Talk:Mary Stalcup Markward

Annie Lee Moss
Annie Lee Moss's own wikipedia page suggests that Moss only had indirect contact with the CPUSA. This page, on the other hand, screams that she was a "Communist" beyond all doubt. Considering that the likely motivation for such a claim is to vindicate Stalcup, and by extension McCarthy, and that other sources flatly discourage the certainty with which this claim is made, is this section of Stalcup's article POV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.146.58 (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

census image
Simple question: Why is a link to a included in a footnote to the article? What do you think it adds to the article? Do you think that someone reading the article will question whether Markward ever actually existed? RedSpruce (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The little number in brackets after a sentence is a "footnote". The full sentence the reference is supporting reads "She was born as Mary R. Stalcup to Maria and Benjamin Stalcup." The name of the article is "Mary Stalcup Markward". She could have been born "Mary Stalcup Markward" but wasn't, she was born under a different name, and that name is: "Mary R. Stalcup". This is her birth name. The name of her parents are Maria X and Benjamin Stalcup, which also from the census. The census is a primary record, and has been used in articles to find birth years, and parents names. It was also used to correct mistakes in two articles in Encyclopedia Brittanica, which were changed in the online editions based on the census and what was added here to Wikipedia. You may also notice that the Social Security Death Index is used as a source to find incorrect birth dates and birth years in some articles in which the birth date is in dispute. Information doesn't just exist in Wikipedia, it comes from someplace, and that place is always to be shown, so people can judge the validity of the source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You might consider learning to indent your talk page comments correctly. It's a useful skill, and not terribly difficult.
 * You haven't answered my fundamental questions, so I'll repeat them (with a variation): What do you think this footnote adds to the article? Do you think that someone reading the article will question whether Markward ever actually existed, or will feel that her birth-name needs to be documented here?
 * Please note that that your statement "[information] comes from someplace, and that place is always to be shown." is incorrect. This should be obvious; if it were correct than virtually every word of every sentence in Wikipedia would have to be footnoted. You need only look as far as the "nutshell" comment on Citing sources: "Quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged need a reliable source." This is why I ask whether some reader is likely to feel that Markward's birth-name needs to be documented here. Obviously no reader will feel that need, so the information is not "likely to be challenged", and it does not need a reliable source. RedSpruce (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to include a definition of "footnote" in your response, but you're incorrect on that point as well. "Footnote" refers to the ancillary text at the bottom of the page, not the number or asterisk that points the reader to that text. See here. RedSpruce (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you haven't responded and have made other edits since I posted the above, may I take it that you agree with me? If I don't hear from you, I'll assume you do and remove the footnote. RedSpruce (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay; I've removed it. By itself, this was a minor issue in a minor article. But it's representative of a recurring problem with your edits: You add material to articles without considering whether that material is appropriate to the article or the part of the article where you insert it. You don't give enough thought to what is necessary for the purpose of documenting the article, or what will be interesting and useful to a reader. The result of this is that some of your edits detract from the article, adding footnotes that are nothing more than an annoying distraction to the reader who clicks on them, and making the article look amateurish and badly written. In an article where some other editor has made considerable effort to bring the article up to a professional level, such edits on your part are naturally frustrating. This is especially true when, as seems to be your usual approach, you refuse to discuss your edits in a meaningful manner.


 * In the early days of CD-ROMs, software reviewers often complained of "shovelware" CD-ROMs. A software publisher would fill up a CD-ROM with badly organized and disconnected data, just "shoveling in" whatever was handy and had some pretense of relevance to the CD's topic. In many of your edits, you take a shovelware approach to Wikipedia articles. You need to be more discriminating; you need to give some thought to what will be useful and interesting to a reader. You also need to concede the necessity of engaging in substantive discussion with other editors who disagree with your edits. RedSpruce (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The same points of course apply to your Social Security Death Index; Mary Markward; b. 10 February 1922 - d. November 1972 footnote, so I've removed that as well. Thanks for your agreement (if only implied) on these issues. RedSpruce (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC response: I have two responses to this issue: (1) References to reliable sources, no matter what minutia they substantiate, are GOOD except in the most extreme circumstances (eg. Three references to a single source in one sentence would be an example, or the use of a reliable source that is only tangentially related to the material to imply something scandalous, like that the subject is a child-molester). Not only does this particular reference substantiate her birth name, but even better, it substantiates the names of her parents. It was put in a footnote, so it is not intrusive. And, just as a cherry on top, it's a free image. Who can say what anyone will challenge? If it's referenced, they can't. (2) RedSpruce, your comments above have tap danced on the line of being uncivil (not even to mention your edit summaries). The work here at Wikipedia is collaborative and tremendous, meaning that (a) making a big deal out of things that really don't violate the letter or even spirit (I dare say) of the policy makes for a hostile environment and (b) with so many truly horrific, poorly-written, and flat out false articles, why pick infinitesimal fights like this one?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment, Esprit15d. I think some of your points are good, others are questionable, others are based on an incomplete understanding of my history with this editor, and still others tap dance (or is it a Charlston?) on the line of being arrogant and snotty. In any case, I drop my case on this issue and have asked for the page to be unprotected. RedSpruce (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)