Biography: Actors and Filmmakers C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Indiana C‑class Low‑importance

Frances Farmer is within the scope of WikiProject Indiana, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for, and sustain comprehensive coverage of the U.S. state of Indiana and related subjects on Wikipedia. Template Usage Change Patrol Articles Requested Become a Member Project Talk IndianaWikipedia:WikiProject IndianaTemplate:WikiProject IndianaIndiana articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Things you can do: WikiProject Indiana alerts Requested Reassessments Indiana articles needing assessed Indiana cleanup listing Articles needing infoboxes Articles needing attention To-do Lists Articles needing images

United States: Washington / Eastern Washington Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Eastern Washington task force.

Archive 1: January 2005-January 2007

"Legal insanity" is a state decided only by a jury in a court case. Unless Farmer was on trial for battering her mother and found guilty by insanity and then sentenced to the Western State sanitarium--or something of the like--I believe this to be an inappropriate citation and the entire phrase should be removed. 208.96.208.138 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the claim that Frances Farmer is mentioned in the first verse of Smells Like Teen Spirit needs to be further substantiated. It's not mentioned once in the Wiki page for the song, nor can I immediately find reference to it on the internet.

It would be very interesting if it is true, I just don't think the evidence is clear on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastmav (talk • contribs) 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This piece has a breathless, fan mag tone. Maybe fewer details of the "spiral down" would help.--Parkwells 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Posthumous acclaim" section is all about Cobain. Delete it as not related.--Parkwells 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got totally confused in the middle of a revision, trying to move the "Sensational Accounts" down to the end, instead of having it all in the middle of her life. I have to take a break before trying to work on it again, and apologize for deleting some text about "Shadowland". --Parkwells 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding a lot of your revisions to be frankly more confusing than what was there originally. I think the Trivia section needs to be re-instated and those comments moved back there--the way you've re-done it makes the article very disjointed and non-chronological. I also think we need to revisit the references--per the comment below, I think it's obvious that at least "Shedding Light on Shadowland" was used extensively as a reference, not just for the noted items, and it looks like the "History Link" was, too. It's fine to have them in both sections--there's certainly nothing in Wikipolicy stating otherwise. Just my 2 cents--don't have time to address any of this today, but I may come back later and attempt to get this back into some meaningful shape. 96.225.199.176 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website "Shedding Light on Shadowland" has no sources. The article really needs some more substantial citations.--Parkwells 18:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are mentioned throughout the Shedding Light essay. I agree about the article, but I don't understand this comment. AndroidCat 22:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to Parkwells' Talk page--I completely agree. "Shedding Light" is exhaustively sourced--there's virtually not a paragraph/statement in there that doesn't refer to verifiable source material. I also think it's a bit disingenous to remove it as a reference, where it's been for some time (at least since I first read this article), when it's used so extensively as source material itself in this article. 75.164.223.219 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and systemically added references/citations, not only where they were requested, but also throughout the article where information was obviously gleaned from various sources. We need to do a thorough review of the History Link article and cite its contributions to this article. 96.225.199.176 (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The well known french singer/entertainer Mylene Farmer took her legal name after Frances Farmer.

71.245.158.31 (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Babylon has more details about Farmer, particularly her behaviour in court. I don't have a copy anymore, but perhaps someone who does could add the details (.... when asked if she drank, she responded something along the lines of "yeah I have a little vodka in my milk, what do you want me to do, die of thirst?" and listed her profession as "cocksucker".) Hairhorn (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Babylon is a notoriously unreliable source and I can't imagine that it would come anywhere near passing standards for reliable sources. That's something akin to saying "National Enquirer" insists it's the truth. Not gonna happen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Booooo... that book has its moments, good and bad. I'd bet there's another source for the Frances Farmer material, but it's probably buried in an archives somewhere. Hairhorn (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As do all gossip rags. Most of the juiciest stuff has been proven untrue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote was actually about her having benzedrine in her orange juice ("What do you want me to do, starve to death?") and in fact is one of the few things Anger actually culled from contemporary newspaper articles (which I assume would be deemed reliable sources). The "profession" she alluded to was not as vulgar as described (and repeated in the notoriously fictionalized film), but the more prosaic "prostitute," again as reported in many contemporary news accounts. I don't know how to properly reference things, but I'm happy to provide actual day/date and name of newspapers where these were published in January 1943. 75.164.206.100 (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is not a gossip tabloid and I can't imagine how that could be worked in without being sensationalistic and unencyclopedic in nature. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curious as to why this talk page and the main article are suddenly missing more than a month of revision material. At least the revisions are showing on the talk page history, but the article revisions are gone from the history. 75.164.206.100 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. This just isn't that highly trafficked as a page that is edited. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is. For example, the whole "Hollywood Babylon" section had disappeared on the Talk page itself (without anyone reverting/removing it) and the last Talk page edit showed as the one before that, until I "re-added" it by making the edit including the "Why" section from the last diffs on the talk page history (sorry if I'm not being clear). If you go the article history, you'll see that all of the edits subsequent to mid-February (including some of your own reverts of vandalism, IIRC) have strangely disappeared. Just curious--it's no big deal, I've just never seen anything like this happen before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.206.100 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just like that, they're back. :) Truly strange, unless someone is Gaslighting me.  :) 75.164.206.100 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No clue. Sometimes as a matter of housekeeping, administrators move articles and return them, but I have no idea of the overall rationale. Sometimes it is because someone has added certain content, for example, personal contact information of other editors or subjects, or content that could conceivably be libellous. Maybe that has something to do with it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually suspect an Admin playing with their tools hit a wrong button and my pesky questioning alerted them to their error, LOL.  :) 75.164.206.100 (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That photo is actually a Universal publicity photo from the 1941 feature Badlands of Dakota, so "late 1930's" is incorrect. However, Farmer was indeed labeled as one of the "Paramount Pretties," which was a catch all phrase Paramount used in those days for such stars as Dorothy Lamour, Veronica Lake and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.206.100 (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 75.164.206.100 (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would require a reference to support it. And simply adding in "a Paramount Pretty" skirts the title of peacockry if it isn't covered in the article and properly sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Paramount Pretty" is the caption for a different studio promo photo used in Hollywood Babylon, which I notice has also been discussed in a previous section, so I guess we're all familiar with Hollywood Babylon. But, obviously, we're not Hollywood Babylon so we can avoid the peacockry. Rossrs (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be peacock if the caption carried something like "...called a Paramount Pretty by the studio..." and the photo was verifiably from the time when they did that. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that attribution would reduce the "peacockry", and I believe that the term was most likely used by Paramount's publicists, but I still do not think it would be appropriate here. The image is in the infobox where the main purpose is to show what Farmer looked like, and without accompanying text any descriptive caption would be without context. I'd consider it differently if the image was used in the article body where text could support a description. She's been called "beautiful", "tragic", "doomed", "talented", "unconventional", "modern", and I think one of her co-stars fondly recalled her as "a pain in the ...." These can all be attributed and reliably sourced but picking one of many available descriptions to the exclusion of others, I see as unnecessarily introducing POV in an area where it can be easily avoided. My earlier comment was a little sarcastic, and I regret the tone of it, but I think magazines, for example, do a good job of finding key words to attract the eye of the reader, and that we needn't follow their lead. Hollywood Babylon uses the "Paramount Pretty" moniker to heighten the tragedy of her situation and that's fine for that type of publication. I don't think it's so much a question of attribution or even reliable sourcing, but of relevance and of maintaining a simple format. Rossrs (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think attribution and context would tamp out any worries about "Babylonization" of the article, an encyclopedia likely should let readers know what Paramount called her in their own house-brand marketing terms, so long as readers are made aware that's what they were, product branding. Btw the phrase Paramount pretties is awful, low end, tacky 1930s tabloid trash-talk, it was then and it is now. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this particular photo is a Universal photo, not a Paramount photo, is from 1941, and from her one Universal film, Badlands of Dakota, so Paramount Pretty would not be appropriate. I was simply mentioning that indeed Paramount used the (admittedly tacky) term for their stars in the mid to late 1930's. BTW, if you do even a cursory Google image search, you can find this very photo with the Universal copyright of 1941 still printed on the border, and several with "Badlands of Dakota" referenced. 75.164.206.100 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Along that line, I should also say (but forgot), I'm wholly neutral as to any weaving of the Paramount slogan somewhere into the text, I was only saying that if a consensus for doing so does show up, it could easily be done in an encyclopedic way. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be quite a useful comment to make in the article, especially as it was that type of branding and promotion that Farmer resisted, and it could be done in an encyclopedic way. The first paragraph of "A rebellious star" would be the likely place to include this information. We would only "Babylonize" things if we put it in the infobox. Rossrs (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, putting it in the infobox would be... highly unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) It does not make sense to remove a citations needed tag considering this BLP article wholly with minor and trivial exceptions relies on Jeffrey Kauffmann's website. 2) A BLP needs more and better citations than one guy's website. Kauffmann seeks to refute the claims made by others (Farmer, Arnold etc.), so it is rather relevant to include the work and claims he seeks to refute. To repeatedly remove details, which pertains to the article subject and their life and refutations stated makes little sense. We can not present one side and then not the other when both are interlinked. Also the dispute of Farmer's book remains to be seen, considering many psych. academics have referred to her book in their work. Similarily The Citizen's Commission on Human Rights' view on the state of Steilacoom is relevant to include. NPOV should be observed. Fragma08 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine regarding the template. However, you keep insisting that this is not an unreliable source. It contains direct quotes from Farmer's book. In fact, that is what you are using here, direct quotes from her book, copied into another book. Will There Really Be a Morning? was widely disputed regarding accuracy, both of content and of Farmer's memory. In fact, it is bad practice to rely on content from one book copied into another. And you are also relying on a website to quote the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights, part and parcel copied from one source, to the website and which you have copied verbatim from the website without properly citing the entire quote you have pasted. Again, where's the original source? That's the issue here, copied from copies from copies. You aren't quoting the Commission as you claimed here, you are copying a website that isn't the Commission. That's a problem as far as I'm concerned. It's basically copyright violations. As for denigrating the source used, take a hard look at what was sourced from there. Dispute any of it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see the copyright violations. What I do see, is several books written by psych. academics citing Farmer's book. Where is the widely dispute regarding Farmers book and content - other than Kaufmann that is? Also would it not seem reasonable to include, what Kaufmann seeks to refute? Or else we should not include Kaufmann and his website either as the two are heavily interlinked and the omission of one preluding half is my concern. Books are used in many articles and BLPs are rarely supported mainly by original research or primary sources. The fact that pshyc. experts, authors are using Farmer as point of reference is important surely. It would seem perfect in line with NPOV to include Farmers version, along with secondary Arnold and then Kaufmann's dispute of former's claims. The CCHR, (quoted albeit through a secondary source so not really my claim) part can be rephrased or/added the full original reference which is Psychiatry – Manipulating Creativity, CCHR booklet, Los Angeles, published 2002, p.35. I am not sure I follow your last sentence and what you want me to look at. What and why are you accusing me of denigrating any source? I don't see how this will help this discussion and I do dispute any such accusation made by you. Fragma08 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not going to do this ad nauseum. You are using copies of copyrighted material that could and should be sourced from the original source, not a copy. Not for either source you added. I don't intend to go about hunting up the places where Farmer's memory was questioned or the veracity of her book was questioned. However, you claim that psych sources use her book as if it were a Bible, not a disputed source. It wasn't even fully written by her and it was published a full two years after her death and was "ghostwritten" by her friend Jean Ratcliffe. They aren't all her own words or her own story. That's one of the sources being used here. That's a problem if we are supposed to accept what's said in that book as Farmer's words. And I have a huge issue with relying on something affiliated with Scientology to source anything regarding mental health issues. I didn't say you were denigrating a source, my impression is that you are denigrating what I have to say about the Farmer book, and I'm totally uncomfortable with sourcing anything in this article that comes from Scientology. It keeps bringing up images of Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah Winfrey's couch. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are already going at this ad nauseum and ad hominem by claiming I am denigrating anything, when I am not. Your tone is a bit incivil. Good faith goes a long way. My point is simply: that your objection against using Farmers book can only have basis, if we also remove all mention of Kaufmann, his theories and work (which may not completely accurate either). It is irrelevant, whether the quote of Farmer comes from a second persons book or if we jot down the page number from Frances' own book. That should solve it. Books are mentioned and quoted on wiki articles all the time. If you don't intend to hunt down sources to prove the alleged dispute. then your arguing against including Farmer's book makes little sense. One may ask why we should then rely on Kaufmann, a musician's, website as the correct account of Farmer who he never even met - contrary to Jeaniara, who lived with Farmer. Mentioning or linking CCHR to Scientology via their wiki entry is no problem on my account. Still bottomline, if you are going to include Kaufmann's alleged refutation of Farmer (1972) and Arnold, then both latter works become relevant - disputed or not. That is all. Fragma08 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently didn't read my response. I clarified what you perceive as denigration. You most certainly are denigrating my opinion and comments about the ghostwritten Farmer "autobiography". On the other hand, you need to "hunt down sources" that support the book is reputable. It was ghostwritten and that's the bottom line. Why would Jean Ratcliffe know? Farmer lived with her 30 years after her release. I'm unsure how you can hear my "tone". I haven't spoken. And stating my "tone" is incivil is not assuming good faith. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read your response in full. And using accusations like "denigrating" is incivil in itself. Just because I don't agree with you, does not mean I am denigrating your opinion. Sidetracking. FYI I do perceive your tone as uncivil and that is apparant from your writing, which I dont need to hear. You are not helping your case. Just because you claim it was ghostwritten/disputed - does not mean your claim is reliable. I don't need to hunt down sources when you claimed disputed content of book, but won't pinpoint it. The onus is on you, not me. The fact, that Kaufmann on his website, criticizes Farmer's and Arnold's book, makes both worthy of inclusion for neutrality, or else Kaufmann can not be included either. It is that simple and remains. Fragma08 (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CCHR are not "mental watchdogs" (talk about NPOV, LOL)--they are part and parcel of Scientology. If quotes from them are going to be included, their affiliation with Scientology should also be included.174.25.148.83 (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that Fragma08 removed his/her "sidetracking" comment from this discussion, as Scientology plays a very important part in the dissemination of Farmer's story after her death. Arnold was a self-professed Scientologist, the CCHR (a Scientology group, which can be gleaned by a very cursory internet search) is referenced in his book as providing material, and both the CCHR's website and Scientology in general continue to use Farmer as a supposed example of psychiatric abuses which Scientology has waged a very public crusade against (e.g., Tom Cruise's infamous "debate" with Matt Lauer on the Today Show). The important part here is the verifiable factual inaccuracies of the CCHR commentary which Fragma08 has copied verbatim from the CCHR's website. One glaring example: Thorazine was not developed or tested or released until years after Farmer was released from Western State, again easily verifiable by simply looking up the Wikipedia article on Thorazine, LOL. (The hospital is not called Steilacoom, BTW--Steilacoom is the name of the original Fort there and the subsequent town that sprang up around the location). The "official" name is Western State Hospital.174.25.148.83 (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by that there is some sidetracking going on, when main points not addressed and the manner of objections stated is questionable. I removed it as I didn't want to feed it. The repetitions not really leading anywhere either. Now we are talking about Scientology, Tom Cruise, Oprah. I am also aware of the difference between Western State Hosp and Steilacoom but news articles mention it as Steilacoom at times. Not objecting to mentioning CCHR's affiliation with Scient. at all. Fragma08 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to include a link to Wikipedia's own CCHR article, which clearly spells out the Scientology connection in the lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights 174.25.148.83 (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the content from CCHR is more error prone than at first glance. Farmer left the hospital for the last time around 1950. The content says "She was also used as an experimental subject for drugs such as Thorazine, Stelazine, Mellaril and Proxilin." Thorazine was not released for distribution until 1951 and not used in the U.S. until 1954. Stelazine wasn't approved by the FDA until 1959. Mellaril was not approved for use until 1962 and Prolixin wasn't approved until 1959. Testing would not have occurred in a state hospital a full 10 years or more prior to approval. It just doesn't work that way. And it doesn't support these claims. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to in my comment two above yours. :) The CCHR site is full of inaccuracies on any number of subjects. 174.25.148.83 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses are getting interpolated here (up above), I will continue to post at the bottom. A couple of issues: it's not "sidetracking" to (quite correctly IMHO) mention Scientology's M.O. and possible motives vis a vis misrepresenting what happened to Farmer. Fragma08 (in his/her retracted statement) wasn't even aware of the Scientology connection to CCHR, which is completely relevant, especially considering the fact that Fragma08's quote from them is littered with inaccuracies. Fragma08 also has perhaps misunderstood Kaufman's background as well. In full disclosure mode, I have emailed Mr. Kaufman for years--but while he does make part of his living as a musician, he's also a very well known writer and journalist with scores of articles published internationally (again a cursory Google will support this). Fragma08 also misstates Kaufman's relationship to the Farmers, at least tangentially. As his article makes clear, Frances' sister Edith and her nephew David provided copious information to him, including medical and legal records, etc. While one can question the Farmers' motives in this regard, to imply that Kaufman's research is flawed I think is unfair, especially considering the minutiae he uncovered about her and which is extensively sourced in his writing, unlike Arnold, for example. Kaufman also never questioned Farmer per se (at least that I can see--please point it out to me if I missed it), only Ratcliffe's revisionism and errors. Finally, it's also untrue that Kaufman is the "only" person questioning Scientology's and the CCHR's account of what happened to Farmer. I have in my own collection several newspaper and magazine articles covering these items, everything from (I'm not kidding) a National Enquirer to (I'm not kidding again) American Atheist. There have also been several tv shows that have gone into this, so it's not like it's the ravings of one madman. :) 174.25.148.83 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly 174.25.148.83 has selective reading skills so I will repeat: I did NOT retract my statement about sidetracking. Again, by that I do NOT mean bringing in CCHR's Scientlogy link to which I again have NO objection. Sidetracking as in evading the questions posed above which remain unanswered. Secondly I find it strange and unpleasent the amount of times 174.25.148.83 types my username rather than address me directly, when 174.25.148.83 is talking to me. The wild accusations are misplaced. I never claimed "that Kaufman is the "only" person questioning Scientology's and the CCHR's account of what happened to Farmer." Again sidetracking. However the article only states Kaufmann as sole reference on Farmer. The rest apparantly is too timeconsuming to find. And so the issue remains, if Kaufmann and his alleged research is to be included, then so must the very work (i.e. Farmer + Arnold), he criticizes be included. Or else 174.25.148.83 is advocating POV pushing, which is my concern. Just because 174.25.148.83 is a friend/fan/other of Kaufmann does not mean, K's research is the holy grail let alone accurate. The fact is 174.25.148.83's arguments are littered with inaccuracies. I am just not interested in feeding 174.25.148.83's sidetracking. I have already said what I had to on this matter. So no point in going around in circles. In order to maintain balance and NPOV on BLPs especially both sides must be observed. EOD. Fragma08 (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fragma08, I'll address this directly to you: I certainly meant no disrespect by including your username in my replies above and I'm sorry if that has angered you, though I'm not quite sure why it would. My "retracting" statement is based on the comment you removed from this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrances_Farmer&action=historysubmit&diff=366343431&oldid=366291222. I also don't see how discussing these issues is sidetracking. You are the one who introduced comments from a questionable Scientology source, so when two of us question you about that, it's not sidetracking, it's very relevant. I should add that I'm not a "fan" or even "friend" of Kaufman's, I found his writing quite by accident. My connection is much more personal--my Grandmother was a psychiatric nurse at Western State and in fact was one of the nurses interviewed in the early 1980's by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer when it published one of the first exposes of Arnold's inaccuracies (somewhat ironic as the P-I also published Arnold's writing). My Grandmother is the one who first alerted me to the problems with Arnold's version of events. It wasn't until years later when I moved to Portland that the local paper ran a lengthy article about Kaufman and his Farmer research that I contacted him. You seem (to me anyway) to be very defensive about this for some reason. We're all just here to discuss this. The Farmer page is literally the only page I ever even access on Wikipedia. 174.25.148.83 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to clarify, I am not defensive nor angry. Slightly annoyed perhaps, because my comments seem to not register. I am neither a scientologist, a Farmer fan, or such. The only thing I was hoping for was a constructive discussion on why the article needs more balance. I won't repeat in length; if we use Kaufmann's theories/research, then we must also use the work and issues, to which his criticism pertains. I don't think the discussion should be on Scientology and 3 times asserted, how it is fine by me to mention CCHR being "Scientology founded" and link to CCHR wiki article. Beyond that I think, honestly, would be WP:UNDUE. I am not taking sides as to whether Farmer, Jean, Arnold, Edith or Kaufmann are right or wrong. I am simply trying to preserve NPOV. That is really all the interest I have in this article. Disagreement is fine, but lets keep it constructive. About farmer not me, or Oprah. Thats all. Fragma08 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take you at your word, but saying things like "selective reading skills" about me is certainly not being constructive (when I don't believe I've said anything even slightly provocative about you), and some of your other comments are along the same seemingly argumentative lines--again, we're just here to work this out. We need to find some way to deal with the Scientology issue. You seem to think I and perhaps Wildhartlivie are POV pushing, but it's certainly way beyond POV pushing to introduce verifiably inaccurate statements like the one you lifted whole cloth from the CCHR website. In fact, I don't think verifiably inaccurate statements belong in an encyclopedia article to begin with. Your mileage may vary. 174.25.148.83 (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well words like "denigrating" etc. is not constructive either. Neither is attributing things to me, which I have not claimed or negating what I have repeated several times clearly. That too is provocative and argumentative. We can keep beating on this or move on? Back to the topic - as it stands, it is not POV pushing to want to include both accounts. Kaufmann crticizes Farmer (1972), Arnold (1979) etc. Yet, Arnold and Farmer and not inclusive? Is some guys' website reliable? Afterall we have only his words on a website. Surely you can see, that if we include a critic in an article about a person, then we need to add the views, he is criticizing. Anything else is POV pushing relying only on one side. So either both are included or none. Because in this case they are interlinked. Look, if Arnold and Farmer books did not exist, neither would Kaufmann's criticsm, as he sepcifically mentions them. Also you have now mentioned about 3-4 times that I quoted "ad verbatim" and "lifted". Don't see what that serves. There are two quotes, one from CCHR and one from Farmer (1972). Both are admissable and I have already asserted multiple times that it is fine to mention "Scientologist founded CCHR" and link to their respective wiki websites. Interested readers can read further there. Why must Farmer's (an atheist) article be filled with a Scientology section? Surely such a section would be of more use under CCHR's wiki article. Or WP:UNDUE Secondly, there would be no Kaufmann without Farmer and Arnold. Last, because Scientology is Scientlogy, does not mean their reports on mental health issues are necessarily wrong. We must keep in mind, times were different then. Violations were likely to happen. As you rightly mentioned, one may question the motives of Farmer's family or even the hospital's. I am not sure Kaufmann's website is reliable, but yet it is the main source used on Farmers article on extremely serious issues/claims. Not exactly NPOV. Your mileage may vary. Fragma08 (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I ever used "denigrating", did I? If I did, I'm sorry, but I don't think I did. Be that as it may, again please show me where Kaufman criticizes Farmer. I just re-read his article and find nothing about him criticizing Farmer. He does indeed criticize and points out several errors ghostwriter Ratcliffe made--is that what you're referring to? I won't accuse you of evading my questions, but I find it odd you don't seem to understand that you can't introduce Scientologist critiques of Farmer's care (some of which are verifiably inaccurate) without having a section about Scientology's use of Farmer in their publications and online (CCHR included). It has nothing to do with Farmer's atheism. That, to quote you, is a straw man argument. 174.25.148.83 (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't find your tone pleasent either. But enough said on this. That said, do you really think there is enough for a whole section on how Scientology "used" Farmer? I meant apart from the phamphlet? Kaufmann mentions Farmers book 6 times in his article as well as countless references to Arnold. He criticizes Farmer's book "not only is as rife with errors as Arnold's book, it is also as sensationalized" and same he says of Arnold's book but also speculates in his motives. All I see on JK's website is a long essay with unverifiable claims. No attachment, no way of verifying the written claims, no medical report copies, no audio or transcript of interview with Edith Farmer, no links, dates or exact references to the claims made against Jean etc. I find it peculiar, that you don't question that whereas I do. Fragma08 (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And let's throw assume good faith and civility right out the window. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which you did. Though, unsure how helpful such a comment is to discussion on article. Fragma08 (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About as helpful as your contention that both the editors responding here are incivil in tone and the other contentious posts you've made, I'd say. Oh, and all the posts you've made claiming side-stepping. Just because you view us as opponents does not give you the right to repeatedly make the same bad faith claims. Scientology sources are not a very valid source when you are using them to support bad aspersions on the mental health profession. Tom Cruise. As for whether Jean Ratcliffe wrote the Farmer book, run a google search. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not going anywhere. I percieved and continue to percieve incivility in your posts. Oppose all you like, but on the topic. Half of your post is about me. Not interested. Sidetracking. Not useful, not constructive. This discussion page is for the article on Francer Farmer; I have also stated why I disagree with your claims on Farmer's book and CCHR although i assert the Scientology link should be mentioned briefly. Farmer describes similar conditions during her stay. If you feel I am overlooking some reliable reference then surely you can dig that up. The book is relevant and that has nothing to do with Jean, but everything to do with Kaufmann's criticism of it. So for the sake of NPOV we need to balance the article to include both. Or else Kaufmann in his entirety needs to be omitted. We can not state Kaufmann and omit Farmer and Arnold. They both go hand in hand. Fragma08 (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is consensus here, such as it is, is that the Scientology comments need to be removed or properly put in context. Fragma08, I have carefully re-read this entire discussion and find nothing I said and nothing Wildhartlivie said to be even remotely uncivil. You on the other hand seem very, very defensive and upset simply because we don't agree with you. Wikipedia is about reaching consensus--sometimes that consensus will be what you want, often it won't. Simply because people don't agree with your assertions does not make them uncivil. I still think a (relatively small) subsection dealing with Scientology's "use" (for wont of a better word) of Farmer after her death would be helpful and constructive and might indeed allay some of Fragma08's concerns. And it's not just a pamphlet, Fragma08, as I stated above Arnold's book is Scientology-based itself, and there are copious Scientology publications which utilize Farmer in their anti-psychiatry commentary (I'm trying not to use the term propaganda). 174.25.148.83 (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus. Yet. It is strange, though, how the "two" of you stick together and are all ultra defensive about each other. Accusing somebody wrongfully of "denigrating" and a using a general incivil tone when approaching an editor are, well, incivility and not exactly promoting a constructive discussion. Neither is your constant twisting of my words, which can only be interpreted as a deliberate tactic of falsifying statements (since you claim you have read "entire"), when real arguments are missing, especially when I have have asserted time and time again that my concern has nothing to do with your disagreeing, but rather the POV of this article by omitting Farmer (1972) and Arnold (1979). This remains. I don't understand why you insist on twisting my words and ascribing things to me, I have never said. It is very inappropriate and pressumably, because you can't handle a disagreement. How sad. Again you are sidetracking. Just because someody does not agree with you, does not mean they are defensive, upset or what else you might throw out there. If Kaufmann stays, so does Farmer and Arnold and extracts from their respective books are admissable. Wikipedia is not about getting your way. It is about preserving NPOV. This has gone on long enough. I wanted a discussion and not some incivil attack, just because I disagree. But that is the only thing you can offer. So no point in discussing this further then. Fragma08 (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out by 173.50.247.46, there are already sections on Arnold and Farmer's (ghostwritten) books here. You keep insisting there's nothing in the article, but they're right there, ready for you to tackle them and add to them. Just be ready for others to edit your contributions if they're not deemed encyclopedic. A good example is your CCHR addition (which no one has reverted, which is your first clue that your repeated assertions of "incivility" are completely ludicrous)--someone sometime is no doubt going to add information about all of those drugs being developed years after Farmer's release from Western State, thereby refuting the CCHR's claims. It's just the nature of Wikipedia. Having perused a lot of talk pages over the past few days to compare levels of "incivility", I have to say this is easily one of the most civil discussions I have encountered. You simply don't seem to like it that your arguments aren't accepted whole cloth, but again, no one is keeping you from adding material about Arnold's or Farmer's (ghostwritten) books. 174.25.148.83 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the only reason Farmer and Arnold books are in the article, is because I reverted it back. Before that it was removed. I don't insist anything but discuss why I do not feel such reversions/exclusions are in order. That is how wikipedia works. You discuss reversions and POVs. If a good example of non-encyclopedic contribution is CCHR, then so is the exclusive usage of Kaufmann as the main source on Farmer (7-8 times in article). It is a just website lacking sources to back up it's claims. Incivility refers to the tone used to conduct this discussion. Kindly stop twisting my words. It is getting tiring and also questions your "reading" Clearly you are not reading or that selectively, if you can insist on some ridiculous claim like disagreement being the reason for incivility. I never claimed that. I really do not care what other talk pages do or don't. Two wrongs don't make a right. All I ask is a civil tone amidst disagreement as per WP:CIV. As long as you stick to the topic and actually address what I say, I have no problem. I thought we were here to discuss, why Farmer and Arnolds should be included seeing as it was removed a few times (at least that is why I started the discussion if you refer to my first post). But if we are ok with adding Farmer and Arnold, where applicable, then we need to discuss CCHR, the extent of the Scientology link which you want to mention. One suggestion would be to add a section in the Scientology article about this, and mentioning it briefly in Farmer's article or to the extent it does not become WP:UNDUE. I have not come across else that suggests they used Farmer for promoting their purpose, which I understand from you, is their opposition to Psychiatry (in general or just certain areas?). Fragma08 (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fragma08, I will advise you to stop claiming people are ganging up on you and crying incivility at every step. You complain that the rest of us are doing so when I do not see that, nor do the other two, and on the other hand, turn around and make statemens like "Accusing somebody wrongfully of "denigrating" and a using a general incivil tone when approaching an editor are, well, incivility and not exactly promoting a constructive discussion. Neither is your constant twisting of my words, which can only be interpreted as a deliberate tactic of falsifying statements" and the more troubling accusations of meat puppetry ("It is strange, though, how the "two" of you stick together and are all ultra defensive about each other.") really need to stop. You have three editors who do not support your suggestions. If you think we are connected, or possibly the same person, either prove it or stop saying it. Wildhartlivie (talk)

Wildhartlivie no, I will not stop saying what I have said and I stand by that. Just like you keep crying from the beginning, that I supposedly "denigrate" your usage or opinions just because I disagree with your claims on the article refs. That is absurd. Also I do indeed find it peculiar, how two IPs have started actively pursuing this discussion essentially backing each other up. And any socalled consensus can not override WP. I also rightly pointed out that my words are being twisted, when in fact I on several occasions point out that I do not have a problem with disagreement, but rather the NPOV and the claim of dispute on including Farmer and I am not "defensive" and upset. Yet the opposite is claimed. Highly inappropriate. That is inevitably twisting words and falsifying statements to suit own purpose. When that stops I will consider reverting my opinion. Not before that. I strongly advise you to approach other opposing editors, with civilty and discuss your POV and back up your claims. You claimed in your edit summary as well as here that the farmer book is "widely disputed". I naturally asked you to back that up. You did not, referring to "I don't intend to go about hunting up the places where Farmer's memory was questioned or the veracity of her book was questioned". Well then you can't claim it disputed. So if your opposition on Farmer/Arnold is done, then perhaps CCHR can be addressed instead as next point. Fragma08 (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest that you prepare to be taken to WP:WQA if you cannot control your temptation to be incivil and throw about unfounded claims. And kindly stop using demeaning language like "Just like you keep crying from the beginning". I don't know if you realize the impact of what you are saying, but dude, your incivil tone is showing. And kindly stop casting about aspersions because IPs come in to post. It's none of your business that one agrees with another. Unless you want to make a case for sock or meat-puppeting my sincere advise is to stop saying it. We've shown that the Farmer book was a ghostwritten book published long after Farmer's death. From that, there is no reason to accept anything from that book as reliable or reflective of anything Farmer supposedly said. And no, my objection to that book is not done, don't go checking it off any list you are keeping. And I will jump up and down and scream that we will not use any Scientology websites to source anything. They have a well known anti-psychiatric drive and it cannot be used validly to claim anything about something that happened over 70 years ago. I strongly advise you to stop handing out unneed advice. For the record, go read WP:CONSENSUS. It's what drives this website, this website does not, let me repeat, does not override consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your threats are just another aspect of your incivility, which has been going on since your first post. It is disruptive and very inappropriate. I suggest you stop your temptation to be incivil and throw about unfounded claims, which you have acted upon several times now. Kindly take your own advice and stop using demaning language "you to stop claiming people are ganging up on you and crying incivility at every step". I think you need to know the impact of what your are saying, rather than preach to me, something you don't practise, clearly. It is every bit of my business what is going on here and when it is directed at my person and often not at the arguments or the concerns I have listed throughout. 1) You have not shown that the Farmer book was ghostwritten or that it was widely disputed. You have made claims and refused to substantiate these when asked to. 2) from that and from the fact that you believe Kaufmann to be an accurate and reliable source, whose essay is essentially criticizing Farmer (1972) and Arnold (1979), these books are very much admissable. Or else we need to strike Kaufmann. 3) I don't know what list you are referring to and why. Nor really interested. I think we will use Scientology seeing the scientology link can easily be mentioned as also suggested by 174.25.148.83. I also strongly advise you to stop handing out unneeded advice. Especially when you don't observe this advice yourself. I have had enough with your incivility and attempted to discuss the concerns pertaining to your reverts, but you have displayed hostility and bad faith from the start. Not done. I suggest you read WP:CIV. WP:CONSENSUS remains on the condition of abiding by standard WP policies. Your behaviour is unacceptable and you are not discussing the concerns. This article's talk page serves to talk about any concerns for a the attached article, not your need to be incivil. Farmer and Arnold remain admissable or else you need to prove your allegations of "widely disputed" rather than just speculate and use words like ghostwritten. Fragma08 (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My real advice is don't be a dick. I'm sick of being talked down to and treated like a child. I told you to go run a search for "Frances Farmer ghostwritten". If you can't manage that, then just click on this link. You'll get about 1250 pages. It is not within your provenance to decide on your own what is or is not "admissable". That is where consensus comes in. I'm also sick of your attacking all the editors who have been involved in this discussion. Your post above is completely incivil and full of spite. I have not been incivil to you, yet you spout that in nearly every post you make. I believe the psychologists call that Psychological projection. Let's take inventory for WP:AN/I:

• 1. "I am not sure I follow your last sentence and what you want me to look at. What and why are you accusing me of denigrating any source? I don't see how this will help this discussion and I do dispute any such accusation made by you."
• 2. "Well you are already going at this ad nauseum and ad hominem by claiming I am denigrating anything, when I am not. Your tone is a bit incivil...
• 3. "Yeah, talk about NPOV considering considering the "mental wathdog" label is not mine but I rather quoted directly from the source mentioning them! No skin off my nose to just write CCHR to be NPOV... Enough sidetracking."
• 4. This is a good one: "Clearly 174.25.148.83 has selective reading skills... Secondly I find it strange and unpleasent the amount of times 174.25.148.83 types my username rather than address me directly, when 174.25.148.83 is talking to me... Or else 174.25.148.83 is advocating POV pushing, which is my concern. Just because 174.25.148.83 is a friend/fan/other... I am just not interested in feeding 174.25.148.83's sidetracking."
• 5. "I actually find the tone in this discussion beyond civility or contructive. Very troubling. Difficult to work with. I pressume this is the intention. I have tried to have a constructive discussion but we are going around in circles... I thought this was meant to be a discussion on Farmer and her book and its inclusion. But clearly it is not."
• 6. "I read your response in full. And using accusations like "denigrating" is incivil in itself. Just because I don't agree with you, does not mean I am denigrating your opinion. Sidetracking. FYI I do perceive your tone as uncivil and that is apparant from your writing, which I dont need to hear."
• 7. "Incivility refers to the tone used to conduct this discussion. Kindly stop twisting my words. It is getting tiring and also questions your "reading" Clearly you are not reading or that selectively, if you can insist on some ridiculous claim like disagreement being the reason for incivility.".
• 8. And here come the not-so-subtle hints at sock puppetry to the IP that posted (174.25.148.83): "There is no consensus. Yet. It is strange, though, how the "two" of you stick together and are all ultra defensive about each other. Accusing somebody wrongfully of "denigrating" and a using a general incivil tone when approaching an editor are, well, incivility and not exactly promoting a constructive discussion. Neither is your constant twisting of my words, which can only be interpreted as a deliberate tactic of falsifying statements (since you claim you have read "entire"), when real arguments are missing... . I don't understand why you insist on twisting my words and ascribing things to me, I have never said. It is very inappropriate and pressumably, because you can't handle a disagreement. How sad. Again you are sidetracking. Just because someody does not agree with you, does not mean they are defensive, upset or what else you might throw out there.... I wanted a discussion and not some incivil attack, just because I disagree. But that is the only thing you can offer. So no point in discussing this further then." Brrr.
• 9. "Your threats are just another aspect of your incivility, which has been going on since your first post. It is disruptive and very inappropriate. I suggest you stop your temptation to be incivil and throw about unfounded claims, which you have acted upon several times now. Kindly take your own advice and stop using demaning language "you to stop claiming people are ganging up on you and crying incivility at every step". I think you need to know the impact of what your are saying, rather than preach to me, something you don't practise, clearly. It is every bit of my business what is going on here and when it is directed at my person and often not at the arguments or the concerns I have listed throughout." (note: part of that is parroting something that was said) "I also strongly advise you to stop handing out unneeded advice. Especially when you don't observe this advice yourself. I have had enough with your incivility and attempted to discuss the concerns pertaining to your reverts, but you have displayed hostility and bad faith from the start. Not done. I suggest you read WP:CIV. WP:CONSENSUS remains on the condition of abiding by standard WP policies. Your behaviour is unacceptable and you are not discussing the concerns."
• 10. "Wildhartlivie, no, I will not stop saying what I have said and I stand by that. Just like you keep crying from the beginning, that I supposedly "denigrate" your usage or opinions just because I disagree with your claims on the article refs. That is absurd. Also I do indeed find it peculiar, how two IPs have started actively pursuing this discussion essentially backing each other up. And any socalled consensus can not override WP. I also rightly pointed out that my words are being twisted... I am not "defensive" and upset. Yet the opposite is claimed. Highly inappropriate. That is inevitably twisting words and falsifying statements to suit own purpose. When that stops I will consider reverting my opinion. Not before that. I strongly advise you to approach other opposing editors, with civilty and discuss your POV and back up your claims."

If you cannot post here without attacking the other three who are trying to discuss this with you, then we'll be forced to take it to mediation. Period. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My real advice is don't be a dick. You have officially hit a new low. I have nothing further to say to you or your baseless threats and rantings. You are out of line and have been for ages. I am NOT going to go google something to substantiate a claim that you made! If you revert claiming something in your edit summary, then you, not me or others, need to do the work and substantiate it. I am sick of the way you have been treating me, talking to down to me and insulting me. Pathetic. If you can not handle substantiating claims, then don't make them. That simple. I have been trying to ensure NPOV and inserting Kaufmann makes Farmer and Arnold admissible as that is what Kaufmann is criticizing. This is what I have been conveying in my talk here despite the sidetracking. You have been attacking me through out and turned this talk page into a crusade against me rather than focus on the topic. You clearly have psychological issues. You have proved nada, only substantiated my claims about your incivility. And I firmly stand by that. I have raised valid concerns. You have nothing but evaded, attacked, been incivil and then go around calling people dicks. Feel free to take it anywhere. You are in the wrong and clearly you don't understand how to talk to people. I find it absurd that you claim "I have not been incivil to you, yet you spout that in nearly every post you make. I believe the psychologists call that Psychological projection." when this description is more than aptly suitable for yourself. Your behaviour is beyond unacceptable and inappropriate. You will bring nothing constructive to this discussion and this is clear. Fragma08 (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to file for mediation at this time, my comments have not been incivil and I am not making idle threats. I've been giving every chance possible to conduct yourself like a mature grown up, to no avail. I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the essay connected to WP:DICK. I'd suggest you do. I will not sit by and allow you to continue to be incivil, launch the personal attacks that you have here and be a veritable insult factory. But thanks for mocking me with things I say. You've become contentious and no one has to put up with this sort of abuse. Not from you. "You clearly have psychological issues." is a foul personal attack and your vitriolic comments are not furthering your case in any way. I have not been incivil to you, you continue to get angrier and angrier each time someone posts to you. You have gone from rude to incivil to alleging meat and sock puppetry charges against the IPs who post here to mocking responders by posting back things they say to now launching foul personal attacks. You've crossed the line. STOP IT. Is English not your first language? Is that the problem here? And kindly stop turning around and pasting warnings back to the person who gave them. That's highly constructive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't care what you do. You have utterly and completely sidetracked and destroyed what was meant to be a discussion on the sources or rather lack of used on the article of Frances Farmer. I find your conduct and behaviour beyond bizarre, incivil, highly unconstructive and inappropriate. I don't think you are interested in discussing the topic. I do believe you have issues and I find your threats and warnings absurd, as they would be more suitable for you. Hence I will warn you too, as I think it is long overdue. Your wild accusations equate to the pot calling the kettle black. You are more than welcome to read WP:DICK the essay, minority consensus btw, because clearly incivility and personal attacks appear to be a case of habit with you. I don't need to. Afterall nothing else can explain your angry tantrums. To repeat your words, I will not sit by and allow you to continue to be incivil, launch the personal attacks that you have here and be a veritable insult factory. I simply will not. I have attempted to have a decent communication with you and all I asked was a civil tone. Clearly conducting yourself like a mature grown up is too much of a challenge. This explains your repeated and foul attacks on me. You are the type the discourages editors to edit. I suggest you read the policy on WP:CIVILWP:NPA, seeing as you are intent on breaching them. Mark my words, you have been and are incivil to me. And I have now twice told you to stay out of my talkpage. You are not welcome. Understand that. (Is English your first language? Doubtful.) Disagreement is one thing, but blatant evasion of questions/concerns posed and repeated incivility and hostility is more than I can accept. This is not how you reach consensus or get your view heard. You will have to learn to argue your case like others do, and NPOV is a condition. I can not take you seriously. You are free to make any report you want to. I can simply not work with your horrible attitude which has been and is unpleasent and ad nauseum. Stop it. Unsure why you keep attacking. I have attempted to have a constructive discussion with you, but you have made this impossible. Period. Respect that and move on. Fragma08 (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to simply add a section about the Scientology connection to the Farmer story? Then all of this could be dealt with encyclopedically--both the CCHR comments (including disputes about their accuracy) and the "other side of the story"? It would help if someone (other IP) could post details about some of these other sources, issue numbers, etc. 173.50.247.46 (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A section on Scientology in Farmer's biography article? Hardly. But linking to wiki's CCHR article, so readers may click and look it up for further details. Perhaps one could mention "The Scientology founded, CCHR". Brief and concise. The dispute is already covered by Kaufmann. It is also my understanding that Farmer was an atheist which must contradict Scient? Fragma08 (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fragma08, I personally find your tone a little troubling, perhaps it's not your intention. A talk page is for discussion, so unilaterally stating something like "hardly" or your "EOD" above is misplaced (IMO). My comment about including Scientology was made because evidently there is a connection between the coverage of Farmer's story after her death and Scientology. Also, you keep mentioning "BLP" but Farmer has been dead 40 years now. Am I missing something? 173.50.247.46 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I actually find the tone in this discussion beyond civility or contructive. Very troubling. Difficult to work with. I pressume this is the intention. I have tried to have a constructive discussion but we are going around in circles. There can't a connection seeing as Frances was an atheist and there is also WP:UNDUE to be addressed. This article needs balance which it does not have at present. That is my only point. EOD and Hardly are fitting considering the above evasion etc. I thought this was meant to be a discussion on Farmer and her book and its inclusion. But clearly it is not. Fragma08 (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just ignore the comments on tone to say there are already sections in this article on both the Farmer and Arnold books, so why not spend some time trying to develop those instead of accusing others of having ulterior motives? Just my two cents' worth. 173.50.247.46 (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I am not surprised. Because a general incivil tone and false accusations and ascribing an editor false statements promote a healthy discussion and developing an article constructively surely. But all that aside - I support an improvement of the article as a whole. As for scientology - WP:UNDUE is a conern still. But a proposal could be made here, discussed and viewed in light of WP. Fragma08 (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, from what does one conclude that Frances Farmer was an atheist? Because she won a writing contest that explored her view of God? That didn't qualify her as atheist, although it has been variously used as "proof" that she was. Writing something questioning things doesn't make her any more of an atheist that visiting Russia made her a Communist. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fragma08 states above that the Arnold and Farmer sections were missing until he "reverted" them on his/her first edit. This is clearly false as this diff of Fragma08's first edit shows:

Again, Fragma08, why don't you spend your energy adding information to the Farmer and Arnold sections that have been in this article for ages (and as far as I can see have never been removed by anyone for any reason). 173.50.247.46 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

173.50.247.46, your obsession with me/my username now forming parts of titles (?) relating to a discussion on Farmer already covered above is disturbing and unhealthy. So stop. FYI my english is fine, so don't worry. Incivility is not just words but how these words are conveyed. The tone. Here both. Read WP:CIVIL. 173.50.247.46 calls my statement false. Not so. Until I added the quote from Farmer's book, it was not there. Only main source was Kaufmann. Had it been the case, then there would have been no incitament to start the discussion as above on sources and NPOV. So 173.50.247.46's claim is false. Arnold is mentioned peripherically wrt lobotomy claims, but Kaufmann (8 refs) remains WP:UNDUE. I'd like to use my energy improving this article and others, but instead had to fend off repeated, non-stop gross incivility, personal attacksfalse accusations and statements ascribed to me repeatedly without proof, despite of clear statements in English opposing claims made above. So 173.50.247.46, why don't you spend your energy actually editing constructively rather than spend your time backbiting me, being mendacious and accusing others of having ulterior motives. Practise what you preach. Stick to the topic, which is Frances Farmer. Not me. So improve that instead. Fragma08 (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and blocked for 72 hours this time, for putting a personal attack in the first edit after the WP:NPA block expires.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed from that diff that the article has always said the "autobiography" was posthumously ghostwritten. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Fragma08 stated on 07:10 11 June 2010 (UTC): "Actually the only reason Farmer and Arnold books are in the article, is because I reverted it back. Before that it was removed". Simply not the case as 173.50.247.46's diff shows. Arnold and Farmer have pretty much always been in the article from the get-go, which is not to say those sections can't be supplemented. If Fragma08 means that there wasn't a quote from Farmer's book before he added it, OK, but that's not what his comment above means on the face of it. 174.25.148.83 (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]