Talk:John Scott (writer)

message: Shouldn't there be a part about how he died?  [[User:Speedboy Salesman|Speedboy Sal
John Scott died of a heart attack in chicago. his daughter elena lives in new york. his grandson nick lives in newyork and his greatgrandchild bridgett lives in palm beach florida. they are a very tight family.I was married to nick.
There aren't many sources for John Scott that I could find other than his book Behind the Urals and anything John Earl Haynes has arranged about the Venona Project. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. 2/14/2014  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfgiraffe (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :John Scott (writer)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Scott_1989":
From Trade unions in the Soviet Union: .
From Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thank you, bot. Karmanatory (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:John Scott (writer)]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Scott (writer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130918033908/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/venona/1944/9feb_atomic_energy.pdf to http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/venona/1944/9feb_atomic_energy.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The wiki editor is constantly making comments while retelling Scott's work, but these comments are his own and not sourced to anybody else, so they violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. And bringing in Manya Gordon to dismiss what Scott says is a textbook example of original synthesis.--95.42.19.211 (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hogwash, on so many levels. First of all, nothing in the article is unfaithful to Scott's work, and many painstaking inline citations show the thread of the connections between thoughts. The transitions show how the otherwise-would-be-randomly-disconnected sentences and paragraphs relate to each other. That's called basic composition, if you didn't know. Second, an encyclopedia doesn't "retell" the cited work, it summarizes highlights of it. That's how encyclopedia articles work; you'll need to propose a new definition of encyclopedia articles elsewhere, achieve consensus on that novelty, then come back here, if you want to change that. Third, which of the dozens of editors in the article's history is "the" one and only "wiki editor" that you imagine wrote the whole article on "his" own? Wikipedia articles are written collaboratively, as this one was. Fourth, contextualizing Gordon's and Scott's data is a textbook example of showing antinomy in the Kantian sense of that word: apparent contradiction between valid conclusions, with the false superficial appearance of contradiction duly explained. Such logical analysis is important because it shows how the question of "which one of the two observers was correct or wrong" is itself wrong: they were both correct about the aspects of the whole that they emphasized, without so much mentioning the aspects that the other emphasized. That's not unusual, nor wrong. Whew. I'm out of breath refuting how many kinds of wrong that comment was. Karmanatory (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorialising