Talk:H. M. Wicks

Tone
I cleaned up some of the attack tone, but more work needs to be done. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what your objections are. I suppose I should start collecting statements attesting to Wicks' personal unpleasantness, of which there are many. Not all facts are pretty.


 * As for the assertion in the original article which I made as to "long whispered rumors" about Wicks being a spy, this is also a true fact. Feel free to criticize my lack of citation for the assertion, but it is over the top flagging me for "tone" for making it. The affair in question dates back to 1919, when Canadian Victor Saulit was arrested by immigration officials and deported. He blamed Wicks for the event and he was not alone in the belief. Archival documents in Moscow still exist as to the affair and there is some reasonable chance that it was the basis for his 1937 expulsion. Again, not all facts are pretty. Can one seriously contend that Wikipedia should only contain "happy facts"? Facts are facts, so long as they are presented neutrally and backed up with evidence, which I have attempted to do.


 * Feel free to contact me directly with your concerns: MutantPop@aol.com


 * —Tim Davenport, Early American Marxism website, Corvallis, OR Carrite (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A major rewrite has been completed, I have taken your commentary about tone under advisement. Every single remotely controversial statement is now footnoted; commentary on Wicks as a person moved to the bottom. I hope to add a couple more similar comments over time; trust me when I say that they are out there and that they are very indicative of the man's nature. No ulterior motives whatsoever — people who knew him found Wicks boorish, mean, nasty, abrasive, and untrustworthy — facts are facts.


 * I am pulling down the final POV flag now. If you have further concerns, please feel free to express them here or in an email to me (address above). Please do follow WP protocol for a POV challenge though — let me know WHAT SPECIFICALLY you find offensive rather than dumping 4 banners on top of the article without specific corrections that you seek. That approach I did not appreciate much. I think you might have been reading too much into my phrasing, POV-wise. There was room to criticize the sourcing, or even the style (which was hasty), but this whole POV/Tone deal I simply don't comprehend. I have no axes to grind here. Carrite (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better! I am sorry about dumping all the banners. Yes, I should have been more specific. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)