 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
This article ends by stating "The story became an instant success in a country where lynching was a common occurrence and at a time when the Ku Klux Klan was at its strongest."[2]--this contradicts the wikipedia article on the KKK which shows the KKK had declined by 1930 to 30,000 members from a height of 6 million members in 1924. NeilCoughlin ( talk) 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious in general as to exactly who the heck the 'commentators' are. A google search on Bernard Fields turns up a virologist - is that the guy in question, or what? 198.111.161.34 ( talk) 16:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the use of IP-addresses sows a fair amount of confusion, but
another IP edit, of 3 August 2009, clearly asserted that Fields was the author of
- "Lynching in American Culture", New York, 1987
- -- even tho
yet another removed both the bulk of the quote and that citation.
While the failure to ID the publishing house (especially in re the publisher-rich venue of NYC) could reflect either incompetent scholarship or deceit, the distinction is moot since absence of the work from e.g. LoC pretty well rules out the use as a RS of the full or truncated text, or any part of the work. Thus i remove the last scrap attributed to Fields.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy ( talk) 04:23, 4 January 2015
An IP acct with
an oeuvre heavy in undo-worthy edits was used to add a q-mark after the period of one sentence. I'm undoing it; if someone wanted should subsequently want to address the intended opinion -- perhaps that the assertion is dubious? -- that'd be none of my business.
--
Jerzy•
t 22:51, 3 & 00:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Two quotations in the article are opened with a quotation mark but never closed, producing an eerie effect, and (at best) requiring the reader to check for places (besides the end of the sentence or 'graph) where the closing q-mark might plausibly belong. Someone may feel justified in making a guess, but IMO both the end of each quoted passage, and (in light of the shoddy punctuation) the wording must be checked against a reliable source, lest we endorse an equally shoddy transcription. Having no certainty my further attention will suffice to find a RS before i'm distracted, i'm converting them both to
indirect quotations for now.
--
Jerzy•
t 23:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
This article ends by stating "The story became an instant success in a country where lynching was a common occurrence and at a time when the Ku Klux Klan was at its strongest."[2]--this contradicts the wikipedia article on the KKK which shows the KKK had declined by 1930 to 30,000 members from a height of 6 million members in 1924. NeilCoughlin ( talk) 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious in general as to exactly who the heck the 'commentators' are. A google search on Bernard Fields turns up a virologist - is that the guy in question, or what? 198.111.161.34 ( talk) 16:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the use of IP-addresses sows a fair amount of confusion, but
another IP edit, of 3 August 2009, clearly asserted that Fields was the author of
- "Lynching in American Culture", New York, 1987
- -- even tho
yet another removed both the bulk of the quote and that citation.
While the failure to ID the publishing house (especially in re the publisher-rich venue of NYC) could reflect either incompetent scholarship or deceit, the distinction is moot since absence of the work from e.g. LoC pretty well rules out the use as a RS of the full or truncated text, or any part of the work. Thus i remove the last scrap attributed to Fields.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy ( talk) 04:23, 4 January 2015
An IP acct with
an oeuvre heavy in undo-worthy edits was used to add a q-mark after the period of one sentence. I'm undoing it; if someone wanted should subsequently want to address the intended opinion -- perhaps that the assertion is dubious? -- that'd be none of my business.
--
Jerzy•
t 22:51, 3 & 00:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Two quotations in the article are opened with a quotation mark but never closed, producing an eerie effect, and (at best) requiring the reader to check for places (besides the end of the sentence or 'graph) where the closing q-mark might plausibly belong. Someone may feel justified in making a guess, but IMO both the end of each quoted passage, and (in light of the shoddy punctuation) the wording must be checked against a reliable source, lest we endorse an equally shoddy transcription. Having no certainty my further attention will suffice to find a RS before i'm distracted, i'm converting them both to
indirect quotations for now.
--
Jerzy•
t 23:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)