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarisms (copied from User talk:Choor monster)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Helen Hooven Santmyer. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. "The removal of your plagiarisms is important." [1] What the hell are you talking about? What "plagiarisms"? I merely rewrote something you badly executed, something YOU asked me to rewrite for you (as seen here: [2]). You seriously need to have something very concrete and definite to back up this claim and personal attack. If you do not, and do not back down from this accusation, you will leave me no choice but to take things elsewhere. I am at the end of my patience with you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Your precise choice of language, "relative obscurity" and "a series of coincidences", are both in the NYT obit. You did not merely rewrite, you twice took the exact phrasing. Choor monster (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If what I wrote was exact, it was unconscious on my part. I don't plagiarize because I don't need to, I know how to write all on my own. Please provide side-by-side comparisons to support your accusation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not believe you did it on purpose. The two phrases are both in the 3rd paragraph of the NYT obit, footnoted in the main article, available on-line. The NYT uses "relative obscurity" for a different purpose than you did, but that still counts as plagiarism, at least in the academic circles I travel in. Using that turn of phrase in some other completely unrelated article, like Lasting impact of the Amiga, is probably acceptable. Choor monster (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I call complete bullshit on what you are saying now in an obvious attempt to backpedal. You indicated in an un-strikeable edit summary that my "plagiarisms" needed to be reverted as a policy violation. Please provide side-by-side comparisons that prove I have committed intentional plagiarism as your edit summary (and comments above) indicate. And when you do so, please keep in mind that I never read the obit. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I identified your plagiarisms and the source. Get over it. Policy is the policy you once linked to above: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. It violates policy if it's intentional or not, so your making demands in that regard are just pointless blather. As for never having read the obit, you were certainly giving the opposite impression when you wrote "Full of not just unencyclopedic peacockery and gushing, but some of it taken directly from the referenced NYT obituary."? Choor monster (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Unless you want this to escalate to the appropriate administrator's noticeboard, I suggest you provide what I am asking for to support and prove your non-AGF and uncivil accusation that I have intentionally plagiarized. By refusing to do so, you're putting me in a position that demands I request scrutiny by an administrator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Read (and comprehend) what I wrote. Or request scrutiny. Choor monster (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I read it all, comprehend it just fine, from your first insult and accusation to where we are now: your unwillingness to support your accusation with facts and a side by side comparison. I suggest your either put up or shut up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the HHS Prize?

An anon pointed out (and I reverted) the fact that the award seems to have been discontinued. Google books reveals winners from 1990–96 only. Without an RS, however, we can't draw the obvious conclusion in the article, and just listing winners is certainly UNDUE. Choor monster (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Helen Hooven Santmyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helen Hooven Santmyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Rhodes Scholar

Helen Hoover Santmyer is not nor has ever been a Rhodes Scholar. Refer to Rhodes Trust database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:2105:3928:A09C:F058:DC6A:CD33 (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helen_Hooven_Santmyer/Archive_1&oldid=1029972274"