This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jerome Myers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The main neutrality issue is article balance. Major portions of the article are reviews of the subject's artwork and the artwork itself. Second in priority, as a corollary to the reviews, is there are not enough references for the sheer number of quoted people and publications; in the review quotations section, there are no in-line citations for 27 instances. There are other unreferenced quotes in other sections, as well. The most minor concern is the writing, most of which is fine. Biased examples include: "For Jerome Myers, summer in Manhattan was rich in opportunity", "His strong interest and feelings for the new immigrants". Unrelated to neutrality, there is an open quotation in Summer in Manhattan section that begins "turning off here and there to glance". fds Talk 18:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Still after a very careful review of the concerns expressed about the neutrality of the Jerome Myers article, I cannot find anything (nothing at all) to support such an analysis. I certainly would have no objection to making changes if they were needed, and as I reread the Myers page there are some changes as well as additions I probably will make in time, but nothing that relates to any evidence of bias. I am very concerned about the process and dangers of irresponsibly tagging a site without any review or understanding of the responsibilities associated with the process. One or more of Wikipedia editors seem to clearly provide this information at Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
First I would like to point to what I believe is a misguided assertion of Fdssdf that "The tagging of neutrality is not a grievous blow to an article — far from it. Thousands of Wikipedia articles have their neutrality questioned by editors; it's the nature of Wikipedia's open source." This statement is simply not the case. He couldn't be more wrong. Even Wikipedia makes that concern absolutely clear. The following is from the top of the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page:
"Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Also avoid over-tagging, using multiple redundant templates (e.g. citation needed and dubious – discuss) for the same problem."
LET ME REPEAT THAT WARNING: SIMPLY BEING OF THE OPINION THAT A PAGE IS NOT NEUTRAL IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION OF OF THE TAG.
TAGS SHOULD BE ADDED AS A LAST RESORT! (AMEN!)
Let's now go back to his first comment on the neutrality issue (at the top of this page). • Fdssdf: The main neutrality issue is article balance. Major portions of the article are reviews of the subject's artwork and the artwork itself.
• Barry: If you are dealing with an artist whose principal years of activity and accomplishments were approximately from 1890 to 1930 you are not going to get many living people who knew him or could tell you about him or his work. Research would normally focus on written articles about him and his family over the years, his marriage, his artist wife, the couple's extraordinary daughter, Virginia. Events such as the prizes he won, and his major role in creating the world famous Armory Show of 1913 also are clearly important. But most important of all was the skill he displayed in capturing the life of the immigrants who crowded info the Lower East Side of New York and which remained his primary subject until his death in 1940. This biographical research reflected in this document gives much attention to the wide range of art critics and newspaper reviewers, who not only followed his career, but often commented in some depth about how much he was revealing in his pictures about a world that many New Yorkers knew little about. Those reviews and the pictures themselves represent the very heart of what this Wikipedia article should be telling its readers.
• Fdssdf: Second in priority, as a corollary to the reviews, is there are not enough references for the sheer number of quoted people and publications; in the review quotations section, there are no in-line citations for 27 instances. There are other unreferenced quotes in other sections, as well.
• Barry: How can the reviewer of this article point to all these unreferenced quotes and about no citation for 27 instances? The truth here is that every entry has been carefully and accurately referenced for anyone who wants to check it. Let me turn again to the Wikipedia's guidelines:
"On Wikipedia, an inline citation refers to a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it." "Regardless of what types of sources are used, they should be reliable; that is, credible published materials with a reliable publication process whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
• Barry: We're talking here about a whole range of highly credible major newspapers published in New York, or nearby, over many years and I have provided both their names and the exact dates in which each one of their quotations appears. Let's take the New York Times as example. A skilled researcher, such as myself, can take any of the publishing dates provided and immediately go to the Times' archives and be checking the exact article within 5 minutes. I can also capture a graphic of it at the same time.
• Barry: As for the idea that having a number of pictures displayed that Myers creatred over his life should perhaps not be included in the article, seems to make no sense at all. What could be more appropriate to a biography of any artist than examples of the artist's work, if available. Actually in this instance it provides a wonderful opportunity for readers to get a much more graphic picture of a very important place and period in American History, hardly more than a mile or two from the Statue of Liberty.
• Barry: Let me turn to another series of comments from Fdssdf regarding problems in the Myers article. It starts with a contact I made to Wikipedi"help" about the tagging of my article that I had no warning about. The text starts with a note to me from the person at Wikipedia then had made contact with Fdssdf:
• Houn: I have left a note for Fdssdf, the editor who tagged the article, and asked them to explain their reasoning at the article's talk page. (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC) • Houn: to Fdssdf: You added a POV tag to Jerome Myers. While I'd say the tone is rather flowery, I'm not sure I see a POV issue. Could you please explain your concerns at the article talk page? Thanks, Huon ( talk) 00:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC) • Fdssdf: Greetings, Huon. Flowery language is biased language and, therefore, beyond neutrality for the subject, especially a biography. Examples: "a major event had taken place in Jerome Myers' life"; instead, editors should describe the event itself, not whether it's "major"; "For Jerome Myers, summer in Manhattan was rich in opportunity", a "rich" opportunity is in the eye of the beholder; "His strong interest and feelings for the new immigrants"; this has a cn at the end, and rightly so; and there are more, but there also are more just prose problems. The inclusion of a photographic gallery section is highly unusual, and its inclusion may go against neutrality, as well. Additionally, the number of reviews presented after the gallery might be too many to be impartial to the subject. These latter two issues concern article balance and structure. Have a good day! fds Talk 16:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Barry: In reading that "flowery language is biased language and, therefore, beyond neutrality for the subject, especially a biography." Does anyone understand what Fdssdf is saying? (As a member of the Writers Guild of America, East, with many scripts to my credit I've never heard anyone approach the issue of bias in this way). It's not flowery language you have to look at, but rather the context of a piece of writing, in what way is it trying to influence you? Can you recognize a pattern of bias about something or someone?
• Barry: Let's look at the first example given of supposed bias "a major event had taken place in Jerome Myers' life;" instead, editors should describe the event itself, not whether it's "major."
• Barry: Who made up that rule? The paragraph is talking about an artist, early in his career, who suddenly learns a painting of his has been bought by the world famous Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. It changes his life. Using the word "major" in this context is totally appropriate here. Writing is all about finding the best and most appropriate words to effectively communicate information to a reader, not only a dry fact, but its meaning in context. If we're talking about the invasion of Normandy as a fact in an encyclopedia, we might be remiss not to say it was the critical turning point in the Second World War. That's been long confirmed by history. Strong, effective words that give the reader a clearer view of history, or the character of a famous person in history should be what we all strive for. Of course, if we have a personal bias, we must be ever-alert that does not play a part in our choices.
• Barry: There are two other examples given, neither really showing any bias at all and written by the well-known historian, Bennard B. Pearlman, who researched and wrote those pieces for the Sloan-Myers exhibition. Pearlman's primary focus in his carefully-researched books has been in the very period of American Art in which these artists were most active. ("Revolutionaries of Realism," "Robert Henri: His Life and Art," "Immortal Eight," "Golden Age of American Illustration," "The Life, Loves and Art of Arthur B. Davies") The excerpts quoted were inspired from a very important and revealing profile of Myers by a New York Times reporter profiling him in 1906.
• Barry: My last comment is directed to Fdssdf's observation that "The inclusion of a photographic gallery section is highly unusual, and its inclusion may go against neutrality, as well. Additionally, the number of reviews presented after the gallery might be too many to be impartial to the subject. These latter two issues concern article balance and structure."
• Barry: Once again there isn't really much homework being done here? Does he really think that a photographic gallery is a highly unusual item to be found for artists in Wikipedia. Quite the contrary. In a very quick search here are four examples I found:
William Glackens - 8 works + additional gallery of 8 works George Bellows - 5 works + additional gallery of 24 works Alexander Calder - 8 works + additional gallery of 11 works Diego Rivera - 7 works + additional gallery of 38 works
• Barry: And if you are doing a biography of a given artist, how could the inclusion of a group of his or her works possibly "go against neutrality as well" unless they were being compared side to side with pictures of other artists' works?
• Barry: Last of all I'd like to return to how damaging NPOV tagging could be in the real world. Let's say I was a 25 year old writer-researcher who has a chance at a really good job. In my interview about things I've done. one of the principal accomplishments I mention is the work I did in completing all aspects of the Jerome Myers article on Wikipedia. The possible employer who really seemed impressed with me on my interview, goes to view the Myers article and immediately sees the NPOV tag:
"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."
• Barry: The very hopeful young writer then calls a few days later to find out what's happened. The employer, since he's sort of a nice guy, still picks up the phone, but all he tells the young writer is that the job isn't available any longer. He never mentions what he ran into in Wikipedia. That would be the most likely outcome. And the writer may have missed the best job possibility he'll see in years. He may never know why. And nobody at Wikipedia will realize the damage that has been done by just a simple act of careless tagging.
• Barry: A second example: This time it's me, the grandson of Jerome Myers. And a 70-year-old woman I know who owns quite a nice painting of my grandfather's calls me to say that some one has just seen her painting and is offering her $70,000 to buy it. The one other thing he would like to have is some more information about Jerome and his work. Though I'm not in any way involved with the sale of his pictures, I'm still very happy for her because she is planning to retire soon and the money would be a big help to her. I suggest to her that Wikipedia has a very good article on Jerome Myers and she might suggest that to her potential buyer. She is delighted and passes on the information. Unfortunately in this example I had no idea there had been a tagging of the article. The potential buyer goes online to read the article but sees the warning and immediately gets cold feet; He tells the woman he's not interested in buying into a controversy that might reduce the value of the painting. He's gone and so is her hope of a $70,000 windfall that may never come again. Of course, Wikipedia has had no way of knowing the consequences of that tag.
BEDownes ( talk) 05:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The neutrality tag is not apt, but this article does have multiple issues that should be addressed:
If I felt the article need tagging, I'd use something like:
![]() | This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Voceditenore ( talk) 10:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Fdssdf. I have begun trying to remedy the most glaring problems with the article and especially those areas that go against Wikipedia's guidelines/policy on quotation and copyright:
Voceditenore ( talk) 10:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The following excessive and decontextualized quotation has been moved here. This material can be used to source a prose "Critical reception" section summarising the gist of the assessments, contextualising them with respect to the exhibition/work being reviewed. Any direct quotes used there must be very brief and need to be integrated into the running prose. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Quotations
|
---|
Reviews of Myers first solo exhibition in 1908
Reviews of Myers' work in other shows
|
In going over the article, I noted that the infobox gave the death date as 29 June and the opening sentence gave it as 19 June. I have gone for 19 June since that is the date given in his New York Times obituary published on 20 June. It is also the date given in The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, and the catalogue of American Paintings in the Brooklyn Museum. But note that The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art gives 29 June as does the chronology in Jerome Myers Papers, 1904-1967, Helen Farr Sloan Library & Archives, Delaware Art Museum—a misprint in the latter replicated in the former? – Voceditenore ( talk) 16:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jerome Myers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The main neutrality issue is article balance. Major portions of the article are reviews of the subject's artwork and the artwork itself. Second in priority, as a corollary to the reviews, is there are not enough references for the sheer number of quoted people and publications; in the review quotations section, there are no in-line citations for 27 instances. There are other unreferenced quotes in other sections, as well. The most minor concern is the writing, most of which is fine. Biased examples include: "For Jerome Myers, summer in Manhattan was rich in opportunity", "His strong interest and feelings for the new immigrants". Unrelated to neutrality, there is an open quotation in Summer in Manhattan section that begins "turning off here and there to glance". fds Talk 18:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Still after a very careful review of the concerns expressed about the neutrality of the Jerome Myers article, I cannot find anything (nothing at all) to support such an analysis. I certainly would have no objection to making changes if they were needed, and as I reread the Myers page there are some changes as well as additions I probably will make in time, but nothing that relates to any evidence of bias. I am very concerned about the process and dangers of irresponsibly tagging a site without any review or understanding of the responsibilities associated with the process. One or more of Wikipedia editors seem to clearly provide this information at Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
First I would like to point to what I believe is a misguided assertion of Fdssdf that "The tagging of neutrality is not a grievous blow to an article — far from it. Thousands of Wikipedia articles have their neutrality questioned by editors; it's the nature of Wikipedia's open source." This statement is simply not the case. He couldn't be more wrong. Even Wikipedia makes that concern absolutely clear. The following is from the top of the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page:
"Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Also avoid over-tagging, using multiple redundant templates (e.g. citation needed and dubious – discuss) for the same problem."
LET ME REPEAT THAT WARNING: SIMPLY BEING OF THE OPINION THAT A PAGE IS NOT NEUTRAL IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION OF OF THE TAG.
TAGS SHOULD BE ADDED AS A LAST RESORT! (AMEN!)
Let's now go back to his first comment on the neutrality issue (at the top of this page). • Fdssdf: The main neutrality issue is article balance. Major portions of the article are reviews of the subject's artwork and the artwork itself.
• Barry: If you are dealing with an artist whose principal years of activity and accomplishments were approximately from 1890 to 1930 you are not going to get many living people who knew him or could tell you about him or his work. Research would normally focus on written articles about him and his family over the years, his marriage, his artist wife, the couple's extraordinary daughter, Virginia. Events such as the prizes he won, and his major role in creating the world famous Armory Show of 1913 also are clearly important. But most important of all was the skill he displayed in capturing the life of the immigrants who crowded info the Lower East Side of New York and which remained his primary subject until his death in 1940. This biographical research reflected in this document gives much attention to the wide range of art critics and newspaper reviewers, who not only followed his career, but often commented in some depth about how much he was revealing in his pictures about a world that many New Yorkers knew little about. Those reviews and the pictures themselves represent the very heart of what this Wikipedia article should be telling its readers.
• Fdssdf: Second in priority, as a corollary to the reviews, is there are not enough references for the sheer number of quoted people and publications; in the review quotations section, there are no in-line citations for 27 instances. There are other unreferenced quotes in other sections, as well.
• Barry: How can the reviewer of this article point to all these unreferenced quotes and about no citation for 27 instances? The truth here is that every entry has been carefully and accurately referenced for anyone who wants to check it. Let me turn again to the Wikipedia's guidelines:
"On Wikipedia, an inline citation refers to a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it." "Regardless of what types of sources are used, they should be reliable; that is, credible published materials with a reliable publication process whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
• Barry: We're talking here about a whole range of highly credible major newspapers published in New York, or nearby, over many years and I have provided both their names and the exact dates in which each one of their quotations appears. Let's take the New York Times as example. A skilled researcher, such as myself, can take any of the publishing dates provided and immediately go to the Times' archives and be checking the exact article within 5 minutes. I can also capture a graphic of it at the same time.
• Barry: As for the idea that having a number of pictures displayed that Myers creatred over his life should perhaps not be included in the article, seems to make no sense at all. What could be more appropriate to a biography of any artist than examples of the artist's work, if available. Actually in this instance it provides a wonderful opportunity for readers to get a much more graphic picture of a very important place and period in American History, hardly more than a mile or two from the Statue of Liberty.
• Barry: Let me turn to another series of comments from Fdssdf regarding problems in the Myers article. It starts with a contact I made to Wikipedi"help" about the tagging of my article that I had no warning about. The text starts with a note to me from the person at Wikipedia then had made contact with Fdssdf:
• Houn: I have left a note for Fdssdf, the editor who tagged the article, and asked them to explain their reasoning at the article's talk page. (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC) • Houn: to Fdssdf: You added a POV tag to Jerome Myers. While I'd say the tone is rather flowery, I'm not sure I see a POV issue. Could you please explain your concerns at the article talk page? Thanks, Huon ( talk) 00:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC) • Fdssdf: Greetings, Huon. Flowery language is biased language and, therefore, beyond neutrality for the subject, especially a biography. Examples: "a major event had taken place in Jerome Myers' life"; instead, editors should describe the event itself, not whether it's "major"; "For Jerome Myers, summer in Manhattan was rich in opportunity", a "rich" opportunity is in the eye of the beholder; "His strong interest and feelings for the new immigrants"; this has a cn at the end, and rightly so; and there are more, but there also are more just prose problems. The inclusion of a photographic gallery section is highly unusual, and its inclusion may go against neutrality, as well. Additionally, the number of reviews presented after the gallery might be too many to be impartial to the subject. These latter two issues concern article balance and structure. Have a good day! fds Talk 16:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Barry: In reading that "flowery language is biased language and, therefore, beyond neutrality for the subject, especially a biography." Does anyone understand what Fdssdf is saying? (As a member of the Writers Guild of America, East, with many scripts to my credit I've never heard anyone approach the issue of bias in this way). It's not flowery language you have to look at, but rather the context of a piece of writing, in what way is it trying to influence you? Can you recognize a pattern of bias about something or someone?
• Barry: Let's look at the first example given of supposed bias "a major event had taken place in Jerome Myers' life;" instead, editors should describe the event itself, not whether it's "major."
• Barry: Who made up that rule? The paragraph is talking about an artist, early in his career, who suddenly learns a painting of his has been bought by the world famous Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. It changes his life. Using the word "major" in this context is totally appropriate here. Writing is all about finding the best and most appropriate words to effectively communicate information to a reader, not only a dry fact, but its meaning in context. If we're talking about the invasion of Normandy as a fact in an encyclopedia, we might be remiss not to say it was the critical turning point in the Second World War. That's been long confirmed by history. Strong, effective words that give the reader a clearer view of history, or the character of a famous person in history should be what we all strive for. Of course, if we have a personal bias, we must be ever-alert that does not play a part in our choices.
• Barry: There are two other examples given, neither really showing any bias at all and written by the well-known historian, Bennard B. Pearlman, who researched and wrote those pieces for the Sloan-Myers exhibition. Pearlman's primary focus in his carefully-researched books has been in the very period of American Art in which these artists were most active. ("Revolutionaries of Realism," "Robert Henri: His Life and Art," "Immortal Eight," "Golden Age of American Illustration," "The Life, Loves and Art of Arthur B. Davies") The excerpts quoted were inspired from a very important and revealing profile of Myers by a New York Times reporter profiling him in 1906.
• Barry: My last comment is directed to Fdssdf's observation that "The inclusion of a photographic gallery section is highly unusual, and its inclusion may go against neutrality, as well. Additionally, the number of reviews presented after the gallery might be too many to be impartial to the subject. These latter two issues concern article balance and structure."
• Barry: Once again there isn't really much homework being done here? Does he really think that a photographic gallery is a highly unusual item to be found for artists in Wikipedia. Quite the contrary. In a very quick search here are four examples I found:
William Glackens - 8 works + additional gallery of 8 works George Bellows - 5 works + additional gallery of 24 works Alexander Calder - 8 works + additional gallery of 11 works Diego Rivera - 7 works + additional gallery of 38 works
• Barry: And if you are doing a biography of a given artist, how could the inclusion of a group of his or her works possibly "go against neutrality as well" unless they were being compared side to side with pictures of other artists' works?
• Barry: Last of all I'd like to return to how damaging NPOV tagging could be in the real world. Let's say I was a 25 year old writer-researcher who has a chance at a really good job. In my interview about things I've done. one of the principal accomplishments I mention is the work I did in completing all aspects of the Jerome Myers article on Wikipedia. The possible employer who really seemed impressed with me on my interview, goes to view the Myers article and immediately sees the NPOV tag:
"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."
• Barry: The very hopeful young writer then calls a few days later to find out what's happened. The employer, since he's sort of a nice guy, still picks up the phone, but all he tells the young writer is that the job isn't available any longer. He never mentions what he ran into in Wikipedia. That would be the most likely outcome. And the writer may have missed the best job possibility he'll see in years. He may never know why. And nobody at Wikipedia will realize the damage that has been done by just a simple act of careless tagging.
• Barry: A second example: This time it's me, the grandson of Jerome Myers. And a 70-year-old woman I know who owns quite a nice painting of my grandfather's calls me to say that some one has just seen her painting and is offering her $70,000 to buy it. The one other thing he would like to have is some more information about Jerome and his work. Though I'm not in any way involved with the sale of his pictures, I'm still very happy for her because she is planning to retire soon and the money would be a big help to her. I suggest to her that Wikipedia has a very good article on Jerome Myers and she might suggest that to her potential buyer. She is delighted and passes on the information. Unfortunately in this example I had no idea there had been a tagging of the article. The potential buyer goes online to read the article but sees the warning and immediately gets cold feet; He tells the woman he's not interested in buying into a controversy that might reduce the value of the painting. He's gone and so is her hope of a $70,000 windfall that may never come again. Of course, Wikipedia has had no way of knowing the consequences of that tag.
BEDownes ( talk) 05:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The neutrality tag is not apt, but this article does have multiple issues that should be addressed:
If I felt the article need tagging, I'd use something like:
![]() | This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Voceditenore ( talk) 10:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Fdssdf. I have begun trying to remedy the most glaring problems with the article and especially those areas that go against Wikipedia's guidelines/policy on quotation and copyright:
Voceditenore ( talk) 10:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The following excessive and decontextualized quotation has been moved here. This material can be used to source a prose "Critical reception" section summarising the gist of the assessments, contextualising them with respect to the exhibition/work being reviewed. Any direct quotes used there must be very brief and need to be integrated into the running prose. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Quotations
|
---|
Reviews of Myers first solo exhibition in 1908
Reviews of Myers' work in other shows
|
In going over the article, I noted that the infobox gave the death date as 29 June and the opening sentence gave it as 19 June. I have gone for 19 June since that is the date given in his New York Times obituary published on 20 June. It is also the date given in The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, and the catalogue of American Paintings in the Brooklyn Museum. But note that The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art gives 29 June as does the chronology in Jerome Myers Papers, 1904-1967, Helen Farr Sloan Library & Archives, Delaware Art Museum—a misprint in the latter replicated in the former? – Voceditenore ( talk) 16:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)