Jump to content

Talk:Helen Hadsell

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


Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 02:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

this one still needs a full review. Bruxton (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this nomination extends beyond the hooks, since the article itself is way too credulous. I read the article and looked at the newspaper stories in footnotes 3 through 6 and there's not a shred of proof presented in any of them that Helene Hadsell won even one contest, much less every one she ever entered. Each of these stories is of the mushy, back-of-the-paper soft news variety (so much for the good old days of pre-Internet local journalism ...). We need Snopes to go back in a time machine and do a fact check on this lady. Until that can happen, sentences in the article like She entered and won many contests for items and for all-expense paid trips. and She also won a house at the 1964 New York World's Fair. and After reading the book she began entering and winning contests. and Her first win was an outboard motor in a contest sponsored by Coca Cola. and Next she won a bicycle for her daughter, and then trips to Europe, Disneyland and New York. and Hadsell won the home. cannot stand as they are. Each of them need to be modified with "She claimed" or equivalent words. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasted Time R: Hey, thanks for checking out the article. I was extremely interested in the subject and the metaphysical/positivity angle. FYI: I think her actual claim was she never failed to win something that she wanted, but some reporters took that to mean she never lost a contest. And I used those references for the hooks, so now I have tainted the nomination. Bruxton (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: To dig a little deeper: Back then, there was a hobby/activity/obsession called "contesting", in which people would increase their chance of winning contests, by submitting tons of entries to random drawings or becoming creative at submitting entries to contests that wanted inspirational words or marketing phrases or limericks or whatever. There are newspaper stories about contesting and its contestors, such as this UPI story about a different woman, Joan Seltzer, that ran in a lot of papers, or this Cincinnati Enquirer story about an Ohio man, Wesley Hurley, who after 15 years of compulsive sweepstakes entering was apparently involved in setting up the American Contest Association, which issued bulletins listing every active contests at a given time. Like Helen Hadsell, these people all have instructional help they are trying to sell, as does Joanne Allison, who ran this ad in a Wyoming paper. Perhaps the best profile is that of Chuck Brucks of Florida, in this Orlando Sentinel story, who has spent five years contesting and has won a lot of things but never, apparently, anything he wanted much. Now if you look at the continuation, this last story does mention Helen Hadsell, who is credited by this American Contest Association as being the biggest winner of all of these contestors ... and the American Contest Association is marketing her The Name It & Claim It Game book.
What to take from all this? Are these people are winning some things in sweepstakes and other contests? Yes. Are they exaggerating their accomplishments in order to sell their instructional wares? Maybe. But to the extent they do win, it is by what the Orlando Sentinel describes as "the contester's three-pronged credo: 'persistence, patience and postage.'" Seltzer describes entering thousands of contests with hundreds of wins. Brucks describes spending $6000 on thousands of entries and winning 230 times for a total value of $6000, meaning he's only breaking even.
So Helen Hadsell did not win every contest she entered, nor did she win everything she wanted to win. It's impossible. Nor were her wins due to psychic techniques or positive thinking. If she won, it was by the same methods that the others contestors used. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasted Time R: Did she enter many contests? yes. I do not think she ever denied that. And I am just learning that she entered many contests under her husband's name Pat Hadsell - in the 60's they called her Mrs. Pat Hadsell. When she won the outboard motor from Coca Cola she entered as Pat Hadsell - probably thinking why would they let a woman win an outboard motor, (the contest was won with an essay). Last night I added another news article of her family posing with a model of the house her family won. Did she win a house? You made a very strong statement above which I think is argumentative. Does positivity work? The answer is I don't know, and neither do you. However, the statements about her positivity are all qualified in the article with "She claimed". So focusing on that aspect is sidetracking. Regarding winning everything she ever wanted - it is not in the article... so again not something to focus on in a DYK. I erased the claim of her winning every contest. I followed the news articles reporting her many wins - and some of it was also her own self promotion. Helen Hadsell promoted herself well with speeches and books and courses. Finally you can give a red tick, or you can tag the article as a wp:hoax if you like. Bruxton (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: I didn't mean to sound argumentative towards you, apologies if I did. And I don't want to fail the nomination; it's an interesting subject. But I do want to get the article in the fairest shape possible. So some more digging. Look at this Daily News Tex story from early 1964, before the Formica house win, in which she sounds just like every other contestor from that era – indeed she is head of a local contesting club. Her family submitted lots of entries, didn't win anything for a long time, then she took a correspondence course in contesting and got a better idea of what kinds of phrases contest judges were looking for. At that point she starts winning, but she still hadn't won anything big. No mention of the power of positive thinking whatsoever, no mention of how reading Norman Vincent Peale turned things around for her. Now look again at the December 1965 Fort Worth Star Telegram story you added recently, which is after she won the Formica house contest. Again, no mention whatsoever of Peale, positive thinking, auric energy, or anything like it. Now jump ahead half a decade and go to this Irving Daily News story from early 1972. Her Name It and Claim It book had just been published in 1971 and she's full of her positive thinking/she-wins-every-contest stuff. It's completely different. So as I see it, the article needs to present that she was originally a contestor, and was the head of a contesting club, and she used contesting techniques to get some wins; and then later she became an author and instructional sales person, and pitched a different source for her wins. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasted Time R: thanks, you have done a considerable amount of research for this nom. I wonder if you might consider editing the article and adding the verbiage and research. It will be much appreciated. Bruxton (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasted Time R: Please let me know what edits I should make to advance for the nomination to proceed. Bruxton (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: I took your invitation to add to the article and ran with it (and maybe I went overboard? hopefully not). I'm now finished with my additions and changes; see what you think of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasted Time R: It is a more thorough and comprehensive article after the edits. I think the "contestors" part provides context and neutrality to for the metaphysical claims. I also think you have enough to start work on a contestor article. If you start one I will participate. Thanks for making Wikipedia better. Bruxton (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay good. At this point I'm obviously a contributor to the article and can no longer be a reviewer, so I'm marking it as such and flagging it for a fresh look by someone else. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll take this one on. Article is new enough (at the time of the now-stale nomination), and long enough. QPQ done. Earwig found no problematic copying. The WP:INUNIVERSE problems of the nominated version have now largely been fixed. There are a lot of short paragraphs which I think could be merged, but that's not enough of a prose issue to block DYK. Thoroughly footnoted, and although some sources look overly credulous, I think that is properly balanced for WP:NPOV and that the few sources that don't come from reliable publications (like the "Here are the prize winners!" ad) are nevertheless appropriate in context. I changed the tense in the two hooks from present to past; I think that's de minimis. I think ALT1a is a little more unbelievable and therefore more hooky, but both are ok and properly sourced. Good to go with ALT1a or ALT2a. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining Helene Hadsell's Legacy

[edit]

My name is Carolyn Wilman and my company owns all of Helene Hadsell's work and is maintaining her legacy. I agree there are errors on the Wiki page. I spoke to her son Dike about helping me to correct them. He said, "Well, if it's on the Internet, it must be true." As I only have some of her records, I can only fix some of the errors, but not all of them. I am happy to help in any way I can. PittaGirl1967 (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PittaGirl1967: Thanks for posting here. Do let us know what you believe is a factual error on this page. Please be as specific as possible, and please point to some source or other evidence that you think validates your belief. [Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)][reply]

"Tabloids" and "fringe"

[edit]

:Also, around the time you posted this, User:49.195.22.237 (that is, someone who had not signed in) put a tag at the top of the article saying "Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable", and in their edit comment, they said "Tabloids are not reliable sources". I don't know if this person was you or someone else, but in any case, I do not believe that any of the sources used in the current article are "tabloids" in the classic sense of the British press or the New York Post. Instead, they are mostly regional or local broadsheets, which were the newspapers where Helene Hadsell's activities were most commonly reported. So it is necessary to know the specific names of newspapers used here that are being characterized as unreliable tabloids. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is now clear that this is a separate matter from the Carolyn Wilman post.User:49.186.37.225, presumably the same person as 49.195.22.237, has now put a {{Fringe section}} tag on the "Author and lecturer" section, with the edit comment "fringe and pseudoscientific views lacking neutrality in this section. Also warning that 1st hand research is being solicited in the talk page. This article could do with edits from those less aligned with her work."

But if you read more carefully, you will see that there is nothing in the "Author and lecturer" section that accepts at face value anything Hadsell talked about during this period. Instead, the article just says that during this period, she gave lectures on a mind control technique, or that during this other period, she said she won prizes due to auric energy, and so forth. It is a fact that she engaged in these activities and made those claims. Relating those facts does not mean that the activities have any basis in science (they don't) or that her claims during this period were grounded in reality (they weren't). Wasted Time R (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helen_Hadsell&oldid=1207506043"