Talk:Rosemary Tonks

message: I did the last Dictionary of Literary Biography entry on Rosemary Tonks, and I can tell you that there is no public record of her after 1984, which is the year that she stopped contributing information to Writer's Directories. I looked everywhere for a trace of her, but I didn't find anything. I don't think that she "disappeared" since there is no evidence of that either. I'd say that she simply stopped writing and stopped being a writer, given the evidence available. One article speculates that her spiritual journey caused her silence and so I made use of that, but there is no direct evidence that this is how Tonks felt, other than a passage about her growing disillusionment in her last novel, The Halt During the Chase. Tonks' precise reasons for withdrawing from the public world remain known only to herself. 
Jrak 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think the best way to proceed would be to state the facts exactly as we have them -- she stopped writing (or at least publishing), stopped contributing to directories, and various people in the literary world have tried to track her down but failed -- without jumping to conclusions about her fate or speculating about her motives. What does everyone else think? Perodicticus 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible answer

message: Poetlister, as you seem very attached to the word "disappeared," I would like to suggest that the article be changed to read "disappeared from the public eye" or "from the literary scene." This would keep the notion of "disappearance" without misleading the reader as to the nature of the disappearance. Would this be acceptable to you? Perodicticus 11:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree that it is a good idea, provided a reputable source says it.  Otherwise, it would violate WP:NOR.  "Disappeared" isn't my word - it's what the sources say. --Poetlister 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume we don't have any sources talking of unsolved police cases, or stating that she is officially a "missing person"?  In this case, it is probably reasonably to interpret "disappeared" as "disappeared from the public eye" and it would also be reasonable to clarify the article text to reflect this.  To my mind this would not constitute original research.  To further clarify we could include in a footnote the exact text which simply uses the word "disappeared".  Does this sound ok?? Stumps 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I've had a closer look at the article and it seems we are close to this, with the detailed footnotes already there.  My interpretation of the sources is that she became "untraceable". I think the word "disappeared" has too many interpretations.  Am I right in thinking there is only one primary source for this information, i.e. the contributor's note in the anthology?? Has anybody tried to contact the editor of the anthology and ask what the original source for this information is?? Stumps 10:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no earthly need to insist on police records to prove disappearance.  Is anyone suggesting that Ambrose Bierce didn't disappear?  I'd say Poetlister is bending over backwards to make everyone happy.  Let's accept what she says and be done with it.--Brownlee 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's excellent. Good work! Perodicticus 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible compromise?

message: Wikipedia:Guide to layout Mostly this seems to be followed, but it does allow for section order to be changed by poets and mathematicians. Tyrenius 18:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: Since the only "users" supporting Tonks' description as a "disappeared person" in the earlier discussion were apparently all sockpuppets of a single user who has since been banned, would anyone object if Tonks were removed from the "Disappeared people" category? For reasons discussed at length above, she really does not seem to fit the criteria. Perodicticus 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "disappeared" category may be a little melodramatic. Still, Tonks has disappeared from general public view, though there's some evidence that she may have maintained contact with her literary agency. If and when she resurfaces in public, we could remove the category. For now, though, the category still seems somewhat appropriate. Casey Abell 16:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories should be based on article content. The only observation on her whereabouts in the article is by Andrew Motion, who says she "disappeared", so that would seem to justify the category. Tyrenius 16:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Motion admits his complete ignorance of the situation, so it seems pretty far-fetched to hang even a Wikipedia category on his comments. But Tonks does seem to have dropped from public sight, though a poetry editor says her literary agency assured him in 2000 that she was still alive. As long as she stays out of public view, I'd keep the category, but not because of what Motion says. Casey Abell 16:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't accept that, then there is no justification for the category.  Otherwise she is simply keeping a very low profile. The lack of presence doesn't justify the assertion of disappearance, unless there is a source to say so.  So category goes then. Tyrenius 17:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if we're only hanging the category on Motion's comments, then maybe it should go. By his own admission, Motion has no knowledge of the supposed "disappearance." We could change the category to "Possibly living people." Casey Abell 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories should be totally justified by the article per WP:BLP#Categories. I've looked at some people in :Category:Possibly living people.  It includes some people whose birth date is unknown, some who have been declared legally dead, some who are believed to be dead.  I'm not sure Tonks can be presumed to be anything other than alive by sources available. Tyrenius 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Everyone seems agreed on the facts relating to Rosemary Tonks; the problem is the meaning of :Category:Disappeared people.  This discussion should be moved to Category talk:Disappeared people.  There are too many poorly-specified categories in Wikipedia; editors should not take a Category as a tablet of stone handed down from on high.  If a category is vague, it should be clarified; if it is unworkable, it should be deleted (not just removed from articles, but WP:CFDed). jnestorius(talk) 01:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disappeared" categorisation revisited 

message: If anyone is still monitoring this page they may be interested to know, possibly already do, that BBC Radio 4 has a new short series titled "Lost Voices", introduced by Brian Patten. Tonks will be the subject of the next episode - broadcast on March 29 at 16:30 and repeated the following Saturday. Perhaps this will inspire some new interest in her work and whereabouts. I discovered her poems in a very early issue of Transatlantic Review (#2 from 1959)and was surprised to see in the biog note that an exceptionally talented poet that I had never heard of before had been a London based writer of children's stories - and much the same note when she published several more poems in TR#7 a year or so later. Altcult101 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost Voices

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rosemary Tonks. 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/20061002070734/http://www.theindexer.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=44 to http://www.theindexer.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=44
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061113220506/http://www.poems.com/essaodri.htm to http://www.poems.com/essaodri.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201092120/http://www.bartleby.com/66/6/61406.html to http://www.bartleby.com/66/6/61406.html
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) 16:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified