Jump to content

Talk:Jack Hemingway

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

Untitled

[edit]

Saying he spent his early years in 'Paris, France and the Austrian Alps' doesn't make it clear whether he was in Paris and the Austrian Alps or Paris, elsewhere in France, and the Austrian Alps - ? |||| — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costesseyboy (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wha??75.48.8.163 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and fixed by wikilinking to Paris and taking out France. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian

[edit]

Do Canadians think of Jack Hemingway as being a Canadian himself? He was born in Toronto and lived there for three or four months, but after that? I'd appreciate comments. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scurrilous Claims

[edit]

Professor JR reversed the inclusion of Mariel's claim of sexual abuse by her father. He may be correct that the claim has not been corroborated but it is a first-person account which received tremendous press coverage and notoriety. The source of it, the documentary, was not suppressed. The WP page for Margaux contains the same offending material. Offensive it is but it is such a high-profile, unretracted, unsuppressed claim that it is a significant facet of Jack's personal history and its inclusion on the page is justified and proper for a neutral encyclopedia. To suppress it is, in my view, an intrusion which could be seen as sanitising and not historic. But I don't have any strong feelings on the subject, so if you think, on reflection, it should stay out, so be it. Sirlanz 09:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirlanz: Agree that it should stay out. Mariel's claim did NOT receive "tremendous press coverage", only, as far as I am aware, appearing in that rather obscure and minimally aired documentary (after her parents had both died) that dwelt upon sensationalizing Mariel's 'sour grape' issues in her troubled family relationships -- really saying more about Mariel, herself, than about any of her family members. Her uncorroborated claim has been widely disclaimed and discredited by those who knew the family, and was never mentioned by either of the alleged victims themselves. At any rate, it is not reliably based, is clearly very defamatory of a now deceased and highly respected person, and is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic-quality biographical article on his life. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Professor JR: For the record, I've never seen the documentary. I read about it at the time in mainstream press, so I can categorically state that your "only" is valid only within the confines of your own (in this instance) limited personal knowledge. Your point about corroboration is very weak. The only person who can corroborate the account is deceased, so corroboration is not a fair yardstick to apply in this instance. How can anyone say that the account is not "reliably based"? Who better to know than a victim? Accounts of other family members cannot be considered conclusive unless it's suggested that fathers are in the habit of abusing their daughters in plain view of others. I have to say that you seem to be promoting Jack subjectively, as indicated by your "highly respected person" the basis of which cannot be seen in this page as it stands (perhaps you could contribute something to the page to fortify that view because what we see there now is barely remarkable and does not provide any account of the level of respect he garnered). I note that Professor JR is extremely closely associated with the US Park Service and we see Jack was a commissioner of the Idaho Fish and Game. My frank observation is that we are simply looking at image protecting partiality here. But I stand by my agreement to leave it out; this is not a make or break feature of the article.Sirlanz 11:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirlanz: Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you will continue making good faith contributions.
FYI - Here's what Mariel Hemingway, still very upset about her sister's suicide and her childhood, and following her father's death, told CNN: "she believes her father . . . sexually abused her sisters Margaux and Joan", Hemingway told CNN, "she does not remember her father abusing her, but notes that she did sleep in the same room as her mother, who had cancer, possibly as protection from her father. She is not sure if her mother knew what was going on. It's possible that her father didn't even remember doing it, she says, because he was drunk." [emphasis added] (Source - "Hemingway family mental illness explored in new film," by Elizabeth Landau, CNN, January 23, 2013. Retrieved 2015-11-21)
'Believes', 'does not remember', 'possibly', etc., are hardly reassuring grounds or a valid basis for us including what was essentially tabloid material anyway, that also defames and besmirches a now deceased individual no longer able to defend himself, in what we should be striving to keep on the level of an encyclopedia-quality, biographical article. All things considered, it is probably best left out. (And, BTW, maybe you should see the documentary, which Mariel participated in for profit and publicity, among perhaps other, deeper psychological motivations. My principal reaction when seeing it was: Why didn't Mariel do this on a psychiatrist's couch instead of in a big-screen, Sundance Film Institute venue?? --- but, that way, there wouldn't have been any financial gain for anyone, or self-publicity for Mariel.) --- Professor JR (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Professor JR: Your latest post is highly enlightening. I regret not having the time to able to invest going into the original material as you have done so diligently. In reliance on what you have said, it's plainly wrong to state anywhere that Mariel made the claim at all but, rather, she did no more than make some vague rumblings (ramblings, even). So my suggestion to you is to go over to the Margaux page and do just what you've done here, suppress the suggestion that the claim was ever made. I had merely replicated that material (with citation) into Jack's page, it seems, as you point out, with poor foundation. Sirlanz 00:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having a line about these accusations is not 'defaming'. It would be so if the person making these accusations was a tabloid journalist, but it's Hemingway's own daughter who is saying this, and the accusations have been covered by reliable mainstream sources. Child abuse is often difficult to prove, as victims are rarely able to speak about it when it is happening, and therefore the fact that Mariel Hemingway is not able to give any definite proof in the form of say, legal records, is not unusual and is not a reason to outright discredit her claims. Clearly she has reasonable cause to believe that the abuse took place; the fact that she cannot say for sure whether others knew about it too isn't odd, given that this dysfunctional family rarely discussed their issues, according to the documentary. On the contrary, your insinuation that she is making this up is unfounded speculation. Speaking publicly about childhood abuse is difficult, and those who decide to do so often have to face criticism and disbelief from others, especially from those who hold the perpetrators to great esteem. For this very reason people rarely make up lies about child abuse for attention or 'defaming' — and those who do are probably so disturbed that they would not be able to make a documentary with a two-time Academy Award winner and give interviews to publications like The New York Times.
I don't know why you think Running From Crazy is 'obscure' or unreliable; it seems that this is your opinion, not a fact. It was directed by a two-time Academy Award winner and has been covered by publications such as the The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian (indicating interest outside the US), and Variety. It's an indisputable fact that the Hemingways as a family were dysfunctional and suffer(ed) from mental illnesses; according to the press reviews I've read, the aim of this documentary is to de-stigmatize mental illness, not to make tabloid headlines and further perpetuate the stigma. As for "Why didn't Mariel do this on a psychciatrist's couch instead of in a big-screen, Sundance Film Institute venue??" – how do you know she hasn't? It seems that her aim is, as I already mentioned, to de-stigmatize mental illness by talking about her family's case, as they are well-known for their struggles with these issues. Looking at it from another viewpoint, you could even say she is attempting to clear her family's name by de-stigmatizing the conditions and problems they suffered from and openly talking about difficult issues. I don't understand how the fact that she publicly speaks about this is proof that her claims are unfounded. There is no reason for her not to discuss this issue publicly, given how much has already been written about her family. Unless you're implying that being sexually abused as a child is something to hide, which I hope you are not.
In short: Running From Crazy is a noted documentary about the problems of a family known for both great talent and struggles with mental illness; in said documentary, Mariel Hemingway, the daughter of Jack Hemingway, makes a claim about her father. Both the documentary and the claim are discussed in reliable sources. I cannot find any reliable sources challenging the documentary or Ms Hemingway's claims, or claiming that she is mentally disturbed and publicly accuses her father of abuse for profit/fun/revenge. Therefore, it seems to me that according to WP policy, including a line or two about this claim is ok. Remember, we aren't writing "Jack Hemingway was a child abuser", we're merely stating that his daughter has claimed that he was. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
EDIT: However, we do need to provide better sources than the one cited previously; will do this tomorrow. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

@TrueHeartSusie3: Hello, TrueHeartSusie - I appreciate and don't necessarily disagree with anything you say here, and you should put the material into Mariel's, Margaux's, and the other sister's articles if you it deem necessary and appropriate --- but I would still maintain that it does not rise to the level of warranting inclusion in Jack Hemingway's entry. Quite clearly, we would not include such defamatory, even slanderous text therein if he were still alive, for Wikipedia:BLP reasons. (On a personal note, and for purposes of 'full-disclosure' here, I had the good fortune to get to meet Jack Hemingway and come to know him slightly, (and Mary Welsh Hemingway as well, she and Jack became quite close friends after Ernest Hemingway's death) and found Jack to be a very admirable and accomplished person in his own right; always very concerned about the welfare of his, we might say, 'wayward' daughters; and very distraught over Margaux's suicide. He was also highly respected and regarded by all who knew him in Ketchum and Sun Valley, none of whom believed his troubled daughter's claim in the 2000 documentary about something that may have happened, possibly, she wasn't sure, to her sisters years earlier.) I see no valid purpose being served by us if we include an ultimately very weakly-founded claim made years later in a documentary about his daughter's mental illness, in Jack Hemingway's biographical encyclopedia article, no matter how many (commercial, for-profit) media sources were wont to repeat it, perhaps being at least in part driven by motives of selling their newspapers, and getting hits on their blogs. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are admitting to COI and POV; you personally knew Hemingway and admired him, and hence want this article to reflect your impression of him. That's understandable, but it is against WP policy — if the goal is to create balanced articles, then both positives and negatives should be included. Being respected in one's community does not mean that the same person cannot have abused his children. However, it can definitely be shocking if you hear these claims of someone whom you hold in high esteem, so I understand your concern while I don't agree that it should be used as a guideline for editing this article. Mariel Hemingway is speaking of things which took place in the privacy of their home — it's not surprising that people in their community would have been ignorant about them. As far as I know, most child abuse takes places within families, hence why it is so difficult to detect.
As for your claim that this would not be added to a BLP article, you're wrong, see for example Woody Allen. I think you've misunderstood the criteria for BLP; it means we can't add material from say, tabloids and gossip magazines, but it does not mean that negative claims should be excluded, merely that they should be backed up by reliable sources and should not be given undue weight. Otherwise we end up with hagiographies. Again, it's Hemingway's own daughter making these claims, and she is quoted by reliable sources who do not seek to challenge what she is saying. She clearly believes that this took place (i.e. she's not speculating – she's stating that she believes it took place but is not sure about the extent of it, given that she was a child herself at the time. 'Speculation' implies that the person believes something "may have happened, or may not have happened" – M. Hemingway clearly states incidents in their home make her think it definitely happened), and is probably a better judge of her own family than random people in their community. I'm also confused by your reference to a documentary from 2000 – Running from Crazy is from 2013? If you can find reliable sources which challenge what she is saying, then by all means, let's mention them too. But I think at this stage you've admitted that you're against the inclusion of Mariel's claim largely because you personally knew and admired Jack Hemingway... which means you maybe should not be judging what should or should not be included. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
After watching the documentary, I must wonder whether we've watched different films. Mariel Hemingway speaks frankly of her parents' troubled marriage and the way in which it affected her and her siblings, but she also seems to have a great deal of compassion towards her parents. Yes, she talks of the children having to endure drunken fights and witnessing Hemingway sexually abuse Margaux while drunk, but she also believes that he endured traumatic things growing up, and probably had similar feelings of worthlessness as his children. She's also very frank about her own troubled relationships with her sisters, and about her own flaws. My impression of the documentary is not at all that she is trying to blame others for her issues or cause scandals — rather, the doc shows all members of the family as troubled people, who've all got their flaws and strengths, and that the real tragedy was their refusal to acknowledge their issues and discuss them. M.H. doesn't just speak of the abuse, but also states that her father was a "beautiful man" who was respected and loved by his community (indeed she acknowledges that few will believe her when she says he was abusive and their family troubled). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
@Professor JR: Thanks for your disclosure. That's in the best WP spirit and highly admirable. BTW, I note you welcomed me to WP, which is fine, but I'm confused because I started editing in 2006 and your account, at least, shows editing from June this year. I guess you were here under another ident previously? I'm wondering if I should be welcoming you! Sirlanz 01:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirlanz: Sorry, I got the impression from something you said that you were a new editor. I apologize. For my part, I have been editing since 2005, as an IP user until earlier this year, when I established the Professor JR account. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TrueHeartSusie3: So glad you joined this debate. In relation to your latest addition to the page, I think you should reconsider the second sentence. It simply makes no sense for someone to say they believe something but have forgotten the self-same thing. That's really a stretch. But I'm inclined, as you will have read, to support your inclusion of the first sentence. Sirlanz 01:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I feel it would be wrong to not have that second sentence, given that M.H. has public expressed that — again, let's remember that this took place when she was a child, so therefore she may not be able to go "oh yes, on this and this date, this happened", it's more like she lived in that environment and has been able to connect the dots only later. If you'd prefer, I can try to write in verbatim what she says in the documentary. She also says that the abuse would explain why she slept in her mom's bed between ages 7–16 (i.e. her mom was trying to protect her), I can add that as well.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
@TrueHeartSusie3: Well, it looks like we've now got two defects in our material: (1) we've now got an entire paragraph which focuses heavily on Mariel's mental condition on Jack's page (better suited to her page); and (2) we've got a heavy emphasis now on his page about his family dysfunction, perhaps overemphasis in terms of the overall proportion of things. I could add that I do not think it's a great idea including the hand-me-down mere comment of a journalist. And I note that Professor JR wants to use a catch-all "disparaging" to cloak the substance of the core allegation. So, never wanting to start a war on this, I think we've slid rather and though there has been a super effort at compromise by both sides (I guess I'm somewhere in the middle), we haven't really done well enough yet. Sirlanz 09:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted Professor JR's changes, because they clearly do not meet the NPOV criteria, and include unsourced claims (Mariel doing drugs, Running from Crazy being a television film not a documentary...). And yes, no need for such a long paragraph on this. I've tweaked the sentences a bit, and added a note which shows exactly what M.H. says in the documentary. Unfortunately, Professor JR seems determined to continue reverting me, even though he admits his policing this page breaks COI and NPOV. It's frustrating having to bicker over this. It's clearly stated that these are M.H's statements, if people don't want to believe her that's fine, and the other sections of the page do quite clearly focus on J.H.'s achievements. So it's not like the three sentences about the documentary are changing the overall tone of the article, they just make it more encyclopedic and balanced.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Also, the WP quote from Landau seems to be completely bogus – she writes for CNN and doesn't state this. Prof JR, stop reverting and adding material which clearly violates NPOV. We can seek dispute resolution if you'd like, but you've already admitted your COI in this issue, so please, follow WP rules and give it up. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
You've now struck the right compromise, in my view. I think if we look at the edit history, we can see Professor JR has an emotional investment in this (use of allcaps in the first edit reversion months ago, I see) with bias now self-evident. Sirlanz 10:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My mistake in attributing the quotes, incorrectly, to Landau --- I stand corrected --- they are from Hank Stuever in his Washington Post review of Running from Crazy (you might want to read it - here). But both of you, please, take a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I resent your implying that my edits to this entry are anything other than objective, unbiased, and in good faith. And really, all of this sordid, and uncorroborated Mariel stuff belongs --- if it beloings anywhere in Wikipedia --- in her entry, not her father's. And it puzzles me why TrueHeartSusie3 is so very intent upon adding these 'maybe', 'I'm convinced that', 'I think', 'possibly' claims about her estranged sisters by a still very troubled person, who gained financially from the documentary, into this bio. entry about someone else? --- Professor JR (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the "shrine" comment, I should not have used those words, but you state above that you met JH and know other members of his family as well as people from their community, and that you have a lot of respect for him. This implies a conflict of interest, and the view I get is that because of your admiration, you do not believe JH could have abused his children, and hence because you believe it did not happen, it should not be included. You added language that's clearly your POV, such as that the documentary is "disparaging" or the siblings relationships "festering". As for Mariel's mental health – she did suffer from anxiety, depression and low self-esteem in the past, which she openly discusses (indeed, the documentary is from her point of view) but this does not make her unreliable. If you believe that she is an unreliable witness due to her previous mental health issues, then you must have a source stating so. I doubt you will find one, as she is the one from the three siblings who has been able to break the cycle of mental illness, helps other people as a career, and is well-known as a suicide prevention activist. The impression I get is that because you find her accusations difficult to believe and don't want to believe them due to your personal connection to JH and admiration of him, you're determined on branding MH as mentally disturbed and a drug addict. Everyone is biased to an extent, and the first step to writing neutral articles is to admit this.
As for Stuever – you're misquoting him, he states that "Whittled down somewhat, “Running From Crazy” might have been an even better film solely about the fraught subject of siblings. Kopple’s work here is indebted to reels of footage from a documentary Margaux attempted to make in the mid-1980s about her family and her grandfather’s literary fame. (Pieced together, that film was eventually released in 1998.) Margaux made a show of jetting home to Ketchum with a camera crew, fixed on the concept of rediscovering Papa’s legacy. She also filmed a pilgrimage to Spain to watch her grandfather’s beloved bullfights; one gets the sense that the film was just a desperate bid to cash in once more." You claim that Stuever says that Running from Crazy is 'a desperate bid to cash in once more', when clearly he is making the comment about a film Margaux made. Stuever gives overall a very positive review of Running from Crazy. Again, we are not saying JH definitely did these things, we're saying that MH states this. I must ask – have you actually seen Running from Crazy? Because MH also says a lot of good things about her parents and tries to understand them. It's interesting how you accuse the material I added of being off-topic, while adding a lot of info on MH's relationship with her sisters. Furthermore, you're accusing MH of using drugs, when the source does not state this, at all.
Can you point out what exactly do you oppose in this: "In the documentary Running from Crazy (2013), Mariel discusses the family's struggles with mental illness, and states that her parents' marriage was unhappy. She also asserts that during her childhood, she witnessed Hemingway sexually abuse Margaux while drunk. She thinks that he also abused Joan, but does not think she was abused." These three sentences clearly show that these are MH's views, and I've used language that is neutral, I'm simply reiterating what she said. If we can make it even more neutral, let's do it.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
As for why I think this should be mentioned – we have a "family" section in this article, and the documentary is about his family. The abuse was perpetrated by him. It is relevant, although it should not be given undue weight (therefore I've tried to keep it short). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Oh, and also – MH does not speculate as you're implying, she clearly states she witnessed it happening.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Alternative idea is that we don't just mention MH's claims of abuse, but synthesize everything she says of her father in the doc, good and bad. Would this be a better idea? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Had another look at what you claim Stuever stated, you're completely misrepresenting his words. This is what you claim he writes: "Hank Stuever, in his review of Running from Crazy for the Washington Post, wrote: "She’s not doing this only for sport or self-promotion . . ." " the sentence continues with "in recent years, Hemingway has spent a fair amount of her time speaking out about mental illness and suicide issues and lending her name to related causes." which implies a completely different meaning, that she's doing this for charity and awareness, rather than for self-promotion
"Hemingway may deservedly feel that she’s reached a mountaintop of healing and inner truths and all that; but, as the film subtly reveals, she is still often staring at the summit from a valley far below . . . one gets the sense that the film was just a desperate bid to cash in once more."" As I already stated above, he is speaking of Margaux's film as a "bid to cash in once more". You're cutting and pasting his words so that it looks like Stuever is implying that MH is mentally disturbed and as such, doing this for cash. This is not what he says, he simply states there are still issues – which MH talks about, e.g. her issues with her sisters, her panic when her car breaks down. These are in the documentary because she allows them to be there.
Seriously, JR, how can you claim you are not biased when you are adding outright lies and misrepresenting what people have written? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

@TrueHeartSusie3: How 'bout if we just take it out of this article altogether, based on all of the reasons articulated above in this very lengthy tread, by me and in some of Sirlanz's comments, not to mention UNDUE. Seriously, why do you remain so very intent upon pushing this material about Mariel in this bio. entry about someone else? Let's put it in Mariel's, if you want. Bear in mind, that neither of Mariel's alleged 'victims' (Joan or Margaux) ever made the same allegations themselves, and that Mariel is only 'convinced' that this stuff 'may' have happened, or 'probably' happened, 'she believes'. That doesn't constitute a very solid basis for us including such material in Wikipedia. I'm beginning to wonder if you have some personal interest, beyond just disinterested editing, or connection with Mariel...? You don't, do you? Beyond that, I'm pretty well done here. --- Professor JR (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]

@Victoriaearle: Hi, I appreciate that you're trying to defuse the situation, but could explain what you mean by citing WP: SOURCE as criteria for not including a mention of Running from Crazy? I've cited the documentary itself, and I was under the impression CNN and WaPo are both considered reliable sources? I've also listed other reliable sources discussing this film (NYTimes, The Guardian, Variety) above. I'm confused by your statement that this is 'original research' (If I understood the revert reasoning correctly); the three sentences I added merely repeat what MH says in the documentary. It is possible to cite audio visual material as a source and citing an interview is not original research. I also don't think MH's claims should be ignored simply because the abuse was never reported to the police and because Joan Hemingway does not seem to want to (or is too unwell) to speak publicly. MH is in a position to say things about her family (It would be different if it was a non-family member making these claims), given that she is his daughter, and so far, I have not been able to find sources claiming that she is unreliable due to mental illness or drug addiction, as Professor JR claims. Of course we have to be clear that these are her claims, and I believe the sentences I added expressed this. I don't see how this case is different from the inclusion of Dylan Farrow's 2014 claim in Woody Allen's article.

Given that the documentary is quite notable (premiered at Sundance, directed by Barbara Kopple —who has won two Academy Awards and has had one of her films, Harlan County, U.S.A included in the National Film Registry— and discussed in reliable sources such as The NYTimes and The Guardian) and its focus is on the family of Jack Hemingway, I think it is worth mentioning in his article, as well as the claims that his daughter makes as they are so serious. We should definitely be clear that they are her claims and have not been verified by anyone else, but given that she was his daughter and claims to have witnessed the abuse, I think it does meet WP criteria for inclusion. From watching the documentary, it does not appear that MH is making these claims out of spite, as she also says a lot of good things about him, and is able to discuss her own failings in the family dynamic. I don't think Professor JR should take part in editing this or any other Hemingway-related articles, as he admits to COI in this thread. He made a lot of unfounded claims about Mariel Hemingway, which he initially included in the article as well. Furthermore, he added completely false information and misrepresented what the WaPo article said in order to make MH and the documentary look unreliable. He also did the same in Mariel Hemingway's article.

I understand that your edits have been made in good faith and that you are simply trying to defuse the situation, but I would like this issue to be discussed further, as Professor JR, who first removed the information, has a COI and it was impossible to discuss this with him. I'm fine with the information not being included if this is the consensus reached in a discussion between editors who have good faith and no COI, but unfortunately such discussion has not taken place yet. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Hi TrueHeartSusie3, there's a bit of a the wall of text above that falls into the WP:TLDR scope, so I've only been following a bit. I did initially remove this claim when it was first added, see this edit. We need reliable secondary sources to back up the speculation. We can't use Mariel's own words and put in Wikipedia's voice. If a source exists that can substantiate these claims independently, then we could consider using that. Fwiw, I've not been very active recently, and won't be for another few weeks, but I've worked very extensively on other articles in this suite and I believe I've made a number of edits here as well. In term of defusing, no, that's not the case. Certainly it's been on my watchlist for a long time, which is why I've seen the discussion, and more importantly the edit that reintroduced the information. I can't support its inclusion as written. Victoria (tk) 16:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of secondary sources do you mean? I agree that we definitely should not treat the documentary as a source that proves sexual abuse took place, merely that MH makes these allegations within that documentary. This might be clear already, but if you don't have time to read the rest of the discussion (which I agree is tiresomely long), I am not claiming that the abuse happened, merely that the documentary and MH's claim are notable enough to be included, although very briefly. You were certainly right in reverting the edit you've linked — we don't have enough proof to say that MH "revealed" anything. I am not aware of it being against WP policy to include claims if they come from people who are in the position to make such claims (e.g. a daughter claiming something about her father). I think Woody Allen' and Bing Crosby's articles show how this can be done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Also, what do you mean with this: "We can't use Mariel's own words and put in Wikipedia's voice."? My version ("In the documentary Running from Crazy (2013), Mariel discusses the family's struggles with mental illness, and states that her parents' marriage was unhappy. She also asserts that during her childhood, she witnessed Hemingway sexually abuse Margaux while drunk. She thinks that he also abused Joan, but does not think she was abused.") clearly states that these are simply MH's views. I don't understand how I've 'put it in WP's voice'? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
P.s - I hadn't noticed there was edit warring here, but when I logged in this morning saw the edit had gone back in and so reverted it per BRD. If you can supply sources that independently substantiate this claim (the WaPo article is a review of the film and uses Mariel's own words) then I'd suggest again adding it to Mariel's page and linking in here. Or you could try writing some text with adequate sourcing and post here to talk, and we can try to achieve consensus. Or, if you think it would survive AfD, you could write an article about the film. Victoria (tk) 17:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post edit conflict: we need secondary sources that substantiates the claim, I would think. Jack's father Ernest made many many claims and when writing any of the articles I have about him, and taking through FA, I avoid using his own words because there's no way of knowing what is true and what is not true without relying on biographers. I would think in this case maybe more sources might become available with time. Victoria (tk) 17:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting more and more confused — the documentary already has an article, and Barbara Kopple is a pretty established documentary-maker, so why are you talking about an AfD? Also, I don't understand what Ernest Hemingway's character has to do with this? Again, I'm not claiming that MH's claims are true, merely that she is making such serious claims in a reputable documentary, and as such they should be briefly included. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize the documentary had an article. Why does this information need to be cross-pollinated on all the pages? I rarely do that, particularly since it's the daughter's claim? Re EH, simply giving an example of why not to use someone's own assertions, that's all. Anyway, carry on. Sorry for interrupting. Victoria (tk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)r[reply]
Re:'cross-pollination' — because there is a section about JH's family, and he and his family are the subject of a documentary by Barbara Kopple, a well-known documentary-maker. I think the documentary should at least be mentioned in that section due to this reason. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I've just re-read the WaPo article and it seems the film is about the daughter, but we might be able to get some information in here about the parents, but it would have to be attributed to the daughter. If you could link any other sources too, that would be helpful. It's best not to use the film itself as a source, as in the version I reverted. I'll try to look in here when I get back to editing. Victoria (tk) 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that's what I've been doing all along, I've attributed these statements to MH all along, I've never added any material claiming the abuse definitely took place. This is why I'm so confused – I'm not saying this in a snarky way (I'm really sorry if it came across that way), but I'm genuinely confused, as it feels to me as if you're talking about the "Mariel Hemingway revealed, etc." edit, rather than mine. The film is from the POV of Mariel (given that she is the only one from in their family alive and well enough to talk), but its topic is mental illness and the 'culture of silence' in the Hemingway family; most of it is about the family in general, not just about her. Since I was merely writing about what she stated in the documentary, I thought the sources I gave (the film, WaPO, CNN) were adequate to demonstrate that she really said these things. All I was trying to do was to demonstrate that she claims these things happened, not that it actually happened, as that's impossible to prove at this stage. Unless Joan Hemingway comes forward, I doubt we're going to have any confirmation of the veracity of these claims, as the child abuse MH describes did not take place in public and hence she and JH are the only alleged witnesses/victims alive. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]


Parenthetical comment to TrueHeartSusie3

[edit]

@TrueHeartSusie3: It beginning to look as though you are not really open to any logical discussion on this matter, just zealously bent on cramming this stuff into Wikipedia for reasons that escape me.
But let me try one more time: Can't you understand, TrueHeartSusie3, that your own words in the preceding comment (" she claims "; " not that it actually happened "; " impossible to prove "; " doubt we're going to have any confirmation of the veracity ") are precisely the reason we shouldn't be accepting this text into Wikipedia --- and most certainly not into any other person's bio., other than maybe Mariel's own?? Can you not understand that?? Jack Hemingway's bio. entry is not a blog for discussing the subject of alleged or real child abuse in America, or whatever point you're trying to make here.
And, again, please knock off the personal attacks impuning the motives and intentions of another editor, and the ill-founded accusations of what you call 'COI' --- you really need to take time to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --- Professor JR (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professor JR, first of all, don't alter other people's messages, as you've done above by highlighting, that's strictly forbidden. Secondly, I was not making personal attacks, I was referring to your actions. On this talk page, you stated that the claims should not be included because you admire Jack Hemingway and have a connection to him and his community, and believe that Mariel Hemingway is a mentally ill, drug addicted, money-hungry liar. These are your opinions, and we should not be making decisions based on anyone's opinions. If you really don't understand what I mean, I suggest comparing the way Victoria has argued her case to how you did, and you should see the difference. You were not only making opinion-based claims on this talk page, but you then added false information to the article and intentionally misquoted the WaPo review. You've not explained your actions in doing so, but try to continue this discussion as if nothing happened. If you do not see how these actions are strictly against WP policy, and don't understand why other editors might oppose anything you say because of actions like these and your inability to admit to them — well, I think you'd be better of writing a blog than WP. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Your comments directed at me here, flatly untrue, are verging upon being libelous, not to mention once again violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making personal attacks, I'm simply repeating what you've written on this talk page and in the article. If you don't want to admit your wrongdoing (adding completely unfounded claims that MH has issues with drugs, and twisting Hank Stuever's words, etc.), that's fine, although it makes me concerned, as such actions violate Wikipedia. This 'discussion' between us is going around in circles, and since it seems there is consensus on how to proceed with the original issue (mention doc, keep claims in MH's/documentary's articles), I see no point in continuing it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

You wrote: "simply repeating what you've written"(?); "wrongdoing"(?); "adding completely unfounded claims"(?); "twisting ... words"(?) --- Really?
C'mon, TrueHeartSusie3 --- you're still doing it! What's with these ongoing mis-statements and accusations about another editor?? --- Professor JR (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained them above, and can back them up by diffs of your changes – so stop blaming me of making unfounded statements. How about you take a look at my messages above, in which I go through your 'quote' of WaPo for example, and demonstrate how you misquoted the review? Again, it's futile to claim you did not add that material, it's reverted but the archived versions of the articles (this and MH's) show your changes. Again, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]


Beyond the first sentence, in this version that I reverted, I think there's an over-emphasis on the daughter's pov and the alleged abuse. Keeping the first sentence would be fine, but without more sources, if they exist, there's not a lot more we can do. This article is about the father, it's not terribly long, and that's quite a long quote to add (among other things). I have to go offline now and as I said will keep an eye on it. Victoria (tk) 18:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning re:abuse claims, but I'm fine with just the first sentence being included — would it be ok if I added it back? As for the long quote, I only added it since Professor JR kept reverting my edits, and claimed that Mariel did not say that she witnessed any abuse herself and was merely speculating. I think when you have time, it might be worth reading through the long and frustrating exchange that went between me, Sirlanz and him, it will explain a lot. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Yes, I think that's ok. I'd source it the WaPo article though, instead of to the movie, and maybe rephrase so that it's from the pov of the subject of this article and not the daughter. But that's not such a big deal and can always be copyedited. I'll read the screed above when I'm able, but I have been keeping an eye on the article history when I've been able. Victoria (tk) 21:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the I've slept on this, I think I agree with your reasoning a lot more – I'm happy if we include maybe a mention of the documentary, and then I'll just focus on improving the doc's page, as it's underdeveloped. I simply got too caught up in the drama with Professor JR, whose reasoning for its non-inclusion smacks of whitewashing and taking sides rather than working for the improvement of this encyclopedia (not to even mention his falsifying of what the WaPo article said...). So, my apologies for any drama caused by me, and thank you for your good work :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Hemingway&oldid=1206437870"