Talk:Herman J. Mankiewicz/Archive 2

Table of Contents format
The TOC is now formatted to remove white space and bring the text body up. Any comments pro or con would be appreciated. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks ok. --Tom 20:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing, it's one of those areas that few think about. -- Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I also hate lots of white space. I would however, caution against doing this "blanket" to a ton of bios without maybe gaining wider consensus first.(I think I saw somebody else also mention this) I personally don't care and would not revert, but others might take issue, especially if there isn't some solid manuel of style type directive for this. Anyways, --Tom 20:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)ps I think I read on your talk that looking at featured articles is a good barometer of what to shoot for...--Tom 20:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've used it, or would consider it, only on articles where I've already done a lot of editing. -- Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Like this one, where I started in July when it was only 4 kbs long to 17 kbs now. -- Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations Needed

 * Note - Strikethroughs were made to comments added by banned sockpuppet accounts

Added citation tags to the first first few paragraphs. In particular there were many claims that cannot be regarded as fact without proper documentation from a reputable authority in the subject matter. Some of the claims may be backed up later in the article, but it would be best to have the references right up front. Because of the sweeping generalities in the 1st paragraph I did not consider the article to be valid and ceased reading at that point. Claims without proof can be a real turnoff. I5kfun (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Same response as posted on your talk page. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)



I agree, and trimmed the lede. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the unreferenced fan-like material: He was widely regarded as one of the brightest minds in Hollywood and was considered a master at witty dialogue. He was often asked to fix the screenplays of other writers. What distinguished his writing from that of other writers were occasional flashes of the "Mankiewicz humor" and satire that became valued in the films of the 1930s. That style of writing included a slick, satirical, and witty humor, which depended almost totally on dialogue to carry the film. It was a style that would become associated with the "typical American film" of that period.

After moving to Hollywood from New York, he became a popular guest at the homes of many of America's most famous and wealthiest families. But his image became tarnished after the continuing battle with Welles over how much of the screenplay for Citizen Kane he actually wrote. Despite the conflict, both he and Welles received Academy Awards for their screenplay - the only award Citizen Kane received. :Agree with your opinions Mr Norton, and the revisions you made are nice.I5kfun (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Looks much better. The reader gets the "highlights" in an easy to read and use way. If the reader then wants to find out more about the subject, he is free to read on. I would include "commentary" and quotations in the body of the article so as not to clutter the lead. --Tom 12:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

First Reference
I was taking a look at this article and that of Joseph L. Mankiewicz and I noticed the differences in their place of birth. It appears Herman was born in 1897 in NYC and Joseph was born in PA in 1909, then later moved to NYC. The first sentence of the Personal Life section of this bio states: "Mankiewicz was born in New York City on November 7, 1897 to German-Jewish immigrants Franz Mankiewicz and Johanna Blumenau." Checking the link provided for Herman's birth date and birth place it is an article titled The Religion of Director Joseph Mankiecicz. http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/Joseph_Mankiewicz.html. There is no mention in this article about Herman, not even casually. I haven't deleted the link as of yet but I am wondering about the rational of linking to an article that does not mention Herman at all as a relevant source for this article. What are others feelings on the subject? Should that link be stricken from this article and a more appropriate source for his birth date and location be found? I5kfun (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That is referencing that his parents were from Germany and not from Poland as the article has stated before I fixed it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead citations
The sections below were copied from your talk page. We have already discussed these issues and you have not responded. As you may be aware, the user who initially tagged the lead and then requested you look at them, has been permanently banned from Wikipedia. Because his edits were presumably made in bad faith and with the likely intent to damage the article, your future improvements would hopefully not rely on his initial editing actions.

As I wrote to you 4 days ago, "unless you can clearly state why any of the above facts are so controversial that they must be cited twice, I will myself restore the lead." So let's start with a clean slate. I'm restoring the lead to where it was before the banned user got involved. Any subsequent improvements should not rely on that user's comments or edits. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Every fact needs to be verified and sourced, it is an encyclopedia, not a blog. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Copied sections: Request restoration of lead to Herman J. Mankiewicz
This is a request that you reconsider the lead to Herman J. Mankiewicz, from which you trimmed over 75%. This trimming was done shortly after new editor, User:I5kfun, placed 8 fact tags on the lead. I responded to his taggings, of this and another article lead, on his talk page, and on the article's talk pages, explaining why his tagging was against Wiki policy and layout recommendations for leads. He has as yet not responded to most of the essential points I mentioned.

It is my request that you, being an experienced user, will read the comments and respond to the relevant issues, and reconsider whether the deletions were justified. Thanks in advance. -- Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC) : Please note that I did respond to the points wikiwatcher raised and I appreciate your efforts at revising the page in question to conform with wikipedia guidelines on Lead Sections. I first tagged the citations needed so that they would quickly be visible to anyone reading the article and then added to the discussion page why I thought the tags needed to be there. I care about the verifiability of Wikipedia, that above all else is the appeal of an article in an encyclopedia. Flow of an article is secondary. Please see. Also please see the following link for where the links are "supposed to be" in the Lead Section. These appear to be claims rather than facts, and as such MUST be backed up by citations. Facts such as his date of birth need not be cited, but claims should to ensure verifiability I5kfun (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I noticed that you had weighed in on a similar matter and I am wondering if you can take a look at Lee Strasberg and weigh in about the citation needed tags. The tags are applied to statements of gross generalities which should need citations to make them verifiable. Thanks. I5kfun (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

Issue
The issue is that you deleted most of the introduction to a bio and have decided not to restore it per request. As I stated I would do on User talk:I5kfun, having no other choice, I will give you the citations from the body of this article. First, the main rule per Wiki's guidelines on when citations should be included in the lead:

Rule
WP:Lead "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source"

Facts

 * There is always a problem when you paraphrase someone else's paraphrase instead of working from the original source. For example: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You will first note that every sentence in the original lead, except for the first one below, had a cite tag added, implying that each and every general fact in the lead should be redundantly cited. There was no selectivity and this amounted to a blanket tagging and thereby treated every statement as controversial or likely to be challenged requiring an immediate source. The line in bold with the cite tag is followed by the quoted section from the article.

Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (pronounced MANK-eh-wits), (November 7, 1897 - March 5, 1953) was an American screenwriter, noted for writing, along with Orson Welles, the screenplay for


 * Citizen Kane'', which is considered one of the most important and most controversial movies in the history of film.
 * "fictionalized biography of newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst, one of the most important figures in the 20th century"
 * from Wikilink lead: "Citizen Kane is often cited as being one of the most innovative works in the history of film. The American Film Institute placed it at number one in its list of the 100 greatest U.S. movies of all time in 1997 and again in the revised list of 2007. In a recent poll of film critics and directors conducted by the British Film Institute, Citizen Kane was ranked the number one best film of all time by both groups.[2][3]"


 * I am not sure that "most important and most controversial" is a synonym for "innovative" or "greatest" or "best". That is the problem when you paraphrase someone else's paraphrase. The language drifts. Its best to work from the source, then write, instead of writing your personal thoughts then trying to justify by searching for a close fit in existing references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 'He was widely regarded as one of the brightest minds in Hollywood and was considered a master at witty dialogue.
 * "Mankiewicz humor and satire that proved to be a foreshadowing of a new type of slick, satirical, typically American film that depended almost totally on dialogue for its success..."


 * He was often asked to fix the screenplays of other writers.
 * "... helped write their screenplays without credit"


 * What distinguished his writing from that of other writers were occasional flashes of the "Mankiewicz humor" and satire that became valued in the films of the 1930s. 
 * "...What distinguished his screenplays were "occasional flashes of the Mankiewicz humor and satire..."


 * ...witty humor, which depended almost totally on dialogue to carry the film. 
 * "...film that depended almost totally on dialogue for its success."[2]


 * It was a style that would become associated with the "typical American film" of that period.
 * "...typically American film "


 * After moving to Hollywood from New York, he became a popular guest at the homes of many of America's most famous and wealthiest families. 
 * "...He became good friends with Hollywood screenwriter Charles Lederer who was Marion Davies's nephew. ... spending much time at San Simeon, where Davies reigned as William Randolph Hearst's mistress. As one of his admirers in the early 1930s, Hearst often invited Mankiewicz to spend the weekend at San Simeon."


 * "he became a popular guest at the homes of many of America's most famous and wealthiest families" and "spending much time at San Simeon, where Davies reigned as William Randolph Hearst's mistress" are not synonymous. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But his image became tarnished after the continuing battle with Welles over how much of the screenplay for Citizen Kane he actually wrote. 
 * "... Citizen Kane, for which they both won an Academy Award and later became a source of controversy over who wrote what. (Pauline Kael attributed Kane's screenplay to Mankiewicz in an essay for which she did not interview Welles and has since been hotly disputed by Welles and Peter Bogdanovich.) Much debate has centered around this issue, largely because of the importance of the film itself,


 * After Citizen Kane, Mankiewicz's career declined, likely a result of alcoholism. He died of uremic poisoning
 * "Renal failure or kidney failure is a situation in which the kidneys fail to function adequately. (Wikilinks) Alcohol’s Impact on Kidney Function, ...Both acute and chronic alcohol consumption can compromise kidney function, particularly in conjunction with established liver disease."

Conclusion
After verifying the above, unless you can clearly state why any of the above facts are so controversial that they must be cited twice, I will myself restore the lead. On facts which you can give a good faith reason why the comments should be considered controversial, however, I might include the citation in the lead also.

In your summary explanation when you deleted the lead, you wrote "I agree" to the tags. If you have other unstated reasons why you decided to simply delete the material, please state them now and say why you did not give those additional reasons earlier. Thanks.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You might find it worth noting that the last time you worked on this bio back on July, 1, 2008, it's length was only 2 paragraphs and it was only 4.4kb in size. It had only one citation confirming the date of his death. You were obviously satisfied to leave it in that condition. Your last edits
 * Addendum

I began editing the bio on the same day (by coincidence) and, before you deleted the lead, it was up to 17.5kb in size, an increase of 400%, and had 10 citations to support the added material. My last editsWikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

When you last visited the bio yesterday, you "agreed" that eight cites were needed in the lead, and decided to immediately delete 75% of it without discussion. In response to my complaint, you feel it is appropriate to now put a microscope up to each and every word to make sure it is quoted exactly as stated. You're even disputing the use of paraphrases and synonyms in this sudden new quest for perfection.

You earlier said I shouldn't feel "insulted" by your edits. I'm not, I'm simply in a state of utter amazement. -- Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) --

Unsourced personal essay
Please stop re-adding your personal essay. Only sourced information should be added to the article. Please stop readding that his parents were from Poland when all references say his father was from Berlin in Germany. You have readded it back at least three times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking into consideration the Addendum to my earlier message above, your reference to this article as a "personal essay" is beyond rational. The article now has 11 cites and there is not one statement that is unsourced. Your comments are unexplainable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Both paragraphs you added are unsourced, still. Rationalizing your edits on the talk page is not a substitute for sourcing them. Please try and use sources that can be checked. If you have an obvious error, that his father emigrated from Poland, I don't trust your other edits that I can't verify with a click. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that you have chosen to call an assembly of admins to review this article, it would be a nice gesture of good faith to respond to my numerous and detailed explanations above. As you know, they were originally on your talk page, and the entire section was removed to your archives the next day with almost no response and no explanation on my talk page.  You now reappear four days later, continue with the same edits as if nothing was explained, start placing warning tags about revert wars which you yourself are starting, post false and derogatory headings about "personal essays," and now call admins to join in.


 * Besides those earlier comments which are unanswered, it might also be a gesture of good faith for you to apologize for so quickly deleting a mass of material based on a now banned user's personal request, on your talk page, who was using a sock puppet. You have yet to acknowledge that those edits may have been innacurate, made in bad faith, and unreasonably acted upon by you when you readily "agreed" and deleted the lead. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unsourced is still unsourced. And obvious errors are still errors, no matter who first pointed them out. I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If I thought it was incorrect, I would have deleted it, but everything needs a source. Just like in the other articles on directors and writers. As it stands it is a personal essay. You have restored an error at least three times, saying his father emigrated from Poland, so it is possible you have made other errors that I can't detect, since I cannot click on your references to check them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are continually ignoring my earlier discussions. You continue to replace unneeded tags on noncontroversial material that is cited in the body.  You have made statements like, "I don't trust your other edits that I can't verify with a click" yet replace fully verifiable cites with completely unverifiable ones, "Herman Jacob Mankiewicz; US passport application."   --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact you added, that his father emigrated from Poland, is obviously incorrect, so either you or your source are not reliable. I don't trust you adding sources that can't be verified with a click because of that one large error. Having ancestors from Poland and emigrating from Poland are different facts. Maybe it is you drawing the wrong conclusion from a reliable source. That is why any facts you add without a source get a fact tag. You are engaging in original research and synthesizing incorrect information. I remind you that you once added the picture of his brother to this article, and didn't realize it was wrong until somone else pointed it out. This is an encyclopedia, and must have correct information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not "noncontroversial material". Two people have now challenged it, and I have found errors in it based on the references you pointed to on the talk page. Errors are errors and unsourced is unsourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What reference do you have that says his father emigrated from Poland? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * After you answer the questions earlier, another question is why you decided to archive almost a year's worth of your talk page within 20 minutes of my requesting an explanation for your edits? I'd prefer knowing that before sitting down to another dish of your red herring. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Chrono order
I think the article should be in chrono order instead of jumping back and forth from early life to writing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious ref tags
Can someone come and help with Herman J. Mankiewicz, another editor has been adding incorrect information to the article. Now they are removing the fact tags and saying they are coming for one reference book that can't be seen online. I suspect that the editor is just adding the ref link cosmetically because he justified the facts differently in his argument above on this page. He already re added that Herman J. Mankiewicz's parents emigrated from Poland three times, despite my three references that say that the father was born in Berlin and emigrated from Hamburg. In the past he added a photo of Herman's brother to the article. Another set of eyes would be welcome to help double check the facts. He has also been removing the references I have been adding. Any volunteers? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you apparently need to verify everything online, I added page #s to the sources. Suggest you call your local library for confirmation and/or read the article itself, since there are overlapping sources for many of the "lead" statements you keep tagging. FYI, the sources listed are in my possession. Please don't ignore WP:Lead which states that the Lead is basically a "summary" of the article and duplicated sources are not recommended. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * if I remember correctly you added his father emigrated from Poland, and restored it three times, and you added the image of his brother to the article, claiming it was him. You don't have a good track record of adding correct information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are also deceptive in quoting policy, I am challenging the information, so it must be cited properly: The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.

As you know Richard, from your earlier edits to this article back in July, you left it with essentially a bare-bones lead and numerous uncited facts, and the cite that was listed did not include an online link. Hence, the entire article at that point was 99% worse, and 90% shorter than it is now. Why you would suddenly take an obsessive interest in this article, even adding three source tags to a simple, non-controversial fact in the Lead, is way beyond my comprehension. Your comments here and in other articles I edited have been consistently of an argumentative nature and adversarial in tone. To use words like "suspicious," "deceptive," "contentious," etc. about a simple Wiki article where it is assumed editors would be wanting to work in collaboration instead of conflict, is, to my eyes, very strange behavior.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unsourced is unsourced, and incorrect is incorrect, it isn't subjective. You previously rationalized that paragraph from multiple sources on this page above, and now are saying they are all coming from one source, that can't be verified online. You have a history of adding incorrect information to the article, saying his father emigrated from Poland. You restored the error three times, then deleted my references that refuted the error. Please don't attack me personally by calling my additions an "obsessive interest". My interest is in having correct and verifiable information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is one more that you have as unsourced that is contradicted by an online source. You had Nunnally Johnson quoted as saying that line, which is contradicted by Columbia University. Columbia cites Pauline Kael as saying it. So now there are three document errors you introduced: According to critic Pauline Kael, he spearheaded the movement of that whole Broadway style of "wisecracking, fast-talking, cynical-sentimental entertainment onto the national scene."

Lets review your errors: 1. You had the wrong photo in the article. 2. You insisted his father emigrated from Poland and reverted the correction three times back to Poland and removed my three references that said he emigrated from Germany. 3. You had Nunnally Johnson making a quote when Columbia University says the quote come from Pauline Kael. 4. You had him graduating from Columbia University in 1916, when two sources have him graduating in 1917.

And this are just the ones I have checked so far. You are very prone to error, and don't appear to double check your work, or your using resources that are incorrect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced or potentially falsely sourced information moved to talk page
The following is unreferenced, or the source used conflicts with arguments left on the talk page previously: He was often asked to fix the screenplays of other writers. What distinguished his writing from that of other writers were occasional flashes of the "Mankiewicz humor" and satire that became valued in the films of the 1930s. That style of writing included a slick, satirical, and witty humor, which depended almost totally on dialogue to carry the film. It was a style that would become associated with the "typical American film" of that period.

After moving to Hollywood from New York, he became a popular guest at the homes of many of America's most famous and wealthiest families. But his image became tarnished after the continuing battle with Welles over how much of the screenplay for Citizen Kane he actually wrote.

removing of dispute tags
here's a rule of thumb to keep in mind: you shouldn't remove dispute tags if you're involved in a dispute. it makes those of us watching from a distance think you're doing something you shouldn't. if someone adds a dispute tag asking for a third set of eyes to take a peek, it's probably best to leave it until said third party gets there.IsraelXKV8R (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

3PO
It's not easy to see what the 3PO request is referring to exactly, but it appears to be about a ref that one editor does not have access to. I have no experience in this subject so I can only reiterate that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and if an editor asks for a quote it is a good idea to quote the passage used as a reference. WikiProject Fact and Reference Check may also provide a good resource. wp:AGF, but if an editor is less than honest then a report to wp:ANI is in order.

I hope this helps. If not, please re-add the tag I'm about to remove and restate the issue in very simple terms below (please only one comment per side to help make things simple). If I can't help at that point I'll leave the dispute for someone else... or it may be time for an RFC. NJGW (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Last name
"His parents were of German-Jewish ancestry: his father, Franz Mankiewicz, was born in Berlin and emigrated to the U.S. from Hamburg in 1892."

Mankiewicz sounds more like a Polish last name than German...


 * Agreed. But when some editor finds and uploads a copy of his passport to prove he was probably German, and then adds three more sources to back it up, it will take some extra research to connect his Polish-sounding name with his ancestry. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You do understand the concept of immigration and emigration, right? It is not a new concept, or found only in the United States. Herman had a Polish name and was born in New York City. I have an Irish name, yet I was born and raised in the United States. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)