Jump to content

Talk:Bess Myerson: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎"No Jews": new section
Line 112: Line 112:


:::::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.[[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 04:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::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.[[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 04:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== "No Jews" ==

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. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:32, 7 January 2015

Untitled

The "Vote for Cuomo..." quote probably deserves no place in the Edward Koch article. It certainly does not belong here. Wikismile 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's barely pertinent here, unless someone can demonstrate that Meyerson created it, or, I suppose, that her hanging out with Mister Ed was her idea. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 02:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many Jewish Miss Americas have there been? Google can only find Meyerson, at least with my search terms. Wikipedia is not paper; I don't think it's unreasonable to say she's the only Jew ever to be crowned Miss America until there's another one. Certainly it's less misleading. I just don't want to make the change without being certain. &hearts; «Charles A. L.» 03:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I saw somewhere that she was the only Jewish Miss America. And it happened in 1945. Please... Talk about a sentimental/fixed win...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.65.138 (talkcontribs) 13:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Irrelevant. Keep your anti-semitic conspiracy theories off of the discussion board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.244.182 (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speech

The full text of the 1970 speech is inappropriate. An external link would be much more appropriate if one could be found. Khatru2 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who typed and contributed Bess Meyerson's speech. I looked for a link but could find one that contained the speech. I had kept the handout since 1970 when I heard her speak in San Francisco.

For one thing I find it fascinating that Meyerson --who had been a beauty queen-- gave an anti-war speech. How courageous! That's shocking in and of itself--

More importantly, we find ourselves entering the final stages of another unpopular war. There are many comparisons in Bess Meyerson's speech to today's political environment.

The speech is also a window into the style of the anti-war movement in 1970. Quite fascinating. The feeling is there in her words.

User:Samitami.

Discrimination Claim Overstated

I think the discrimination claim by Bess Myerson is overstated. She was elected Miss New York, and thereafter became Miss America. If there had been any serious opposition to a "Miss America" who was Jewish, there was plenty of opportunity to derail her candidacy at an earlier stage of the proceedings, and to do it in a way that would not readily lend itself to a charge of religious discrimination. The conversation with Lenora Slaughter, regarding the proposal to change Myerson's name to something "less Jewish sounding," may be more a reflection of Myerson's perception of it than Slaughter's intention. First of all, I presume that, by the time they had conversation, Myerson already had been elected (it would have made no sense to have the conversation earlier than that). Slaughter may have wished to diffuse any controversy over Myerson's religious beliefs and give Myerson the opportunity to be judged by the public on the merits, without having to constantly refer to the religious issue. Many famous personalities changed their names, including Bert Parks, who was Jewish, and whose name originally was Bert Jacobson.

I am not sure, but I seem to recall that Tawny Godin, the Miss America of 1976, was Jewish.

John Paul Parks (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent ovehaul

Made a number of changes to the article. It was poorly written and contains a number of ambiguities. I have added tags to those areas where vagueness is leaving readers uninformed. I hope to get to looking further into the references and finding the answers to the ambiguousness, if anyone else wants to try and fix it first, have at it. -- WV 05:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "ambiguities." What you did was to remove sourced text on a number of crucial aspects of this biography:
  • You removed the reference to her brother, who died at the age of three. It is standard practice in biographies to mention any siblings.
  • More importantly, you made changes that removed en masse the significance of her winning the Miss America pageant, the first Jewish woman to have done so, at the end of World War II. A paragraph that said as follows:

She was the first and, to date, only Jewish Miss America. Her attaining that title shortly after the end of the Second World War, with the memory of the Holocaust still fresh, was a seminal event for American Jews as an affirmation of the community's acceptance by U.S. society.[1]

... was watered down to read as follows:

At the time of her death, Myerson was the only Jewish Miss America. With World War II just ending and details regarding the atrocities committed against the Jewish people during the Holocaust finally being fully disclosed, Myerson winning the title was seen as a remarkable achievement.[1]

That was sourced to the Times obit[1], which said as follows:

"To many Jews, often blamed for the war by anti-Semites, newly traumatized by images of the liberated Nazi death camps and often confronted by that anti-Semitism in their everyday lives, the title seemed an affirmation of some sort of acceptance in America. 'In the Jewish community, she was the most famous pretty girl since Queen Esther,' Susan Dworkin wrote in 'Miss America, 1945: Bess Myerson’s Own Story,' published in 1987."

This paragraph:

While competing in the Miss America pageant as Miss New York 1945,[1] she refused, despite entreaties, to use a pseudonym that "sounded less Jewish."[5][6] She faced anti-semitism after winning the Miss America title on September 8, 1945, "including the withdrawal of three of the annual beauty pageant’s five sponsors from the arrangement by which the queen would represent the company during her year-long reign."[2][5][6] She later campaigned for civil rights, in particular, working with the Anti-Defamation League.[5]

.. you changed to

While competing as Miss New York in the 1945 Miss America pageant,[1] she had been asked to use a pseudonym that "sounded less Jewish." Myerson refused.[3][6] As a result, controversy arose after she won the title on September 8, 1945, when three of the pageant's five sponsors withdrew from having her represent their companies as Miss America.[2][3][6] Myerson later became a supporter and activist for civil rights, including working with the Anti-Defamation League.[3

All of the material that you removed, without explanation or discussion, is amply supported by the sources, including the New York Times front-page obituary, the LA Times obit, the websites sited and the Dworkin biography, which I have and am starting to utilize to incorporate into the article. I have added a source to the second paragraph and will continue to beef up the "Miss America" section of her biography, which was the subject of the authoritative Dworkin book.

Rather than reverting and removing en masse I would encourage you to discuss any such significant prospective text removals here in talk, rather than slashing away and then posting the vague note that you did above. Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Claim in article that she was a subject of anti-semitism and the Jewish community saw her MA win as a "seminal event". The attached reference says nothing of the kind. Anti-semitism is mentioned, but not in relation to Myerson's win. As well, nothing in the article gives proof that Jewish Americans felt her win was "seminal" nor that her win was affirmation. All the obit says is, "To many Jews...the title seemed an affirmation of some sort of acceptance in America." Note the words "To many Jews" and "seemed". Both qualify for WP:WEASEL status, and neither statements are supported by references. There are no sources attached to either statement that supports these obviously POV, emotional, and hyperbolic claims as being real or anything other than original research and personal opinion by the obit writer. What evidence do we have that the sponsors were actually anti-semitic? None. Both of these claims need to be removed as, even after a BLP article subject dies, WP:BLP policies still apply to the article for up to two years followig the article subject's death. -- WV 21:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RE: The Ha'Eretz reference used to support "anti-semitism": it is also POV. This would need to be supported by a non-biased source. There is no specificity in the article that gives context, just the claim of anti-semitism. Further, in reading throughly both the obituary and the Ha'Eretz article, you have taken WAY too much of both, paraphrased only slightly, and are bordering on plagiarism and WP:COPYVIO with the prose and content you keep reverting back in from those articles. For reasons of borderline plagirism and copyvio along with the reasons per BLP guidelines stated above, I am also removing the content you keep putting back in. -- WV 22:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Of course, discussion from you here is welcome, Coretheapple. Better to actually discuss than run to Jimbo's talk page and complain about, how did you put it? Oh, yeah: "a singularly difficult editor, which raises one of a number of issues I've seen discussed in the past year or so but never acted on. I.e., how to handle bad editors." (see here: [2]) That, in the vein of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, along with your edit warring behavior, plagiarism and copyvios... Doesn't look to good at all. -- WV 22:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The passage in the lead section is clearly supported by the Times article, and your objection to it makes absolutely no sense. You may not like what the Times says, you may think the journalists who wrote it are off base, but it was a front-page times article that easily passes WP:V. You're making more of an WP:IDONTLIKEIT claim more than one that is based on policy.
As for the section in the Miss America passage: I don't see how you can continue to argue against that in good faith. It's supported by all the sources, including the Los Angeles Times, which I added, as well as the websites and Haaretz (not "Ha'Eretz"). The latter source is neither "biased" nor incorrectly used nor "POV," whatever that means in that context, and to claim that "copyvio" or "BLP" is somehow involved in this is simply ridiculous. You clearly do not feel that Ms. Myerson was subject to antisemitism and that all these reliable sources are blowing smoke, but the opinions of Wikipedia editors are not pertinent in such situations. Coretheapple (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My feelings have nothing to do with the article content. In fact, I personally lean toward the anti-semitism claim. But my feelings have nothing to do with fact. The feelings of the writers have nothing to do with fact. Making claims of anti-semitism 70 years after he fact with no real evidence of actual anti-semitism is as stupid and POV as the claims of those saying anyone who didn't vote for Barack Obama did so because they are anti-Black. And yes, you did lift content from those articles. It's easy to see. So no, not ridiculous at all. I stand by my statements above. -- WV 22:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, plainly you have not read and/or comprehended the sources and are in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode, so I see no point in repeating myself. Coretheapple (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-AGF and personal attack from you and lobbed in my direction noted. If you are truly interested in cooperatively editing the article in a collegial manner and having a real discussion, you will change your tone. I keep hoping. -- WV 23:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A source reads: "To many Jews, often blamed for the war by anti-Semites, newly traumatized by images of the liberated Nazi death camps and often confronted by that anti-Semitism in their everyday lives, the title seemed an affirmation of some sort of acceptance in America." Supported by that source we can write: "Myerson's winning the title of Miss America took on heightened significance in light of newly emerging information about the Holocaust." Bus stop (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that can be added to what's there now. Coretheapple (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it but not necessarily integrated it. My wording may duplicate wording already there, therefore adjacent sentences may have to be rewritten. Bus stop (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged two sentences and added a reference to the Times obit. Coretheapple (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... which was, I see, quickly reverted by Winkelvi, contrary to talk page consensus and without discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors using an article talkpage during the early morning hours and not waiting for other article editors to weigh in is not consensus building. What you added was essentially an echo of what already existed, creating a ridiculous redundancy. For that reason, and because there was no true consensus, is why it was taken out. -- WV 17:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The correct procedure is to discuss, not to edit war. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The correct procedure in consensus building is to wait for others to join in, not take your opinion and the comments of another editor and call it consensus. Consensus building takes time, not minutes, usually hours or days. -- WV 17:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added material from NPR concerning her lecture series, which began in reaction to the antisemitism she encountered touring the country as Miss America. It belongs, clearly, in the Miss America section, not in the section dealing with her work as a TV game show regular. I have moved it there and changed the title to reflect that, even though I don't feel it's strictly necessary. If you feel differently, here's the place to discuss it, not in edit summaries you geneerate while edit-warring. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quotefarm

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"No Jews"

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)[reply]