User talk:Cullen328/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Sousa Mendes page again

Dear Cullen328,

Could you please jump into the fray on the Aristides de Sousa Mendes page? The situation has only gotten worse. We need your help. Thank you! Beebop211 (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Much worse. Despite the fact that more than once I’ve asked for and accepted independent reviews and ‘ve accepted recommendations, and gladly deleted 2/3 of the article's content, my material keeps on being deleted in non-constructive manner. I find it rather odd that Sousa Mendes early career is being completely erased. I find it strange that extremely important events such in his life such as:1) being expelled from the US or 2) being suspended for 2 years for abuse of public money are erased. I find it even more strange that the fact that he had a French mistress and a daughter, owas also erased. This was his life… whether we like it or not. I suspect the next deletion (because it was done before) will be the fact that Sousa Mendes received a lifetime allowance of 1,593 Portuguese escudos until the day he died. Are you really favouring all this deletions? All these deletions are being done as if they were recommended by you.JPratas (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not advocating deletion of all mention of these incidents but I oppose giving them undue weight. How do the best quality biographical reliable sources describe these incidents, and how much attention do they give them? The article has been filled with judgmental language inappropriate for an encyclopedia, JPratas. A few hours ago, his financial problems appeared three times in the article in very similar language. That is inappropriate. It is not your role to correct history's judgment through this Wikipedia article. It is your role to summarize it neutrally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328, could you please chime in on the Aristides de Sousa Mendes Talk page to help reach consensus? It's simply not going to happen without your help, as no amount of logic will convince someone intent on committing harm. The page simply can't stay up as it is--it's too defamatory. Thank you for your help! Beebop211 (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Hi Cullen328. We need your help when you have a chance. Thank you, Cullen! Beebop211 (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ted Nugent

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ted Nugent. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Article cleaned up

Dear Cullen,

The struggle is now over thanks to your help. Hallelujah! I have edited the entry down to its essentials. There are still a few references that need to be added or completed. Please have a look and see what you think. And please let me know the procedure to prevent a replay of what just occurred. Thanks a million. Beebop211 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing strategies

Thank you so much for your friendly voice! I read what you wrote about editing one on the help pages with reference to neutrality. I am a Christian Scientist and I'm struggling with the Christian Science page. May I copy and paste what you wrote to remind the editors to include differing points of view? Academic points of view. Because they exist.Simplywater (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You can quote me, Simplywater, as long as you make it clear that my comments were general ones briefly summarizing policy and not specifically about that article. It is best to rely on the language in WP:NPOV and WP:RS in any such dispute. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!!! This will work. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 15:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to respond to the comment "no consensus". Does consensus overrule neutrality?Simplywater (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is the process through which we agree on how the neutral point of view should best be expressed. Please be aware that independent sources are preferred for contentious claims. I have not studied the Christian Science talk page but my first reaction is that the topic presents challenges because of the intersection of religion and medicine. We have very high standards for reliable sources for medical topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I only use RS. Nothing medical. Bit by bit. No one is going anywhere, right?Simplywater (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Photography article help

Thanks for the warm reply in the teahouse. I was very much hoping I might find a helping hand somewhere, since this is my first contribution. Thought I'd take up on the kind offer. The draft I have been working on so far https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ellen_Rogers

I am trying to determine if there is a better way I can establish interest and notability. If I need to expand the draft content, or provide additional citations. I think the breadth and technique of the photographic work is impressive, but it is a little challenging to find ways to cite the notability of images, that doesn't cite the kind of promotional or florid language sometimes used in the introduction of articles discussing artists. Any advice or suggestions would be great. Jasonwclark (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Jasonwclark. Experienced editors reviewing an AfC draft or any new article will be looking for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please read WP:NOTABILITY for the full guideline.

The thing that jumps out at me immediately is that your references are Bare URLs. These appear ugly, convey little information about the source, and make it very difficult for a reviewer (or any reader) to zero in on the most promising references. So, please take a look at any one of the six biographies of photographers I mentioned at the Teahouse, or any of the articles I list on my user page, and see the informative way that the references are formatted. A good resource is Referencing for beginners.

I skimmed through the references, and none clearly establishes notability in my mind, because we are looking for significant coverage by independent sources. There are lots of interviews, but interviews are not usually considered independent because the meat of the interview is the subject's own words. Photo credits are not significant coverage. A list of links to her own articles is not independent coverage. Nor are comments by the guy who wrote the foreword to her book and openly admits that she is a personal friend. Take a look at the sort of references in the articles that I've written. Not every single one needs to be fully independent. but there should be enough to clearly establish notability. So please search for additional sources with that in mind. It is far better to have four or five really solid references than fifteen or twenty weak ones.

The best kind of reliable sources for artists include journalistic coverage (not interviews) in newspapers and magazines with professional editorial control, independent reviews of exhibitions and books by the artist, coverage by museums (not commercial galleries), and coverage in independent books (not her own book) published by mainstream publishers, especially those with a good reputation for issuing reliable books about artists.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen

That was very helpful, I will search to find additional sources to support the article. Do you think the information collected so far is irrelevant to the content? Should I start over completely? Warren Ellis seemed notable. Well I mean, if you like comic books as I do. He had a wiki here, so I thought that made sense. But perhaps I did not first establish enough in the sources to support that information. If I can find more independent sources, is information like that useful, or does it seem extraneous? I have been looking at all the photographer pages you suggested and trying to build citations and format off that model. Again, appreciate the detailed response. BestJasonwclark (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And thanks again, for the citation insights (I will deal with those bare urls for sure), and for that article on the fountain! I live in SF, and my aunt is up in Calaveras, so that's the area I spend my days. Appreciate the nice welcome Jim, and the useful links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwclark (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to start over, Jasonwclark. Think of it this way: The references that directly contribute to establishing notability are like gold here. Some references people try to use are of little value, and should be discarded. But think of the interviews, for example, as silver or bronze. By themselves, they don't establish notability but can be used for biographical details and facts of her career, once notability has been established. Warren Ellis seems notable to me at first glance, though his article needs work too. But we have a phase here "Notability is not inherited". In other words, she doesn't become notable just because someone notable wrote the foreword to her book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I see the logic, and it does make sense now that I reread the materials already collected that I need to incorporate stronger citations. I think the best thing to do is probably to work with the physical publications that have clear editorial review and which feature articles about the artist, since at least there I can give the full page and issue information. For interviews demonstrating a notability beyond the run of the mill, I will focus on the articles Vogue and The British Journal of Photography. I'll hold the links I found already, to see which ones are still useful, once I restructure the article and format the citation information to focus on the printed materials first, before getting into the online materials. I also read your reply in the tea room. Great feedback. I'm off to grab dinner, feel like I've been at this all day, but I will return once I have a new draft. Best Jasonwclark (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Referencing nearly complete

Dear Cullen328,

I have nearly finished filling out all missing references on the Sousa Mendes page. I'll let you know when the process is complete. Then I would like to discuss page protection. Thank you for your guidance and help. Best wishes! Beebop211 (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've tracked down and provided all missing references and also expanded the entry in a few places. The one fact I could not find referenced was the 2005 UNESCO event (posthumous recognition section). Is it essential to have a reference for it? If so, I'll keep digging until I find one. Please have a look at the article and let me know your thoughts. Thank you! Beebop211 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pablo Casals

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pablo Casals. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Cullen.

Can you please jump over to the Sousa Mendes page again and chime in? Someone has returned. Thank you! Beebop211 (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your great edits!

I'll get to those references ASAP. By the way, a preponderance of the literature says he received no pension. It's possible that there was a small allowance on the books, but it's unclear to me if he ever received anything. I will look closely at all the sources at my disposal re: this issue. Beebop211 (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would look into this. If the preponderance of the literature is repeating a myth, and more recent scholarship shows he was paid, then we should state that in a neutral, well referenced way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've looked into the literature and there are disagreements. I am happy to go through the sources and quote you chapter and verse. What seems the most likely scenario is that there was a nominal sum on the books, but that he rarely received it. This explains why there are letters in which he begs the government for funds to which he is entitled. What is incontrovertible is that the family descended into a state of abject poverty, and relied on the Jewish soup kitchen in Lisbon for meals. Beebop211 (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

For the moment I have removed that entire paragraph (last paragraph of Trial and Punishment) because I don't want to misrepresent the facts in either direction. The descent from pre-war opulence to post-war destitution is quite stark and cannot (in my opinion) be attributed to a "spendthrift" nature as JPratas implied. Wouldn't his nature remain the same pre- and post-war? We have a testimonial given by Isaac Bitton in numerous sources (Shoah Foundation interview, speeches, quoted by Fralon, Afonso, etc.) that Sousa Mendes came to the Jewish refugee soup kitchen for meals. What more proof is needed of his poverty? Some accounts mention that he was burning the doors and windowframes of his home to keep warm in winter. I don't want to put anything in the entry that can't be reliably sourced. What are your thoughts? I would be happy to go through all sources and quote you chapter and verse if this would help you in formulating an opinion. Beebop211 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have stepped back from the Sousa Mendes article for some days, as Wikipedia advises, and I have now introduced an extensive list of disputes in the article talk page.

Yad Vashem historian (not some scholar) is repeating a “myth” (referring to numbers), and all secondary and primary sources show that Mendes was paid. As you say “then we should state that in a neutral, well referenced way”.

I regret to see that Beebop211, an account less than one month old, created February 26, 2014, that most likely is a either a sock puppetry or meatpuppetry from Coimbralove and Redmoon660and, formerly named “Sousa Mendes Foundation”, and has exercised severe censorship on facts (verifiable both in primary sources available online and also published secondary sources) and severe censorhip on views from reputed scholars so as to raise up the figure and the deeds of Sousa Mendes. Just as an example, the Chapter “Trial and punishment” was trimmed in order to hide relevant facts. (I will report this to Wikipedia so that IPs can be checked)

Editor Beebop211 has already shown that he\she is not open to cooperation and he\she has now reached the extreme unreasonable situation where he is now disputing that the article is being disputed! This gives a fair idea of his approach and respect for wikipedia guidelines.

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant. Currently the article in NOT compliant because important information is being deliberately omitted. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.

Where accusations are contested in a reliable source (e.g. that if Sousa Mendes punishment was a “severe crackdown” or that if Circular 14 was worse than the way it is being presented), it is important to include this challenge alongside the accusation, and to cover all sides of any debate in order to ensure the article remains neutral. The challenge should be attributed to the source. Give the facts to the reader to decide for them. The article had been edited as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:

• Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
• Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this is being done on spurious grounds).
• Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value

Your help would be appreciated in orderly improving the article within the wikipedia guidelines.JPratas (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Cullen, please help! Beebop211 (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley

Saturday, April 5 - WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited!

The University of California, Berkeley's Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend. Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Falling Barnstars!

		The Anachronistic Guitar Barnstar
		For getting Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix‎ through the gruelling FA process. I wonder what Hendrix would do with a Parker Fly? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Curly Turkey, but GabeMc did most of the work and deserves most of the credit. I am honored to have made a few contributions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Counting on (and grateful for) your help

Dear Cullen328, If you are willing to continue to help resolve the situation on the Sousa Mendes page that would be fantastic, since you are up to speed on what's going on. I asked for help on 3O but they will not get involved because they see your summarizing comments and they are going on the assumption that you will continue to help. So, are you willing to continue to be involved? I hope so. If you are willing, please point to specific parts of the article that need improvement. I've listed a proposed shorter bibliography--let me know if it needs further cutting. I've explained (on my own Talk page) why I don't think Schindler-type "character flaws" are appropriate here, but will follow your instructions. For example: the "San Francisco incident" which you now know well--it's amusing but is it important, and if so, why? Do you want more to be said about his marital problems, and if so, to what end? Interpretation is a tricky matter. Thank you again for all your help. Beebop211 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the article needs to be a complete biography of his whole life, with emphasis of course on the events of 1940 and the aftermath. It needs a section similar to the one I've pointed to in Oskar Schindler for the same reason as with that article. That is a good article and this one isn't, at least in part because of your determined efforts to keep even well-referenced negative information out. Researchers looking at the personality characteristics of the "righteous Gentiles" and other similar people who risked all to save others need to see a broad view of these people's character. Is there a streak of rebelliousness that is a common characteristic, and a willingness to depart from social norms? So I ask you to reconsider your opposition, Beebop211. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will give it some thought and look for summarizing statements from Fralon and Paldiel (the best general sources in English). To me, far more interesting is the demonstration that he was given a warning in April 1940 to stop violating Circular 14, but he did so with full knowledge of the consequences. That's far more interesting to me than sordid details about an extramarital affair. I'm not one for tabloids. But perhaps you can guide me a bit more, so that I get what you are suggesting just right: You know the facts about the San Francisco case--what conclusion would YOU draw? How would YOU characterize what transpired? What relevance do YOU see to the events of 1940? Without guidance I am just shooting blind, because I don't personally see the connection. Thank you! Beebop211 (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I've just looked at the encyclopedia entry on Sousa Mendes in the highly reputable and widely consulted Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Mendes.html), and here is the sum total of what is said about the pre-war period:

Aristides de Sousa Mendes was born on July 9, 1885, in the village of Cabanas de Viriato in the scenic northern province of Beira Alta, Portugal. He was the son of Jose de Sousa Mendes, a well-to-do high court judge, and Maria Angelina de Abranches.

Aristides and his identical twin, Cesar, were raised with strong values centered on the family's ancestral traditions and profound Catholicism. The twin boys learned to respect the law at their father's knee, and pursued law degrees at Coimbra University, one of the oldest universities in Europe. They graduated in 1907, with identical grades. Opting for careers in the diplomatic corps, they occupied varied posts over the globe. But the special bond of twinship remained a constant in the brothers' lives.

Aristides married his beautiful cousin, Angelina, before entering the Foreign Service in 1910. "Gigi'" as her husband called her, was a woman of simple tastes, great heart, and uncommon valor. She would share the burden of her husband's one man rally against inhumanity and be victimized along with him, die an atrocious death, and be denied even a common obituary.

From the beginning of Mendes' diplomatic career, Angelina traveled with him on assignments, pleasant and arduous alike: British Guiana, Spain, California, and elsewhere. Along the way the couple had a total of 14 children. The glamour and adventure of the family's lifestyle was tempered with many a serious bout of malaria, and the challenges of finding adequate housing and proper schooling.

The year 1929, disastrous for so many, was a good year for the Sousa Mendes clan. The diplomat was promoted to consul-general and assigned to the bustling Belgian port city of Antwerp. He settled with his family in nearby Louvain, where the 13th and 14th children were born. The older sons and daughters attended the famous university.

Evenings were special times for the family. The children played their instruments and the consul displayed his tenor's range while mother sat by with the youngest on her lap. Before bedtime, the father led the family in praying the Rosary. Not even the maids were excused. Sunday outings, after church, were de rigueur, for the jovial Sousa Mendes was passionately fond of joining in the children's games.

Antwerp was the most rewarding assignment of Sousa Mendes' career. He became the dean of the diplomatic corps there. The couple's hospitality was well-known, and the city's mayor was a frequent dinner guest. Other visitors included Maurice Maeterlinck, and even Albert Einstein. Vacations were spent at the homestead in Cabanas de Viriato, which Aristides enlarged and improved, envisioning golden years with wife and flocks of grandchildren visiting and cheering up the aging grandparents.

It was also in Antwerp that, in 1934, terrible tragedy struck. Gathered around the table to celebrate the university graduation of the second son, Manuel, the family gasped in horror as the graduate sank to the floor and died. The autopsy revealed a ruptured blood vessel. Months later, the couple lost also their youngest and 14th child. Their great faith sustained them, but life had been forever altered for this uncommonly cohesive family.

The experience of painful loss in Antwerp may have been an indirect cause of Sousa Mendes' presence in Bordeaux during the critical months of 1940. He did not asked to be assigned to a consular post in Bordeaux, but did ask for a transfer from Antwerp. That son Jose showed no signs of recovering from the death of the brother to whom he was closest may have weighed in that decision.

Sousa Mendes wrote to Lisbon in 1938, requesting a promotion and a post in the Far East. His request was handled personally by Premier Salazar, who responded by naming him consul-general in Bordeaux. Sousa Mendes appealed, twice, but Salazar turned a deaf ear. The family moved to the French port city in August of that year, to the as-yet-ordinary 14 Quai Louis XVIII address. The building provided ample living quarters side by side with office space. Life resumed. The children found new schools and new friends, they liked the mild and sunny climate, and Sunday family outings were now in the French countryside. Beebop211 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I've just gone through Paldiel's lengthy entry on Sousa Mendes in the encyclopedia The Righteous Among the Nations and he has exactly one sentence on the prewar period (p.263): "Born in 1885 into an aristocratic Portuguese family, Aristides de Sousa Mendes entered his country's diplomatic service and was posted in various places." Beebop211 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have now gone through Fralon, who devotes 39 pages of his 177 page book to the pre-war period. In those 39 pages there are precisely three paragraphs that could be read as "scandalous": 2 on p.17 (about Brazil) and 1 on p.18 (about San Francisco). Here they are verbatim:

They could have stayed there (Brazil) longer if Sousa Mendes, in August 1919, had not been temporarily suspended by the Foreign Ministry, which regarded him as hostile to the republican regime. The Catholic, conservative and monarchist Sousa Mendes was undoubtedly no republican at heart. Here again there is a parallel with the experience of Salazar, who was also sanctioned in 1919 on suspicion of having taken part in a royalist plot.

Sousa Mendes responded to his ministry's decision in two stages. First, as an act of defiance, he emphasized his aristocratic origins by officially requesting that he be known from then on as Aristides de Sousa Mendes do Amaral e Abranches, and not just Sousa Mendes. Once he had done that, he wrote to his superiors on 22 May 1920, explaining that he had financial problems and had been forced to take out a loan in order to provide for his family's needs.

Aristides was reinstated in 1920 and posted to San Francisco, where his ninth child, Carlos, was born that same year. The consul ran into some problems with certain associations of Portuguese residents in that city, because he had stood up for his poorest compatriots when they protested against the working conditions to which they were subjected by their employers, who were also Portuguese, but much better off.

That's it. That's all it says. Is there anything in the above that merits inclusion? I'll throw it in if you think I should. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you! (And now I will stop writing on your wall and wait for your response.) :-) Beebop211 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this articles I've created?

Sorry to keep on asking your help. Could you take a look at this articles I've created?

• Carlos Sampaio Garrido
• Carlos de Liz-Texeira Branquinho
• Moisés Bensabat Amzalak

p.s. I saw you've deleted the chapter on Sousa Mendes from Pedro Teotonio Pereira's article. I agree with the deletion. Wasn't my editing. JPratas (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of Moisés Bensabat Amzalak article. I’ve included some material in the article and also on the article’s talk page. I don’t know how much of the info on Louca’s should be brought from the talk page into the article. I would be thankful if you could provide further feed-back and correct my English. Thank you in advance.JPratas (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Article finished

Dear Cullen328, I hope all is well. I have not received responses from you re: the treatment of the pre-war section of the Sousa Mendes page. Please scroll up and you will see how this issue is covered in the standard English-language sources. Also, please see my further discussion of this issue on my own Talk page. As you will see, Fralon's description of the San Francisco incident differs from the description offered in the 2013 colloquium (which you saw on YouTube). Either way I don't see what, if anything is worthy of inclusion. The other incident mentioned by Fralon, concerning Brazil, is immediately followed by a comparison with Salazar during the same period, and nothing else is said about it. I am left without any way to summarize details I don't know anything about, except perhaps to state that Sousa Mendes was a monarchist and sometimes disagreed with his government's policies during the pre-war years. So please let me know your advice. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, the article is done. Do you still think it's a lousy article? I hope not, since I've devoted hours to this thing. Best wishes, and thank you. Beebop211 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No Wikipedia article is ever done, Beebop211 and even the best can be further improved. I have expressed my opinion several times that the article needs to cover his pre-war loss of consular assignments, his political views, his personal financial and marital problems, and any other controversial claims, in a balanced neutral way. It is a biography of his whole life. This should be done in a way similar to how such issues are addressed at Oskar Schindler. The problem that I am having is that JPratas claims that these matters are discussed in reliable sources and you are telling me that the coverage is trivial. Is it true that Avraham Milgram, who is associated with Yad Vashem, is one of the best recent academic sources, and that many of his observations are no longer in the article? Who am I to trust? I made it clear from the beginning that I don't have deep knowledge of Portuguese politics and don't have access to the offline sources. I have to trust editors I am cooperating with to characterize the sources accurately and neutrally. And in all honesty, I fear that neither of you is neutral. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Milgram's book (which I have right in front of me) is not a biography of Sousa Mendes. It's a general book about Portugal during WWII, and it's primarily about the work of Jewish relief agencies, government policies, daily life of the refugees, etc, so it's good for context but not biography. His coverage of Sousa Mendes encompasses five pages (pp.80-84) of this 324-page book, and begins with his transfer from Antwerp to Bordeaux in 1938. It does not mention one word about his pre-Bordeaux life. Now let me address your requests one by one:

1. His pre-war loss of consular assignments: the only English source that addresses this is Fralon, and he devotes exactly three paragraphs, which I have already quoted to you verbatim. These paragraphs and the YouTube video I sent you are the only info I have. So let me spell out what we know from these two sources:

A. - that Sousa Mendes clashed with his government while he was briefly stationed in Brazil in 1918-19.

B. - that he served as the Consul General in San Francisco in the early 1920's, where there was some kind of scandal (the nature of which is contradictory between the two sources), but that he left on good terms with many members of the community, who threw him a banquet.

2. His political views: OK, I would be happy to add that he was a monarchist.

3. His personal financial problems: Already covered. The article discusses his descent from pre-war opulence to post-war destitution and cites an eyewitness. What more is needed?

4. His marital problems: Already covered. The article mentions that he married his former mistress with whom he had a daughter--how much more detail is necessary?

5. Any other controversial claims: I would be happy to expand the section on the number of visa recipients, if that is what you mean. Perhaps an explanatory footnote would be the best place for this.

Does this cover all the bases? If so, I will draft some language on the above. Beebop211 (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that only English language sources are acceptable? Milgram's book was not written in English but was translated. Portuguese language sources are acceptable as well, especially for material not addressed by English language sources. How about the contemporaneous coverage of the San Francisco controversy? Was that in English language newspapers, or Portuguese language ones? I am aware that there were several Portuguese language papers published in California at that time. How about coverage in the Brazilian press? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't read Portuguese. Only English and French. :-( And I don't have access to local Portuguese-language newspapers in California and Brazil from the teens and 20's. If you could please respond to the five points above I will draft some language for you to review. Beebop211 (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I just had a look at the Raoul Wallenberg article, which also achieved a "Good Article" rating. No mention of any scandals or controversies that I can see except posthumous ones related to the circumstances of his death. I'm curious as to why you think the Oskar Schindler piece provides a better model. Beebop211 (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware that Wallenberg was discharged from any diplomatic or consular post, or that he had chronic financial problems, or that he fathered a child while married to another woman. The article mentions that he traveled around the United States as a hobo as a youth, and once worked briefly pulling a rickshaw. Then again, he was only about 34 years old (presumably) when he died.

1. Please summarize and cite what Fralon says about the Brazil and San Francisco incidents. If you do not wish to do so, I will, since you have provided the Fralon quotes.

2. His disagreements with the republican government of that time period should be mentioned.

3. Didn't he have financial problems well before the war, as mentioned by Fralon?

4. Let's leave that alone for now.

5. The article as now written does not accurately reflect Avraham Milgram's comments on the matter of visa numbers in his 1999 article available online on the Yad Vashem website, which says that "the discrepancy between the reality and the myth of the number of visas granted by Sousa Mendes is great. Nevertheless, we must conclude that the majority of Jews who, in the summer of 1940, succeeded in crossing the Pyrenees and Spain to the Portuguese border, did so thanks to Sousa Mendes." I read that as saying that the generally accepted number of 30,000 total and 10,000 Jews is incorrect, but that error does not detract from the significance of his humanitarian acts. Milgram wrote that 15 years ago. Did he retract it is his book? Have other scholars challenged his conclusion? If not, the article should reflect what Milgram says in those two sentences. As a matter of fact, I think that they should be quoted in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies to get in the middle of the conversation. I would like to remind that both Fralon’s book (in French with English translation) and the Rui Afonso’s two books, the first “Injustiça” and the second “O Wallenberg Portugues” (in Portuguese) are commercial books written to sing the deeds of Sousa Mendes. Nevertheless they both had the intellectual honesty to describe the San Francisco’s episode, the track record of incidents, the formal complaint sent by the British Embassy, the way he handled money, and the role of his mistress (and later 2nd wife) in the fact that he died isolated from family and friends. Books say that he died only with his 2nd wife by his side. Fralon does not mention the salary but the proofs that he was receiving a full consul salary are overwhelming and this should no longer be in dispute. Now, Portugal was a poor country and a Consul’s salary was certainly not enough for Mendes to live the life of opulence he was used to. We can engage ourselves in original research and try to determine if $1,593 PTE was good enough or not. I can easily provide evidence that it was and I can upload the page where Rui Afonso says that it was three times the salary of a teacher.

Besides this two major books from Mendes’ worshipers I have used the following scholars

• Milgram. The 1999 paper is available online. In the 2011 book he says almost the same thing and adds: “Journalists and authors, especially those who wish to sing the praises of Aristides de Sousa Mendes, tend to overstate the number of visas he gave refugees in the summer of 1940….writers interested in lionizing Portugal for its humanitarian actions, Consul Sousa Mendes for his extraordinary feats, the Portuguese people for their humane attitude toward the refugees, etc..cite figures who not satisfy research criteria, but rather correspond to their wishful thinking…” Milgram p 121.
• Wheeler, Douglas – You can read it online. Free. Just have to register. Follow this link. [1]
• Neill Lochery's - PhD from Durham University and currently The Catherine Lewis Professor of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean Studies at University College London. He wrote a book titled “War in the Shadows of the City of Light, 1939-45” that dedicates several pages to the Mendes’ episode.

Google books allows you to read a limited number for pages, you should be able to read online most of the Mendes’ episode. The episode is described in neutral language, also says the numbers are a myth and provides a neutral rationale for why exactly did Salazar recalled Mendes and why Teotonio Pereira declared the Visas null and void.

I hope you can read it for yourself. (I have a Kindle version, cost $ 11). Follow this link

[2] And if you click on the page numbers you will be allowed to read the full page.

You can also find a fairly complete, extensive and enlightening, review of this book in this link

[3] It provides a fair description of Salazar and his policies and his strugle to keep Portugal out of the war.

I hope you find this useful. Let me know if I can be of further assistance with sources.JPratas (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

Hi there. Are we really including foreign language sources? If so, we need to include the three recent full-length monographs in French, all much more reliable than Milgram concerning biographical details about Sousa Mendes as well as the issue concerning the number of visas:

• Eric Lebreton, Des visas pour la vie : Aristides Sousa Mendes, le Juste de Bordeaux, Paris: Le Cherche Midi, 2010.
• Manuel Dias Vaz, ed., Aristides de Sousa Mendes, héros “rebelle,” juin 1940, Mercuès: Éditions Confluences, 2010.
• Manuel Dias Vaz, ed., Le pouvoir de dire “non” : Aristides de Sousa Mendes, Bordeaux, Bayonne, Hendaye, juin 1940, Bordeaux: Éditions Quatorze, 2010.

Lebreton devotes an entire chapter to the question of the number of visas, in contrast to Milgram’s 3 sentences. OK with you both? If so, I’ll reread these three books and pull out the relevant passages. Please let me know your thoughts. Beebop211 (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

When addressing "both of you", it would be better to discuss on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me repost there. Beebop211 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,323 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 22:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I dont know what is wrong with what i created and how to resolve this. Its urgent please advise UpkarSinghRai (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Negri’s Original Occidental Italian Family Style Restaurant page

Can you start the page? I read your page and your bio. I came here to see if I could alert you that I had posted back, and I noticed you often start pages. I have a learning disability and it's hard, I don't remember how to start a page. If it was started. I could add it. You seem like a very nice stand up kind of guy. Please put the union hotel in the article. thank you. I did not start the page on my father Carmelo Zito. I had a friend start it for me at a tech club computer meeting I attended. Apriv40dj (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Apriv40dj. I will not start an article about this restaurant unless I see significant coverage in reliable sources that shows me that the restaurant is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I believe that a section in Occidental, California about the importance of restaurants to the local economy, especially the old school Italian family-style places, would be the best way to start. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Letting you off the hook

Dear Cullen328, If you really no longer wish to be involved in the Sousa Mendes drama, I'm not going to urge you to continue to be involved. Believe me, I would rather not be involved myself. But if I cease to be involved I have no doubt that the page will revert to being the smear job it became in late October 2013. I am happy to include any fact as long as it is relevant and substantiated. Really I am. I do not speak Portuguese so have no way of knowing if JPratas is accurately representing Portuguese-language sources. For example: the business of the "San Francisco incident" I never knew anything about until I saw the YouTube video I shared with you. Then when I looked in Fralon I saw that he devoted one paragraph to it, and characterized the facts somewhat differently. Now I see that in one of the French sources the incident also rates one paragraph, and I would be happy to share that text too. But it's dispiriting when I present my findings on the article Talk page, and JPratas, instead of working towards common language, chooses to go on the attack. I realize that trying to reason with someone intent on doing harm is a waste of my own and everyone else's time. And I don't know what to do about it. Thanks for listening. :-) Beebop211 (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

And now I see that JPratas has started inserting language into the article before we have even agreed on how to characterize the five points of dispute. What to do? (Sorry if this question puts you right back "on the hook.") I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Beebop211 (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet may be able to help, as he is a highly experienced and very competent editor. He is also a tougher guy than I am, which may be a useful personality trait in this particular case. I will continue participating as long as I believe I can make a positive contribution. You might want to check in at that sockpuppet investigation, Beebop211. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Beebop211 (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Bracketbot and responses

TO THE READER: BraketBot had flagged Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) on his talk page, which page Cullen328 was apparently "watching". The following ensued...

Gregg's response (to BracketBot)

Oops! My bad. It's fixed now. (Oy... look at me: I'm talking to a bot.)

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328's counter-response

An intelligent response from the bot is highly unlikely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Gregg's counter, coun... oy...

Actually, it's an intelligent response from me that's unlikely. [grin] To be clear, though, I wasn't actually responding to the bot, hence my joke about it. I just wanted to document -- for me, if no one else -- that I fixed the problem. That said, I actually have been known to talk to bots. I figure I've got nothing to worry about, though, as long as they don't talk back. [grin]

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

My first six equal sign edit

I didn't think that you were "actually" responding to the bot, but rather that commenting as if I did might be considered amusing. I should give up on humor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

On Teahouse

When you reply on the Teahouse, I hope you can drop a {{teahouse talkback}} template on the talk page of the person who is asking the question. This will inform them that their questions are answered. I understand if you "ping" the user, and in that case, it's not necessary. I am helping a lot of you to drop teahouse talkbacks on talk pages though I never answered them. Cheers! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 08:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to ping, Nahnah4, as it is quicker and easier for me, and in my opinion, as effective. I often edit with a smart phone, and working with templates is awkward at best. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation Problem

Dea Mr. Cullen,

I am new to Wikipedia edit although I was a contributor many years ago. I have a citation problem and am flumuxed. I keep getting a "cite error" and I don't understand this.

I will continue researching. If you know a quick solution, please let me know. Hope you are having a good day--I am writing from Tarquinia, Italy.

Below is my edit for poet Ray Bremser, adding details about his marriage and his wife's prison letters to Ray which became the book titled Troia in 1969.

Thank you and sincerely, Jerome Poynton Literary Executor to Herbert Huncke Writer

You have made some mistakes in formatting your references, Jerome Poynton. Please take a look at Referencing for beginners. Please also check the spelling of LeRoi Jones' later name, and write in an encyclopedic tone, avoiding slang like "on the lam". Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Request

Cullen, I would like to request your intervention regarding the current conflict on the UB article. Please see Talk:University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. Thank you, Daniellagreen (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have commented there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

About citations

Hey Jim! Thanks for the response in the teahouse. It looks like someone is, in good faith possibly, bombarding the page with references to a commercial site. The page is one I am editing although recently. But I have put about 60 hours into it. I don't want to tick anybody off who is working on that page though. I would like to see the commercial citations removed. How do I delicately go about having that done? I already put a statement about it on the page's talk page. Thanks - Jen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenjhall (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow to respond, Jenjhall. I suggest you remove any references that you conclude are overly promotional. I wouldn't rule out all commercial websites as reliable sources in such cases. The determining factor is whether the content itself is overtly promotional, or whether it is neutral technical information that is not brand specific. You could post your concerns on the talk pages of other recent active editors to the page. A review of the article history will show that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I figured out who put the citations there. I was done in good faith given his other work on the page. But there are 75 citations pointing to the same quite commercial site. So, I put a friendly invitation to discuss the matter on the users talk page. I began that invitation with a compliment regarding how much work the person has done on the page. I will let you know how this progresses.- Jenjhall (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a very good strategy, Jenjhall. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I just heard back from the person and he agreed that it was ok for me to remove these references. Since we are the only ones who have appreciably worked on this page in over a year I don't think anyone else will mind. Thanks for your input.-Jenjhall (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am glad it worked out well, Jenjhall. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

C is for cookie!

I baked a digital cookie just for you! Thanks for all your help at the Teahouse; you practically answer all of my questions. Bananasoldier (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

T is for thank you, Bananasoldier. Happy to be of assistance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dallas Buyers Club

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dallas Buyers Club. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Good afternoon, re: article for deletion

Hi Cullen,

Good evening and how have you been? Great I hope.

It has been awhile since I have been here, school and family life has been a killer this year. However, I am trying to get some editors involved in a discussion regarding an article marked for deletion. As I was the creator of the article I would like the recruits to be people other than those that I have actually had contact with and not really sure how do do this but thought that if I could tell a few editors and then they could tell other editors that way it wouldn't be a biased set of people getting involved. Anyhow if you might want to take part the discussion is located at Patrick article marked for deletion It has been re-listed twice due to lack of participation and any input would be appreciated. Please place "talkback" on my talk page as it should notify so i know to come back should you have any advice or questions. This is in no way a request for a vote to "keep". Just an FYI that this discussion could use some help. Thanks Tattoodwaitress (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Tattoodwaitress, and it is good to hear from you. I think that I will refrain from commenting on the AfD since I don't want you to be accused of canvassinvg or me to be accused of responding to canvassing. I know that your comment here is in good faith. My only recommendation is to update the page with recent events - the outcome of the walk, referenced to reliable sources. Also, try to add some more biographical details. I looks like most of the comments are recommending "keep". I like DGG very much and think he's a great editor. But he is opposed to articles that he thinks are too promotional, and he and I have discussed these issues a few times. Usually he is right, but I think sometimes he goes a bit too far. But he has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, and independent editors will never agree 100% of the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I shall take another look later today. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ahh thank you so much for your input here Cullen I was not sure if I was allowed to ask for some input or not Ooops. I won't do that again. It was in good faith as you said. As always you are very smart where these matters are concerned. Thank you for your time. Have a Great day and happy editing. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything improper, Tattoodwaitress, since you had no way of knowing how I would react. But I responded with an abundance of caution. I am glad that your article was kept. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again and I am always happy for the education I can get from you. I am glad the article was kept. The wiki article not "my" article. Just something that I learned around here is don't take it personal because its not yours it belongs to everyone and is done for the good of wikipedia. I am happy my attitude has changed a little bit since I started editing here. It does make it much easier when you don't take things so personal. Have a great day Cullen and again Thanks for being you. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, too, for being the Tattoodwaitress, and enjoy this humorous day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Researching for first article, Bonaventure Frey

Greetings,

From the Tea House, I saw your input about using an English translation from a German document. The book "Bonaventure's Memoirs: a translation" is 91 pages, including 2 appendixes.

Tonight looking at the cover, right there in front of me (but very small) is a picture of the original German document. Chances are the school archives have one of these German memoirs. In high school, I had 4 semesters of German, but don't remember much any more.

I just searched on the book's publisher, Benziger Brothers (published in 1904) and find a wikipedia page on them. After the table of contents, there are 3 pages of "Translator's Note" explaining that the first 3 chapters were a "narrative delivered orally by Bonaventure to an anonymous chronicler".

In the last chapter my prof. mentions that the German text does not identify the author, and he does identify the author, but does not explain how he obtained this fact. Also, he explained that since this last chapter was written during Bonaventure's later years, it contains some factual errors in his recollections. The translator placed corrections in footnotes on these pages and left the German translated words "as is".

Being very new to wikipedia, I see the need to be concise. It will be a definite challenge to summarize an entire lifetime of accomplishments into a few paragraphs! All I can do is chip away, a bit at a time.

I really like being able to begin here and not with little scraps of paper scattered here & there.

Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You are being careful to analyze the source, and I think you are on the right track, JoeHebda. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Simon Collins

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Simon Collins. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Look forward to see you at Berkeley today!

Hi there. Thanks for signing up for the WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon at Berkeley that is happening today. I look forward to seeing you! We have changed the on-campus venue due to the response we've had, via Wikipedia and Facebook. Please take a look at the event page. If you get this message too late, we'll have a sign on the door of the former location directing you to the new one, which is only a short walk. See you then! SarahStierch (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We will be there at 1:00 SarahStierch since we want to hear your speech. Can you please hold two seats right in front of the podium so that Debra can lipread? See you soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Scholberg

Thanks from the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar.

Took a while to get my first one. Alatari (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)