Talk:Joyce Kilmer: Difference between revisions

Archives

* Through 14 January 2007

References

I changed the references to a two column format, with all the op cits, this makes it more compact. What do you think? Cheers to all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• (1) I don't see it rendered as two columns, I just see the same format with way-too-small text. Sure you got the coding right? (2) From what I've seen, using the <div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> will likely prevent this article from becoming an WP:FA when its candidacy is brought up. FAC editors would give several objections until it would be revised back to <div class="references-small"></div>. If you find differently on the FAC issue, I'll support it. In the meantime, why don't I see two columns? —ExplorerCDT 09:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected

We seem to have a hot edit war going on here. I protected the page so people can cool off and work this out. So. Do that. :) For the good of everyone. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor questions

• "The year 1913 approached Kilmer in trials of suffering and faith but also in success" Can this be reworded to be clearer? Does it mean the events were in 1912 or late 1912?
• Why was she called "Deborah ("Sister Michael") Clanton Kilmer". Was she a Catholic nun?

Cheers and good luck with the GA status. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Let me see if I can take a crack at the 1912/1913 discussion.
    • I didn't make the "Sister Michael" edit, and I'm actually not sure. I've heard as much, but never got to the bottom of that one. Sorta slipped out of my mind.
    • We're beyond GA. FA is on the horizon, after this madness gets pushed under the rug. —ExplorerCDT 09:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The "Sister Michael" thing was mine, I don't have a source for it but she was a Catholic nun. I figured giving the name she went by for a great portion of her life would make it easier to find info about her in the future. 69.19.14.33 18:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC) (User:Makemi

Resolution: What I would like

These are the only two things I'm hung up on. If Alansohn and others on his side have demands, list them below.

• Abandon any desire to list non-notable siblings. On this I will not bend, I think WP:NOT and WP:WINAD are clear on the issue, and other people seem to agree their mention is irrelevant. The only way I'd bend on this is if it can be established that there was a sibling-impact on the writing...and then only the relevant sibling gets mentioned (re: Kilmer's older brother if the suicide thing is adequately sourced), not all.
• Alansohn wants to talk about the brother's suicide and its possible impact on Kilmer's writing. Find reliable sources that actually discuss the issue. So far there are none. Putting two separate unrelated lines that Kilmer's brother committed suicide and Kilmer wrote about suicide (criticising with ennui how it was en vogue to praise suicide and use it to raise the works of third-rate verisifiers) in a review of some suicided-writer's book, only seeking to justify each other by false association does not count. Without sources—and good sources (not find-a-grave)—it's gone. If it's an unaccessible source (and trust me, I can have any book, microfilm, magazine, letter, etc. in my hands within a week), it's unreliable and unverifiable and it's gone. In the meantime though, it's unreliable, it stays off until it's verified and sourced properly.
• If you want to revert everything to American spelling, go right ahead. I'll give on that...a good faith offering.

I have never said that I was unreasonable. It only appears that way when other people can't reason, or refuse to. Right now, too many Type-A's in the room. We're all decent editors. But we're all Type-A assholes. That being said, none of us should get banned over a few keystrokes. Let's get past this. —ExplorerCDT 09:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Are you now calling me an asshole? Please be civil. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition to calling myself one. Let's not get into any more hypocritical discourse about who is civil and who is not, because this is an example of the pot calling the kettle black. —ExplorerCDT 19:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• You can call yourself anything you want. Please refrain from calling me an asshole. Or describing edits as "shit". You scatological obsession isn't welcome. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you done pontificating? You're only proving my point. —ExplorerCDT 19:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Bringing this article up to FA status

1. Review the prose so that they are compelling, even brilliant.

"Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.

2. Ensure that all major facts and major details of each major fact are included.

"Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.

3. Ensure details stay focused on major fact without going into unnecessary detail

It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Review each claim in the article (i) verifiable against reliable sources, (ii) accurately present the related

"Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.

5. Ensure each view is presented fairly and without bias.

"Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).

6. Work together to bring article stability.

"Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.

A. British English vs. American English

Please see National varieties of English to discuss this issue. -- Jreferee 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

B. Listing non-notable siblings

Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary states that many genealogical details may be omitted in exchange for a better-flowing, more rounded article. Template:Biography clarifies this and explains how to handle marriage and offsprings to maintain a better-flowing, more rounded article. WikiProject Biography endorses the use of Charles Darwin to address the issue of whether to include siblings name in an article. -- Jreferee 18:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

C. Impact of brother's suicide on Kilmer's writing

Copied here from archive (with edits only for clarification, and removing irrelevant comments):

• The New York Times article he (Alansohn) cites is irrelevant. It's trivial. Basically saying. "Kilmer wrote about suicide, once." But what's sinister is that Alansohn desires to use it to justify an unreliable and right now unverifiable statement (contrary to WP:RS/WP:V) that the older brother's suicide impacted Kilmer's work. The NYT piece mentions suicide to criticize a writer Kilmer thought was third-rate and that his work was only being talked about because of the novelty of the author's suicide. Nothing dealing with his brother at all. That makes his attempt at truth by unrelated association false, and misleading. —ExplorerCDT 18:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. As stated above in previous discussions, if a source indicates that Kilmer's brother's suicide affected Kilmer work, and this that meets WP:RS and WP:V (i.e. not find-a-grave.com), I'll gladly accept it's inclusion into the article. —ExplorerCDT 18:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Which of the two facts is in dispute as unsourced? That his brother took his own life? or, that he wrote a letter condemning suicide? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. findagrave.com is not a reliable source for reporting the suicide, also the <ref name="Miriam"/> has just a Kilmer family descendancy chart and related genealogical trivia, it shouldn't be used to report a cause of death it does not list nor discuss. I gander that Alansohn used it only to establish a birth and death date for Kilmer's brother and that he had a brother, which is superfluous citation and it is not in dispute.
    2. the mention of Kilmer writing an article about suicide (in which he does not condemn it, but in a review of what he wrote to be a bad book, takes a swipe at the artistic crowd who praises suicide and uses it to raise up "third-rate versifiers") was used by Alansohn to wrongly justify by false association that Kilmer work was impacted by his brother's suicide in a manner that was misleading and speculative (wikipedia is not speculation). If he can find a verifiable, reliable source that says in a scholarly fashion "Kilmer's work was impacted or influenced by his brother's suicide" fine. But he hasn't done that, instead he tried to get the fact in by the back door. If mentioned on its own, as "Kilmer wrote about suicide", it would be seemingly irrelevant. Kilmer also wrote about trees, war, love, birds, holidays, religion and other subjects as well, and we don't put a sentence of "bullet point trivia" for those. It's also wrong to write "Kilmer wrote about suicide" when the topic wasn't an essay on the pros and cons of suicide, or some other examination of the subject but a review of someone's crappy book.
    3. Lastly, the fact that Kilmer's brother committed suicide is just genealogical trivia that can be omitted per WP:WINAD unless it can be shown through reliable sources that Kilmer's brother's suicide had an impact or influence on Kilmer's work. Why WP:WINAD: Unless it's relevant to a discussion of Kilmer's work, it's genealogical irrelevancy that impedes the article's flow.

Hope that answers your question. —ExplorerCDT 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Make lead section concise

It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;

8. Make lead section a summary

It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;

9. Make lead section prepare reader for higher detail level in main body

It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;

10. Confirm hierarchical headings system

It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings.

11. Confirm that table of contents is substantial

It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).

12. Confirm images are subject appropriate with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.

It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.

13. Confirm appropriate length for topic (check amount of kilobytes used, too).

It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).