Talk:Martha Nell Smith

You people?

Do you people read before you edit? I spent a half hour cleaning up the article and adding references and you just summarily erased them and blocked any discussion. Please read the edits I made; I complied with Wikipedia policy. Please put the edits back. The article is better with references, particularly since you asked for references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.6.23.105 (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The various entries for books

I have not checked this in any great detail. It just seems to me that it is usual to have a selected list of the works of a person who has written some, yet these seem to be deleted out of hand. Would the editors removing this information please comment about their deletions. It seems that a consensus ought to be reached rather than playing reversion tennis. Specifically, what in your view, prevents their appearing here. I do not think the WP:NOTDIRECTORY argument holds good here. Fiddle Faddle 15:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this revision what I can see is a poorly formatted jumble of books et al. Now the list is pretty big, so I imagine the author has been prolific. Some appear to have relevant, albeit poorly formed, citations in reliable sources. It looks to me as if editors acted in good faith by removing them, but that this was an imperfect solution, and formatting ought to have been applied. Then we could have seen the wood from the trees. Fiddle Faddle 16:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they look like reliable sources, but the links are all dead - try clicking a few. It's not just a matter of formatting. I'm looking for reliable sources online, and haven't found any yet, but will add them here if I find some. Ruby Murray 16:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Consider how this site lists her books: http://www.emilydickinsoninternationalsociety.org/node/79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.21.137 (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a good reference, and worth adding here. I'm happy to add it, if you like. But we also need references supporting the claims of awards, as described in Wikipedia:BLP. Ruby Murray 16:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes and this should be the opening paragraph (done before the bad editing) if you could put it back!!

Martha Nell Smith is Professor of English and Founding Director of the Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities (MITH) at the University of Maryland, College Park, most well known as one of the foremost Emily Dickinson scholars of our time. In 2012 she made headlines bringing the second photograph of Emily Dickinson to light. .

You could take out "foremost Emily Dickinson scholars of our time" but leave the references please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.21.137 (talk)

• Generally, awards should be listed only if (1) they are notable and (2) they are cited to a secondary source. The two go hand in hand, meaning an award will generally be notable if a reliable secondary source cites it. A list of publications does not merit inclusion unless the publications have been commented on in secondary reliable sources. It's the same idea. Academics often have long lists of publications. Just listing them without more is of little value.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Your rationale is, as ever, sound. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

someone needs to put the link to the news article about the photograph please. Bbb23 has only one part of the concern here. Right now there is no way to add the RELIABLY SOURCED information about why Martha Nell Smith is notable not as an academic only but also as a newsmaker.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.24.91 (talk)

Yes, I've re-added the sentence about the photograph, along with the suggested references. Ruby Murray 16:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the article too much recently to make any edits to the article, but here are some of my objections to the language now in the article: (1) it shouldn't say in the lead that she is an "expert" unless there are at least two secondary, reliable sources in support of it and it's in the body; (2) Dickinson shouldn't be wikilinked twice in the lead, nor should her full name be used the second time; (3) the awards section shouldn't have unsourced material (fact tags don't cut it); (4) the Rutgers stuff is really undue, particularly as the only source is a YouTube; (5) the UofM stuff needs a secondary source, not a dead link; and (6) the last sentence of that section is not sourced to anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I had just fixed (2) as you were posting this. :-) I've now fixed (1) as well. Ruby Murray 17:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching, thanks, Ruby.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both, indeed thank you all. I'm sure it looked as if I had arrived from nowhere to interfere, as, indeed, was the case. I was worried that 'we' were not giving sufficient justifications and that this lack had caused ire. Sometimes one works faster by working slower and by using the talk page more than one might ever feel necessary. Fiddle Faddle 17:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. (1) We normally list all the books of a published author, academic or otherwise. We normally add in a footnote the references to every published book review we can find. The best authority for the books is WorldCat, not amazon, and they are normally listed in a "Publications" or "Bibliography" section. There has been occasional support for listing all the published works, but this depends on the author, and we are more likely to accept this of a literary author. For academics, I think our normal practice is to not list peer-reviewed articles except for the most important (as shown by citations or otherwise), and not list minor works such as lectures etc. at all. (2) On-campus awards or alumni awards are not considered significant for notability purposes, and I normally do not list them. (3) Nor do I include participation in miscellaneous community events. (4) For any person, I always think it a very poor idea to say "expert" or "famous" or "notable" or "leading" or "well-known" or any such adjective in the lede paragraph, regardless of the sourcing. I disagree with Bbb here: I think words of praise are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The importance is shown by the material presented; let the facts speak for themselves. If a particular very reliable source has said someone's work is particularly significant in a particular way, it can be used as a sourced quotation later. (5) Beware of over-kill. For someone very important, only the most important material is sufficient to show it, and too much looks like PR or fan writing. For someone of borderline importance, trying to get every little detail implies there is nothing much of true significance, and is a routine PR technique.

I will do some editing later today, especially for the book list. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you think you disagree with me on, but putting that aside, I have trouble accepting that there is a "normal" with respect to publications. Whenever I'm unlucky enough to get involved in one of these types of disputes, I see articles and editors all over the place as to what should and what shouldn't be included and what kinds of sources are acceptable. If I'm right about that, then those issues should be decided by consensus. That said, I have a fair amount of confidence in your ability to edit the article in a way that the end product will be encyclopedic. Besides, you're willing to put in the work.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

References

The Daguerrotype

Why are editor deleting the link to Martha Nell Smith's discovery of the new photograph/daguerrotype? This find and its authentication was big news last year. The list of books was previously edited and then the edits were deleted. Smith is a globally known academic. https://www.amherst.edu/library/archives/holdings/edickinson/new_daguerreotype — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.27.225.219 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

See above: Martha Nell Smith is Professor of English and Founding Director of the Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities (MITH) at the University of Maryland, College Park, most well known as one of the foremost Emily Dickinson scholars of our time. In 2012 she made headlines bringing the second photograph of Emily Dickinson to light. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.24.91 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stand quietly and breathe for a moment. Saying something twice does not make it correct, nor is there any urgency of any description here. Contribute to the conversation with pleasure, and with calm and quiet logic. This is an encyclopaedia, not a car chase, so let things percolate, settle in and become resolved by consensus. So please slow down. We do not need the fire brigade here, just a little peaceful editing. Let's get the right article out of this, not a mishap. Fiddle Faddle 16:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Unsourced, removed

Please see WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS; please provide reliable *published* sources for this text before reinstating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Smith serves on the Advisory Board for the Houghton Library/Harvard University Press Emily Dickinson Archive (forthcoming 2013), which "seeks to make Dickinson’s manuscripts available in open access, around the world, paired with transcriptions and other resources." On May 4, 2011, Smith was elected Chair-Elect of the University of Maryland Senate, and on May 3, 2012 became Chair of the University of Maryland Senate and served in that capacity for the usual full-year term until May 2013.

Smith served on the Executive Council of the Association for Computers in the Humanities (ACH) and from 2006-2008 co-chaired the Modern Language Association (MLA)’s Committee on Scholarly Editions (CSE). She is a founding member of the Emily Dickinson International Society (EDIS) and serves on the EDIS Board.

In 2011, Smith was named an ADVANCE Professor as part of a National Science Foundation-funded program designed to advance women, transform the university, and invest in a culture of inclusive excellence.

Smith is the recipient of awards from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), the Mellon Foundation, and the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) for her work on Dickinson, American literary history, and in new media.

Please provide a valid, published citation for the list above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Digital Publications

Several editors feel that the list of items below ought to be a part of this article. Others believe that such additions must pass over a reasonably high bar prior to inclusion. The matter has become heated on this talk page and now elsewhere. To attempt to remove the heat the article and now the talk page have been semi-protected. That is simply history, and will explain why IP editors may not, for the moment, comment here. However that protection will expire shortly, and it is likely that the heat will return to the discussion.

Please would experienced editors inspect the proposed additions, ideally item by item, and consider for each whether it has a place in the article. Only by placid, collegiate consensus building can we decide whether these items are appropriate in the article. A full rationale for or against will be helpful. Editors should note that some of the urls appear to have been added in haste. Correcting these would be a further bonus. Fiddle Faddle 21:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

---

The following section should obviously be part of Smith's entry. How do we best make sure it is there?

Martha Nell Smith is more well known among scholars and students for her online work, including:

1. Emily Dickinson’s Correspondences: A Born-Digital Textual Inquiry. Coedited with Lara Vetter, with Ellen Louise Hart as consulting editor. A TEI (Text Encoding Initiative)-conformant XML interactive edition. University of Virginia Press, Rotunda New Digital Scholarship, December 2008. Dead link fixed Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 06:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Dickinson Electronic Archives. Executive Editor and Coordinator. Charlottesville: Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities (IATH), University of Virginia. Online. [1]. Available: 1995 to the present.
3. “Emily Dickinson Writing a Poem” (with Lara Vetter), dead link fixed Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 06:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
4. “Dickinson, Cartoonist”, dead link fixed Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 06:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
5. “The Letter-Poem, a Dickinson Genre”, dead link fixed Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 06:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
6. What has been erased, inked over, cut away?” (with Jarom McDonald), dead link fixed
7. “The Civil War, Class, and the Dickinsons: Emily Dickinson’s Confederate Relations” are digital articles, samplers of born-digital critical inquiry. Online.
8. [2]. Available: 1996 to the present.
9. WRITINGS BY SUSAN DICKINSON. Coedited with Laura Lauth and Lara Vetter. A critical edition of previously unpublished papers. Online. Available: 1997 to the present. (Corrected link Fiddle Faddle 23:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)))
10. TITANIC OPERAS: A Poets’ Corner of Contemporary Responses to Dickinson’s Legacy. Coedited with Laura Lauth. A series of essays/exchanges on the influence of Dickinson’s work in collaboration with remarks by Adrienne Rich, Ruth Stone, Susan Howe, Amy Clampitt, Alicia Ostriker, Sandra Gilbert, Gwendolyn Brooks, Kathleen Fraser, Sharon Olds, Denise Levertov, Phillis Levin, Audre Lorde, Annie Finch, Fran Adler, Jan Freeman, Wendy Barker, and others. Online. Available: 1997 to the present. Dead link fixed. AnupMehra ^✈ 12:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
11. NED’S NOTEBOOK: Transcriptions of Dickinson Poetry. Consultant to first author Lara Vetter. A critical edition of the notebook of Emily Dickinson’s nephew working toward a volume featuring poems by Emily and poems by Susan Dickinson. Online. Available: 2000 to the present. Dead link fixed. AnupMehra ^✈ 12:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
12. THE CLASSROOM ELECTRIC: DICKINSON, WHITMAN, & AMERICAN CULTURE. A FIPSE-sponsored project co-directed with Prof. Kenneth M. Price, University of Nebraska. Online. Available: 1998 to the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.6.58.214 (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the digital publications should be included, since most students who come to the emily dickinson or martha nell smith sites use these online sources69.80.108.6 (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur. 31.6.44.37 (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

These two IP addresses are from the same corporate IP and are either the same individual or meat puppets.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Therefore what, the content of the comment does not matter? Please focus on content. 207.207.17.84 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Tried to fix some of the dead link issues for you in the RfC, hope it helps! I am impartial as to adding or not adding the information, just saw the RfC and wanted to help out. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 06:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Note please, that a number of the numbered links above are, as I post this note, resolving to 404 'not found' errors, or, in at least one case, to the server not being found. Rather than rejecting these out of hand, I am being charitable and assuming that they were added in haste, and added imperfectly. If someone corrects all that they are able to correct, ↑up there↑, and puts a note by each one corrected, that would be useful to all coming here to comment. Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, thinking it's not worth it - I came here via RfC invite, without prior knowledge of this. I think DGG's comment above this RfC is a fairly-made point...for notable authors, you don't need to list all of their works. I think some of these sources should be used to justify some of the language already in the body of the article, and if it's going to say 'expert' in the lead, then a few of these could be used to justify that. But I don't see how adding an entire list of these adds to the article much, if at all. Including this list makes it closer to a CV than an encyclopedia article, and that's not a direction I think would be wise. GRUcrule (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (invited by the RFC bot) The way that you have structured this, it would take many hours to learn, review and analyze enough (which I have not done) to give a thoughtful, intelligent response. This may tend to limit the number of responses that you get. What I saw at those links runs the gamut from dead links to home pages with no specific piece to pretty good stuff that seems to have been acknowledged by organizations. Might I suggest a "short cut" to the end? Pick the best 6 and put them in, hopefully with related text. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

EXPERT

If an article calls her an expert, why can't the wikipedia page??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.27.222.232 (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the article in the reference is publicity by a university for an event, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And there really is no need to shout, either here or in the edit summaries. Ruby Murray 14:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Shout? I am being perfectly quiet. There is no read to erase without carefully considering the improvements made. I wish administrators like you would read what is added before summarily erasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.27.222.232 (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This is shouting. It's considered rude and unhelpful, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. You're going to get blocked by an administrator, if you won't stop Wikipedia:Edit warring. Ruby Murray 14:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

In the recently-added sentence, "Her work's main focus is on the life and works of the poet Emily Dickinson about whom Smith is considered an expert" I've removed the words "about whom Smith is considered an expert", as the word "expert", as noted above, is a subjective term, and shouldn't be added in any case without reliable, secondary sources to support the use of that term. A press release from the university holding the Dickinson event can't be considered a secondary source. Ruby Murray 15:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

IP editors

Would the IP editors on this page please sign their posts? That is accomplished by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. Also, please stop shouting (on the internet, all caps are the equivalent of shouting). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I only shout when editors erase without reading and then wag their fingers afterward. So many good editors are now foregoing accounts and editing under IP addresses because you people who aren't experts are dominating the discourse. Stop erasing and deleting and let experts weigh in please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.93.67 (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. So how do we tell who's an "expert", so we know who'll you allow to edit the article? Ruby Murray 15:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Experts are scholars who know Emily Dickinson scholarship and post improvements that speak to the topic at hand. 103.27.225.34 (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

And how do we tell which editor is a scholar who knows Emily Dickinson scholarship, and by what objective yardstick shall we judge which posts are improvements that speak to the topic at hand? Ruby Murray 15:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for shouting but would you consider READING before deleting them. How can anyone tell anything without reading first?103.27.225.34 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You're still shouting. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please also review WP:MEAT, and WP:3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read before deleting! I have spent hours on this site this morning and I am an expert. Please do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.27.225.34 (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If the Jerry Springer Show had an episode about Emily Dickinson scholars, it would look something like this. Ruby Murray 15:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that you're an expert; I'm the Queen of Sheba. Nice to meet you. At any rate, no matter who you are or who I am, please familiarize yourself with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:3RR, WP:COI and WP:MEAT. Ruby Murray, it's probably time to stop feeding this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Righty-ho then. Ruby Murray 15:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That was pretty snarky. Maybe some people ARE emily dickinson experts. There is no need for snark.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.157.205 (talk)

Look, is the goal yelling at new editors or improvement the Martha Nell Smith page? If so, I approve of the new edits. I am an English professor who knows Martha Nell Smith and her work. 64.9.157.205 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, the page has now been locked to anonymous editing, since all of these anonymous experts couldn't be bothered to talk over their proposed changes here at the talk page. Ruby Murray 15:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

IP 64, Queen of Sheba here. It's nice to meet you, too; how many of you are planning to show up here? Regardless of your "expert" status, Wikipedia text must comply with WP:V and WP:BLP. Please stop adding uncited text. Also, WP:MEAT applies to edit warring and WP:3RR (that is, the whole lot can be blocked if this doesn't stop). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me but one editor did bring all this to the talk page above. You might do what has been asked of you and read a little bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.157.205 (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and as I replied in the talk page above, "they look like reliable sources, but the links are all dead - try clicking a few." Ruby Murray 11:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The whole Digital publication part was brought here before you people began deleting. I wish you would please be respectful before jumping to nastiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.157.205 (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No, dead links were repeatedly reposted on the page, so the page has had to be locked to prevent you spamming them back up on the article again from various IP addresses. Ruby Murray 11:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Would the IP editors on this page please sign their posts? That is accomplished by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. Also, please stop shouting (on the internet, all caps are the equivalent of shouting). (I know I'm repeating myself, but it seems some folks aren't reading, so ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was special.

Now all the folk that want to put unsourced or similar stuff in the article have just got it protected again. Now, why not go about this well? It;s easy. You want it in? You put it here for discussion and consensus decides. This is not a hard process, but it is the one that happens here. Do you have an academic background? read WP:ACADEME and see what went wrong. WIkipedia will not change to meet your needs, so you have to change to meet Wikipedia's. If you respect Martha Nell SMithy then do here the kindness of not arguing over the article on her. Instead, form consensus on what it should look like.

Some things are non negotiable, so work round them. Fiddle Faddle 17:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

An IP editor did raise questions here and none of the cutting editors have bothered to comment. Acknowledged non-experts have removed all of the new material. Look at the digital section above. Why are all of the cutting non-experts refusing to put that back in? Why, when an article says "expert," do they cut that? Wikipedia has become a joke and this is why.64.9.157.88 (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. And why would regular editors here bother to insert text in an uncollaborative environment where their time is being taken up by edit warriors? Articles are best expanded in a collaborative environment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur. If there are things that should be in the article, and if they have references in WP:RS (read it) then no-one will prevent their going in. Be clear,though, that peacockery is not allowed, nor is a non neutral point of view. No-one cares who you are, they just care that the article is encyclopaedic. So don'tt complain about Wikipedia. Work within it instead. Have you read WP:ACADEME yet? Fiddle Faddle 17:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You are likely to find, too, that the editors who removed stuff have no interest in MNS, and that they just removed wording that they considered inappropriate or not backed by sources. As for the work "expert', it is a tautology. If MNS has an article here then she is notable. The world is rammed full of experts. MNS seems to be notable instead. How much better that is, surely. I'm an expert on a specialist topic in real life, but Wikipedia would never dream of having an article on me because I am not notable. Fiddle Faddle 17:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The way, IMHO, was started by Ruby and Sandy, who did not want anyone who (by now reasonably) uses an IP address to edit. The IP editors here have been thoughtful and positive. Ruby, Sandy, and now Faddie are the usual amateurs who exert control without knowledge. 31.6.44.37 (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please try not to be objectionable. Your generalisation os offensive. Fiddle Faddle 17:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, your snark is offensive (and I can spell). Please don't pour gasoline on a fire that Ruby, Sandy, and you are continuing. 207.207.17.84 (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered being constructive and not using WIkipedia to declare war? Deal with the items you think should be in the article, one at a time, and accept consensus. This is the way Wikipedia works. It just is not negotiable. There is no fire here except that which is being created by those who fail to follow the rules. Quieten down, remove hostility and get on with proving that what I presume you want in the article deserves its place in it. No-one cares about anything else. Fiddle Faddle 18:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read the history. This was done. Then it was undone by Bbb23 and the rest of you. 207.207.21.83 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, the lack of evidence that Ruby, Sandy, Faddie, or Bbb23 actually READ anything before deleting it is mind-boggling. 207.207.21.83 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you prefer to argue or to be constructive? It's really simple to move this forward. It's equally simple just to get folks' backs up. If you choose to be constructive this moves forwards. Be obstructive and it sits as it is with you getting ever more upset about it. So make your proposal and be prepared to both discuss it calmly and to stay within the rules. Fiddle Faddle 18:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you read? I made my suggestion above regarding the Digital Publications. You, Rose, Sandy, have not responded. Bbb23 is sniping about IP addresses. You are incorrect that adding to the talk page is "moving anything forward." 207.207.21.83 (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What is going on in here?

I can't recall ever encountering this kind of editing before; will it be necessary to request full protection next? This edit by Thorgodofwar added a "citation" which isn't a citation! Please read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITEHOW; information needs to be verifiable to a published source, and all Thorgodofwar did was add text in ref tags-- not a citation at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies--I mistook that a reference could be a footnote, rather than a citation. Will not do that again. User:Thorgodofwar (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thorgodofwar, it's hard enough getting these IPs to understand Wikipedia policy and guideline without this-- would you mind a) signing your talk page entries (by adding four tildes after them), and b) removing your faulty non-citation citation? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandy, the IP disruption on this page should stop as they have been range-blocked as proxies. Please let me know if one slips through. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no objection, if it can be cited, to add Thorgodofwar's mistake ref as a note in a ref scheme running alongside for notes. If editors here are unfamilair with the syntax, it requires a parameter group="note" to the <ref> tag and a new Reflist template: {{Reflist group="note}} perhaps in its own section. Each Reflist gathers its own references then. I am not sure if you can add a citation within a note, mind you! Fiddle Faddle 20:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

IP proxies

Because the IP proxies are continuing to assault this page and other pages at Wikipedia faster than they can be range blocked, I've semi-protected the talk page for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Dead link in the IPs' proposed addition

Observing with amazement this extrordinary dispute between Dickinson experts who know nothing much about Wikipedia and Wikipedia experts who know nothing much about Dickinson, I saw the latest suggestion from an IP of text to be added re digital writings. (It's been deleted from the talk page since, but seems identical to what was given above, which is presumably why it was deleted). I clicked on just one link out of curiosity, the one for "Writings by Susan Dickinson", and found it's a dead link. Should be http://archive.emilydickinson.org/susan/. Please check your proposed content for accuracy! Best wishes to the lot of you for a peaceful resolution and a good encyclopedia article, eventually. PamD 21:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

On the basis that I known nothing about the topic but a lot about WIkipedia I've set the list up as an RfC higher up on this page, something I hope will bring experienced eyes and take the heat out of this rather ludicrous battle. Fiddle Faddle 21:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ludicrous indeed. As I said quite early on in the discussion above, the reference links given were all dead. We also have no idea whether the IP editor who keeps re-posting all these dead links is a "Dickinson expert", apart from their own say-so. Lots of accusations flying about that we're failing to read the deadlinked references, and lots of argument from authority that discussion here on the talk page isn't needed, because they're the expert.

I've dug around online to find evidence of some of the claimed awards received, and can find no mention of her on the websites of the awards bodies mentioned, so I'm removing the claims from the article. Ruby Murray 11:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Trying to help but ...

Thorgodofwar's attempted addition (ref, note, whatever) included the statement that "Open Me Carefully was chosen by Choice as one of the Best Books List 1998, and by the American Library Association for their Notable Books List in 1999." I thought I'd be helpful and find a proper "Reliable Source" for that latter statement, from the ALA website. Unfortunately, though I found their list of "Notable books" for 1999 (and also checked 1998 and 2000), there seems no sign of this book. Was it one of their other awards, perhaps? Their Outstanding Reference Sources list only goes back to 2002 online: was that the one, perhaps? All very confusing. And I was just trying to help! PamD 21:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I also looked and could find no sourcing for any of the proposed text additions: it's a mystery to me what is going on in here, and it's about the oddest and lamest thing I've encountered on Wikipedia, making me wonder if it's some sort of breaching experiment. Help appreciated!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Then I thought I'd try and source this "chosen by Choice as one of the Best Books List 1998". Hmm, presumably that's Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries (rather than anything else at Choice (disambiguation) such as an Aussie consumer mag), and perhaps it's their "Outstanding Academic Titles" of each year? Unfortunately can't trace 1998 online. But any comment like that about awards etc needs to be (a) accurate and (b) sourced (offline or online). PamD 23:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Same here. And for the claim that "Companion to Emily Dickinson was described by Reference Works 1999 as "an essential addition to any university library.", all I can find is this quote on the Wiley page for that book: The twenty-six essays that make up this Companion are all of extremely high quality [and] each is quite distinct from the others.... This book is an essential addition to any university library where Dickinson's poetry is included on courses, at any level, and would add depth and breadth to public library collections where Dickinson's poetry is already of significant interest." (Reference Reviews, November 2009) So I searched Reference Reviews for that quote, but can't find it. And since the book was published in 2008, it's pretty unlikely that the claimed date of 1999 is accurate. The other claims of awards and recognition should be taken with a grain of salt until decent references can be found. Ruby Murray 11:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, that looks like cherry-picking of the sort that you see outside theatres: "I was delighted" from "I was delighted when the curtain finally came down". Well, heading in that direction anyway, and not appropriate for a quotation in an encyclopedia. PamD 13:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

EDIS

OK, so one of her claims to fame is as president of the Emily Dickinson International Society. But it wasn't linked, and the article didn't exist until I created it earlier today. Could I suggest that some of you ED experts out there join in and improve that article, from the bare (but sourced, etc) stub I've created?

And if any of you are involved with its website design, you might like to consider creating more of a "Home page": at present the main page to which the URL leads has a lot of info about 2014 conference but no general introductory/welcoming text as one would usually see. Unless I'm missing something, the society doesn't seem to have a "Home page"as such. Or, it reads as if it's completely aimed at its own members, rather than telling anyone else about the society. PamD 13:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And in that short stub there's a redlink for the American Literature Association http://americanliteratureassociation.org/, of which EDIS is a member. If I hadn't got a Christmas cake waiting to be iced and other stuff to do, I'd dig around and start that article too - but I'll leave it to someone else. I thought at first it was a misprint, as (even as a Brit) I know what ALA stands for, but this other ALA seems to genuinely exist and is probably worth a Wikipedia article. It already has 5 incoming links, red at present. Enjoy your Christmas / Yule / Solstice / .... PamD 13:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Dickinson

Oh dear ... the entire thing is sourced to two blogs, and neither of them confirms the status of the photo (they both pose it as a possibility). It seems we have an article based around Smiths' *claims* in COI sources and blogs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)