Talk:Bess Myerson

Recent overhaul

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, that can be added to what's there now. Coretheapple (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

I've merged two sentences and added a reference to the Times obit. Coretheapple (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

... which was, I see, quickly reverted by Winkelvi, contrary to talk page consensus and without discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

The correct procedure is to discuss, not to edit war. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Oh nonsense. You're nitpicking content appearing in an indisputably reliable source, over material directly related to the subject of this article. There is no need whatsoever to state exactly where the signs appeared, who put them up, or what grade of nail was used to hammer them into place. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense? Asking for more detail so readers will have a clear picture rather than having to guess is "nonsense"? Yes, there is a reason to be more specific. You have said you want this article to reach GA and FA status: being ambiguous by adding content about "No Jews" without context or specifics will no doubt be called into question by someone reviewing the article for GA/FA. I refrained from removing it because I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your immediate response of "Nonsense" rather than responding with a collegial and cooperative tone has not renewed that benefit. Only adding another reference rather than clarifying the content is not enough. Please stop for a moment and think about what I'm saying because it is ONLY about benefitting and improving the article (attempting to improve the article is all I've been doing since I started editing it). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It's nonsense because the lack of such detail does not mean it should be excluded from the article. Please stop wasting everybody's time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As it stands currently, the content would be challenged by anyone reviewing it for GA/FA. You said that's your goal for the article. The content deserves expansion and clarification. And, another rude personal attack from you is noted ("stop wasting everybody's time"). I could respond in kind (and have been known to do so colorfully before), but frankly, your negative attitude and personally directed comments say more about you than me. My hope is you will turn things aroud and stop focusing on editors rather than edits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is being built up now, and more details will be added as they become available, unless of course you continue to revert war to remove pertinent details and to make good wording bad/inaccurate. We are not reviewing it for GA or FA status; your edit-warring and disruptive behavior, such as this discussion, has made that difficult. You have access to all of the online sources that I have; if you are genuinely interested in adding details you can and should do so. You are not the reviewer of a prospective Good Article nomination that has not been filed. Right now we are adding relevant details, and this is clearly relevant, amply sourced, above dispute--except by you. Again, why are you wasting everybody's time challenging a detail that is clearly proper? You really need to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't need to "stop". I see you are still focused on an editor rather than edits. Still hoping you will change your tack. I removed the irrelevant and bordering-on-unreliable reference you added to support the "No Jews" content. The reference didn't mention the signs at all. I have, however, expanded the content for clarification and added an appropriate reference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes you do. This discussion is utterly pointless. There was absolutely no basis for disputing inclusion of the material in question. Please stop wasting people's time. Coretheapple (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you are not going to be choosing the right road and stopping your rude and personal-attack comments anytime soon. Okay. We all make choices. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep using those words but I don't think they mean what you think they mean. The only rude and personal attack comments I see on this page are from you. And yes, you have wasted a great deal of time from many editors having to respond to your nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"May be true"

Alan, "may be true" is simply not encyclopedic language. There has to be a better, more encyclopedic way of saying it, regardless of how many versions of the story exist. We are supposed to be including facts, not suppositions, no matter what reliable source presents those suppositions. It's okay to say that varying versions exist, it's even okay to say that certain individuals think either version may be true, it's not okay to present them in such a manner that it appears editors are making a judgement about the varying accounts. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

May be does not make any judgement. As I said you may work on better wording, if you want, but we have to present all the evidence concerning it to the reader - now. So, as not to give a false impression. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, not really. Now? There is no deadline in Wikipedia. The section is actually fine without the "may be true" sentence. There will be no confusion to any reader if we leave it out for now. There is likely to be confusion for readers if we leave it in. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Now - this is a BLP - so to the extent there are contradictory stories about her life we have to be as up front as possible. The last source - you seek to remove - is moreover the most detailed - and explanatory. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't want to remove the reference, just the "may be true". Like I said, there has to be a better way of saying it. As it is now, it's just not encyclopedic and, according to BLP guidelines, really shouldn't have been reverted back in. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You did remove the most detailed reference - and no - that "someone joked" is decidedly vague - if you read the references all those things happened: she did not know she was entered, she did want a piano, someone joked about it, she did go ahead with the pageant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Both sources may be true" would seem to be the closest we can come to a correct rendition of the situation. I'm a bit visually handicapped today so I am restricted as to what I can read, and have not been able to read the Dworkin book cover-to-cover. However, it confirms the "she didn't know about it" version. The book may also discuss the "piano" version as well and I haven't gotten to it, and it is poorly indexed. I suggest retaining this current language. Even if it is not in the Dworkin book, it may be true as well. Coretheapple (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"May be true" isn't going to cut it. The language will have to be changed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Have to be changed?" Uh no, that's not how we do things here. This is not child pornography or some urgent BLP problem, it is a semantic issue at most. Parenthetically: citing WP:CRYSTAL as you did in your edit summary is unhelpful, as that clearly does not apply. It also disturbs me if we are going to have to have reams and reams of talk page discussions over every piddling little wording issue, compounded by edit-warring. That is what "has to be changed," not this wording. Coretheapple (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Going through much talk on an article talk page is nothing new in Wikipedia. It happens all the time. It's how consensus actually happens. Sorry you don't like what I said above, but I stand by it. The wording, put plainly, sucks. And it's not encyclopedic. Alanscottwalker, I'm trying to find in the associated reference that both stories regarding Myerson's entry into pageants could be true. Would you be so kind as to point me to where the article states that? Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have already supplied the detailed source about the incident. I said the wording can be changed - but it cannot be reverted to the misleading presentation it was. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. I asked where in the reference attached to the content is the statement that both accounts "may be true". I'm asking honestly and just want to know how to better support the concept with the context from the article. Are you saying you already gave an answer to this elsewhere? If so, where? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Have you read the sources? The one I supplied has the detailed content about the contest entry in it - the others very briefly talk of a "legend", with a jokey half sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking specifically about the reference attached to the statement "Both may be true". So, after looking once again through the attached reference, it seems to combine both stories. Are you saying that because the attached source appears to combine the stories, that is the evidence that "both may be true"?. I'm sincerely just trying to understand what you are saying and to come up with a better way to word the content. Taking the time to clarify would be appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the stories are one story - they reconcile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think either the new or the old versions of the language are optimal. Both are awkward. Let's get more input. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've reworded, but my version isn't very good either. The problem with all our efforts here is that we are engaged in original research. I think the solution is to go with the detailed account in the Dworkin biography, which indeed makes no mention of making money for the piano, and then adding the additional account about the piano money. The biography does mention the scholarship money, but makes no reference to a piano. I don't think we should be saying "both accounts may be true," however we phrase it. Let's just put out what's there, that she was entered without her knowledge - that appears to be unquestionably what happened - and that, as the biography says, she was motivated to succeed by the scholarship money, which other accounts say she wanted for a piano. The fact is that they don't necessarily contradict and we don't have to imply that they do. Also, in BLPs biographies are given greater weight than journalistic accounts. Coretheapple (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph of material from the biography and retained the "piano" story. Both mesh fine. Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Awkward and gawky"

Core, when reverting my wording change, you said in your edit summary, "this quote is from her authorized biography, the Dworkin book, just saying "said" is sufficient". It's not sufficient when the source you state contains the quote isn't being used as a reference to support the quote. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it most certainly is. The footnote to "Dworkin, p. 36," at the end of the paragraph. That is the source for the last two sentences of the paragraph. We don't have to have references for every sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. For whatever reason, I only saw the obituary reference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

On another subject, I see that you used the revert tool to remove a sourced reference to Myerson acting as host of the pageant for 14 years that was added by another editor. You have got to stop this hair-trigger reversion of sourced facts that are, in this case, true. Your edit summary says that Burt Parks was host. I'm old enough to remember that Burt Parks was host of the pageant itself, while Myerson was host of the broadcast, sitting in a booth at the rear of the auditorium. I clarified, but the fact is that the original language was correct as well, and was sourced. In the future, when you see something that is added, is sourced, reflects the source correctly but you feel is incorrect, please show some respect to your fellow editors and take it to talk, rather than using the revert tool to remove it entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Worthwhile source

New York magazine had a cover story in 1987 by Patricia Morrisroe on the "Bess Mess."[3] I've added it to the "further reading" section but it would be useful as a source, in which case I presume it would have to be removed from that section. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Jewish Heritage Museum

This [4] says she was a founder of the museum in NYC. Seems like something about it might belong in the article somewhere. It's the only thing left that I saw that might be worth adding - but I'll leave it to others to follow-up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, since the article is now fully protected because of edit-warring, you or somebody would have to propose language to be added and place the appropriate edit-request notice. Coretheapple (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do hope that someday WV learns to reach for the revert button last - and improving content added by others more - it is more cooperative that way (and WV needs to read sources first - not after editing). But as for this, it looks like I got my 'important' adds in under the wire, and I was basically through with this article (it was pretty bad, when you drew attention to it - so good work) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope you're not unduly discouraged by the edit-warring and other nonsense and keep an eye on the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubious claim that Myerson was Miss America host

Regardless of what the attached reference states, I am finding nothing online that says Myerson was the televised pageant host. It's common knowledge that Bert Parks was the long-time iconic television host of the Miss America Pageant from the 1950s through 1979. The argument for adding the content back in is that there was a difference between the television broadcast and the pageant itself. Really? If so, why is Parks noted all over the internet as being the television host of the pageant from 1955 on and nothing is said about Myerson hosting except in the NYT obituary? Look at the following links... At PBS.com: "Bert Parks virtually became an American icon as the host of the annual Miss America Pageant from its second telecast in 1955 until 1980" [5]; at missamerica.org: [6] Each are reliable sources. One is the actual Miss America website. Does the article at the MA website say one word about Myerson hosting the show? If it were true, you would think that site most certainly would, yet, nothing is said about it. In fact, 1959 Miss America Mary Ann Mobley's page at the MA website states clearly that she was a co-host on the televised pageant in 1989.

The PBS website regarding its documentary on the Miss America Pageant does state for 1954 (the first year of the televised broadcast), "Grace Kelly is a judge and Bess Myerson reports from backstage". Backstage reporting is not the same as the host (Bob Russell was the host that year). There is nothing more at that website about Myerson on TV with the pageant [7]. Even the press release on Myerson's death at the MA website says nothing about Myerson hosting the television broadcast of the pageant ([8]).

The content as it stands is dubious. And, truly, if you think about the times, how often were there female televison hosts of anything in the 1950s and into the mid-1960s? It was very rare in the 1960s, relatively unheard of in the 1950s. I can see her possibly being a co-hostess. But the only host of the storied television broadcast? No. Bert Parks was the recognized "flagship" TV host of the pageant. Myerson may have been on the show as a backstage commentator (as the PBS website states), but she wasn't the host for the broadcast, regardless of what the NYT obituary says.

And don't confuse pageant emcee with television broadcast host (as Core seems to have done in the revert edit summary). Parks wasn't the pageant emcee, he was the television broadcast host from the 1950s-1979. Everything you find online at reliable source after reliable source states as much.

Oh, and one more thing: interestingly, the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what's in the Myerson article here. I don't know when it was put in or who did it, but obviously, it will have reworded here considerably when the article is unlocked. Can't have any more copyvios and verbatim lifts of content from online sources than we already do have had, eh? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's in NPR.com too.[9] Amply sourced, as well as true. It took all of five seconds for me to find that. But I want to be clear that just because you can't "find" a source or think that a perfectly credible source is making "dubious" claims because you don't believe them, the editors here are under no obligation to waste their scarce time and scurry around to please you. Coretheapple (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

One more thing. When you post on this page, please be concise. It is difficult for editors to wade through walls-o-text like the one above, and such posts tend to be off-putting to other editors. However, since you feel strongly enough about the above to write out a long post making your case, I don't think that your effort should go to waste. So I am going to translate your request into an edit request and leave it up to an administrator. Coretheapple (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Never said or implied anything of the kind. You sure are a rude person. I have yet to understand why you are so rude toward me. Perhaps over the next week while this article is protected you can figure out why and possibly change your attitude toward me? It would be a good idea, since I plan to be at this article, editing, after it's no longer locked. I imagine you will be, too. In other words, we're going to be working on this article together, getting along would be a good thing, don't you think?

Back to the issue: NPR regurgitated the pageant host thing, it seems. Or the NYT obit regurgitated it from NPR. At any rate, Myerson was never the show host, those who remember Parks as host know it (I'm among that crowd), and it would seem that pretty much every other source writing about the pageant and its hosts prior to Myerson's obituary coming out a few days ago confirm this fact. If need be, when the time comes, this will be hashed out via RfC or whatever needs to be done.

As far as being concise in my writing: there's nothing wrong with what I wrote above, there's nothing wrong with how I wrote it. And another needless insult from you is noted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the procedure in a fully-protected article is to make edit requests. You have problems with the article. Copyright violations are extremely serious. I've asked for an administrator to review that assertion that you have made, and also to deal with your claim of "dubious" material as we cannot have dubious material in a highly trafficked article like this. I don't happen to feel it's dubious - anything but; it's firmly nailed down. But let's get this dealt with. I haven't any opinion on your "copyright claim," but you can set forth your case in the section below. We can't wait a week to deal with copyright issues. Coretheapple (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI @User:Winkelvi: The Dworkin biography says as follows (p. 220): "Together with John Daly, Walter Cronkite and Douglas Edwards, and as a solo hostess, she was commentator for the Miss America Pageant television shows from 1954 to 1968." Would you agree to a paraphrase of this in the article? The Dworkin biography is authoritative. There is also an article in the New York Times, 2/3/69. saying that Myerson was being appointed Commissioner of Consumer Affairs and saying that she would resign all of her professional commitments, "including her annual appearances as television hostess of the Miss America pageant."[10] Assuming you withdraw your "dubious" claim, we still need an administrator to review your claim of a copyright violation. That is urgent, if that indeed is the case, so I would suggest setting forth your case for that in the edit request section below. Coretheapple (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As sourced, she was a "host" to many people at the time but it's a simple thing to qualify it. It's not "dubious", it is just a matter of language, apparently "host" means something very specific to WV, but WV should realize that not all take their narrow view. As for copy-vio please state what you are talking about? I, for one had not seen the press release until after I was done editing this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it's amply sourced and as the article is expanded we can go into further details, but what's there now seems fine. Agree re the copyvio. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And not to put too fine a point on it but here is her long host speech from 1964 in front, with the stage behind her, where she is the first screen presence to directly address the audience, and Bert Parks is "Master of Ceremonies" if you want to follow the precise language. It begins, "Good evening and welcome", just as any host would. [11]. Anyone who claims they can't find this on the internet (as if finding things on the internet is the be all and end all, anyway) is either not trying or incompetent in using the internet (it took me two seconds to find this, just now.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. The sourcing on this point is copious. Note my cites above from the biography and the 1969 Times article. We don't even need that. The obit is enough for the time being, though I do think that the end date of her being host should be changed from 1967 (my error) to 1968 as per the Times article and the book. (Aside to Alan: in your post above you say "MV." Not sure what you mean.) Coretheapple (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

chnaged to WV - Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Myerson's hosting is well sourced. "Host" in this context does not mean a singular or the most important individual. For example (in the US at least) a restaurant may have multiple individuals performing the "host" job function. NE Ent 19:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the article stating Myerson was host as long as it's true. And well sourced (this has always been my issue since I first started editing the article: content without sources attached). And, I don't think Bert Parks (the well-known, long-time, and universally accepted host of the televised pageant) should be absent from the article. Something needs to be said about him in relation to the content on Myerson as (co-)host(ess). Otherwise, there will be those who try to "fix" the article to correct the perceived error. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well it was always reliably sourced, so I don't know what you mean. Are you suggesting we need a half-dozen sources for every fact you feel is "dubious"? Coretheapple (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Break

Given the conflict with [12], which decides Parks as "the host," (emphasis mine) would it work for everyone to describe Myerson as "a host"? NE Ent 21:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's appropriate and much more accurate. I would also request that Parks be mentioned in the article, rather than ignored. His stint as pageant host was certainly iconic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but I would request that the end date be changed to 1968 as well, as 1967 is not accurate. There's a multitude of sources for that, but the simplest to add is "Dworkin, p. 220." Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Prior draft Per discussion immediately above, please change

She was host of the television broadcast of the Miss America pageant from 1954 to 1967, and then was replaced by a younger woman.<ref name="LA Times obituary"/>

to

Along with [[Bert Parks]], Myerson was a host of the television broadcast of the Miss America pageant from 1954 to 1968 until she was replaced by [[Deborah Bryant|Debbie Bryant]]<ref>Dworkin, p. 220.</ref> NE Ent 22:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC) updated NE Ent 01:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC), NE Ent 02:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

May I interject one point? It is true that she was replaced by a younger woman, Debbie Bryant according to this source. However, she was at the time leaving to join the New York City government, and there is an implication of "ageism" that may not be warranted. Can we replace "a younger woman" with "Debbie Bryant"? Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me. Any other changes before we reactivate the request? NE Ent 22:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That'll do. Thanks. You're not an admin I guess? Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As I already stated above, I would also request that something about Parks be mentioned. His stint as pageant host was seen as iconic. I'm asking for it now so that if it is inserted later and there is an objection, we will have this discussion to refer back to. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Myerson -- Parks obviously has his own article, and Miss_America#The_Early_Years discusses his primary hosting, so I don't see a need to include it here. NE Ent 22:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, however, the article isn't about Debbie Bryant either, and she also has her own article, yet she's going to be mentioned. Frankly, I don't see the harm or why mentioning Parks would be inappropriate. What if it were something along the lines of "Along with Bert Parks, she was a host..."? And one more thing I noticed: she wasn't a host at all in 1954. The sources I provided previously from the PBS documentary on the pageant state clearly that she was a backstage reporter. That's different from being a host. See the following [13] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe she hosted from backstage. There is nothing in that link that contradicts the multiple reliable sources indicating that she began hosting in 1954. It doesn't have her beginning to host in 1955, for that matter. I don't think that timeline puts the kibosh on all the reliable sourcing saying that she started to host in 1954. Coretheapple (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd be fine with that (Parks mention). The Dworkin book Coretheapple references is probably more reliable, so I'd go with that vis-a-vis the 1954 date. NE Ent 00:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Good about the Parks mention. I still don't see how reporting for the television broadcast from backstage equates hosting. Remember, this was the first televised broadcast. Bob Russell is listed as the show's host. The whole venture was still new and possibly experimental. Plus, women just weren't hosts in those days. It's very possible things changed the following year with Parks then on board (yes, I realize what I'm suggesting here could be seen as OR). Still, I don't know why the PBS timeline should be taken as a lesser source than the Dworkin book (which has been noted by professional book reviewers as being subjective and unfailingly complimentary of Myerson, by the way). Even though I object to Myerson being referred to as a host in 1954 based on the PBS timeline, I won't hold up this edit request because of my objection. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Added the Parks mention ... everyone okay with the edit request as it stands? NE Ent 01:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm more inclined toward, "Along with Bert Parks, Myerson was a host of the television broadcast of the Miss America pageant from 1954 to 1968 until she was replaced by Debbie Bryant." But, that's me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Updated. NE Ent 02:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

But according to that timeline, Parks did not become host of the pageant until 1955, so we can't phrase it that way. Why not just leave him out? It's not necessary to include him. Coretheapple (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the timeline Myerson wasn't a host, either. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well we have multiple reliable sources saying she was host from 1954 to 1968. Why don't we just go with that? One timeline doesn't mean we throw multiple reliable sources into the round file. We can always add about Burt if and when we get sourced material on his tenure there. He's not necessary in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

How about simply "Myerson was a host of the television broadcast of the Miss America pageant from 1954 to 1968."? NE Ent 02:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And take out about the replacement? We can do it that way. Coretheapple (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, just keep it focused on Myerson. NE Ent 02:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Her replacement is superfluous, and so is Burt. Coretheapple (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How about "Through a portion of Bert Parks's hosting tenure, Myerson was also a host of the televised Miss America Pageant from 1954-1968. She was replaced by Debbie Bryant in 1969." Neither is, in my opinion, "superfluous" to the article. There are others mentioned in the article, the section is on Miss America, why not include those also involved in the pageant in the similar capacity that Myerson was? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of the cool thing about Wikipedia is almost everything is wikilinked, so readers wanting to know more about Miss America hosts can follow the link. I think the compromise Coretheapple and I have agreed to is reasonable, and the "a host" addresses the valid concern that the prior wording makes it seem as if she was the only / primary host. NE Ent 03:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

All that for an "a", the current says: "She was host of the television broadcast of the Miss America . . ." It does not generally take much talk to get to an "a", nor should it - it burns people out - especially with all the accusations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, NE Ent. You've persuaded me with logic. Thanks for taking so much of your time to help work this out. I appreciate your patience, kindness, and efforts. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WV, Your snide comments are unappreciated, especially when I wrote, "a host" long before this proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Request

Per discussion immediately above, please change

She was host of the television broadcast of the Miss America pageant from 1954 to 1967, and then was replaced by a younger woman.<ref name="LA Times obituary"/>

to

Myerson was a host of the television broadcast of the Miss America pageant from 1954 to 1968<ref>Dworkin, p. 220.</ref> NE Ent 03:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

User:Winkelvi would like to remove the reference to Myerson being host of the Miss America pageant from 1954 to 1967, even though it is made in two reliable sources, on the grounds that it is "dubious" for the reasons stated in the post by Winelvi immediately above.

In addition, he contends that there is a copyright violation. The latter is potentially serious. I don't happen to agree with him on either of these two issues, but I think we have to get them cleared up. We don't want dubious things in a highly trafficked article like this, and neither do we want copyright violations, if there are any. Therefore I request that an administrator review these two claims, and act upon them if warranted. I'm not quite sure what Winkelvi is talking about when he refers to copyright violations, so perhaps he can elaborate. That can't wait a week to resolve, if indeed there is anything to resolve. Coretheapple (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I just read the contents of the protected-edit notice- my apologies for not doing so previously - and noticed that it says that this template is only for noncontroversial requests, and only after consensus is reached. Nevertheless, I'd request that an administrator review the claims made by Winkelvi above and take appropriate action. I do feel that if there is a copyright violation it needs to be dealt with as soon as possible, and I think we can use a third opinion on the "host" ciaim that he feels is dubious. Coretheapple (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrators do not have any additional authority regarding the content of an article. It is up to editors on this page to discuss and come up with a consensus, which we can then apply to an article. If that fails to work for whatever reason, then you can try WP:AN for a wider review of the situation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Martin, in light of what I found in the biography and the Times, would you be able to change the date of the end of Myerson's service as Miss America television host from 1967 to 1968? A reference can then be added to that sentence <ref>Dworkin, p. 220</ref> Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Martin, there needs to be clarification in the article of what Myerson's duties at the Miss America broadcast were (she was merely a backstage commentator in 1954) and what they continued to be and/or became. Bert Parks was known as the the only television host of the Miss America Pageant from 1955 on through his firing from the responsibility in 1979/1980. To say she was the host is incorrect and misleading. I am perplexed as to why both User:Alanscottwalker and User:Coretheapple are insisting the content stay as it is. For readers actually familiar with the Miss America Pageant broadcasts during the Bert Parks timeframe, it will be confusing to leave it as it is without the clarification and invites content changes to correct what's already there. The misleading content is at least problematic and at worst could end up leading to disruption if it stays as it is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I am perplexed that you have not read what I wrote, but there you have it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) We've been asked to come to a consensus. Consensus is not defined as "all editors agreeing." Right now, you (WV) are the only editor who believes there is anything "dubious" or requiring "clarification," and it has already been fully discussed. Coretheapple (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Two editors defending their own edits with bias is not consensus. And this type of railroading is exactly why I suggested an RfC several posts ago. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And you are arguing your position. That's how it works. I don't think you understand what "consensus" is. Also, re your point on "readers familiar with the pageant," I am one of those readers. What's in the article is accurate. We are, as we have before, basically wasting our time - arguing over amply sourced material that you don't like. Coretheapple (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop this, WV. You still have not read what I wrote, nor is "the host" in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Core, please cut the crap. After days of your uncivil attitude and rude comments, I'm beyond sick of you talking down to me. I've been here just as long as you have, longer, in fact, and understand policy and what consensus is just fine. An RfC is what's needed here. It's obvious from days of this that you and ASW are going to knock down anything I propose, whatever edits and suggestions I make. Because I'm not easily dissuaded in the face of such behavior, you've definitely picked the wrong person to try to shove around. If you want to actually discuss by losing the attitudes and incivil language and comments then work for real consensus building, I'm all for it. But as it stands now, this talk page is not a friendly and collegial atmosphere lending itself to the true meaning of community discussion. It's become a battleground and, sorry to be Captain Obvious, but you've made it that way. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, in the furture, I think you might want to modulate your approach: don't edit revert all the time, read the sources first (ie. 'I am now looking into the sources' (after reverting is not good form)), don't use loaded language, and make accusations like you did from the start, it rubs people the wrong way. Core may have been short, but you're far from blameless, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Look, editors disagree. If I agreed with your suggestions, I'd be happy to agree with them. I've never encountered you or Alan here before in my life, and no one is out to "get" you. But I don't agree with you on this particular point. We've gone back and forth, you don't seem to be cognizant of what's in the sources, or read them and don't believe them, and I don't know what else there is to say. You can, of course, commence an RfC on this or any point in the article, or on every thing you want to change, for that matter. But I have to tell you that you're dealing with something that, as I can tell you from my own personal knowledge, is correctly stated in the article, and is the subject of multiple sources for the simple reason that it is true. It is an utter waste of time to continually harp on it, and pushing and pushing on this point in these circumstances is a mistake. But don't let me stop you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Just ran a source to check for myself on the controversy. The following are articles which would seem to suggest she was a host of the Miss America pageant. For me it seems a pretty authoritative claim given the New York Times reference:

"She was also a consumer consultant to Bristol-Myers and Citibank and made frequent appearances on radio and television, hosting Miss America contests and the Tournament of Roses and the Thanksgiving Day parades."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/nyregion/bess-myerson-miss-america-and-new-york-official-tarnished-in-scandal-dies.html?_r=0

Other articles mentioning she hosted Miss America contests:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-greenberg/bess-myerson-beauty-queen_b_6437080.html

http://pageantcenter.com/pageant%20results/Miss_America_Pageant/1945_miss_america_pageant.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/06/375323845/bess-myerson-dies-at-90-from-miss-america-to-tabloid-fodder

I also found some 1970s newspaper articles mentioning she was co-hosting Miss America pageants:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1906&dat=19690502&id=WNQfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KtkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3863,90175 http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/8466433/ http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/25851048/ http://newspaperarchive.com/us/wisconsin/madison/madison-capital-times/1970/03-23/page-10 http://newspaperarchive.com/us/ohio/sandusky/sandusky-register/1970/03-24/page-2

Seems pretty straightforward to me though. --7157.118.25a (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

@Winkelvi: One other thing of far more importance. In your post at 02:30, 9 January 2015 you indicated that there were copyright violations. You said at the bottom of that post: "Oh, and one more thing: interestingly, the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what's in the Myerson article here. I don't know when it was put in or who did it, but obviously, it will have reworded here considerably when the article is unlocked. Can't have any more copyvios and verbatim lifts of content from online sources than we already do, eh?" This is very serious. It needs to be addressed, if in fact what you say is correct. Can you please explain what those copyright violations are, so that we can formulate an edit request and get them fixed? What is the webpage and what language was duplicated? Also you imply that there are other copyright issues that would also need to be addressed if they exist. What are these other issues? We need to fix them, assuming they are in fact copyright problems or plagiarism, which is a very serious charge that I assume you are making in good faith. Coretheapple (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Since he hasn't addressed the subject here despite repeated requests, I raised User:Winkelvi's plagiarism allegations with him on his user talk page. His response was that he declined to "comment" as he put it [14], and then he deleted my question and his response[15], saying in an edit summary that he's "not commenting further until I get some advice from editors i trust." So that's where that's at. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Since Winkelvi lapsed into silence when asked to elaborate on his plagiarism charges, I found the web page that he appears to be talking about, http://www.missamerica.org/our-miss-americas/1940/1945.aspx, and used the duplication detector that we use at DYK to run a comparison. The result is at [16]. It comes up with basically nothing except for one phrase that can be tweaked a bit, the "beauty and brains" passage is a bit too close to what's on the web page. That's about it, unless anyone is worried by repeat of phrases like "was a panelist on." Thus the claim that "the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what1's in the Myerson article here" appears to be absolute rubbish, and to be frank I find it hard to believe that it was made in good faith, judging from the plagiarism tracker. If I'm missing anything I'd sure like to hear it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Based on what appears to be a pattern of false claims made by Winkelvi, I think a topic ban is in order here, and I am happy to support it. Looking at this page, he has done nothing but disrupt this article. I tried to briefly contact him to establish a friendly rapport, and he deleted my comments, which he called "inappropriate", and proceeded to levy a litany of personal attacks against my character, telling me I was acting like a troll and stirring up drama. I should also point out that given this pattern of false claims, Winkelvi's attacks on Coretheapple should also be added to the list of disruption. As far as I can tell, Winkelvi lacks the maturity and competency necessary to edit this article. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree. Enough already. Coretheapple (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
      • "Enough already" of what? Good editing? Questioning things? If you think the article was locked just because of me, Core, I think you might want to reconsider that think. Indeed, it stands to reason that if administrators agreed that I was a disruptive edit warrior, they would have blocked me and the article would have remained unlocked. Have you considered the possibility that they locked it for a week so that we would be forced to learn how to work together through commenting here and reaching consensus on disputes? I have. And I think it went that way because we are equally good editors with nearly equal amounts of time editing. Shutting me out of the article isn't the answer to anything. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
        • The proper place for this kind of discussion is the topic ban discussion that Viriditas commenced on ANI, here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The phrase I'm referring to is found here [17] "Recognized for her wit and hard work, as well as her beauty" in comparison to a much too similar phrase at the Miss America website, "Known for her beauty and her quick wit", found here [18]. It's much to close of a paraphrase and, in my opinion, is in copyvio territory. This, and other too-close paraphrases I've found since I started editing this article are troubling, to say the least. I can say without a doubt as well as a clear conscience that none of them have come from any of the edits I've made to this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no. It's plainly sourced and paraphrased from the New York Times article entitled, Bess Myerson, New Yorker of Beauty, Wit, etc, and which also contains the sentence, "But her intelligence, self-discipline and wit soon landed her a regular spot . . .".[19] There are not many ways to say she was noticed and got jobs because she had much wit, work, and beauty, but if you want to understand her life, you would have to know that she was. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Concur; the exact phrasing is copyrightable, but the same idea will often end up begin expressed in very similar ways. NE Ent 02:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to open the page to editing

I have read through the discussions above and am still not entirely clear as to why this page has been locked down to all editing. I did read the discussion of plagiarism but am not certain what it refers to. There are a number of interesting articles coming out on this topic and it would be nice to add them. Bess Myerson is an important figure in American history and culture and her article should be accessible to all editors for editing as she just passed away.

Just as a note - part of the reason Myerson became so well known is because she faced anti-Semitism as Miss America 1945 - this really isn't a subject of debate but a matter of fact. As an aside, there is a very good 1947 film on the subject of anti-Semitism in the United States of the 1940s called Gentleman's Agreement which describes the kind of environment she found herself in when she won the title. I am not offering this sidenote as material for this article but for a wider discussion of the topic. I am somewhat busy in real life but I will try to revisit this discussion every once and awhile.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is unfortunate that the page was protected, but that unfortunately is what happens when there is edit-warring. See [20]. The points you raise are entirely valid, but as you can see from the discussions on this page - note the topic at the top, titled "Recent Ovehaul" [sic]), and the surreal discussion titled "No Jews," and the "Quotefarm" nonsense - anti-Semitism has been one of the areas that was a subject of endless and tedious disputes and edit warring in just the past couple of days. So much as I hate to say it, it's not quite correct (at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned) that the anti-Semitism angle "isn't a subject of debate." Amazingly enough it has been.

All I can do is suggest that you bring suggested edits here and we can discuss, because the page is protected for the next week and we do need to reach a consensus for edit requests. (Consensus, thankfully, does not mean "unanimous consent.") After the article is unprotected, of course, it goes back to ordinary editing. Please don't be discouraged and please participate on this page as much as you can, and I agree with you wholeheartedly that the article needs expansion. Coretheapple (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's simply a matter of time which at the at the moment, I have very little of... I appreciate the fact that WP:NOTTRUTH is a fact of editing on the Wikipedia but it is somewhat surprising that something that is a fact and a part of American cultural history -- the anti-semitism that Bess Myerson faced after her win -- is up for debate on the Wikipedia. My comment was more an aside as I noticed many articles coming up about Myerson now that she has passed away. I do not mean to imply that the internet is the only place one can find information - whether or not something appears on the Internet does not mean that something is or is not true. It simply means that the information has not yet been documented online. I am certain that if someone wanted to go into the archives of a local library, track down microfiche of newspapers from the period, one could point to the same discussions happening closer to the event. I did find an article in Google Books that first appeared in the Bangor Daily News called "Bess Myerson Book Relates Racism" by Shirley Eder Nov. 26, 1987 at the time her bio was published. It actually includes a reference to "Gentleman's Agreement" that places it in a similar context to what I wrote above (I was not aware when I wrote my point that there was an actual connection with Myerson but it makes sense given the storyline).

There is also a People Magazine article from 1987 that references some of these points:

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20096618,00.html

Truthfully, these references are not needed as the 2015 obituaries from well respected media outets all highlight the same points and suffice for a Wikipedia article. If one really wants to, a brick and mortar library will also hold all of the necessary information one would need. I don't see that spending time arguing about something that is a fact is valuable. Building a biography of an American icon using the WP:RS that is now in news feeds should suffice to get the article up and going. Not much else I can add except that it isn't the role of the Wikipedia to question what is already noted in numerous places as fact. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's correct. As for sources, there are a vast number. She received copious coverage in the Times and I haven't even started to mine that resource. In addition, just by coincidence I bought the Myserson biography a few weeks ago. You're right, in a normal editing environment we would be adding such material and not lamenting why we can't. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

From what I'm reading in this section, it appears there is a huge misunderstanding regarding my questioning of the antisemitism content a couple of days ago. I never felt it shouldn't be included in the article. I felt it shouldn't be in the article until it was better sourced. Policy is clear on how well sourced BLP articles should be. As the antisemitism claims read when I started editing the article, there was clear implication that the sponsors pulling out backing Myerson as Miss America did so because they were anti-Semites. There was no reference supporting such an implication. That was my concern, not that the antisemitism-related content existed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern that Wikipedia articles are well sourced. That is an important part of being a Wikipedian. It is also important for Wikipedia articles to reflect what is known historically. As I wrote above, it is a well known and established fact in American history and culture that Ms. Myerson faced anti-Semitism after she was crowned Miss America. So the Wikipedia is not at risk by simply stating what is already well known and established. A simple online source is PBS and their well know documentary series on the Miss America pageant references it in their 2002 documentary and on the related website:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0276334/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/peopleevents/e_mind.html

There are now numerous obituaries that are some of the best WP:RS online sources we can look to:

• The New YorkTimes- New York Times
• National Public Radio] - NPR
• Los Angeles Times - Los Angeles Times
• Washington Post - Washington Post

And I should add - just as a point of clarification - a WP:BLP is a "Biography of Living Persons" article. As Ms. Myerson has passed away, this article is no longer a BLP. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be well sourced, but it isn't a BLP it is now a Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. I have given a few online sources that fulfill WP:RS and I'm sure that if we can get the article open again, there are other editors out there who will have plenty of hard copy. So my goal really is not to debate topics that are simply well established facts (please read my posts above) - but to document what we already know. Perhaps the easiest way will be to simply quote from the sources and therefore there shouldn't be a problem.

As I wrote above, I am somewhat pressed for time in RL so I won't be editing anymore tonight. However, I will leave this discussion open to the rest of the editors who are interested in the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Classicfilms. BLP articles remain BLPs and BLP policies and guidelines stay in place in regard to the article for up to two years following the death of the article subject. See WP:BDP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓

In response to your comment regarding Wikipedia not being in danger when it comes to unreferenced claims of antisemitism, I believe that to also be incorrect. As I stated above, the content read in such a manner that the sponsors who pulled out were antisemitic. That is a very serious claim, one that could set Wikipedia up for some serious problems. If someone wanted to dig deep enough, I'm sure it would be easy to find out what sponsors pulled out and the antisemitism claim in this article could have become an issue. Now, I realize that scenario is unlikely, however, it's not completely improbable. Implying someone - especially a corporate sponsor - is antisemitic, racist, discriminatory, etc. is death for a reputation. In the case of a corporate business, it could mean loss in clients/customers/revenue. Corporations don't take claims like that lightly when their profit margins are affected. And they have no reservations about suing those who made the claim. Like I said, unlikely anything would have come of it, but, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. From a legal standpoint, that is precisely why articles are to be well referenced. The WMF appreciates it. And as far as I know, there's no "Good Samaritan Law" where editors are exempt from inserting libelous content in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I am a bit swamped in RL so I don't want to get into a long discussion now but I need to clarify one point. I did not state that anything in a Wikipedia article should be unreferenced. WP:RS is a standard part of any Wikipedia article. All of my posts note references to be used. In fact my argument points to the fact that there are many sources that substantiate Ms. Myerson's experiences with anti-semitism. Rather, I was stating that it isn't the role of the Wikipedia to debate history - which the references point to. In fact here is one more that discusses the events in general terms - again from PBS, a WP:RS:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/filmmore/pt.html

The application of WP:BDP would be relevant if there were questions or debates about her history with regard to the topic of anti-semitism. The point is that there are many many sources out there to draw from and that is what I was trying to convey - not to make unreferenced allegations. I think that we are actually making the same point in a different way, so there really isn't a reason to debate, which was my point from the beginning. That's really it for tonight. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be missing my point about the antisemitism content. No matter, and I'm not going to argue with you (or anyone) about it further because it really is a moot point now. Sorry to point it out, but you're still wrong about BDP. All BLP articles after the article subject has died remain BLP articles up to two years following the individual's death. You stated that the article is no longer considered a BLP. That is incorrect. BLP editing/content policies still apply at the Myerson article. My comments about it still being a BLP have nothing to do with the antisemitism content. My comments in that regard are about how BLP policies and guideliness still apply. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that BLP still applies to this article, but it's really immaterial to this discussion. As Classicfilms points out, the role of antisemitism in Myerson's early activism, and which she encountered, is historical fact and has been written about in countless articles. Indeed, it is the primary theme and backdrop of the Dworkin biography, which was quoted in the Times and other obituaries, and which I hope to use in expanding this article as I happen to have a copy of it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP applying to this article isn't immaterial to this discussion since someone erroneously stated it doesn't apply to the article.

Yes, antisemitism in Meyerson's life has now been referenced much better than it was when I first read this article several days ago. And I'm sure expanding that theme with more necessary referencing will be a good expansion for the article, as long as it doesn't become undue weight, of course.

I'm certain the Dworkin book is a great source on Myerson; and you have already established several times in the last few days that you have the book.

That said, I think it's also important to note the Dworkin book isn't noted for its objectivity. For example, the following review is from Library Journal Review (by Priscilla Pratt, former library faculty at York College): "This is a highly flattering account of the most important year in Myerson's life, 1945, when she won the title of Miss America. She was the first Jewish woman to do so. All the backstage drama of that postwar pageant is recounted, along with her own nervousness and unlikely background. Dworkin contends that subsequent disputes between would-be managers and some anti-Semitic rejection soured the year of glory. Myerson then threw herself into humanitarian campaigns and found some brief security in marriage. Though competently written, with an attempt at historical context, this subjective work is for specialized collections only." The reviewer for Booklist Review noted, "...the author tends to overlionize Myerson". I've seen similar reviews from average-joe readers, as well. But, taking these reviews from respected sources alone, it seems the book's bias should be remembered when using it as a source for building content out of it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the Dworkin book is not "objective," as you put it, is of absolutely no importance. We are obliged to be NPOV, but that is not an obligation we expect the world to live up to. Dworkin is clearly a reliable source. You're not claiming otherwise, I hope? Coretheapple (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not claiming it's an unreliable source. I'm merely pointing out that it's been noted by reliable sources as being biased. A truth which flies in the face of recent claims that the book is the definitive source on Myerson. Definitive sources are typically objective rather than subjective. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The POV of the book is of no consequence at the moment, as it has been used as a source for facts. Coretheapple (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There are other bound Myerson biographies available. It would be nice to not rely on only one. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That's right. There are two others, both focusing on her later days I believe. Coretheapple (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I would second the request to reopen this page to editing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Such requests can be made at WP:RPP. However, I'm not sure that would be warranted. There has been edit-warring. Coretheapple (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bess Myerson. 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/20160405154103/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/peopleevents/e_inclusion.html to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/peopleevents/e_inclusion.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150511111623/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/filmmore/index.html to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/filmmore/index.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.patriciamorrisroe.com/sites/default/files/articles/Bess-and-the-Mess.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Poor writing

Most Americans may have viewed the country as Protestant, but “America” didn’t view anything because people view, not nations.

She had a career in government. Whether government is “public service” is opinion. Nicmart (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's rather overdone and prescriptivist to view ordinary phrasing (see eg., [21]) that way, but on the first point, fine change it. The second point, however, appears to be the unsourced and incorrect opinion of the OP. Standard American definition for "public service" is "governmental employment" See, [22]. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)