Talk:Bill Sanders

Untitled
Do wiki editors believe it is totally impossible for a wife to write a neutral biography of her husband? I have read the wiki material on neutrality and see a number of edits that I will make after doing so. However, I am wondering where the parameters of Wiki neutrality fall. Would a biography of Bill Sanders written by the Curator of the Museum that houses Bill Sanders' papers and cartoons be considered conflicted beyond neutrality? Does the relationship fatally doom the neutrality or can the writing (presentation) redeem it? Joyce Mary Wallace (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not absolutely forbidden, but it is very, very, very, very, VERY strongly discouraged, because it's so hard to be genuinely impartial, and because your conflict of interest is so strong. I must say, the promotional tone of the present article makes my case for me pretty efficiently. Language like "trenchant cartoons", "incisive approach", "the legendary" and "His cartoons have graced the walls of the White House and offices of America’s leading congressmen, senators and ambassadors" has no place here, even if I personally happen to agree with most of it. --21:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with a fair amount of what you say and will set about to remendy that--- by going directly to quotes of other sources---including those who are unhappy with Bill's work.           Language like "trenchent cartoons" and "incisive" are adjectives from news articles and book reviews about Bill.  "legendary" is an adjective  about Herblock, not Bill. (Here I would suggest that if that adjective does not apply to Herblock, then I don't know when it would ever be applicaple to a political cartoonist. Anway, many thanks for the response. I appreciate it and will be working to bring the article within the necessary boundries.Joyce Mary Wallace (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Took out a leading space that was messing up your text: indentation is done here by inserting lead hyphens in the proper quantity at the start of the para. As to the substance: we don't accept peacock words just because they have been used by somebody else when discussing the subject of the article. I personally agree with you about Herblock, but then I'm the kinda guy who knows by heart what the subject matter of Dewey Decimal 741.45 is; it's still a matter of personal opinion. And indeed, we advise Wikipedia writers to leave such words out of their vocabulary entirely when writing articles here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the input. I am going to substantially edit (rewrite) the artical (taking in your suggestions) in an effort to make it accepable. Tho' I must candidly admit that I find some conflict in what you all say and what I actually read in other bio material that is posted on Wiki. (However, I understand how that might happen, given the nature of Wiki and volumn) The substance I can deal with. As regards style, I find some of the Wiki tutorials read like a foreign language, similar to the instructions for assembling a large Christmas toy for kids---but then, I am an English major and not hip to computerese. Anyway, I understand the points you have made and if I cannot make the article work---it won't be from not trying. ThanksJoyce Mary Wallace (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

New version much better on NPOV, but format was off
I did some cleanup and mark-up; restored some data that you stripped out (categories and the like). What we need are the citation details. We don't need to know just what issue of the Urinal an article ran in. Don't say "The Milwaukee Journal Jan. 3, 1971". Say, "McNally, Joel. "Boy, Bill Really Riled Up The Mayor Again, Didn't He?" The Milwaukee Journal January 3, 1971; pt. 2, p. 1, col. 1" [that's made up, by the way]. Articles should ideally have all of: Author, Title, Zine or Paper, Date, Issue/Vol. # if known, Page(s), and Column, especially for a traditional 8-column layout). -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  00:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleanup and mark-up. Other point is good---but presents a problem. Not all of the newspaper clipings in Bill's files have a byline or page number (much less a colulmn number). However, some do have bylines and I will go back and correct those that do. Obviously, I cant afford to go to Milwaukee and search the Journal files to mine those details. How did you do the insert after the 10,000 subscription info? I edited the article on the President's collections to do that but it simply showed up again under References. (The documentation consists of personal letters to Bill from Evelyn Lincoln (JFK's secretary), Willie Day Taylor(Johnson),Nixon, Johnson, Truman---in the Kentucky Museum and Library at Western Kentucky University) I could include the dates they were written but that would make the citation pretty long. FYI--your reference to the "urinal"---that is what Mayor Maier called it.Joyce Mary Wallace (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyce Mary Wallace (talk • contribs) 13:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I could insert the "heads" on each article. Joyce Mary Wallace (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Urinal reference is old humor, shared by a lot of folks who didn't like Henry either. I was more of a Bugle reader myself; and nowadays the Journal Sentinel (a/k/a "Monopaper") is more reactionary than the old Sentinel, so I depend on the Shepherd Express for truth. As to the more substantial stuff: article references should be complete enough for somebody to go to that issue of the publication and verify without having to search an entire issue: so, all the date available. Are you familiar with searching the Google News Archive (NOT the regular Google News)? Coverage is spotty, but I'm amazed at what does show up. As to the presidents: we cannot accept unpublished letters, due to our requirement of verifiability; if it cannot be documented with published information in reliable sources, it comes out of the article. Details on citation methods can be found under WP:CITE. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What a nostalgia trip--your communication about Milwaukee. Amen to the Journal-Sentinal observation. Bill sent them a carton on Scott Walker, but when he logged on the paper's website and read a bit, he told them not to use it---he didn't want to be associated with the paper. I understand now about the letters. I think I can find a published source. If not, will dump the presidents sentence. Also, will check out Google News Archives. Will keep working on getting it right within my means. Thanks for the help and tips. Joyce Mary Wallace (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Several typos in the new refs; also, still a disturbing lack of page numbers. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for typo alert. Have corrected those. Have deciphered some added page numbers from our clip files---however I can not do anything about the page numbers on the three remaing Journal refs (from old clippings)---unless, of course, I wanted to spring for money to go to Milwaukee and get into their files. You might be interested to know, that I phoned the Journal in an effort to get that info from the Information and Library dept (old reference center for newsroom staff). Was unable to get a responsive phone. I called the copy desk and spoke to Kay and found out there is no longer a reference center at the Journal due to "economic cutbacks". Reporters are "on their own" if they need to go into the files ( microfish, etc) So that's the end of the line for me. I guess, if the article doesn't work for Wikik, I don't see how I can do any more to meet its standards. In any case, I appreciate all your help.Joyce Mary Wallace (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I see what appears to be a robo-notice regarding conflict to interest and neutrality above my article. The critique of June 17 was most helpful in understanding that the language in other plublished biographies of Bill seemed overly "promotional". However, I must point out that I have read several biographies posted on Wiki that blatantly use adjectives  of adulation to describe the subject.  However, I appreciate the critique and decided to rewrite the piece completely. What I need to know now is specifically where the re-written article fails the Wiki neutrality standards? Such specificity would be most helpful and appreciated. I confess that my interest in posting on Wiki is, simply, that Bill be represented there. In fact I think he deserves to be represented there as much as many biographies posted on Wiki that were probably written by agents of the subject. (or hired writers)  It is not a matter of “promoting” his interests (there is an abundance of that on Google from numerous sources) or “promoting” my interests. I could be wrong but it seems to me that the very undertaking of a biography implies something less than absolute neutrality. Regardless, I do appreciate helpful advice. Joyce Mary Wallace (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The notice was hand-placed by me, Joyce. When the only two editors who have worked on the article substantially are the subject's wife and a confessed admirer of the subject [i.e., me] readers should be notified that the article may (despite our most conscientious efforts) be lacking in the requisite neutral point of view. Note also that it is not (as you wrote) "my article": it is Wikipedia's article. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. (Oops! Didn't mean to sound like Sarah Palin) I understand. Many thanks for your interest and comments. I appreciate your taking the time to get involved. As for me, I am at a loss as to what else I can do---so I am moving on. I do have a life outside this project. ( Trying to keep developers from degrading the wetlands thar our organization is supporting---law suits, etc.) Will tell Bill what you said. Cheers, Joyce Mary Wallace (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)