Talk:Barbara Newhall Follett

Wow

Hunh. According to this MetaFilter thread, this page shows that the copyright for The House Without Windows was renewed by one Mrs. Nickerson Rogers... in 1954. Mrs. Nickerson Rogers would be Barbara Follett's married name.

It does set the mind to wondering, although I suppose there's some prosaic explanation. Herostratus (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw that. I would think it was done by Barbara Follett's heirs, namely Nickerson Rogers. Either that, or by the publisher in the name of Barbara Follett. I agree it makes you wonder, but if she actually renewed her copyright for whatever reason, I would assume she wouldn't use her married name, especially after 15 years. Nairebis (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi from Wikisource. Do you know the copyright status for The House Without Windows? Is it in public domain next year? I would like to proofread it on Wikisource. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Zoeannl:, I don't. But if you go to https://farksolia.org/ and scroll to the bottom, there's contact info for her biographer, he'll probably know or know who would. Herostratus (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Barbara Newhall Follett.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Barbara Newhall Follett.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara Newhall Follett. 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/20110727132452/http://m.npr.org/news/Arts+&+Life/132135938?singlePage=true to http://m.npr.org/news/Arts+%26+Life/132135938?singlePage=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

sources

• https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/a-place-of-vanishing-finding-barbara-newhall-follett/ — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

  Mnmh. The gist of that article is that Barbara Newhall Follet may be a corpse found in New Hampshire in 1948. Pretty sure we can't use that tho, as it's written by Daniel Mills, a novelist with (I suppose) no forensic credentials, and he gives no source -- it comes off as rank woolgathering speculation on his part. It probably isn't, since at the end of the article he says

  The author extends his deepest thanks to Stefan Cooke and Laura Smith for their assistance in researching this article. He is likewise grateful to Richard Jantz, PhD, for his help with stature calculations. Finally, he acknowledges the assistance of the New Hampshire State Library, the New Hampshire State Archives, the New Hampshire Cold Case Unit, the Plymouth Historical Society, and the Countway Library of Medicine at Harvard University.

  Those people or entities, or some of them, would have forensic chops, and clearly are the source of the speculation regarding the 1948 corpse. The problem is, Mills doesn't quote any of those them or even say "according to so-and-so...". So we can't cite them as even secondhand sources.

  Some of the biographical material in the article may be OK to use tho, I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  I didn't mean to imply that I'd done any in-depth vetting of the source, only that the Los Angeles Review of Books appears to be a reliable source and that there's a lot of content there that might be worth mining. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• I added a paragraph about the article. IMO that article is a reasonable journalistic source, and even cites professional entities (exceeding what journalists tend to do and far exceeding the average Wikipedia reference). The article cites extensive facts and does very little of its own speculation. I believe the quality justifies inclusion in the article, and, in my opinion, pretty much cracks the case beyond reasonable doubt. Of course, that *is* just my opinion, but I think it does a disservice to readers not to include it. Also note that even more facts have been added since 2019, though I think it was fine even before that. Nairebis (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)