Jump to content

Talk:Betty May

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Question about Early life section

[edit]

2nd para - After the struggle of supporting four children became too much, May and her brother were sent to live with her father which was the first time she had seen him. This sentence implies that May and her brother struggled supporting four children. Who actually struggled? Atsme☯Consult 01:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They all struggled! But I fixed it. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be tightened

[edit]

Just my opinion, but the article is too long, and tends to ramble with a lot of run-on sentences, and irrelevant information here and there. I focused on sentence structure, and coherence, and made it as far as the Cocaine section. There are quite a few quotes from her autobiography, and that may create a copyright issue. I suggest replacing some of them with prose except for a few that could be used to demonstrate her tone, or style. I was hoping to have a review finished for the DYK, but I don't think the article is quite ready. Atsme☯Consult 04:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will take another look. I am not sure it is too long, it's someone's whole life and an action packed life too. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not disputing that at all, but for example, to list names of models she knew is blah, blah unless you explain the significance of her knowing them, especially names that aren't notable. Lose the trivial details, and focus on the action. BLPs highlight the most notable aspects of a person's life, they don't detail them. Just my 2 cents, and considering the rate of inflation, you know what's that worth. Good luck with your article! Atsme☯Consult 00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but I wanted to include the names of the other models because they were sometimes amusing, some are notable and mainly to make clear that there was a gaggle of them all plying their trade which seems to involve a combination of modelling, singing and dancing if they could, meeting wealthy men, sometimes prostitution (uncited so not in the article) and often coming to a sticky end! Believe me, I left plenty out, the book is over 200 pages long. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the tag will bring in some collaborators who can help tweak and tighten, and correct the autobiography source issue. Thanks for correcting the date - Atsme☯Consult 14:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is very likely. Try searching for yourself and I think you will see what I mean. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Hi Philafrenzy, fascinating article about an interesting woman who lived quite the live at a really interesting period. Below is a list of books that have a bit more about her, or if it's information that's already in, might be used to swap out sources. Personally I don't think the tags are necessary. I started to read it, and didn't think the prose needed a lot of work at this stage, but I might pick at it a bit.

Good luck with this, and thanks a lot for writing it. P.s feel free to ping me if you want or need help here. (personally I think you've done a nice job!) Victoria (tk) 21:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Victoria, I have had some help with the prose. I speculate elsewhere that this article is actually the second longest piece ever written about Betty! There are several interesting spin offs. As they say on Amazon and elsewhere, if you like this you might like Dolores (artists' model) or Lilian Shelley. I will check those sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check too whether she's mentioned in some of the dead wood sources I have about the period - mostly to do with Ezra Pound, but he was definitely on the edges of this set. Yeah, it's very interesting period, with all those vampy women! I've removed the tags. There's really no need for them at all. Victoria (tk) 21:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Victoriaearle, it would be wonderful if you could start reading from the section on cocaine. I did some of the clean-up to that point. I did not delve into checking sources, but looking at the inline citations, I did notice there were quite a few from her autobiography. That mixed with the number of actual quotes vs prose may or may not present a problem. Just trying to help. Atsme☯Consult 21:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not a problem for an article like this. How else are we to get the information? All of the article is sourced, Duckworth's is a reputable publisher, Powell a very reputable editor, so it's not a situation of being a piece that's self-published. Given that in 15 minutes on g-books I was able to find more about her (admittedly, most of it in relation to Crowley), I think what we have is fine. It would be problematic for FA, but not in an article that's still being built. And fwiw, I basically dislike tags anyway, and especially don't like seeing an article about a woman, where finding sources is like scraping them off the ground, being tagged. I'll keep an eye on it and pitch in to help wherever. I think it can be restructured a bit, but would like to let Philafrenzy finish building. Victoria (tk) 22:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments about Powell are interesting because one noticeable thing about Tiger Woman was that it actually seemed fairly reliable (apart from the knife fighting in Paris and the Crowley bits which I took with a pinch of salt.) She was well known then and I think they took care to get it fairly right as much of the chronology ties in very well, for instance Bunny being a doctor and being in Bisley and I was able to find his military records and the marriage details etc. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources linked above is Powell's memoirs. I'd wondered whether he might be the ghostwriter, but after reading what he has to say about Tiger Woman, I'd say probably not. At any rate, it adds a little more to the story. Victoria (tk) 23:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
She knew a lot of writers and journalists and specialised in brainy men. It could be anyone but probably a journalist. In one of the trials she says it was not written by her but was partly written from articles she supplied to the press so it is clearly not a complete fantasy and much of it rings true and fits with the other known facts. I suspect that she had a major hand in it even if she did not produce the actual final text. She was clearly intelligent but had only basic education. You can read the first chapter in the Amazon preview or buy it on Kindle if you like. It might be good for someone else to actually read the book. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, a Betty M. Golding married a Waldron towards the end of 1916 in St. Martin district, London. If it is her and that is Major Roy Waldron R.A.M.C., that is before Bunny was killed and according to her they never divorced. Notably, she gets no mention in Bunny's obits. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting and not totally surprising. 1916 was a terrible year in every way. The war was a bloodbath, she was deeply coked out apparently, so I suppose why bother to wait for divorce papers? I'll have a look on Amazon but RL is fairly busy so not sure when I'll get to it. I've added a source above. I imagine if the musical does well and gets good press more sources will come available. Certainly she's a good subject for a musical. Victoria (tk) 00:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Powell has some more but the rest are no good I am sorry to say, they all just rehash the old stuff. Now you see the difficulty of writing this one! I was wondering whether May got her facts wrong, thought Bunny had been KIA and she was free to remarry? She wouldn't want to mention bigamy in her book. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My theory about the authorship confirmed by Powell. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, prob. It only took a few minutes to find them and I suspected anything to do with Crowley might not be usable. There's a lot of that material and it's all repetitive. Glad the Powell is helpful. No, she wouldn't want to mention bigamy. But the book was written much later and who knows what was going through her mind in 1916! Victoria (tk) 00:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure she was the hell-raiser she made out. Powell didn't think so. If she did accidentally wed too soon I am inclined to think it was because she though she was free to do so for some reason, but that is just speculation. She didn't have to marry any of them, I think she was always looking for love. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Nicely done article. Could benefit from an infobox. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there would be much to put in it. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images; MOS

[edit]

I edited some images to face center; in accord with images MOS. Pointing to MOS. Which states that it is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Phila reverted me. Without any reason other than a personal view that he likes the images the other way (with the faces or eyes looking away from the text, off the page). I'm not sure why Phila is insistent on reverting, so that the image placement is contrary to MOS. But rather than just revert his revert, I'm first mentioning it here. Phila - do you have an MOS-based reason, rather than simply your personal preference? --Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is one pic where the eyes (which are closed) and body are facing right (The Sphinx picture) and another half right with the body facing towards us (Nina Hamnett). My reasoning is that placing only one or two on the left looks odd and where they are at the start of a para disrupts the flow of text. It seems to me that easy reading of the text is the more important factor. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MOS suggests that with such images, it is preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. That is what I did. Indicating I was doing it per MOS. You, on the other hand, reverted. Here. So that the subject's eyes would look away from the text -- the opposite of what MOS calls for. Asserting your change was "better" - but not explaining why it was "better" to edit contrary to MOS. You then did the same here. So that the face looks away from the text. The opposite of what MOS calls for. Your reason? "Same." But again not explaining why it was "better" to edit contrary to MOS.
Your reasoning now? Your personal point of view. Contrary to the MOS. That the MOS approach "looks odd" to you, and in your view "disrupts the flow of text." But that's not how MOS sees it -- the Project is full of images placed properly on the left, per MOS, in circumstances such as this, whether in the first para of a section or elsewhere.
The whole reason to have MOS in the first place is so that editors avoid imposing their personal view of what looks odd, or better, and follow a community standard for presentation. You haven't given any reason to violate MOS -- which was pointed out to you ab initio as the reason for the placement - other than your anti-MOS personal view. That's not appropriate. Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just explaining why I did what I did. Surely it's better to have the text flow well than worry about one set of eyes looking out of the page? We don't have to be slaves to the MOS. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine?

[edit]

100 grams a day? Really? 28 and a half 8-balls in one day? Heroic, I'd say! But I think you meant grains, not grams. 50.151.37.91 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Betty May. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Betty May. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Betty_May&oldid=1231478846"