User talk:Simonter

Please don't delete the Tom Warder story. People on Facebook are already protestng because he is a hero to them, as he is to me!

Simonter (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Murella's Marie Warder aricle
About the reference to the National Council of Women. I recall that two groups in the United States were already affiliates and members of the IAHS, when, in 1987 when Marie addressed the National Council of Women, TocH and Rotary in Kimberley, South Africa,in 1987, and this provided her with the opportunity to launch the Haemochromatosis Society of South Africa. The Kimberley-based “Diamond Fields Advertiser” featured a comprehensive report on these activities, and no sooner had that appeared, than it transpired that all the other newspapers of the Argus group had picked up the “Star” article – but how to find them? ... South Africa has gone through a tremendous upheaval since those days, and, in many cases, records have been destroyed. (Personal friends state that they are concerned about the safety of visitors to the country during the World Cup.)

I think that some of the problems in Murella’s story arise from the fact that it is not made clear enough that the organizations etc. that she mentions were in South Africa e.g. The National Council of Women should read The National Council of Women (SA). I say “were” because after 1994 many of them ceased to exist. I support Murella’s statements concerning the destruction of buildings and documents and it would be well-nigh impossible to confirm, for you in the manner required, some of the references you demand. Only friends and personal records can do that and if Marie could be persuaded to let us have such documents, it would be difficult to send you the information in a usable form.

I found the National Council of Women on the Net and have written to them, but I do not hold out much hope of a reply.

Simonter (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Do you mind if I comment on the "citation needed" for ABC Bookworld and the story behind Marie's article at the "age of eleven"? I see that someone else has already posted a comment and I agree with that observation. The Wikipedia editor in question disputes the story on the grounds that writers post their own listings in that publication, well, as I see it, that is precisely what validates the "story behind Marie's article at the 'age of eleven'". If she has told that story herself than that is precisly what is claimed in the reference on the article page, and it surely requires no other "citation".