Talk:Jack Hemingway

message: Saying he spent his early years in 'Paris, France and the Austrian Alps' doesn't make it clear whether he was in Paris and the Austrian Alps or Paris, elsewhere in France, and the Austrian Alps - ? ||||  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costesseyboy (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wha??75.48.8.163 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Understood, and fixed by wikilinking to Paris and taking out France.  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Do Canadians think of Jack Hemingway as being a Canadian himself?  He was born in Toronto and lived there for three or four months, but after that?  I'd appreciate comments.  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian 

message: *Per WP:BLP and WP:SOURCE I've removed this information. It can go back in if reliably verified by third party sources and when a consensus is gained. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 13:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , there's a bit of a the wall of text above that falls into the WP:TLDR scope, so I've only been following a bit. I did initially remove this claim when it was first added, see this edit.  We need reliable secondary sources to back up the speculation. We can't use Mariel's own words and put in Wikipedia's voice. If a source exists that can substantiate these claims independently, then we could consider using that. Fwiw, I've not been very active recently, and won't be for another few weeks, but I've worked very extensively on other articles in this suite and I believe I've made a number of edits here as well. In term of defusing, no, that's not the case. Certainly it's been on my watchlist for a long time, which is why I've seen the discussion, and more importantly the edit that reintroduced the information. I can't support its inclusion as written. Victoria (tk) 16:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of secondary sources do you mean? I agree that we definitely should not treat the documentary as a source that proves sexual abuse took place, merely that MH makes these allegations within that documentary. This might be clear already, but if you don't have time to read the rest of the discussion (which I agree is tiresomely long), I am not claiming that the abuse happened, merely that the documentary and MH's claim are notable enough to be included, although very briefly. You were certainly right in reverting the edit you've linked — we don't have enough proof to say that MH "revealed" anything. I am not aware of it being against WP policy to include claims if they come from people who are in the position to make such claims (e.g. a daughter claiming something about her father). I think Woody Allen' and Bing Crosby's articles show how this can be done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, what do you mean with this: "We can't use Mariel's own words and put in Wikipedia's voice."? My version ("In the documentary Running from Crazy (2013), Mariel discusses the family's struggles with mental illness, and states that her parents' marriage was unhappy. She also asserts that during her childhood, she witnessed Hemingway sexually abuse Margaux while drunk. She thinks that he also abused Joan, but does not think she was abused.") clearly states that these are simply MH's views. I don't understand how I've 'put it in WP's voice'? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: P.s - I hadn't noticed there was edit warring here, but when I logged in this morning saw the edit had gone back in and so reverted it per BRD. If you can supply sources that independently substantiate this claim (the WaPo article is a review of the film and uses Mariel's own words) then I'd suggest again adding it to Mariel's page and linking in here. Or you could try writing some text with adequate sourcing and post here to talk, and we can try to achieve consensus. Or, if you think it would survive AfD, you could write an article about the film. Victoria (tk) 17:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Post edit conflict: we need secondary sources that substantiates the claim, I would think. Jack's father Ernest made many many claims and when writing any of the articles I have about him, and taking through FA, I avoid using his own words because there's no way of knowing what is true and what is not true without relying on biographers. I would think in this case maybe more sources might become available with time. Victoria (tk) 17:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting more and more confused — the documentary already has an article, and Barbara Kopple is a pretty established documentary-maker, so why are you talking about an AfD? Also, I don't understand what Ernest Hemingway's character has to do with this? Again, I'm not claiming that MH's claims are true, merely that she is making such serious claims in a reputable documentary, and as such they should be briefly included. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't realize the documentary had an article. Why does this information need to be cross-pollinated on all the pages? I rarely do that, particularly since it's the daughter's claim? Re EH, simply giving an example of why not to use someone's own assertions, that's all. Anyway, carry on. Sorry for interrupting. Victoria (tk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Re:'cross-pollination' — because there is a section about JH's family, and he and his family are the subject of a documentary by Barbara Kopple, a well-known documentary-maker. I think the documentary should at least be mentioned in that section due to this reason. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just re-read the WaPo article and it seems the film is about the daughter, but we might be able to get some information in here about the parents, but it would have to be attributed to the daughter.  If you could link any other sources too, that would be helpful. It's best not to use the film itself as a source, as in the version I reverted. I'll try to look in here when I get back to editing. Victoria (tk) 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's what I've been doing all along, I've attributed these statements to MH all along, I've never added any material claiming the abuse definitely took place. This is why I'm so confused – I'm not saying this in a snarky way (I'm really sorry if it came across that way), but I'm genuinely confused, as it feels to me as if you're talking about the "Mariel Hemingway revealed, etc." edit, rather than mine. The film is from the POV of Mariel (given that she is the only one from in their family alive and well enough to talk), but its topic is mental illness and the 'culture of silence' in the Hemingway family; most of it is about the family in general, not just about her. Since I was merely writing about what she stated in the documentary, I thought the sources I gave (the film, WaPO, CNN) were adequate to demonstrate that she really said these things. All I was trying to do was to demonstrate that she claims these things happened, not that it actually happened, as that's impossible to prove at this stage. Unless Joan Hemingway comes forward, I doubt we're going to have any confirmation of the veracity of these claims, as the child abuse MH describes did not take place in public and hence she and JH are the only alleged witnesses/victims alive.  TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Professor JR, first of all, don't alter other people's messages, as you've done above by highlighting, that's strictly forbidden. Secondly, I was not making personal attacks, I was referring to your actions. On this talk page, you stated that the claims should not be included because you admire Jack Hemingway and have a connection to him and his community, and believe that Mariel Hemingway is a mentally ill, drug addicted, money-hungry liar. These are your opinions, and we should not be making decisions based on anyone's opinions. If you really don't understand what I mean, I suggest comparing the way Victoria has argued her case to how you did, and you should see the difference. You were not only making opinion-based claims on this talk page, but you then added false information to the article and intentionally misquoted the WaPo review. You've not explained your actions in doing so, but try to continue this discussion as if nothing happened. If you do not see how these actions are strictly against WP policy, and don't understand why other editors might oppose anything you say because of actions like these and your inability to admit to them — well, I think you'd be better of writing a blog than WP. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm not making personal attacks, I'm simply repeating what you've written on this talk page and in the article. If you don't want to admit your wrongdoing (adding completely unfounded claims that MH has issues with drugs, and twisting Hank Stuever's words, etc.), that's fine, although it makes me concerned, as such actions violate Wikipedia. This 'discussion' between us is going around in circles, and since it seems there is consensus on how to proceed with the original issue (mention doc, keep claims in MH's/documentary's articles), I see no point in continuing it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I've already explained them above, and can back them up by diffs of your changes – so stop blaming me of making unfounded statements. How about you take a look at my messages above, in which I go through your 'quote' of WaPo for example, and demonstrate how you misquoted the review? Again, it's futile to claim you did not add that material, it's reverted but the archived versions of the articles (this and MH's) show your changes. Again, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond the first sentence, in this version that I reverted, I think there's an over-emphasis on the daughter's pov and the alleged abuse. Keeping the first sentence would be fine, but without more sources, if they exist, there's not a lot more we can do. This article is about the father, it's not terribly long, and that's quite a long quote to add (among other things). I have to go offline now and as I said will keep an eye on it. Victoria (tk) 18:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning re:abuse claims, but I'm fine with just the first sentence being included — would it be ok if I added it back? As for the long quote, I only added it since Professor JR kept reverting my edits, and claimed that Mariel did not say that she witnessed any abuse herself and was merely speculating. I think when you have time, it might be worth reading through the long and frustrating exchange that went between me, Sirlanz and him, it will explain a lot. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's ok. I'd source it the WaPo article though, instead of to the movie, and maybe rephrase so that it's from the pov of the subject of this article and not the daughter. But that's not such a big deal and can always be copyedited. I'll read the screed above when I'm able, but I have been keeping an eye on the article history when I've been able.  Victoria (tk) 21:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the I've slept on this, I think I agree with your reasoning a lot more – I'm happy if we include maybe a mention of the documentary, and then I'll just focus on improving the doc's page, as it's underdeveloped. I simply got too caught up in the drama with Professor JR, whose reasoning for its non-inclusion smacks of whitewashing and taking sides rather than working for the improvement of this encyclopedia (not to even mention his falsifying of what the WaPo article said...). So, my apologies for any drama caused by me, and thank you for your good work :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Break

message: It beginning to look as though you are not really open to any logical discussion on this matter, just zealously bent on cramming this stuff into Wikipedia for reasons that escape me.
But let me try one more time: Can't you understand, TrueHeartSusie3, that your own words in the preceding comment (" she claims "; " not that it actually happened "; " impossible to prove "; " doubt we're going to have any confirmation of the veracity ") are precisely the reason we shouldn't be accepting this text into Wikipedia --- and most certainly not into any other person's bio., other than maybe Mariel's own?? Can you not understand that?? Jack Hemingway's bio. entry is not a blog for discussing the subject of alleged or real child abuse in America, or whatever point you're trying to make here.
And, again, please knock off the personal attacks impuning the motives and intentions of another editor, and the ill-founded accusations of what you call 'COI' --- you really need to take time to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --- Professor JR (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Professor JR, first of all, don't alter other people's messages, as you've done above by highlighting, that's strictly forbidden. Secondly, I was not making personal attacks, I was referring to your actions. On this talk page, you stated that the claims should not be included because you admire Jack Hemingway and have a connection to him and his community, and believe that Mariel Hemingway is a mentally ill, drug addicted, money-hungry liar. These are your opinions, and we should not be making decisions based on anyone's opinions. If you really don't understand what I mean, I suggest comparing the way Victoria has argued her case to how you did, and you should see the difference. You were not only making opinion-based claims on this talk page, but you then added false information to the article and intentionally misquoted the WaPo review. You've not explained your actions in doing so, but try to continue this discussion as if nothing happened. If you do not see how these actions are strictly against WP policy, and don't understand why other editors might oppose anything you say because of actions like these and your inability to admit to them — well, I think you'd be better of writing a blog than WP. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm not making personal attacks, I'm simply repeating what you've written on this talk page and in the article. If you don't want to admit your wrongdoing (adding completely unfounded claims that MH has issues with drugs, and twisting Hank Stuever's words, etc.), that's fine, although it makes me concerned, as such actions violate Wikipedia. This 'discussion' between us is going around in circles, and since it seems there is consensus on how to proceed with the original issue (mention doc, keep claims in MH's/documentary's articles), I see no point in continuing it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I've already explained them above, and can back them up by diffs of your changes – so stop blaming me of making unfounded statements. How about you take a look at my messages above, in which I go through your 'quote' of WaPo for example, and demonstrate how you misquoted the review? Again, it's futile to claim you did not add that material, it's reverted but the archived versions of the articles (this and MH's) show your changes. Again, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond the first sentence, in this version that I reverted, I think there's an over-emphasis on the daughter's pov and the alleged abuse. Keeping the first sentence would be fine, but without more sources, if they exist, there's not a lot more we can do. This article is about the father, it's not terribly long, and that's quite a long quote to add (among other things). I have to go offline now and as I said will keep an eye on it. Victoria (tk) 18:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning re:abuse claims, but I'm fine with just the first sentence being included — would it be ok if I added it back? As for the long quote, I only added it since Professor JR kept reverting my edits, and claimed that Mariel did not say that she witnessed any abuse herself and was merely speculating. I think when you have time, it might be worth reading through the long and frustrating exchange that went between me, Sirlanz and him, it will explain a lot. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's ok. I'd source it the WaPo article though, instead of to the movie, and maybe rephrase so that it's from the pov of the subject of this article and not the daughter. But that's not such a big deal and can always be copyedited. I'll read the screed above when I'm able, but I have been keeping an eye on the article history when I've been able.  Victoria (tk) 21:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the I've slept on this, I think I agree with your reasoning a lot more – I'm happy if we include maybe a mention of the documentary, and then I'll just focus on improving the doc's page, as it's underdeveloped. I simply got too caught up in the drama with Professor JR, whose reasoning for its non-inclusion smacks of whitewashing and taking sides rather than working for the improvement of this encyclopedia (not to even mention his falsifying of what the WaPo article said...). So, my apologies for any drama caused by me, and thank you for your good work :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Parenthetical comment to TrueHeartSusie3