Talk:Bess Myerson

message: The article is becoming over-run with quotes an starting to not just look like a WP:QUOTEFARM but an online WP:MEMORIAL.  The concentration camp survivors quote is really over-the-top and not necessary.  It should go, in my opinion.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the coverage in reliable sourcing, beginning with the front-page New York Times article, emphasized the impact of her Miss America win on the Jewish community, and it is intimately tied to her notability. The two policy pages you quote are utterly inapplicable. Coretheapple (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter how well the quotes are sourced.  There are starting to be too many of them.  Especially for an article of its (smaller) size and with Myerson not being all that prominent or well-known in the last 25 years.  It's not as if she had the star power of Robin Williams or Philip Seymour Hoffman.  As far as the policies quoted, they are quite applicable.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please. She was the subject of a page one obituary in the New York Times. She has been the subject of three books. What you're saying is pure WP:RECENTISM. Coretheapple (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Still doesn't warrant too many quotes.  We had to fight too many of those at the Hoffman and Williams articles, too.  Which pretty much makes your accusation of WP:RECENTISM null and void.  What I'm "saying" is common sense and WP:POLICY.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak to those articles, but this one so far is pretty far from being a "quotefarm" and certainly the treatment of her troubles (though it can be expanded) makes this article anything but a memorial. The article does require substantial expansion, that I do agree. I suggest that you work on sourcing and adding text,and not in stubbifying this, and also that you exercise care in the language that you use. Referring to the Sholem Aleichem cooperative as a "Yiddish housing project" is awkward language at best. There is no need to use excessive shorthand and truncation like that. Nor is it accurate as the residents were not entirely Jewish or Yiddish-speaking. I'd appreciate it if you would self-revert that edit. As you may know, you are well over 3RR at this point as it is. Additionally, you revert-warred to remove the word "cooperative" from the housing project's name, even though it is referred to as "cooperative" in the majority of reliable sources, including the New York Times obituary.Coretheapple (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotefarm

message: In the newly expanded Miss America section, the content, "Myerson encountered "No Jews" signs when touring the country as Miss America" needs to be more specific.  Where were the signs seen?  Were they KKK-related?  Were the signs seen in areas of the South?  Was it truly because she was Miss America?  Was it because they were placed purposely for her benefit?  "No Jews" signs mean nothing in relation to this article if they weren't directly connected to her. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh nonsense. You're nitpicking content appearing in an indisputably reliable source, over material directly related to the subject of this article. There is no need whatsoever to state exactly where the signs appeared, who put them up, or what grade of nail was used to hammer them into place. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense?  Asking for more detail so readers will have a clear picture rather than having to guess is "nonsense"?  Yes, there is a reason to be more specific.  You have said you want this article to reach GA and FA status: being ambiguous by adding content about "No Jews" without context or specifics will no doubt be called into question by someone reviewing the article for GA/FA.  I refrained from removing it because I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Your immediate response of "Nonsense" rather than responding with a collegial and cooperative tone has not renewed that benefit.  Only adding another reference rather than clarifying the content is not enough.  Please stop for a moment and think about what I'm saying because it is ONLY about benefitting and improving the article (attempting to improve the article is all I've been doing since I started editing it).  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nonsense because the lack of such detail does not mean it should be excluded from the article. Please stop wasting everybody's time.  Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands currently, the content would be challenged by anyone reviewing it for GA/FA.  You said that's your goal for the article.  The content deserves expansion and clarification.  And, another rude personal attack from you is noted ("stop wasting everybody's time").  I could respond in kind (and have been known to do so colorfully before), but frankly, your negative attitude and personally directed comments say more about you than me.  My hope is you will turn things aroud and stop focusing on editors rather than edits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is being built up now, and more details will be added as they become available, unless of course you continue to revert war to remove pertinent details and to make good wording bad/inaccurate. We are not reviewing it for GA or FA status; your edit-warring and disruptive behavior, such as this discussion, has made that difficult. You have access to all of the online sources that I have; if you are genuinely interested in adding details you can and should do so. You are not the reviewer of a prospective Good Article nomination that has not been filed. Right now we are adding relevant details, and this is clearly relevant, amply sourced, above dispute--except by you. Again, why are you wasting everybody's time challenging a detail that is clearly proper? You really need to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't need to "stop".  I see you are still focused on an editor rather than edits.  Still hoping you will change your tack.  I removed the irrelevant and bordering-on-unreliable reference you added to support the "No Jews" content.  The reference didn't mention the signs at all.  I have, however, expanded the content for clarification and added an appropriate reference.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you do. This discussion is utterly pointless. There was absolutely no basis for disputing inclusion of the material in question. Please stop wasting people's time. Coretheapple (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

text: You keep using those words but I don't think they mean what you think they mean.  The only rude and personal attack comments I see on this page are from you.  And yes, you have wasted a great deal of time from many editors having to respond to your nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No Jews" 

message: Alan, "may be true" is simply not encyclopedic language.  There has to be a better, more encyclopedic way of saying it, regardless of how many versions of the story exist. We are supposed to be including facts, not suppositions, no matter what reliable source presents those suppositions.  It's okay to say that varying versions exist, it's even okay to say that certain individuals think either version may be true, it's not okay to present them in such a manner that it appears editors are making a judgement about the varying accounts. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: May be does not make any judgement.  As I said you may work on better wording, if you want, but we have to present all the evidence concerning it to the reader - now. So, as not to give a false impression. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not really.  Now?  There is no deadline in Wikipedia.  The section is actually fine without the "may be true" sentence.  There will be no confusion to any reader if we leave it out for now.  There is likely to be confusion for readers if we leave it in. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  22:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Now - this is a BLP - so to the extent there are contradictory stories about her life we have to be as up front as possible.  The last source - you seek to remove - is moreover the most detailed - and explanatory. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't want to remove the reference, just the "may be true".  Like I said, there has to be a better way of saying it.  As it is now, it's just not encyclopedic and, according to BLP guidelines, really shouldn't have been reverted back in. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You did remove the most detailed reference - and no - that "someone joked" is decidedly vague - if you read the references all those things happened: she did not know she was entered, she did want a piano, someone joked about it, she did go ahead with the pageant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Both sources may be true" would seem to be the closest we can come to a correct rendition of the situation. I'm a bit visually handicapped today so I am restricted as to what I can read, and have not been able to read the Dworkin book cover-to-cover. However, it confirms the "she didn't know about it" version. The book may also discuss the "piano" version as well and I haven't gotten to it, and it is poorly indexed. I suggest retaining this current language. Even if it is not in the Dworkin book, it may be true as well. Coretheapple (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

text: "Have to be changed?" Uh no, that's not how we do things here. This is not child pornography or some urgent BLP problem, it is a semantic issue at most. Parenthetically: citing WP:CRYSTAL as you did in your edit summary is unhelpful, as that clearly does not apply. It also disturbs me if we are going to have to have reams and reams of talk page discussions over every piddling little wording issue, compounded by edit-warring. That is what "has to be changed," not this wording. Coretheapple (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Going through much talk on an article talk page is nothing new in Wikipedia.  It happens all the time.  It's how consensus actually happens.  Sorry you don't like what I said above, but I stand by it.  The wording, put plainly, sucks.  And it's not encyclopedic.  Alanscottwalker, I'm trying to find in the associated reference that both stories regarding Myerson's entry into pageants could be true.  Would you be so kind as to point me to where the article states that? Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓  00:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I have already supplied the detailed source about the incident. I said the wording can be changed - but it cannot be reverted to the misleading presentation it was.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your reply.  I asked where in the reference attached to the content is the statement that both accounts "may be true".  I'm asking honestly and just want to know how to better support the concept with the context from the article. Are you saying you already gave an answer to this elsewhere?  If so, where? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

text: "Have you read the sources?  The one I supplied has the detailed content about the contest entry in it - the others very briefly talk of a "legend", with a jokey half sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm asking specifically about the reference attached to the statement "Both may be true".  So, after looking once again through the attached reference, it seems to combine both stories.  Are you saying that because the attached source appears to combine the stories, that is the evidence that "both may be true"?.  I'm sincerely just trying to understand what you are saying and to come up with a better way to word the content.  Taking the time to clarify would be appreciated.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the stories are one story - they reconcile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it.  Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think either the new or the old versions of the language are optimal. Both are awkward. Let's get more input. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "May be true" 

message: Core, when reverting my wording change, you said in your edit summary, "this quote is from her authorized biography, the Dworkin book, just saying "said" is sufficient".  It's not sufficient when the source you state contains the quote isn't being used as a reference to support the quote.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  00:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it most certainly is. The footnote to "Dworkin, p. 36," at the end of the paragraph. That is the source for the last two sentences of the paragraph. We don't have to have references for every sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies.  For whatever reason, I only saw the obituary reference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Awkward and gawky" 

message: New York magazine had a cover story in 1987 by Patricia Morrisroe on the "Bess Mess." I've added it to the "further reading" section but it would be useful as a source, in which case I presume it would have to be removed from that section. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Worthwhile source

message: This  says she was a founder of the museum in NYC.  Seems like something about it might belong in the article somewhere.  It's the only thing left that I saw that might be worth adding - but I'll leave it to others to follow-up.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. However, since the article is now fully protected because of edit-warring, you or somebody would have to propose language to be added and place the appropriate edit-request notice. Coretheapple (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do hope that someday WV learns to reach for the revert button last - and improving content added by others more - it is more cooperative that way (and WV needs to read sources first - not after editing).   But as for this, it looks like I got my 'important' adds in under the wire, and I was basically through with this article (it was pretty bad, when you drew attention to it - so good work) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you're not unduly discouraged by the edit-warring and other nonsense and keep an eye on the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish Heritage Museum

message: ::Given the conflict with , which decides Parks as "the host," (emphasis mine) would it work for everyone to describe Myerson as "a host"? NE Ent 21:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's appropriate and much more accurate.  I would also request that Parks be mentioned in the article, rather than ignored.  His stint as pageant host was certainly iconic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but I would request that the end date be changed to 1968 as well, as 1967 is not accurate. There's a multitude of sources for that, but the simplest to add is "Dworkin, p. 220." Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Fine with me. Any other changes before we reactivate the request? NE Ent 22:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That'll do. Thanks. You're not an admin I guess? Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

text: As I already stated above, I would also request that something about Parks be mentioned. His stint as pageant host was seen as iconic.  I'm asking for it now so that if it is inserted later and there is an objection, we will have this discussion to refer back to. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  22:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Myerson -- Parks obviously has his own article, and Miss_America#The_Early_Years discusses his primary hosting, so I don't see a need to include it here. NE Ent 22:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear what you are saying, however, the article isn't about Debbie Bryant either, and she also has her own article, yet she's going to be mentioned.  Frankly, I don't see the harm or why mentioning Parks would be inappropriate.  What if it were something along the lines of "Along with Bert Parks, she was a host..."?  And one more thing I noticed: she wasn't a host at all in 1954.  The sources I provided previously from the PBS documentary on the pageant state clearly that she was a backstage reporter.  That's different from being a host.  See the following   -- WV ● ✉ ✓  23:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe she hosted from backstage. There is nothing in that link that contradicts the multiple reliable sources indicating that she began hosting in 1954. It doesn't have her beginning to host in 1955, for that matter. I don't think that timeline puts the kibosh on all the reliable sourcing saying that she started to host in 1954. Coretheapple (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I'd be fine with that (Parks mention). The Dworkin book Coretheapple references is probably more reliable, so I'd go with that vis-a-vis the 1954 date. NE Ent 00:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good about the Parks mention.  I still don't see how reporting for the television broadcast from backstage equates hosting. Remember, this was the first televised broadcast.  Bob Russell is listed as the show's host. The whole venture was still new and possibly experimental.  Plus, women just weren't hosts in those days.  It's very possible things changed the following year with Parks then on board (yes, I realize what I'm suggesting here could be seen as OR).  Still, I don't know why the PBS timeline should be taken as a lesser source than the Dworkin book (which has been noted by professional book reviewers as being subjective and unfailingly complimentary of Myerson, by the way).  Even though I object to Myerson being referred to as a host in 1954 based on the PBS timeline, I won't hold up this edit request because of my objection. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the Parks mention ... everyone okay with the edit request as it stands? NE Ent 01:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more inclined toward, "Along with Bert Parks, Myerson was a host of the television broadcast of the Miss America pageant from 1954 to 1968 until she was replaced by Debbie Bryant."  But, that's me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  02:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated. NE Ent 02:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But according to that timeline, Parks did not become host of the pageant until 1955, so we can't phrase it that way. Why not just leave him out? It's not necessary to include him. Coretheapple (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the timeline Myerson wasn't a host, either. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  02:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we have multiple reliable sources saying she was host from 1954 to 1968. Why don't we just go with that? One timeline doesn't mean we throw multiple reliable sources into the round file. We can always add about Burt if and when we get sourced material on his tenure there. He's not necessary in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

text: And take out about the replacement? We can do it that way. Coretheapple (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, just keep it focused on Myerson. NE Ent 02:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. Her replacement is superfluous, and so is Burt. Coretheapple (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

text: How about "Through a portion of Bert Parks's hosting tenure, Myerson was also a host of the televised Miss America Pageant from 1954-1968.  She was replaced by Debbie Bryant in 1969."  Neither is, in my opinion, "superfluous" to the article.  There are others mentioned in the article, the section is on Miss America, why not include those also involved in the pageant in the similar capacity that Myerson was? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the cool thing about Wikipedia is almost everything is wikilinked, so readers wanting to know more about Miss America hosts can follow the link. I think the compromise Coretheapple and I have agreed to is reasonable, and the "a host" addresses the valid concern that the prior wording makes it seem as if she was the only / primary host. NE Ent 03:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All that for an "a", the current says: "She was host of the television broadcast of the Miss America . . ."  It does not generally take much talk to get to an "a", nor should it - it burns people out - especially with all the accusations.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Okay, NE Ent.  You've persuaded me with logic.  Thanks for taking so much of your time to help work this out.  I appreciate your patience, kindness, and efforts.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WV, Your snide comments are unappreciated, especially when I wrote, "a host" long before this proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break

message: Per discussion immediately above, please change
She was host of the television broadcast of the Miss America pageant from 1954 to 1967, and then was replaced by a younger woman.
to 
Myerson was a host of the television broadcast of the Miss America pageant from 1954 to 1968Dworkin, p. 220.  NE Ent 03:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: User:Winkelvi would like to remove the reference to Myerson being host of the Miss America pageant from 1954 to 1967, even though it is made in two reliable sources, on the grounds that it is "dubious" for the reasons stated in the post by Winelvi immediately above. 
In addition, he contends that there is a copyright violation. The latter is potentially serious. I don't happen to agree with him on either of these two issues, but I think we have to get them cleared up. We don't want dubious things in a highly trafficked article like this, and neither do we want copyright violations, if there are any. Therefore I request that an administrator review these two claims, and act upon them if warranted. I'm not quite sure what Winkelvi is talking about when he refers to copyright violations, so perhaps he can elaborate. That can't wait a week to resolve, if indeed there is anything to resolve. Coretheapple (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Administrators do not have any additional authority regarding the content of an article. It is up to editors on this page to discuss and come up with a consensus, which we can then apply to an article. If that fails to work for whatever reason, then you can try WP:AN for a wider review of the situation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. Martin, in light of what I found in the biography and the Times, would you be able to change the date of the end of Myerson's service as Miss America television host from 1967 to 1968? A reference can then be added to that sentence Dworkin, p. 220 Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin, there needs to be clarification in the article of what Myerson's duties at the Miss America broadcast were (she was merely a backstage commentator in 1954) and what they continued to be and/or became.  Bert Parks was known as the the only television host of the Miss America Pageant from 1955 on through his firing from the responsibility in 1979/1980.  To say she was the host is incorrect and misleading.  I am perplexed as to why both User:Alanscottwalker and User:Coretheapple are insisting the content stay as it is.  For readers actually familiar with the Miss America Pageant broadcasts during the Bert Parks timeframe, it will be confusing to leave it as it is without the clarification and invites content changes to correct what's already there.  The misleading content is at least problematic and at worst could end up leading to disruption if it stays as it is.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am perplexed that you have not read what I wrote, but there you have it.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

text: (ec) We've been asked to come to a consensus. Consensus is not defined as "all editors agreeing." Right now, you (WV) are the only editor who believes there is anything "dubious" or requiring "clarification," and it has already been fully discussed. Coretheapple (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Two editors defending their own edits with bias is not consensus.  And this type of railroading is exactly why I suggested an RfC several posts ago. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are arguing your position. That's how it works. I don't think you understand what "consensus" is. Also, re your point on "readers familiar with the pageant," I am one of those readers. What's in the article is accurate. We are, as we have before, basically wasting our time - arguing over amply sourced material that you don't like. Coretheapple (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Stop this, WV.  You still have not read what I wrote, nor is "the host" in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Core, please cut the crap.  After days of your uncivil attitude and rude comments, I'm beyond sick of you talking down to me.  I've been here just as long as you have, longer, in fact, and understand policy and what consensus is just fine.  An RfC is what's needed here.  It's obvious from days of this that you and ASW are going to knock down anything I propose, whatever edits and suggestions I make.  Because I'm not easily dissuaded in the face of such behavior, you've definitely picked the wrong person to try to shove around.  If you want to actually discuss by losing the attitudes and incivil language and comments then work for real consensus building, I'm all for it.  But as it stands now, this talk page is not a friendly and collegial atmosphere lending itself to the true meaning of community discussion.  It's become a battleground and, sorry to be Captain Obvious, but you've made it that way.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the furture, I think you might want to modulate your approach: don't edit revert all the time, read the sources first (ie. 'I am now looking into the sources' (after reverting is not good form)), don't use loaded language, and make accusations like you did from the start, it rubs people the wrong way.  Core may have been short, but you're far from blameless, here.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

text: (ec) Look, editors disagree. If I agreed with your suggestions, I'd be happy to agree with them. I've never encountered you or Alan here before in my life, and no one is out to "get" you. But I don't agree with you on this particular point. We've gone back and forth, you don't seem to be cognizant of what's in the sources, or read them and don't believe them, and I don't know what else there is to say. You can, of course, commence an RfC on this or any point in the article, or on every thing you want to change, for that matter. But I have to tell you that you're dealing with something that, as I can tell you from my own personal knowledge, is correctly stated in the article, and is the subject of multiple sources for the simple reason that it is true. It is an utter waste of time to continually harp on it, and pushing and pushing on this point in these circumstances is a mistake. But don't let me stop you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: @Winkelvi: One other thing of far more importance. In your post at 02:30, 9 January 2015 you indicated that there were copyright violations. You said at the bottom of that post: "Oh, and one more thing: interestingly, the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what's in the Myerson article here. I don't know when it was put in or who did it, but obviously, it will have reworded here considerably when the article is unlocked. Can't have any more copyvios and verbatim lifts of content from online sources than we already do, eh?" This is very serious. It needs to be addressed, if in fact what you say is correct. Can you please explain what those copyright violations are, so that we can formulate an edit request and get them fixed? What is the webpage and what language was duplicated? Also you imply that there are other copyright issues that would also need to be addressed if they exist. What are these other issues? We need to fix them, assuming they are in fact copyright problems or plagiarism, which is a very serious charge that I assume you are making in good faith. Coretheapple (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no.  It's plainly sourced and paraphrased from the New York Times article entitled, Bess Myerson, New Yorker of Beauty, Wit, etc, and which also contains the sentence, "But her intelligence, self-discipline and wit soon landed her a regular spot . . .". There are not many ways to say she was noticed and got jobs because she had much wit, work, and beauty, but if you want to understand her life, you would have to know that she was. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur; the exact phrasing is copyrightable, but the same idea will often end up begin expressed in very similar ways. NE Ent 02:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bess Myerson. 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/20160405154103/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/peopleevents/e_inclusion.html to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/peopleevents/e_inclusion.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150511111623/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/filmmore/index.html to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/filmmore/index.html
*Added  tag to http://www.patriciamorrisroe.com/sites/default/files/articles/Bess-and-the-Mess.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) 22:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Most Americans may have viewed the country as Protestant, but “America” didn’t view anything because people view, not nations. 
She had a career in government. Whether government is “public service” is opinion. Nicmart (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's rather overdone and prescriptivist to view ordinary phrasing (see eg., ) that way, but on the first point, fine change it. The second point, however, appears to be the unsourced and incorrect opinion of the OP. Standard American definition for "public service" is "governmental employment" See, . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor writing