Jump to content

Talk:Helen Parsons Smith

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Helen Parsons Smith/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Skyerise (talk · contribs) 14:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 15:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately tagged.

  • Geni.com is crowd-sourced so is not a reliable source.
  • Is Rivers (1967) a masters or PhD thesis? Doctoral theses are fine, but masters theses are usually not widely reviewed or cited so that wouldn't be a good source. I see you only use it in one place, where you're also citing other sources -- can it be eliminated?
  • What makes billheidrick.com a reliable source?
  • I have doubts about College of Thelema Publishing as a reliable source, but it seems to be being used for non-controversial material so I think it's OK.
  • weiserantiquarian.com is being treated as a source for comments about the biographies of people mentioned in this article -- what would make this bookseller a reliable source for biographical data?

I'll hold off on doing the spotchecks in case any of these sources have to be removed from the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Christie:
  • I've removed the Geni.com source.
  • I've removed Rivers (1967) as well as it is a Master's thesis. It had been used for some bibliographic detail about one of Crowley's limited editions which Parsons Smith owned and which ended up in the Harry Ransom Center's collection; that detail was subsequently removed but the citation accidentally left behind. I'm not even sure the text was in the vicinity of where that citation ended up, so it may have just been a bad paste. Thanks for calling that to my attention.
  • Well, there are two parts to billheidrick.com - part is his personal self-published material, which wouldn't be usable; but the site also hosts the Thelema Lodge Calendar, a long-standing serial publication of Thelema Lodge of Ordo Templi Orientis, Inc. As a corporate publication, I would think it would be reliable for an obituary of one of its senior members. Heidrick died in August 2023 and the site is I believe maintained as a digital archive by the Order in his honor. He was the editor of TLC for many years.
  • College of Thelema's In the Continuum is used as a source in several of the books cited, including One Truth and One Spirit, Strange Angel and The Unknown God. As you rightly point out, it's only been used for minor non-controversial details that didn't happen to make it into one of cthose biographies.
  • weiserantiquarian.com is only being used for bibliographic details about Parsons Smith's publications. Samuel Weiser published an edition of Crowley's Equinox; Weiser Antiquarian is a well-respected rare occult book dealer and their descriptions of books tend to provide little details other sources omit. In the place where this citation is used, there is also a citation to Readdy (2018). Readdy covers the biographical details; Weiser is used only to verify that the publications were intended as and are considered additional volumes of Crowley's Equinox. The biographies tended to leave out details that are only of interest to publishers, booksellers, and collectors. (I moved the Readdy citation a bit earlier in the sentence: it covers all the biographical information in the paragraph, while Weiser covers the bibliographic details about the books mentioned in the paragraph, i.e. that they are indeed considered part of the serial publication of the Equinox.)
Skyerise (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your answers look good to me; I went through the sentences cited to billheidrick.com and I agree those are fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • FN 20 cites "However, a number of prominent members left, among them Regina Kahl and Phyllis Seckler." I don't have access to this; can you quote the supporting material?
    • "Others would forcibly depart 1003 before him. On September 30, Smith asked Phyllis when she was planning to leave the house. She suggested she would move out in November. She left October 3, vowing never to return." And for context, Regina has been away at a relative's in Texas due to health issues. When she returned "Jack offered Regina a home at 1003 with no work; she refused his offer. On November 10, she announced to the profess house her impending departure [...] and left 1003 to stay with her oldest friend in Hollywood."
  • FN 16 cites "In June 1942, the dynamics within the Parsons household evolved as they, along with Smith and other Thelemites, established a communal living arrangement at 1003 South Orange Grove Boulevard in Pasadena. The Lodge had subdivided the house, a rambling mansion next door to the estate of Adolphus Busch,[a] into 19 apartments which were populated with a mixture of artists, writers, scientists and occultists." I don't see "1003" or "June" in the source.
    • Ah, I must have gotten those details from Starr, p. 273, which I've added as a backing citation for the details: "The Thelemites took possession of 1003 S. Orange Grove Avenue on June 9, 1942, Smith's 57th birthday."
  • The first paragraph of "Life at Agape Lodge" is unsourced.
    • Resolved. I just forgot to copy the citation when I grabbed the original text of that from Jack Parsons. I checked Pendle and the page numbers are accurate.
  • FN 2 cites "During this time, Helen Smith, as she was known after her marriage to Wilfred Smith, played a pivotal role in the dissemination of Thelemic teachings and practices within the O.T.O. community. She became deeply involved in the editorial process of The Equinox, a seminal serial publication associated with O.T.O. Under her imprint, Thelema Publications, Helen oversaw the publication of several issues of "The Equinox," which served as a platform for the transmission of esoteric knowledge, rituals, and philosophical treatises central to Thelema." I don't see where the source says Helen was known as Helen Smith. More relevant is that I'm not sure the language you use here is really supported -- for example, "pivotal role in the dissemination ... within the O.T.O. community": the source says she furthered the cause during the O.T.O.'s quiescence, and then when the O.T.O. became active again she "continued to play a role in its guidance", but the language seems stronger than the source supports. I also don't see mention of more than one issue of The Equinox under her hand.
    • If you will look at the bibliography, you see that the volumes dated 1971, 1976, and 1991 are III (7), III (8) and III (3) respectively, though the later is a republication with a new introduction; but she did extend the series by two issues. I changed the text to specify three issues with a footnote about the reissue.
      OK on the three issues. I'm still concerned that the language isn't really supported by the source, though. A "pivotal role" is a strong claim, implying that without her the dissemination of these ideas would not have happened, or would have been much less effective. The source makes it clear she published these works but it makes no comment about other publishing effects; it doesn't say, for example, that without her efforts some things would have remained unknown in this community. I think it would be better to weaken this language a bit unless some other sources are available to support it -- for example cutting "pivotal" and "deeply", and everything from "which served ..." to the end of the sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Understood, I will do that. There is probably some source that I used that presented her role in that way, but even so it's pretty much editorial opinion and the fact that I didn't cite it leads me to assume it wouldn't have been considered reliable. Skyerise (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 32 cites "In late April 1976, Parsons Smith and Seckler heard that Germer's widow Sascha had died. They drove to Germer's house in West Point and discovered that Sascha had died on April 1 a year earlier and that the house had been vandalized since her death, as it was almost impossible to lock properly." I don't have access to this; can you quote the supporting text?
    • "Sascha died on April 1 or 2 of 1975, but it was a year before we heard if it." "When we drove to West Point [...] we discovered that Sascha had been dead since April 1 or 2 of 1975 and that the house had been vandalized three times that they knew of." [...] We stated that the materials in the library belonged to the O.T.O. and that they had been willed to the Order by Karl." [...] "In the middle of July [...] we all drove to the Germer house [...] We spent several hours boxing every last scrap of paper that seemed to us to be important [...]". The gap between April and July was because they had issues getting legal access to the house to recover the Order property stored there. I modified that text to accurately reflect the difference between hearing the news and gaining access to the house. Skyerise (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Does that source also cover the comment that the house was almost impossible to lock securely? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, thought I'd included it but had difficulty selecting text from my copy of the document: "Since it was difficult or almost impossible to lock up, it may have been vandalized more than reported." Skyerise (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I think I can provide those fairly soon. I may just remove the 1003 and June details from that one paragraph. They are correct details and I surely had a source, but if I forgot to cite it there it may be hard to find those details again. Also, if you will look at the bibliography, you see that the volumes dated 1971, 1976, and 1991 are III (7), III (8) and III (3) respectively, though the later is a republication with a new introduction; but she did extend the series by two issues. Skyerise (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Skyerise, just FYI that I'd like to get these resolved before I go on with the review -- I'll need to do another spotcheck anyway, since a spotcheck has to pass for the article to be promoted, so this one has to be resolved before I can do that. Once that's done I'll read through the article and add any further comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Yes, today is the day I had scheduled and I am about to work on it. Thanks for you patience. Skyerise (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Done. I hope interleaving my replies is correct in this context. Skyerise (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please continue to do that -- it makes it much easier to see how each point has been addressed. Most of my questions are resolved; there are two followup questions above for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Thanks. I took care of the overly strong language and provided the rest of the quote that I'd apparently dropped or forgotten to paste. Skyerise (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing before I do the next spotcheck -- the paragraph starting "as a publisher" repeats some of the same comments about Smith playing a "crucial role" and contributing "significantly"; this is cited to the same source. It's a long webpage; am I perhaps missing material elsewhere on it that supports this? Or should this also be cut? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into that later today. Thanks again. Skyerise (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Ok, I've taken care of that too. The source covered the facts but not the tone. Also, the era in which her work was significant was overstated. During the 1970s, there were few new works being published in the field. But by the 1990s when the reissue of The Equinox of the Gods was published, the field was much more active and her role not so major, so I've specified "during the 1970s" and removed a duplicate "during this era" which seems to imply a broader time range. While I try to keep a factual tone, it's been pointed out to me before that I sometimes get a little too enthusiastic. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for trimming that. I'll go ahead and do another spotcheck now this one is sorted out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to do a second spotcheck but the first thing I checked was this:

  • FN 2 cites "Following the death of Germer which led to O.T.O.'s quiescence in the early 1960s, Parsons Smith worked with Gabriel Montenegro to further the cause of Thelema." The source has "during the 1960s Helen worked with Gabriel Montenegro to further the cause of Thelema during the period of the O.T.O.'s quiescence." The source doesn't mention Germer as far as I can tell, and this is also too close paraphrasing.

I have to pass the spotcheck before the article can be promoted to GA, and if I were to get a couple more failures on this spotcheck I'd really feel obliged to fail the article. Can you fix this one, and perhaps take a look through the article to make sure you're confident in the remaining sourcing? Or if you're confident that it's clean after fixing this, let me know and I'll go ahead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've looked into this and fixed it. It was improper synthesis compounded due to the fact that I'd forgotten to include the citation for the first phrase. That source also coincidently uses the word 'quiescence' with respect to the period from Crowley's death to Grady's revival. Because I forgot to add the citation, I later merged the sentences. I think it is mostly good, since most of the early life material and citations came from Jack Parsons, which is FA, and Wilfred Talbot Smith, which is GA; so any other mistakes like this will primarily be in the material I wrote myself to cover the period after Wilfred's death. I'll double check that part and then you can proceed. Skyerise (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Ok, I've been through it. I replaced Heidrick with Starr in a few cases where I used it for a period covered by Starr. Otherwise it Heidrick is used only for details or after W. T. Smith's death. Skyerise (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do another spotcheck pass this afternoon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second spotcheck. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • FN 16 cites "Throughout the early 1940s, Helen's participation in the activities of the Agape Lodge mirrored Jack's, with both actively engaged in the rituals and ceremonies conducted within the Thelemic community. Concurrently, Helen provided support for Jack in his pioneering work in rocket propulsion, notably his involvement in the foundation of the Aerojet Engineering Corporation in March 1942 to develop JATO technology for military applications." The source doesn't mention Helen at all as far as I can see; it only supports the last few words of the second sentence.
  • FN 31 cites "In 1952, Parsons died at the age of 37 in a home laboratory explosion that attracted national media attention; the police ruled it an accident, but many associates suspected suicide or murder." The source doesn't say what the police thought of the explosion, or mention what his associates thought.

Sorry, Skyerise, but I have to fail this. Based on the edits you made above I'm sure this is all sourceable, but I can't promote to GA until the sources are in order. Best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alas! Next time I won't assume material copied from an FA article is properly sourced! Thanks for your time. Skyerise (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]