Template:Did you know nominations/Betty May

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Betty May[edit]

(

)

~~... that bohemian and artist's model Betty May was known as the Tiger Woman?~~

Reviewed: Self nomination, one of my first five.

Created by Philafrenzy (talk), Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 11:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

Oh, come on. There's a libel suit, a sensational murder involving a diamond heiress, a mysterious disappearance, a Dickensian childhood... please let's have a really good hook. EEng (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it was done in a hurry to meet the deadline. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well remember, DYK has the idiotic 7-day deadline to remind us all that slapdash work done in a hurry is valued over careful work done at leisure. EEng (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the hook, not the article. Not that I am saying the article is perfect of course. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

How about "That Betty May testified against Aleister Crowley, claiming her husband had ritually sacrificed a cat and drank its blood? It's more interesting. Too grim? *edited*Bali88 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that he was forced exactly. He could have left at any time. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

How's that?

It's hard to choose with this one -- everywhere you turn there's something like 'Smokey Joe's, "a non-alcoholic speakeasy-cum-lesbian pub" '. Take your time. EEng (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And I haven't even finished putting it all in yet! Philafrenzy (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us know when you're done and we'll have an orgy of sensational hooks to choose from. EEng (talk) 19: 33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an extraordinary tale isn't it? Not least that she was accused of attempted murder by her mother in law and put it in her book! Philafrenzy (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this again. Now I'm even more at sea. Though in a weird way it makes me ill to read. Give me a day. EEng (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a fascinating but not very wholesome story indeed. And the last 30 or 40 years of her life are missing for lack of sources. One can only speculate how many more marriages there were and how many more deaths and what she did during the Second World War. The Nicholson book indicates at least one more marriage but without details. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Alt 1 for hook ... that Betty May learned one new thing while on her honeymoon – to take drugs?
Alt 2 for hook ~~... that Betty May escaped a "white slaver", joined the L'Apache criminal gang, and learned to use knives and fight bare knuckled?~~ Atsme☯^Consult 18:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I like Alt 1, it's pithy. Alt 2 is not so good because she may have exaggerated her adventures in France. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

To me, the drug angle is kind of "meh". I've done drugs too, it doesn't make me interesting. Also, the way that I look at it, the hook should include some clue as to who she was too. She's not exactly a household name. I can't be the only one who didn't know who Betty May was. Imagine looking at the front page and seeing a hook that says "John Smith did drugs on his honeymoon". I would be like, who is this person and why do I care? Bali88 (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

ALT 3 ~~... that Tiger Woman Betty May was described as a "savage" and a "wicked woman" by her own family?~~ Philafrenzy (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I really like Alt 3, it hooks deep. Atsme☯^Consult

I like the one I suggested earlier. Name dropping, sacrificing cats, definitely gets your attention! lol

Alt 4 ... that Betty May testified against Aleister Crowley, claiming her husband Raoul Loveday had ritually sacrificed a cat and drank its blood? Bali88 (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added the Jack the Ripper material because why not? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Alt4 is cited to the Daily Express, and the hook rightly says she just claimed it happened, not that it did. However, I would add Raoul Loveday by name, otherwise the reader might assume that Crowley was her husband. The sourcing, to me, seems a little weak - her own autobiography, if you believe what is written in the article, probably doesn't come across as being particularly trustworthy, other than just stating her own beliefs and views. There are also quite a few unsourced paragraphs. Just because all the major players are dead (although for May herself we can't even reliably prove that!), doesn't mean we shouldn't take a conservative view to what happened (and I like cats). Maybe EEng can pull a dramatic hook out of the bag that would put Agatha Christie to shame, but otherwise, I think this needs a bit more work first. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the cat business may not be reliable. I don't see any unreferenced paras, though a few don't have a ref immediately at the end. If she's not dead she would be 121! Philafrenzy (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant end of paragraphs are unsourced. I think it's reasonable to assume she's dead and BLP does not apply, I'm just surprised we can't pin the year of death down more definitively. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We know almost nothing after 1935 when she completely disappeared. Even her publishers lost track of her until 1955 when we have the Kent references. One, not reliable, source said that she had been "traced to 78" and a grave in Chatham had been found but I was unsure whether they meant age 78 or 1978, hence the vagueness in the article. One can only speculate what happened in the last 40 years of her life based on the first 40. I would particularly like to know what she did during World War II. She would probably have made a good Mata Hari type spy! Philafrenzy (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Checked the source and the above should have read "lived until 86" which I have added to the article. Still not sure of the accuracy of the statement though. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I read she was Eleanor Roosevelt's lesbian lover. BTW I believe WP policy allows us to treat as not-a-BLP anyone reliably known to have been born at least 115 years ago (WP:BDP). EEng (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

ALT5 ... that though the Tiger Woman did not testify at the book reviewer's trial for murder of the writer, in the occultist's suit against the Queen of Bohemia she said her husband drank a sacrificed cat's blood?

That's 199. EEng (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we simplify that one a bit? I think we may lose the reader with the length. Also, I prefer to name Crowley by name. I think more people would click on that. I wouldn't know who was being referred to by "the occultist". Bali88 (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the idea was to intrigue via the list of weird entanglements and incidents. (It's unfortunate that it's the reviewer who killed the writer, since the homicidal fantasies usually run in the opposite direction.) While there's plenty of raw material here, for some reason I'm having trouble really absorbing the gestalt of this article's subject (maybe some evil spirits or something) so I'm not sure I can do better. But feel free to modify as you want. EEng (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And I think I like ALT3 better. EEng (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So where does it stand? Is it ready for the que? I still like Alt 3 best.

I don't think it has actually been reviewed. Given the length of the article and the number of offline or subscription only sources, I do not envy the reviewer who might be well advised to buy the book! Philafrenzy (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking...Spinning Spark 17:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We have paramedics standing by. If you open any exquisite teak tobacco boxes and a sharp little spring like a viper's tooth pops out and draws blood GET HELP! YOU'VE BEEN POISONED! EEng (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If you feel ill reviewing it, just put your head between your knees and take deep breaths. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Date and length OK. No POV or copyvios found. I find it strange that QPQ is not required for an editor with so many DYK credits. I presume you think you are exempt because most of your credits were nominated by Edwardx not you as creator. This could be viewed as gaming the system, but in any case, a strict reading of the exemption rule is "fewer than five DYK credits" not "fewer than five DYK nominations". I think given your experience here the spirit of the rule is that you should comply with QPQ whatever the wikilawyers make of the rules.

All hooks are OK for length and cites, ALT3 agf on offline source. I'm not going to say too much on hook preference, that has already been talked to death above, except I do not think ALT3 should be approved. It combines two comments from two different people, one when the subject was a small child, one as a grown woman. It is a bad case of WP:SYNTH to put them together, and to boot they put the subject in negative light without actually containing a fact. SpinningSpark 20:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is way overboard as an application of SYNTH. Nothing is being synthesized. If anything it might be WP:UNDUE, but hooks by their very nature are supposed to shine the spotlight on one tiny aspect. It's fine. I'd like you to reconsider, and please others should weigh in. EEng (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If this were in a BLP we wouldn't give it the time of day so I don't see why we should have it on the front page. Your "one tiny aspect" comment is not relevant, the hook is a synthesis of two elements. So no, I'm not going to reconsider, but it is not a show stopper, there are plenty of other hooks to choose from. SpinningSpark 00:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review SYNTH, and then explain, in terms of what it says there, what conclusion is being synthesized in ALT3. EEng (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Someone said something nasty about her when she was a child PLUS someone else said something nasty (but different) about her decades later IMPLIES she is a nasty person. Two gossips don't make a fact. SpinningSpark 07:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So, by your logic, if the hook just said one of these two things, then it wouldn't be SYNTH and it would be OK? That's ridiculous. EEng (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly my logic, but I still wouldn't like it if it said just one thing and would prefer another hook was used. SpinningSpark 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that really is ridiculous. EEng (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The objective of that one was simply to intrigue, but perhaps we can think of another hook. On gaming the system, I was unaware that there could be any possible suggestion of that. I have nominated a few of my own but mostly Edwardx does that and the reviewing. If that's not right somebody will need to explain how it should be done as I thought that was fine. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A side discussion in which EEng gets muddled

The hook we should discuss here. Raise the "gaming" question at TDYK. EEng (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

QPQ is a requirement and hence part of the review. It is even in the toolbox. A strict reading of the rules says QPQ is required from this editor, hence it is not a pass at this time. I am happy to give my views at TDYK on the gaming issue if someone wants to start a thread. SpinningSpark 00:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you, but to Philafrenzy. You already said you weren't gonna worry about the QPQ issue so, no, there's nothing more to discuss about that here. But since you bring it up, QPQ applies to self-noms only. EEng (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a self-nom and QPQ is an issue. SpinningSpark 07:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

My mistake -- I read the credits/nom wrong. Nonetheless you said you weren't gonna worry about it. EEng (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Since EEng has collapsed the above discussion, let me say again outside it what I said inside. Failure to do a QPQ is the essence of my failing the nom, not the hook issue since another hook can be chosen. I have never said I was not going to worry about the QPQ issue despite EEng twice making that claim, and again in the edit summary hiding the thread. Please do not make that claim again unless accompanied by a diff of where I said it. SpinningSpark 17:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

(a) Why didn't you just uncollapse rather than recapitulating

(b) If I (mistakenly) misstated your position TWICE, why didn't you say so before?

Again, can we have BlueMoonset or Crisco 1492 resolve the QPQ issue, and maybe another reviewer for the rest? This is a ridiculous waste of time. EEng (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:DYKHN it doesn't say anything about not combining facts from the article, only that the fact must be mentioned and cited with an inline citation to a reliable source. The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation to a reliable source since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. It also states When you write the DYK item (or "hook") please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. An interesting hook is more likely to draw in a variety of readers. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content. Alt 3 meets the requirements. The fact doesn't have to be stated verbatim in the hook. Atsme☯^Consult 05:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's fine to combine facts, but not in such a way as to imply a conclusion not found in the source. SpinningSpark 07:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The point of that hook is to cause people to ask "was she really a savage and a wicked woman?" and want to read the article to find out. Incidentally, her own autobiography was the source for both quotes. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help me understand how you've concluded the Alt3 hook does not include a fact mentioned in the article? Her aunt described her as "a regular little savage" and ...her mother-in-law who said "Oh you foul, wicked woman, you're killing my son". No ambiguity there. The Alt 3 hook does indeed mention a fact from the article which is reliably sourced. The fact is that "Betty May was described as....", not that she actually fit the description. In fact, the Alt 3 hook is what enticed me into a closer review of the article. Atsme☯^Consult 14:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Spinningspark, please review the essay WP:SYNTHNOT. I'm pinging some of the big guns: BlueMoonset, Crisco 1492 and (seat belts fastened!) The Rambling Man. Oh, and Belle, since she'll liven the proceedings. EEng (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme. I don't dispute these passages are in the book. It is running them together that I find objectionable. I might be persuaded that the source was making the same implication if they were close together in the book, but they are not, they are hundreds of pages apart. My comment on them not being facts was not meant to imply that it is not a fact that someone said them. What I meant was someone saying something nasty or insulting about a person does not amount to a substantive encyclopaedic fact about the person. How many parents have said to their child "you little devil" or something similar? It's a commonplace amounting to a whole heap of nothing. SpinningSpark 17:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but its an intriguing hook! It's obvious to the reader that we are not saying that they are encyclopedic facts. They are separate statements in quotes and readers will understand that they will likely get a more nuanced story when they read the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't get it. Wait for others to arrive. EEng (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Who doesn't get it? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

S.S., with his nonsense about SYNTH. EEng (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

[Puff of purple smoke. A smell of exotic spices fills the air] What!? What? I was sleeping in my bottle and now I am summoned to grant wishes? Very well. Alacazam! Yes, I must agree it is not synthesis and also it is harmless as a hook; it isn't inaccurate and the reader won't feel outraged when they learn the details. I'd expand the quotes to "regular little savage" and "foul wicked woman" myself, but I actually prefer ALT2 (maybe that's because it almost mirrors my own life; I learned to use knives with forks and none of the other stuff, but aside from that it's identical). A slightly modified ALT2 as...

ALT6 ~~... that Betty May claimed she had escaped a "white slaver", joined the L'Apache criminal gang and learned to fight with knives?~~ Belle (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though I doubt the truthfulness of all three of those claims! But that can be dealt with in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why this hook issue has become so controversial and why others are being called in. It is perfectly normal, even expected, for reviewers to say which hook they think should be used when there is a choice. I have not even been that explicit, declining only one. For the record, I agree with Belle that ALT2 is a good choice. SpinningSpark 23:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Controversial because you've raised a nonsense SYNTH objection to the hook most favor. Having said that, I might even like A2 more at this point, but the hook will need to be converted to make it clear these are only by her own reports since (I recall, though no time to look now) they're from her own writings or others quoting her without independent attribution. We can't make this kind of statement as flat fact, even in the hook. 23:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why I added "she claimed" in ALT6 (that's what I am claiming anyway, and you can't disprove it without getting inside my mind; get out of my mind!) Belle (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I was in too much of a hurry. ALT6 is fine. EEng (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

On the QPQ point, as far as I can recall I have not done more than five nominations. All the others where I have been a contributor have been nominated by someone else and they have done the review. I don't want to be seen to be trying to circumvent any rules so I won't do any more self-noms in future. Hope that's OK. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You could always do a review, then you couldn't possibly be accused of trying to circumvent the rules and all the DYK regulars would gather round and give you big hugs/sloppy kisses/firm handshakes/nods of appreciation (please select one; offer can not be redeemed in conjunction with any other promotions; terms and conditions apply). Belle (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

"You could always do a review" -- Belle, that's like a vampire saying, "Hey, come be a vampire! It's fun!" just before biting the neck. Do you think it's right to condemn yet another innocent to our hell-on-earth of endless roaming among the noms and hooks and pulls and debates over how many sets per day? A stake through your heart, Belle! EEng (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, vampires do live forever so there would be a chance of clearing the backlog. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I just read this again and I think it's sooo amusing! I think I scared the reviewer off. EEng (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing does keep you forever young and beautiful though (What? Really? That's just me? Wow!) although the drawback of never seeing the sun is much the same as being a vampire, and, of course, needing to bathe in the blood of virgins (What? Really? That's just me again? Wow!) You can't kill a DYK reviewer with a stake through the heart though; it's a strike through the ALT that does for us. Belle (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no experience of reviewing, Belle. Having met plenty of Wikipedians I am sorry to say I wouldn't go further than a friendly nod in most cases, and I am sure the feeling is mutual. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There are currently two tags on the article. One about the lead which is easy to fix (I will try later) and another requesting third party sources. Do these have to be fixed before it can go ahead? (assuming there is any chance that will happen) Based on my research, I think it very unlikely that any significant new sources will be found. People simply didn't write long pieces about people like her. In fact, after Tiger Woman, the next longest piece about her is probably our article. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This bring us to one of my favorite hot buttons, which is the idea that DYK articles are supposed to be blemish-free. As far as I'm concerned it's fine for those banners to be there -- of the 1000s who click during the main-page appearance, maybe one will say, "Hey! I remember reading about her in such-and-such obscure journal, and I can add the needed refs!" By just removing the banner, or (worse) shoring up appearances by throwing in some half-baked weak sources (and then removing the banner) we're throwing away that opportunity. So I say let that one stay (but fix the lead thing, please).

Suggestion:

ALT6A ~~... that the Tiger Woman claimed she had escaped a "white slaver", then joined the L'Apache criminal gang and learned to fight with knives?~~

EEng (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Good one EEng, got my attention. I also agree with what you stated about bringing collaboration to the article. I think it has already begun. Atsme☯^Consult 21:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

New reviewer needed. Have struck ALT2 and ALT6 in favor of ALT6A, and the original hook as not very interesting. Reviewer should specify which hooks are okay and strike the others. As over 50 edits have been made since the most recent review, quite significant in aggregate, some general checks should be made as well as specific hook-related checks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will take one for the team and attempt a review. The article was new enough when this saga began. It is well and truly long enough. I'll waive QPQ, as I don't believe the nominator's prowess at attracting nominations should be held against them. All the hooks that have not been struck are acceptable, though I like ALT5 best. (I tweaked a couple slightly.) I am concerned about how much of the article is sourced to May's autobiography. Entire paragraphs and near-entire sections stated in Wikipedia's voice are sourced only to the subject's say-so. Primary sources are fine here and there, but the relevant policy makes clear that this level of reliance is inappropriate. Compounding the issue, many of the autobiography's claims are sensational, and the article itself calls the autobiography's reliability as a source into question. If you can't convince me that I'm totally off base here, much of what's currently sourced to the autobiography will have to be removed or re-sourced. I can't support this appearing on the main page otherwise. Lagrange 613 03:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point and sorry about the length. I am not sure that it is as hyped up as you suggest. She really did have quite a sensational life and there is much for which there is independent verification from newspapers or court cases. Where I did not have that verification I minimised, excluded or worded accordingly. (The biography is over 200 pages long, our article 2-3 printed) I agree the biography is a primary source but one of the surprising points about it in fact was how much of it I was able to independently verify. I think a few of the sections could do with a good dose of "according to" and "for which there is no independent verification" etc and I will do that. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

From what you say it sounds like a lot more stuff like "According to May herself..." and so on may need to be added (or maybe some more general disclaimer for certain sections). But I think we can hold that in abeyance for now. EEng (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added some general disclaimers, deleted a little, added some refs and changed the wording slightly, particularly to sections previously mainly sourced from the autobiography. It may need more but take a look now please. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed from my watchlist that you were making lots of changes. I've hit a bit of a busy patch, but I should be able to take a look over the weekend. Looking forward to it. Lagrange 613 03:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Watch out for poisoned darts and DO NOT DRINK THE CAT'S BLOOD! EEng (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I thank Philafrenzy for their continued work on the article. After reviewing it thoroughly I think several spots need more than disclaimers in the mode of "According to May..." and "... but there's no independent verification". If these precede or follow long passages then it still sounds like Wikipedia's voice making the claims. And to reiterate, by May's own admission, she did not write her autobiography, and much of it is false. These pieces of text need to be verified independently, pared to just the length required for continuity with the rest of the article, or eliminated entirely. Here are the parts that jumped out at me:

The stories in the Café Royal section from before her Café Royal days
Her exploits in France
Her suitors Richard and Dick
Her relationship with Roy
Her marriage to Carol

The article also requires a source other than May for her being the model for The Sphinx. Also, there are a lot of Bunnies running around (her friend from the Royal Café, her first husband, the author of Dope-Darling) and I think the article could also benefit from more explicit differentiation between them. As a reader I want to be sure which Bunny is which. Lagrange 613 18:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The autobiography was written in conjunction with one of her journalist friends and a lot of it is verifiable so I think the correct view is not so much that it was fabricated as that it was exaggerated for effect in places. The difficulty, as you say, is giving the correct weight to the relevant sections. I will see what I can do further on that score. I have tried to disambiguate the bunnies. I don't think we have an alternative source for her being the model for The Sphinx but I don't find that claim to be incredible. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll let the Sphinx thing slide. You might get pinged about it at GA, but it's not a big enough thing for DYK, especially since as you say it's credible. But the rest of the WP:V/WP:NPOV issues do need work. We can't feature sensational claims backed by nothing but the subject's say-so on the main page. Lagrange 613 22:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There may be still be problems along these lines, but as long as they don't affect the hook they're really outside the scope of a DYK review. I'm amazed Pf has held on this long. This article is ready for its moment in the spotlight. EEng (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. The eligibility criteria of the rules pertain to article content and mention WP:V and WP:NPOV specifically. Lagrange 613 22:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, correct. Even V's injunction re questionable sources ("Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves") makes these sources at least facially valid, and there's no BLP issue here. This isn't the place to work these details out EEng (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, you conveniently left out the next two words, which link to WP:ABOUTSELF, which refutes you and which makes no distinction between BLPs and other articles. If you'd like to see this review completed favorably, stop trying to convince me that core content policies don't say what they say and start editing the article to comply with them. Lagrange 613 03:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "of course", and as for "conveniently", the word "carelessly" would be more accurate. My apologies. Nonetheless the level of scrutiny being exercised here is well beyond what's typically seen at DYK, and a good example of the spinning wheel of random chance on the mercy of which one throws oneself when making a DYK nomination. EEng (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to add a few more caveats and rewordings but I think those sections already include clear statements that there is no independent verification. I think it is the "voice" that probably needs addressing. It's also worth pointing out, I think, that nobody is pushing any particular POV or angle here. This is a dead woman, but I do understand your concerns. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your flexibility. I didn't mean to suggest that you or anyone else was pushing a POV. Rather, I thought NPOV a pertinent topic given the money that's set to be made over this woman's life by the producers of Tiger Woman: The Musical or what have you. That production has every incentive to exaggerate and fabricate that she had, so it behooves us to be certain we have our facts straight. Lagrange 613 00:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone connected with the musical made a few minor edits to the article at the start but that is all so I don't believe they are exerting any influence. The sources for the article are all unconnected with the musical, though it is true that I would never have written the article if they had not caused the book to be republished. I paid full price on Amazon for my copy, for the avoidance of doubt! Philafrenzy (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have trimmed the sections mentioned above and tried to change the voice and add some more disclaimers. I hope it is OK now as I am starting to feel like one of Betty May's husbands - losing the will to live. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Here, drink this potion and run seven times around the seven hills of Rome. EEng (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I fear not even that will get this DYK through to the end. I am starting to know how Hercules felt. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your recent round of edits accomplished what I asked for for the pre-Café Royal stories about her teacher and the German woman, sort of half-accomplished it for Carol, and didn't address the other three areas. I don't know how I could have been clearer that disclaimers do not suffice here. These stories need to be verified independently, pared to just the length required for continuity with the rest of the article, or eliminated entirely. I am loathe to give specific instructions, because it's not in the spirit of DYK and I don't want to impose my own style on this well written article. But, for example, the section on France could be replaced with a summary like "May claimed in her autobiography to have received her nickname from the leader of the L'Apache Gang, a criminal organization she claimed to have become involved with in Paris. There is no independent verification of her involvement with this gang, or indeed of any travels to France around this time." Something like this would preserve the story's import for the rest of the article while removing the specific unverified, sensational claims. If you don't want to remove all reference to the stories that really don't have much import for the article (for example, Richard and Dick) I would accept brief mentions in the section on her autobiography, as long as it's clear that they are examples of the sorts of unverifiable claims she made rather than parts of her biography that we place on anything close to equal footing with what's attributed within the article to reliable sources. Lagrange 613 13:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't agree that the disclaimers aren't enough. They are explicit and placed in each relevant section. On Paris, for instance, we can hardly exclude from the article her own account of how she came to be called the "Tiger Woman", it would make a nonsense of the article, and it is made quite clear in the section that there are other explanations. I will have a further look at it over the next couple of days but should that fail to satisfy you then I think the nomination should be closed. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please also take a look at WP:ABOUTSELF. The article repeats claims that are self-serving and exceptional (#1) and involve third parties (#2) from a source that is known to be ghost-written and fabricated (#4). There's not an exception in that policy for putting in lots of disclaimers. Sorting through reliable and unreliable sources is the editors' job, not the readers'. Lagrange 613 14:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing autobiographies with self-published sources. Tiger Woman is not a self-published book, it was published (1929) (and edited) by Duckworth, a publisher with a high reputation. I acknowledge that it was part ghost written and she called the content into doubt herself, but I don't find it an inherently unreliable source. Large parts of it are verifiable. It is more a source that need to be used with care and with heavy disclaimers and caveats where they seem warranted such as the sections you correctly identify above. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pf is entirely right about this. Even a source of questionable-or-worse reliability may be used for statements as to what that source claims -- assuming that such material servers the reader's understanding of the subject, which in this case it does because BM's mythology and mystery is a significant part of understanding her. This is not an appeal to any "exception" to WP:V, but rather clear thinking about what it is we're verifying -- a flat statement of fact versus statements BM claimed as fact, appropriately qualified as such in the article. It may even be that the article's way of making that clear could be more prominent or more effective, but perfecting such details is not a requirement here. It's adequate right now and that's enough for DYK.

I think it would be a shame for the nom to be closed over this issue. I summon the overburdened BlueMoonset to opine. Opine! Opine! OPINE, O BlueMoonset! EEng (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And you get me. Sorry. And... I am of the opinion that we still need to be careful with statements cited only to primary sources (which, no matter how we dice it, the ghost-written biography should probably be treated as); it is easy to make extravagant claims (I, after all, once went nine rounds with a drunk bear riding Vladimir Putin [please decide if you like that better with a hyphen or without it, as I did both]), but not so easy to get them repeated and discussed by others. ALT1 and 3 are both interesting sound bites, but are ultimately still from a work which was (at least in part) promotional. What about contrasting Powell's description of her with the drugs, alcohol, and marriages (and others)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned (somewhere) above that I like ALT5. Hook facts that can only be attributed to the autobiography are out, but I thought I'd wait on striking them until I approved the nomination so Pf would have a chance to verify those parts independently. Lagrange 613 17:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I should have made it clear that I believe we should hold the hook to a much higher standard than the article (at least for DYK purposes), but nonetheless as long as the hook begins "in her autobio, BM claimed", there's no reason we can't put even something pretty outrageous (as long as there's no BLP implication) e.g. ALT6A. In any event, I modestly agree that ALT5 is pretty hooky, and solidly sources, if I recall correctly. Can we all settle on ALT5? EEng (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC) P.S. If we speed this up a bit, this nom might be ready for Halloween 2015.

I like ALT5, but I feel it could be clearer (while still keeping the obfuscation). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's now or never for Halloween 2014. How about:
ALT7: ... that rumor had it that Betty May's husband ritually sacrificed a cat and drank its blood? Yoninah (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, why not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the incident is described in detail in Tiger Woman, and she insisted under oath in court that it happened. Crowley was equally insistent that it didn't. I am not sure rumour is the right word. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so:
ALT8: ... that Betty May testified under oath that her husband had ritually sacrificed a cat and drunk its blood? Yoninah (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely factually correct, she did. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, are we satisfied re the sourcing issues debated above, and all agreed we can go ahead with this latest hook (small ce below) now?

ALT8A: ... that Betty May testified under oath that her husband ritually sacrificed a cat and drank its blood?

EEng (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap, three months?!. I say Alt4, which apparently has no remaining strikes against it and catches my attention a hell of a lot more than the stripped versions. But frankly, haven't we put the author through enough already?! Run it already! Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of prolonging that agony... how would you feel about ALT5 again? EEng (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've taken care of my remaining qualms with the article myself so as to spare us all further rounds of this. I'm striking hooks that are just her sensational claims and not verifiable independent of her autobiography. The closer is free to choose among the remaining hooks (alts 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8A). I like 5 the best, because I think it beckons the reader in the most, and that's the point. No offense, but I like 7 the least—surely this article's subject should be the sentence's subject. Lagrange 613 03:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)