Jump to content

Talk:Harper Lee/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Why a recluse?

I came to this article to discover why exactly Harper Lee became a recluse. It does not really say for sure. I would be interested in knowing that if anyone happens to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdsnare (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  • She didn't exactly become a recluse. She just doesn't give interviews or write novels. She does have friends and family and she travels frequently. Dystopos 13:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Misspelling?

Is the word anticlimatic spelt wrong? Is it "anticlimactic"?...yes it is. sorry unsigned comment by User:Emilgouliev

You're right. Feel free to correct typos and other errors yourself. Dystopos 17:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

New or Nord?

In the text body, the interviewer is Newquist, in the references it is Nordquist. Pls reconcile. thug life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.104.171 (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oxford

Does anyone know what college Ms. Lee went to at Oxford and what she studied while there?

I believe she was studying law when she went to Oxford for a one-year exchange program from the University of Alabama. I can't find a reference to which college she joined. If this was before the colleges became coeducational, that might narrow the candidates down to a few. I think Lady Margaret, St. Hugh's, St. Hilda's and Somerville were women's colleges. Dystopos 20:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Charles Shields (Mockingbird: A Portrait of Harper Lee) writes she was enrolled in the Extra-Mural Studies Summer School program, "European Civilization in the Twentieth Century." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.134.21 (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What's going on?

I came to this article cause i wanted to know what was going through her life to start a new beginning of books etc. but it doesn't tell that much. -- unsigned comment by User:170.161.69.2, typos in original comment corrected by User:82.32.130.188

  • Wikipedia limits itself to information that is verifiable. Since there is no verifiable information about Lee's literary ambitions (and not much about her private life at all), the subject is not detailed here. --Dystopos 14:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

NY Times

New York Times had a January 31 (2006) article with an update on Lee's life.--unsigned comment by User:160.39.187.226

  • You'll note that a link to the article is already included in the "references" section. I didn't see much in the Times that would add to this article, but feel free to add any information you think is relevant. --Dystopos 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Claims of descent from Robert E. Lee

Our article claimed that Harper Lee was a descendant of the Confederate General. A reader sent an e-mail to the Robert E. Lee Memorial Association to confirm this. They advised: I regret that Harper Lee is not a descendant of General Robert E. Lee. There is a chart of Gen. Lee's descendants on the Stratford web site www.stratfordhall.org. Click on "history" in the left navigation bar, then click on Robert E. Lee, scroll to the bottom of his page and see the link to his family tree. General Robert E. Lee has very few descendants, considering that he had seven children. None of his daughters married and only two of his sons had children. I hope that this information is helpful.

The claim has been removed from our article. Capitalistroadster 10:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I went back to see what idiot stuck that in there and apparently the idiot was me. The first reference on this page includes the error, but I don't know which came first and I don't recall where I got my bad information. Anyway... Thanks again. --Dystopos 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And now, the plot thickens. It looks like Encyclopedia Britannica claims this relationship in the second sentence of their article on Harper Lee. A brief Google search turns up several references (ignoring WP mirrors) to corroborate this connection. Perhaps there is a glint of truth and she is "kin" but not a direct descendent. It's better to make no claim than to make a false one. Let's see what we find out. --Dystopos 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Though it's been a year and a half since this has been discussed, one must consider that the "Lee" name extends beyond direct descendants. Perhaps Harper Lee could've been a descendant of Robert E. Lee without being a grandchild (perhaps a brother's grandchild, etc.), but at least this disputed fact is worth mention in the article. Perhaps with a mention that it is, in fact, something that is disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zchris87v (talk • contribs) 08:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would suggest this be done only if there is a clear citation available. To me, its not that important a point if she is vaguely related, so a disputed claim about it is even less important. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Structure/references

  • I tweaked the organization a bit today, creating new subheadings and introducing the use of the reference template to create footnotes. I hope to continue footnoting and updating the reference style. Any help is appreciated. --Dystopos 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Order of Lenin

I deleted the line " After writing To shoot a mocking bird she won the Order of Lenin.", due to its awkward placement in the article, the fact that there is no real place to put it in the article, and there is no source for this claim. Gsham 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, it is false. There is no record of any American having received this award. Izaakb 18:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize date vs. publication date

The novel was published in 1960 and the Prize was awarded in 1961. I feel that the actual publication date would be more useful than the Prize date, although the Prize certainly should be mentioned. Unsure how to deal with this without being too wordy, though. MichaelCaricofe 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I am of the opinion that the infobox adds nothing to the article and causes aesthetic damage to the layout. Discussion? --Dystopos 01:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The main problem was that it was underpopulated. I added the most basic info with the hopes that someone would update it with the rest of the info. I'll let you decide whether to add it back in or not. -- LGagnon 02:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion many of the fields in the template are irrelevent and that the box as a whole compares poorly as a vehicle for information with the text itself. It may someday make a reasonable frame for a photo if one surfaces. --Dystopos 02:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oprah!

According to the BBC's website today (june 26 2006) Ms. Lee is going to be breaking her silence to write a piece for the next Oprah Magazine. Say it aint so, someone, please.

  • As the article states, she has taken no vows of silence, she has simply not completed a second novel. She has, since publishing To Kill a Mockingbird contributed numerous essays to magazines, though not at the rate that one would call "a writing career". --Dystopos 14:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Parenthetical at the End of the Last Sentence

Ah, beaten to it. HamillianActor 03:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Black and White Ball

What's with the line about the Black And White Ball of Truman Capote's? Is it really a pertinent biographical detail to say that Ms. Lee was extended an invitation? Not being a scholar on the subject, I may be missing something, but if it's really important, could it be fleshed out a bit to make it clear that it's more than useless trivia? Nbiehl 22:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic Spam & Vandals

Have the vandals gotten so stupid as to not even know how to spell correctly?

Why vandalize a literary figure's biography article when you can't even spell?

With a handful of long stories harper lee did nothing to benifit society, she located an agent in November, 1956

Wow, really hard to miss that one, Dumbo. Izaakb 18:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal or Just Silly?

Deleted last line of "Fictional Portrayal" section.

Harper Lee is hot!!

A deliberate double meaning, made to sound like a 14 yo boy's leering comment. Besides which the few recent fictional portrayals hardly consititute being called "hot", especially as some are secondary characters.WikiLambo 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth can't be 1969 - please correct

Harper Lee's birth date as listed in 1969 can't be correct since she wrote "To Kill A Mockingbird" in 1960. Please correct this (I'm unsure what her birthdate is).

208.146.45.110 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Emily

Time for a BIG EDIT

This article needs an editor who knows the subject and can consolidate repeated entries on the same subject matter. BIOGRAPHY and ALABAMA Project people take note! Stepp-Wulf. —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Early Life

"After graduating from high school in Weymouth[citation needed]"

While doing an assignment my instructor sent us to the Chicago Public Library site

It states, "After she attended public school in Monroeville she attended Huntingdon College, a private school for women in Montgomery for a year and then transferred to the University of Alabama. After graduation, Lee studied at Oxford University. She returned to the University of Alabama to study law but withdrew six months before graduation."

Thought this might help if anyone would like to write it in wiki style. I don't have the time. ;) Dprabon 09:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Huntingdon became coed in 1934, ten years prior to Lee's enrollment. As such, this statement is inaccurate. The version in the original article also has a typo and should be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sestinatim (talk • contribs) 07:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted notice of death

I just reverted the article. I see no evidence yet that she has died. Catbar 20:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Centred

Sorry, but I noticed that it's totally centred around the novel To Kill a Mockingbird. Don't get me wrong - it's a wonderful novel, but I think her life was not totally based around it.

Lady Nimue of the Lake 23:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • That is true, but most of the verifiable information about her life is. You are welcome to edit the article as you see fit, of course. --Dystopos 01:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Her Occupation

It says that Harper Lee's occupation is a novelist.

She only wrote one novel and was mostly a writer.

Re this recent edit on the same basis as the above comment: If she wrote tons of poetry and/or non-fiction pieces and/or journalism, with one solitary novel in amongst her other writings, I'd be inclined to agree. However, she's published very little else at all. TKAM still represents a high proportion of her total published writings, so I think it's reasonable to call her a novelist. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No. of Copies Sold

The page claims that 15 mllion copies have sold.

However if you buy the actual book which was published a few years ago, it syas on the front cover that over 30 million copies were sold!!!

Marrige Is Harper Lee Married?

NO she isn't.

Who really wrote Mockingbird

I would love to see some informed skepticism from a competent contributor. The following quote from the article is consistent with many commentators on this topic, but it is illogical:

"Citing Lee's failure to produce another novel, at least one notable critic, Harper's editor Pearl Kazin Bell, has gone on record supporting the theory of Capote's co-authorship. The most compelling evidence against the theory, however, is a contemporary letter from Capote to his aunt, dated July 9, 1959. In it he indicates that he had seen Lee's manuscript but did not take any credit for it.[3]"

The theory is that Capote wrote Mockingbird, but conspired with Lee to Lee to get the credit. If the theory is true, then Capote had a desire to conceal the true authorship. If he had that desire, he certainly could have sent a letter to his aunt mis-directing her.

So the quote gives no real evidence at all against the theory of Capote authorship.

Meanwhile, there is huge evidence in the life of Lee that she was a pretty ordinary person, not one of the few exceptional people capable of writing Pulitzer Prize level fiction.

No other works No career success outside of MockingBird Lived as a recluse, no interview. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 57.68.49.4 (talk) 17:47, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Photograph

Perhaps we should have a caption for the image of her, or a photograph of her alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.118 (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

book signing

Does Ms. Lee still grant request for autographs of her novel, "To Kill A Mockingbird"? In years past, one could send her a copy for autographing with a postage-paid return envelope for return. I have been unable to find this information through her literary agent or elsewhere. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwg54 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Scottsboro Boys incident

I don't edit this page, but I have been contributing most of the content to TKaM and doing a lot of research for it. Lee has admitted, as reported by Charles Shields in his biography, that the Scottsboro Boys was not the incident she had in mind as the inspiration for Tom Robinson. Lee apparently wrote to an author in 1999 who wrote a book about Richard Wright (now I forget the name of the book and author and Shields' biography isn't right next to me) that said she had in mind something less sensation than the Scottsboro Boys incident, although it was one of many that stood to show attitudes of Southern prejudice. When Lee was 10, a man named Walter Lett was accused of raping a white woman near Monroeville. Lett was convicted and sentenced to death, but a series of anonymous letters saying he was falsely accused caused his sentence to be commuted to life in prison, where he died of tuberculosis in 1937. --Moni3 13:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's about time this art was protected.

How about semi-protecting the entirety of Wikipedia?  :) izaakb ~talk ~contribs 13:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it was originally designed so that all users would be able to contribute anonymously. --Moni3 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated Information

I have one updated addition to this Wiki about Harper Lee. In the discussion of honorary awards, etc. This is from a press release issued by the Alabama State Bar on May 16 and picked up by The Associated Press on May 17 (Birmingham News published it). I only offer this so that an editor might be able to edit this material and include it in the current Wiki. Thank you.

Montgomery, Ala., May 16, 2008 – Alabama icon Harper Lee today was awarded an honorary special membership in the Alabama State Bar at a ceremony conducted by state Supreme Court Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb at the Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building. The presentation was made during the induction of four new members of the Alabama Lawyers’ Hall of Fame. Lee was recognized as the author of one of the most widely read and internationally honored books of popular fiction ever written, "To Kill a Mockingbird.” The idea for presenting this one-of-a-kind honor originated with former Associate Justice J. Gorman Houston, Jr., who discussed it with Associate Justice Champ Lyons, Jr. Justice Lyons presented a resolution to the entire Supreme Court which unanimously voted to approve taking the action. In 2006 Lee received the state bar’s Award of Merit, presented for outstanding constructive service to the legal profession in Alabama. The 15,700-member Alabama State Bar is dedicated to promoting the professional responsibility, competence and satisfaction of its members; improving the administration of justice, and; increasing public understanding and respect for the law. BGC

Letter to Oprah isn't in the May 2006 issue of O

I just went to the local library and checked the entire May 2006 issue - it's not there. A quick internet search reveals that the issue is, in fact, actually the July 2006 article. Can anyone confirm this? --64.5.15.136 (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Went back to library, picked up July 2006 issue of Oprah Magazine, sure enough, it's there. Fixed incorrect/misleading information ("(May 2006)" after name of magazine) that was likely a victim of vandalism. --64.5.15.136 (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone check this source

Look at the following recent two edits: [1]. Could someone who has access to the source that's cited there (Nance, William (1970). The Worlds of Truman Capote. New York: Stein & Day. p. 223.) verify that the text that's been added (to the quote) is actually there? -- Why Not A Duck 05:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are significant problems with that edit 1. It changed it to make it look like that was part of a Capote quote which is false 2. It's a persistent rumor/speculation that most evidence aka verifiability points to as false (see To_Kill_a_Mockingbird#Canard_of_Capote_authorship and Letter Puts End to Persistent 'Mockingbird' Rumor. I have removed the text in question below. If the text is added, it needs to be balanced and verified per WP:VER, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR

There has also been possible speculation that Truman Capote wrote the book, and gave it to Harper Lee as a gift, for they did not talk very much, after the book was published, and for the fact that she has granted almost no public interviews.

--Jh12 (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What is "possible speculation"? I wrote the TKAM article, but don't interfere in this one, mainly because Lee would not appreciate it. However, any information about Capote authoring TKAM should be well-cited with reliable sources. Charles Shields' biography of Lee states that Lee and Capote's relationship chilled after she won the Pulitzer Prize. Shields speculates Capote was jealous. By the mid to late 1960s rumors were circulating about Capote's involvement in the book and he exerted no effort in dispelling them. By this time Lee wasn't public about her reactions, but Shields offers that she was very hurt by this. This is a BLP. Information that could be damaging should be removed until it can be verified and well-written. --Moni3 (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your points, but you did not write "the TKAM article". There were dozens (if not hundreds) of contributors before you were even registered on Wikipedia, and there have been hundreds of other contributors since you registered. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

the title

Did she ever officially change her name? because if not then shouldn't it be called Nelle Harper Lee? 24.17.211.150 (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The young Truman Persons or Truman Capote?

When Nelle and Truman met, he was Truman Persons. He did not become Truman Capote until was adopted and renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.178.206 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nell Lee"'s blog comment about Amy Bishop

While working on the Amy Bishop article, I ran across a strikingly well written comment submitted by "Nell Lee" in response to a blog entry at: http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2010/02/uah_dr_amy_bishop_holds_active.php ; and became curious whether this "Nell Lee" had written anything else interesting to me. Soon it became apparent that the writer was either Harper Lee (I found on-line examples of letters she had signed with "Nell") or perhaps an admirer or Ms. Lee, in a remarkably skillful homage. (I really do not much suspect the latter!)

The comment itself is several paragraphs in length; too much to quote in its entirety here.

Is this sort of thing worth mentioning in the body of the Harper Lee article? Publius3 (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why you would even consider including anything related to the above. First and foremost, you have absolutely no idea who wrote the comment. I could have commented on the blog and signed it "Barack Obama", but that doesn't mean it was written by President Obama. Secondly, blogs are totally unacceptable as sources on Wikipedia. Read WP:RS. Thirdly, even if Harper Lee wrote the comment, her commenting about Amy Bishop is completely irrelevant to her article. She may have opinions on thousands of issues (and for that matter, she could have commented on thousands of blogs). Does an encyclopedia article need to be an exhaustive list of her thoughts and opinions about everything? In one word: No. And finally, is your goal to improve the article on Harper Lee, or to promote your work on Amy Bishop or (worse) your blog article? If you get a consensus here to include this so-called Harper Lee comment in her article, then you can do it. Otherwise, forget it. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
In response to your guestion about my 'goal', I expected my question to elicit little more than a simple yes/no. I asked it because I don't know enough about the rules and procedures to have felt confident I knew the answer. Had it been 'yes' I anticipated that someone who is keen on improving the Harper Lee article would have proceeded with it. As for your apparent assumption that I have a blog article: I don't have a blog. Never have. And I am stumped why you would imagine that I may have attempted to 'promote my work'. This came across in a way that was slightly offending and slightly amusing/confusing. Is there a secret Wikipedia cabal that gets free ice cream or something if it somehow manages to successfully 'promote its work'? Publius3 (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
While it is compelling to consider that was written by Lee, Anon IP is correct in saying that blogs are not reliable sources per the WP:RS policy. A neutral third party source would have to say "that blog post was written by Nelle Harper Lee". We cannot include suspicion or conjecture about someone, certainly not a living person, even if the suspicion seems to be mostly benign. --Moni3 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Publius3, the reason I wondered whether you were attemtping to promote your work is that I saw no other reason the information should be included. You've been editing several years. Policies such as WP:RS are fundamental to the integrity of Wikipedia. And the "secret Wikipedia cabal" consists of the thousands of editors who familiarize themselves with the basic policies and procedures (and I don't mean legalistic nitpicking -- as I said, WP:RS is a cornerstone of Wikipedia) so that they can improve articles. Instead of "free ice cream", the reward is the satisfaction of contributing to the project. I applaud you for seeking opinions here before placing blog comments in the article. Now maybe you should review WP:5P, including the statement that your contributions "will be mercilessly edited". 71.77.21.198 (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Mockingbird Mystery" section removed

In this edit. Claim: From the beginning rumours persisted that Lee did not deserve the credits for the book or the Pulitizer Prize, which she won for it in 1961.[1]

Problems with this:

  • Giving it its own section is undue weight.
  • The construction of the sentence is unclear. It seems to say that Lee did not write the novel, when it has been fully established that she did. It may also be interpreted to mean that the novel did not warrant the attention it received (and still does) because its literary value is not as great as many people claim.
  • The source fully describes the construction and significance of the novel, yet a single sentence was constructed from it addressing if Lee deserved the credit for writing it. If you want to address the rumors of who wrote the book, then write the entire section about the relationship between Lee and Capote going into her contributions to In Cold Blood and their later falling out in the 1970s. Don't just leave this dangling half-innuendo in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't think it's appropriate or constructive, when you label my edit "a dangling half-innuendo". I refer you to WP:CIV and AGF. Afterall one could argue that your removal is POV pushing. Secondly, if you feel, it is undue weight or needs expansion, then you could discuss that. The truth is, if of any interest to you, that I happened to come across this article while researching something altogether different and thought, if this was a long persisting claim by some, that she didn't write it, then it should be added. It required a section/subheading. Instead of removal you could've moved it. I don't mind expanding, though it appears you know more on the topic than me. You claim above and in your edit summary that the rumour was debunked but you provide no source for the "fully established" claim. I didn't write the article but the article explains, what it means, fairly well. Hopefully you can incorporate this into the article. Fragma08 (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Take offense all you want, but the fact remains the sentence is poorly constructed and it's unclear what it actually means. It insinuates something that is not true and it is unresolved without further explanation. To assert that Lee may not have written the novel is a WP:BLP violation. It is, of course, a persistent rumor, which has been debunked by multiple sources. That should be stated if you're going to add the suggestion that she did not write the book.
I wrote the article for To Kill a Mockingbird in which this rumor is addressed in this section, fully cited. I only watch this article to keep out vandalism, BLP violations, and other vagaries. As this is a collaborative encyclopedia, I will not write Lee's article because one, she would not like it, and two, someone else should do it. The Newsweek article you linked to does provide some good detail about Lee's relationships with her editors while she was writing Mockingbird. It furthermore provides the source of information for the entire Newsweek article: Charles Shields' biography of Lee, titled Mockingbird.
So show me who's boss, go check out Shields' biography and go find sources and rewrite this article. Start with the rumor if you want, and Lee's relationship with Capote, joined with the ambiguous reception the novel has received from literary scholars. Just don't leave it incomplete. --Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, there are ways to express your concerns without assuming bad faith. Seeing as WP rightly is a collaborative project, there are rules to be observed when interacting with other editors. So again to reiterate, WP:CIV and AGF matter, so this would effectively mean you can't just pass derogatory remarks and cherry pick between policies. Your comment, that I should take all the offense I want, undermine the essence of collaboration. Labelling editor's edits as something it is not without proof is not furthering any collaboration. It may interest you to know, that nobody is "boss" on WP. Nobody owns any given article although your aggressive way of discussing this matter seems to indicate WP:OWN. Can you provide a solid link to any reliable source which addresses the "fully established" debunking of the rumours mentioned in the newsweek article then you should state it, or else your claim is just a WP:POV. If/when you calm down, then perhaps a true collaborative effort can be made. Until then I don't see how it is possible when you just blindly accuse and fail to submit any proof to back up your statements. Nobody can take that seriously. I hope you will reconsider your behaviour and try a more civil approach. It does wonders for collaborations. Unless of course your aim is to discourage editors from editing this article in which case you are doing great. Fragma08 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Right, ok. I provided a link to the section in the To Kill a Mockingbird article in which the rumors are addressed and resolved. The paragraph is fully cited. Links, page numbers, everything.
I'm quite calm. All this energy directed at what you perceive as a lack of civility does not improve this article. Go to the library. Go read Shields' biography. Improve this article. Feel free to complain about my standards and whatnot on my talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You could've expanded my edit or asked me to expand. I don't oppose collaboration. I don't perceive incivility, because fact is you are being incivil and openly disregarding the WP policy on editing, like it or not. Unhelpful. I don't want to waste my energy on this or your talkpage. Your comment was not neutral, factual or civil. Thats the point. In future, be civil and express your concern neutrally, assume good faith, as per WP. I'm unsure, why Harper Lee would dislike your editing this article. So go on, edit it. Make it better. Improve it. Include what you think lacked in my edit. You know the stuff. Fragma08 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Since Fragma asked for my opinion in an e-mail-and while I've no idea at all why I would be asked- it's interesting enough to take a look anyway. Fragma08, your edit consisted of the single sentence "From the beginning rumours persisted that Lee did not deserve the credits for the book or the Pulitizer [sic] Prize, which she won for it in 1961." Are there such rumours? Of course there have been. True, though? Almost surely not. If you were planning to take this article to FAC, would you need to discuss them? I don't see how you could avoid it. However, the section as constructed ran afoul of the living persons policy. Strictly speaking, the sentence is true, however it is a "vague wave" at a negative insinuation towards Ms. Lee, especially since the source cited says quite plainly, "Whispers that her childhood friend Truman Capote was the real author still linger, even though they were long ago disproved." If the source we are using says something that plainly, to have an article that says no more than rumours existed for a long time is a major BLP and NPOV problem, and was rightly removed. Eventualism is not a good policy towards BLP- maybe one day one of you will decide to really write this article with the attention it deserves. While we're waiting, though, such a vague wave can't be left in a BLP- and for the sake of the accuracy of the encyclopaedia, shouldn't be left anywhere, as readers easily get the wrong impression from such statements. Courcelles 17:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It is just Fragma. My objection is discusson. Or else I would not have replied to this talk in the first place. I simply object to the comments from Moni3, which assumes persistent bad faith "half innuendo" and disregard to WP policies on editing. Fact is that is unhelpful and discouraging. I am not sure the sentence should have been removed but rather worked on. It sounds like this subject is worthy of inclusion. Though, this is not exactly my area of expertise. which is why Wikipedia is a collaboration. Though, I don't read that much into it. But expansion or improvement would be preferred rather than removal. I think the article was interesting. Thats all. I have no personal opinion on the author or her work. Fragma08 (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Incivility is calling you an assface or some other name, which I did not do. Demanding high standards from source material and content is certainly not uncivil. Explaining why a sentence is substandard and unclear is not uncivil. If you don't believe me, go ask at WP:WQA. As this is a collaborative encyclopedia, this does not mean that Moni3 gets to fashion all knowledge about To Kill a Mockingbird and Harper Lee. I wrote the article of TKaM, and I continue to maintain and update the article. That is more than enough. Read through the TKaM article and you will see why Lee would not necessarily appreciate any more attention than she already gets. This is why I only keep this article free from vandalism and BLP violations. Other editors need to step up and do the work necessary to add content, but they should treat the subject with respect and undertake the effort to read the best sources possible to explain relevant issues. --Moni3 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you are continuing with your incivility. Indeed, incivility is calling you an assface, idiot or any other name but it is also the way you approach this discussion. It can be without calling people names. Throwing our baseless accusations like "innuendo", and showing blatant disregard to the polices is also incivil. When somebody points that out, you need to take heed rather than not. Assuming Good Faith is an actual policy and you did not do that and are persisting to do so. I have had it up to here with you at this point. I don't want to discuss any further with you. You clearly want to own the article, so do that. It is rich of you to talk of respect when you don't seem to know the meaning of the word certainly when engaging in this talk with me. So I can't take you seriously. You should undertake the effort to understand what I am saying and assume good faith. I have no innuendos and your behaviour is unacceptable. EOD. I have nothing further to say to you as clearly you are not grasping what is being said. I am leaving this article and discussion. I just don't see it going anywhere. So you can carry on with whatever it is that you do on this article. I am too discouraged to work on this. Fragma08 (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
For the record, this is bizarre. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, asking for WP:AGF is bizaare. Fragma08 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Fragma08, as someone completely uninvolved here, can I ask that you focus on the content of what Moni3 has written rather than in any perceived wrongs. She is completely correct in her assessment of your "Mockingbird Mystery" section. There is no personal attack or lack of AGF in anything she wrote - rather it is trying to improve an article in accordance with our policies. You have written much here that lacks the assumption of good faith and indeed goes into personal attack territory. Quantpole (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Quantpole, referring to your supposed pretext of being uninvolved, I ask you again, stop wikistaling me. It's getting tiring that you are still watching my contributions list and seek to hound me and interfere when it does not involve you. I find your comment about personal attacks and lack of good faith bizarre. I have said no such thing. When somebody suggests an editor has an innuendo without proof, while attempting a discussion of edits, this is a clear lack of WP:AGF and lacks neutrality. So is the clear evasion of said policies. Your behaviour is disruptive, as this discussion is over (see above) and your focus with me is unwanted. So stop being disruptive and stalking me. This discussion is over and I am not editing here. The End. Fragma08 (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
"Wikistalking" you? I was curious about that because I couldn't remember us having crossed paths before. And then I remembered that we did so back in December, once and very briefly. If you think that is stalking then I recommend you take it to WP:ANI and see if anyone agrees with you, but I certainly have better things to do than go through your contributions. In terms of "innuendo" all Moni3 said was that the sentence was left "dangling like a half-innuendo". She did not say anything about your intentions or motivations. She has confined her comments to the content, you have responded by attacking anyone who disagrees with you. Quantpole (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you stalk me just like before. I am not buying your pretext of innocence. This is nonense. I don't attack anybody, who disagrees with me. I've engaged in talks, sometimes I agree, sometimes not, sometimes its' 50/50. But claiming an innuendo is most definetely a claim of an editors motive/agenda. This effectively kills a discussion. Your socalled unexplained "curious" presence in this talk/article, is stalking especially when the discussion is over. If you really have better things to do than to find ways to attack me, falsely accuse me, be disruptive and stalking me, then I would appreciate you go and do just that. There must be articles, you are actually involved in and can edit. Fragma08 (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If you think I am stalking then put your heart where your mouth is and report me. I offered advice to help you avoid adding to your 3 blocks. I will not make the same mistake again. As Moni3 said this is bizarre. (Feel free to have the last word by the way, I won't be responding). Quantpole (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I find your presence here bizarre. It defies logic, along with your unexplained need to hound me first citing curiosity and now you pretend "helping" in a closed discussion of an article I stopped editing. This undoubtedly proves you are here to attack me. Mentioning blocks is completely unrelated and unneeded. But you felt the need to out that so to draw more attention and preferably escalate matters while pretending innocence. Your intentions are clear. Stop stalking me and using this talk to attack me. This is very disruptive. Fragma08 (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
  1. ^ One hit wonder: Who helped Harper Lee with "Mockingbird"?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harper_Lee/Archive_1&oldid=1145689484"