Talk:Kate Scott Turner

I do not think the way RileyBugz is contributing to this page is constructive. This is not an edit war. Please behave in a proper and respectful way. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisa.rolle (talk • contribs) 19:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Emily Dickinson poetry

It seems that me and Elisa.rolle are arguing over whether stuff on Emily Dickinson's poetry should be included in this article. So, what should be done? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hopefully my edit will fix the problem. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi RileyBugz, due to copyvio issues the earlier versions are now hidden... and I added a poem last night. Do you think the Kate / Katie poem is ok?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably fine. Also, could you please not inform me about stuff related to the editor that created this article? Its a bit too stressful for me. Thanks! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, RileyBugz. Absolutely, I apologize for that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio & OR

I've tagged this, but I'm thinking it perhaps should be speedied under WP:G12, since if you removed what seems to be WP:OR all that's left is the copyvio.

The last paragraph especially seems to be OR, since the source is very clinical and doesn't mention Turner at all.

- GretLomborg (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

On further thought, this might also be considered a POV fork of Emily Dickinson. In that article "Some scholars question the poet's sexuality, theorizing that..numerous letters and poems...indicate a lesbian romance [to someone other than Turner]. This one states simply that Dickinson was "in love with Turner" as a simple fact. The Emily Dickinson article has gotten far more vetting and I think its more measured tone is probably the more correct one. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this earlier, GretLomborg.

I posted a message about this here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I think that resolves the OR issues, though I think the POV fork issue remains. There probably shouldn't be content about Emily Dickinson here that isn't covered in her article. However, that can wait until the results of the merge proposal.

Also, is the Kindle quote too long? - GretLomborg (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I can post a comment at the Biography WikiProject to see if others can weigh-in on the merge proposal.

Whatever you'd like to do with the quote is fine with me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I chopped it down and elided the stuff that didn't seem necessary to support the article's statement. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cool, thanks! I see the undue weight tag. There aren't other sources that make the point quite so strongly, that is true. I wish I could read / see more of The Riddle.

How about if I add an "according to..." message? And, I can see what else I can find to proceed it that isn't as strong?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that would address it. I'm no expert but it seems like that's just one view among many (and not even the most accepted one), and I think that fact should be called out more explicitly in the article. "According to" doesn't read that way to me: it's often used to introduce a statement of an authority, and doesn't have that "one view among many" unless it's used to contrast another view. Another option might just be to soften the statement and make it more equivocal and centered on Turner (e.g. "Some think Turner's relationship with Dickinson influenced the latter's poetry"). It probably would make sense to drop the McDermott stuff too. After all this is an article about Turner not Dickinson. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see your point. "According to" wouldn't be the right lead-in in this case.

I think that Turner has some notability for her influence on Dickinson's life... and I think that is best explored in the context of Dickinson's sexuality / love interests, including Susan Huntington Gilbert Dickinson, etc. How about if for the moment we just leave it the way it is and await more input?

I went ahead and posted a message at the Biography and Literature WikiProjects... maybe that will drum up some more comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you give a link? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC).

The request was to look at Talk:Emily_Dickinson#Proposed_merge_with_Kate_Scott_Turner.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thx. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC).

I think that's the right call. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this article’s subject notable? Cause for deletion?

As far as I can tell from what’s written the subject’s notability relies entirely on her relationship with Emily Dickinson . In which case it would make more sense to me if material on her was moved to the Emily Dickinson article and this article was deleted. Dakinijones (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)