Talk:Marion Elizabeth Rodgers

Photo
If you a personal photo of Ms. Rodgers, please consider adding it to the Wiki world so it can appear in this entry. Nicmart (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Weasel words
The Weasel words tag has been applied to this within minutes of posting, but no such words are identified in the talk section, and I don’t know of any. Perhaps the intro about Rodgers being the foremost authority on Mencken is what is meant, but I think that is not at all weasel since it is not a "vague or ambiguous claim," and is accompanied by a citation from the University of Maryland (Mencken’s state) which states, "For more than a quarter of a century, Marion Elizabeth Rodgers has been considered the foremost authority on the American critic and journalist H.L. Mencken as well as the editor of his works.” Unless the offense is identified, the tag should be removed. Nicmart (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my mention that her Mencken bio has been “lavishly praised” is what is meant. But, again, lavishly is not vague or ambiguous, it means “generously,” and I’ve provided four citations. I could provide many more, but how many are needed? It seems to me that the tag itself is weasel given the lack of clarification in talk as to what the applier meant. Nicmart (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you for your thoughts on this. I should have left a message explaining the tagging; I apologize for not doing so. Perhaps, the weasel tag is not the most appropriate tag in this case, and I have removed it for now, but I still feel that NPOV was not followed in this article by using the words "recognized as the foremost authority" and "lavishly praised." Although citations are provided for these claims, these words should be used with caution to avoid stating opinions as facts. Perhaps it would be better to state the claims, especially the one in the lead, as a quotation in someplace other than the very first sentence (just like they did in WP:PEACOCK)? Please let me know of your thoughts. Thank you. On a side note, I like your claim that "the tag itself is weasel given the lack of clarification in talk as to what the applier meant." William2001(talk) 18:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. I was not expressing an opinion in either case. I quoted an academic source claiming that Rodgers is the foremost authority, and it is undeniable that she is the go-to for those who are seeking Mencken expertise. That’s why the Library of America had her edit and provide extensive annotation to its volumes. It’s not the same as saying she is the best or most perspicacious authority. Secondly, I used “lavished" simply because it is true. Many reviewers have declared her Mencken bio to be of excellent quality. But I did not express an opinion that it is the best one. Praise has been lavished on other Mencken bios. Nicmart (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

"Citation needed"
This has been added regarding the mention of her brother and sister, but they are noted in the citation just one sentece before, which is the obituary for her father, so it seems unnecessary to me. Nicmart (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)