Talk:Byrd Spilman Dewey

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byrd Spilman Dewey. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018171235/http://www.fcsw.net/HallofFame.htm to http://www.fcsw.net/HallofFame.htm

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) 19:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Facts

I have maintained this page for several years. Another user is deleting a paragraph that is factually correct. I will work tomorrow on shoring up references. 73.179.75.199 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I made several edits to the page to bring it up to date including correcting all the references. I changed a heading to Genesis of the Town of Boynton to appease concerns of Curiositykeeper. I will not address concerns of "self-promotion" as they are without merit for a book published 10 years ago. Flahistory (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed the sentences: "That the book served as an autobiography was confirmed in the 2012 biography of the Deweys, Pioneering Palm Beach: The Deweys and the South Florida Frontier, where the authors were able to match land records and events to the book's storyline. The Historical Society of Palm Beach County awarded the book the Fannie James Award for Pioneer Research Achievement." This statement is promotion for the book written by editor Flahistory. These statements are not in the citations, but in the text and are solely promotional and do not add to our understanding of Dewey. There are also errors on the page concerning whether creating a plat of a section of town constitutes "founding." The town of Boynton was referred to as "Boynton" for several years before the Deweys platted the town. It had a train station, a post office, farms, and was included in the federal census as "Boynton" before the Deweys platted their property in preparation for sale. (a plat is a map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land, including streets, blocks, and lots) It's not that I don't think that Byrd should not be celebrated, but aggrandizing her is mainly to promote her book. Flahistory has figured out who I am and has attempted to contact me several ways including social media. I am starting to feel harassed. Curiositykeeper (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You are twisting facts to serve your cause. When you made the deletions, standard Wikipedia courtesy would be to state why you removed information. When I tried to contact you and settle this you blocked me. The first federal census was 1900, after the town was platted. Linton had filed basically the same plat and started selling lots, but the deeds were worthless. They refiled the plat and added Dewey Place. I am sorry you feel "harassed" when in fact you rebuffed any attempt to settle this. Flahistory (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The 1900 Census lists the residents of Boynton under Fort Lauderdale, Precinct 6. There is no mention of Boynton. Flahistory (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems there are three issues here.

1. The inclusion of a promotional comment for your book. I apologize if I should have made a note of the reason in the talk section. There may be a way to appropriately include the information in a separate section or in the citations.

2. The use of the term "founder" for the Deweys' filing of the plat map in 1898. The town was listed as "Boynton" when it applied for a post office in Feb 1896 (see National Archives https://catalog.archives.gov/id/68266287, navigate to #43). The town of Boynton is mentioned in The Florida agriculturist, March 11, 1896, Page 175, available on chroniclingamerica.loc.gov. There were people living in Boynton, farms, and stores. I don't think the town could possibly be "founded" after it's been lived in for years. This would have been an interesting conversation.

3. Your attempt to contact me was couched in terms of "you should have the courtesy" and you reported me for "vandalism" in the wikipedia teahouse. I did not know you considered the page "yours" and did not know you had written it. I am not interested in using Wikipedia for personal conflicts. I will let Wikipedia decide about the page. Curiositykeeper (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to the Fannie James award and left the book, as that is appropriate according to the case as a reference. This article is not about the book. I changed "founded" to town developer so your employer will be happier. What other issues do you still see? Flahistory (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by your comment "... so your employer will be happier." Is this a veiled threat of contacting my employer? Curiositykeeper (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I will let the Wikipedia dispute process work itself out. Flahistory (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

No I am not contacting your employer. Let’s call a truce and end this. It’s silly. There are real problems to solve. This isn’t one of them. I’ve already spent way more time on this than I should have. I won’t spend a minute more. Flahistory (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm here due to the thread at WP:AN/I. There appears to be some disagreement about whether to include a passage or not. Any interested parties should be hashing that out on this talk page, rather than editing back and forth on the article about it. @Flahhistory:, making a claim of vandalism as you did here is wrong. Please don't do that. Discuss it here, not make threats of reporting someone for vandalism when it is a content dispute. Also, saying "...so your employer will be happier" is a non-sequitor. It has no relation to the article unless you are attempting to claim that CuriosityKeeper is editing on behalf of their employer. You said you're not contacting their employer, so fine, but in the future avoid making such veiled statements as that. It has a very chilling effect and is directly antithetical to working out disagreements in a collegial manner. Lastly Flahistory, if you are in fact one of the authors of the book in question you have a conflict of interest in making connections between this article and that book. I strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if that is the case. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Pondering these things, we arrive at the truth, old as human feeling, that the only realities of life are the things that do not exist. What are called realities — life’s necessities — these never quicken the pulses, nor choke the breath with hurried heart-beats. But the intangibles — love, art, beauty, music, and again love; for love, in all its many kinds and degrees, is what gives meaning to art, beauty and music — these are the things that stir us to the depths — these are the things that grasp us with resistless power, dragging us up by the roots to throw us down quivering where we perish; or else take hold anew with our soul-fibers. Flahistory (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Deeper, richer, fuller, better Flahistory (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

To me- this confirms you are here to promote yourself and your book not improve the encyclopedia- What was the point of that puffery? How did that contribute to finding a compromise? Sheesh. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I like to stand up for myself like you do. Being falsely accused of things is hard to take. I am working offline to gather more citations and will be working to improve the article but I’m in a catch 22. If I do that I will be seen as doing more self promotion. There is nothing here to promote. I tried to reason with the person who made the changes - I know this person professionally and greatly respected their work. I helped this person numerous times in identifying photos and historical events. If the person disagreed with my work, this person could have said hey let’s figure this out. But that is not what happened. Am I wrong that when you make substantive changes to an article that you are supposed to summarize them? Also, to say the person who is an expert on a subject should not work on the Wikipedia page doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve spent 10 years researching Dewey. Anyone else is welcome to add new information. But the edits I see are grammatical or formatting, not substantive. I will be adding upwards of 75 new references from newspapers, historical society documents and so on. It’s very difficult when the person in question will not help. Wikipedia can do what it wants; Mrs. Dewey’s legacy is firmly established. She was another woman to be erased and silenced like I’m trying to be silenced. A book I co-authored came out 10 years ago, and all proceeds go to the historical society. I don’t write books for a living, or to promote myself. I’m sorry, but I don’t compromise my principle for the truth - for Wikipedia or for anyone else. The quotes I gave that you said were puffery came from Mrs. Dewey. She has a word here too. Flahistory (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Flahistory, nobody is trying silence you. NOBODY. Wikipedia requires us to work with respect and to assume good faith. Your behavior in asserting someone who disagrees with you is vandalizing, and veiled threats about their employer is most emphatically not in keeping with those principles. That is what needs to stop...not your voice here. Reasoning with a person doesn't mean forcing them to agree with you. They are not by default being unreasonable if they don't agree with you. This is a collaborative project. Either we work in a collaborative way, or it doesn't work. If you are one of the authors of that book (I am NOT asking if you are) you have an issue of conflict of interest to take into account. You would be very close to the subject and not have a dispassionate view. That creates problems in writing that can be quite difficult to overcome for some people. It's doable, but it takes extra care and caution to make it work. Nobody is saying an expert on a subject can't write about that subject. We are saying that care needs to be taken. Further, being an expert on a subject does not make one eligible to control the content of the article. There is no rallying cry, there is no charge once more into the breach. We work together. Sometimes that means we disagree. It doesn't mean stop working together. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

One of the problems, Flahistory- is one of the things you said in your last comment "Wikipedia can do what it wants; Mrs. Dewey’s legacy is firmly established. She was another woman to be erased and silenced like I’m trying to be silenced" First- WP is not the place to establish, preserve, or confirm her legacy- that is not our role. Our role is to be a source for information about notable topics. That information should be presented neutrally and give a non-biased summary of all available info positive or negative. If a person is interested in preserving her legacy- you may be inclined to gloss over or ignore any negatives. I'm not saying you are- I'm saying its a natural human tendency. That is why we have a WP:COI policy- to add some oversight to keep that from happening. Not to silence you or anyone else. Finally- as a woman, I resent the implication that gender has any influence in how you are being treated in this. There is enough gender bias out there, we don't need to manufacture more when this is clearly a case of a very passionate expert who seems to be struggling a little bit with WP:OWN. Your input in this and other Florida history topics is valuable- please accept these critiques of your methods on this one article as an opportunity to grow, and don't dig your heels in and quit or push until administrative interfearance is required. All that is being said is that because of your close connection- you need to take extra precautions on topics to be sure your natural enthusiasm doesn't compromise WP neutrality. We all have topics that we either have to avoid, be careful editing, or ask for oversight because of our connection to them. That's not a bad thing- Its just the way we keep things neutral. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I will be adding 75 or more new citations to this article and reorganizing. Anyone else is welcome to add things. This story is long and winded, but the city for which the person works who started this nonsense tried to stop the writing of the book. Now ten years later, and this nonsense still happens. The city in question didn't want it that the gallant man perhaps wasn't the person who founded the town. So Dewey was essentially erased from history.

I have to present the facts as I discover them; I am a trained scientist and researcher. Scientists write about their own research, but somehow not on Wikipedia because it is a conflict of interest.

Revisionist history is never easy, but I can't pretend it didn't happen. Again, all my attempts to collegially discuss this with the party involved not only were not answered, but that person blocked me from contacting them on Wikipedia. I then contacted them through Facebook and requested an appointment to discuss the Dewey article. I was then blocked and unfriended there. Does that seem like someone who only cares about accuracy or worries that I am "self-promoting?" That was a personal attack. So when I respond to that slander, somehow I am not allowed. I wanted to work together - the other person did not. This article has been out since 2013 - and not one author/editor ever added anything substantive - it was just grammar or formatting.

Unconscious bias is so prevalent...especially for women. I believe that if a man had written the article, the person in question would have never made that edit - especially if that man was powerful (this is what happens when you are on old psych major like me). "Opportunity to grow" is funny - I am admonished in the court of Wikipedia! Alas, so be it. You gotta laugh too - if Wikipedia were as stringent as you all say, and so accurate, why do most colleges refrain from allowing their students to use it as a resource? Wikipedia says this about itself "The online encyclopedia does not consider itself to be reliable as a source and discourages readers from using it in academic or research settings." So call me confused at best. Flahistory (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Flahistory: Again, all my attempts to collegially discuss this with the party involved not only were not answered, but that person blocked me from contacting them on Wikipedia. Where? I looked in your edit history, and I'm not seeing any edits to either a user's talk page or an IP's. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Flahistory; there appears to be a very, very large gulf of understanding with respect to this discussion. I have to address the most serious of this irrespective of the article. You have not violated our WP:OUTING policy, but you are edging towards it. Violating such a policy is immediate grounds for being blocked from editing this project. Please, I urge you to read that policy and immediately drop any assertions about an editor's employer. Moving on. At the risk of repeating myself; nobody has said that a scientist can not write here. Multiple times now we have pointed you to our WP:COI policy. As a trained scientist, I am sure you can understand the perils of unconscious bias; you even mentioned it. A dispassionate view is exceptionally important when writing about subjects to which you have a close association. Your passion in your responses here is a window into that; you are very eager to get this article right. However, 'right' is highly subjective and subject to bias. Next; nobody has blocked you. Your block log is empty. An editor can not block you from contacting them on Wikipedia. They can request you not post on their talk page, and out of courtesy this is usually respected. Is this what happened? If so, what user talk page? If not, could you please clarify what happened? Next; gender has nothing to do with this. It is irrelevant to the discussion. Being an editor here, unless you specifically identify your gender via some means (such as identifying pronouns of address) nobody has any idea what you gender is. Lastly, if you want to add 75 citations, great! Please ensure they are reliable, and in most cases secondary sources. Also please understand that regardless of your expertise, we are not writing articles as primary material. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource. We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of dissertations. We summarize things. We are not a textbook. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually think women's history, African-American history, histories of all "others" is often lost in the shuffle, or suppressed, and have been involved in the effort to find and provide access to the histories of marginalized groups (and mainstream groups) for many years. I think shining a light on Dewey is to be championed. I have no idea what they're talking about when they say they've been silenced. I think this editor is in a perfect position to write this bio page, I only removed the comment about their book winning awards. I still think it could be a separate section, "Rediscovery of Dewey." However, I'm not prepared for this level of toxicity.

Today I had a patron come in the library (I'm an archivist), asked for me, bypassing all the other staff, and said she was researching Dewey, which has never happened in three and a half years. I have no primary source material on her, so I looked up this editor's book. It was misshelved; as I was looking for it, the patron said "here it is." I had not told her the name of the book, so she was already aware of it.

Coincidence or stalking? IDK. But I do know it's not worth it to me to fight a bully for these stakes. I don't want to be harassed or there to be a campaign against me IRL. I'm not accusing of outing or making any other accusations. I just want to drop it. I would like to revert the page to its earlier version promoting the book. I think we could even add a couple of sentences about how the authors are geniuses and Dewey founded the town, if that would mean they'd leave me alone. Curiositykeeper (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. Flahistory (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I am hoping to get to adding the additional references on Sunday. They are primarily newspaper references to back up stated facts. Thankfully, I didn’t write any 19th century newspaper articles. The assertion that I perhaps sent someone to stalk the the other person is here is slanderous and false. This is my last word here and I have no intention of contacting this person in the future. Flahistory (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)