Talk:Schlitzie/Archive 1

Untitled
If s/he was born in 1881 and died in 1971, how did s/he die at the age of 81? That sounds more like 90 years (and a couple of weeks) to me... Shalom S. (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Expanding and adding references
I plan to expand the entire article and make it all long and pretty-like. I'll add a bunch of references, as well. Personally, I think I should add the birth date as 1901, as that seems to be the general consensus and that's what's written on his death certificate and gravestone.Skibz777 (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Commitment
Quoting from the page, "Under the care of Surtees, Schlitzie continued performing the sideshow circuit until Surtees' death in the early 1960s, leaving his daughter, who was not in show business, to take care of Schlitzie. Finding herself unable to do so, she committed him to a Los Angeles county hospital.[6]" I followed the link to "reference 6" and do not find any information there about why his daughter committed him, and it is quite an assumption to say that she was unable to care for him. I suggest removing the words "Finding herself unable to do so". If absolutely necessary, the words "For unknown reasons" could replace them, although even that is not supported in the reference. 71.228.201.183 (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, and the passage has been revised. Ewulp (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Simon Metz
Where does the name Simon Metz come from? --Urmas86 (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)--Urmas86 (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A number of sources support this; for instance see Hartzman, American Sideshow (p.210). Ewulp (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! It's just that I have seen it popping up everywhere never having a source tied to it.--Urmas86 (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Claims and sources
Understandably, people speculate about Schlitzie. To avoid weasel words, I think a good policy to use when writing in articles like this is to not to confuse historians and biographers (secondary sources) with their informants (primary sources).

Consider this excerpt from the article:

"Most sources say that his urinary incontinence, which obligated him to wear diapers, made dresses practical for his care needs."

Well, if most people said it, well just go with that. Who are the "sources" here: people who knew Schlitzie or people who wrote about people who knew Schlitzie? If we specify, then it's more informative and not weasely. The word "most" implies that there is some contrarian who reported something else. That other report is significant.

When the facts are fuzzy, we can try to make it clear that the biographers have limited information, or that eyewitness accounts disagree, or whatever. Differences in eyewitness accounts are relevant and interesting. If generally-accepted biographical sources differ on some points, that's relevant, too

One more thing. I deleted this (awkward) passage because there's no indication that it's not OR:

"...or [Schlitzie] was paired up with other microcephalics. One notable example of the latter was Schlitzie's possible pairing with a microcephalic woman named Athelia, exhibited together as 'Aurora and Natalia, the Aztec sisters'. This has led to claims that Aurora actually was Schlitzie's sister, but these claims are unsubstantiated."

This is a roundabout way of saying "Natalia might be Schlitzie". Says who? Based on what evidence? Then it layers speculation on speculation: "This has led to claims..." by whom? Guys on web forums? The source cited is a page on a website called quasi-modo.net. Schlitzie is not mentioned on the page. This website is cited frequently throughout the article, and is not a valid source. Ringbang (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)