Talk:Wanda Tinasky

Rewrite

The existing article was rather ridiculous, and overly purple in its prose. "lurid cocktail of murder and suicide"? Come off it. It was certainly extreme POV. Writing like that belongs on someone's blog, not here.

There is no place for Foster-bashing here, or insinuations like "self-proclaimed". The evidence Foster found stands or falls on its own, and in this case, it is overwhelming. Yes, we have to rely on Foster's word, but there is no reason to suspect him of falsifying evidence.

Similarly, there is no place for gushing praise of Pynchon here. Yes, he's superduper and I love his work, but this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site.

These concerns apply all the more so to Hawkins and Tinasky. He was most definitely not a Beat writer, but a failed wannabe.

At any rate, I expect changes and disagreement here, but what I've written is far closer to NPOV, and future changes should be incremental from here.--192.35.35.34 17:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

• It was certainly extreme POV
• Writing like that belongs on someone's blog, not here
• there is no place for gushing praise of Pynchon here
• this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site

I'd be rather more convinced by this fanciful contumely if you didn't go interlarding articles with your own brand of tabloid hyperbole ("a very obscure poem", "the poem was of poor quality", "as the shock wore off", "an extremely obscure failed Beat writer"). [1]

There is no place for Foster-bashing here, or insinuations like "self-proclaimed".

There is every reason to question Foster's credentials, despite your attempt to censor such naysaying in the Donald Foster article. Moreover, the Wanda Tinasky letters were published under the auspices of those who believed "her" to be Pynchon rather than Hawkins, and were exclusively bought by Pynchonistas. That's one POV. Foster's is another. Representing both viewpoints without taking sides is the Wikipedia way.

there is no reason to suspect him of falsifying evidence.

No-one accused him of that.

what I've written is far closer to NPOV

It's no more neutral to say Wanda Tinasky was Tom Hawkins than it is to say Ted L. Nancy is Barry Marder.

future changes should be incremental from here

Your rewrite presented a unilateral interpretation as fact, and purported to settle a matter that will likely remain undecidable indefinitely. I've restored the neutrality you snipped in accordance with the Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research policies. I've also merged some of the details you removed without comment. Other than that, and notwithstanding your bizarrely pontifical tone here, I think your rewrite is a big improvement.

chocolateboy 12:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Tit for Tat

• It was certainly extreme POV
• Writing like that belongs on someone's blog, not here
• there is no place for gushing praise of Pynchon here
• this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site

I'd be rather more convinced

Really? You're still wavering over whether "lurid cocktail of murder and suicide" is NPOV? As the NPOV page explains, stick to the facts, and let them point where they will. Don't call Hitler evil, just enumerate his crimes. I can see a NPOVer typing "lurid cocktail" and not noticing he has gone beyond this limit. I cannot see a NPOVer having this excess pointed out, and then wondering if he has crossed the line of editorializing or not. Looking around at my edits (and doing a rather bad job of it) can't change the issue of "lurid cocktail". But it does strike me as deliberately combative, and a sign that you do not wish to work with others, as expected of Wikipedia users. If I'm excessive somewhere, let me know, and I'll deal with it there. It's a non-issue here.

By the way, to give another example: would you defend "postal worker" linking to "Lot 49" as appropriate? It's a cute gag, I certainly smiled, but it's a game outside the Wikipedia's purpose.

by this fanciful contumely if you didn't go interlarding articles with your own brand of tabloid hyperbole ("a very obscure poem", "the poem was of poor quality", "as the shock wore off", "an extremely obscure failed Beat writer"). [2]

None of this is "tabloid hyperbole". Not even close. For you to even call it such is just papering over your own exaggerations. In slow motion:

An "obscure poem" is one that a handful of readers and/or scholars know about. A "very obscure poem" is one that apparently no one knows about, which is what Funeral Elegy seems to have been when Foster came across it. Just calling it "obscure" makes it seem that maybe it missed the cut for inclusion in the Big Fat Oxford Book of Overly Long 17th Century Poetry, better luck next time. No POV involved in the emphasis. In fact, the extreme obscurity is part of what's relevant, which is why I put it there as part of the article. Foster caught the entire scholarly community off-guard. Had there been even one scholar to speak up and say he'd studied it, written up on it, and never noticed the Shakespearian language, it would have suggested that Foster had overlooked an important datum, and everyone could safely blow Foster off as a nonstarter.

My use of "poor quality" is simply a two word summary of the apparently unamimous evaluation of the poem's merits. Most scholars prefer to damn with faint praise. "Not up to Shakespeare's usual standards" is merely academese for "royally sucks". I chose "poor quality" over "royally sucks" as a matter of proper encyclopedia style. And again, emphasizing "poor" is quite relevant. Had it been an average quality poem, worthy of occasionally being anthologized but somehow overlooked, the academic reaction would have been more muted. Shakespeare laid very few eggs, unlike Wordsworth, say.

Yes, "the shock wore off". In 1985, Foster's proposal met with instant, strong, vehement denials. The topic was not even worth discussing. In 1995, the idea was met with more measured denials, still strong and vehement, with critics now using Foster's own methods to argue against Foster. And publishers began including the poem. It was the new bandwagon of cutting edge Shakespeariana. If no other candidate were found, it seemed that a generation would grow up thinking it plausible that it was Shakespeare's, and eventually the publishers would compete in proclaiming it as actually his. This is pretty much how all controversial ideas become mainstream in academia, short of incontrovertible proof: the shock wears off, and then the idea and the new techniques that made the idea thinkable in the first place begin to infiltrate. (In contrast, the "Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare" idea never really shocked anyone, and remains background noise, slowly getting louder.)

Hawkins was most definitely an "extremely obscure failed Beat writer". He was rejected by the other Beats, there are very few extant copies of his self-published work. He was a failure, and before Foster, pretty much totally forgotten. Calling him a "Beat writer" suggested he had some degree of success and an audience outside the post office employee's men's room. It also suggests that Foster's tracking could have been comparatively easy: input all known Beat writing and compare them with the Tinasky letters. The actual trail he followed was much more impressive. The Foster article should convey the difficulty Foster had to overcome. Moreover, the idea of an artistic failure from twenty years back lashing out at the local arts community from his secure hiding place makes good psychological sense. Poirot would have been pleased. In contrast, no motive for Pynchon to write the letters had ever been offered, which was pretty much the first thing Foster noticed.

---

There is no place for Foster-bashing here, or insinuations like "self-proclaimed".

There is every reason to question Foster's credentials,

No, there is not. Since you don't dispute his raw facts, you agree that those facts make or break the case.

despite your attempt to censor such naysaying in the Donald Foster article.

That's patent nonsense. I commented out the naysaying website, a deliberate choice to make it very easy for you to put it back, and I made my reasons explicit: I am perfectly happy with naysaying, but not out of control hothead naysaying.

Browsing around, I found a page or two that strongly criticize Foster, but without having any burning agenda that makes the writer look like he's got a screw loose. I'll be linking them later on.

You might note, by the way, that I denigrated Foster's claims of originality regarding his methods.

Moreover, the Wanda Tinasky letters were published under the auspices of those who believed "her" to be Pynchon rather than Hawkins, and were exclusively bought by Pynchonistas. That's one POV.

A now pretty much dead POV. A historical POV. Even TR Factor threw in the towel.

Foster's is another. Representing both viewpoints without taking sides is the Wikipedia way.

It's a little more complicated. Read down that link for an important qualification from the man himself. There is a hierarchy of POVs. Majority to noticeable minority to extreme minority. Is there a single Pynchon scholar left who takes seriously the view that Tinasky was Pynchon? Or do they view Foster as some slightly erratic outsider, stepping in on their turf and mostly confusing the issue?

there is no reason to suspect him of falsifying evidence.

No-one accused him of that.

Then stick to discussing the evidence, not Foster. Foster doesn't matter beans. His track record tells you whether you want to hire him for your particular mystery. It doesn't matter in regards to evaluating something that he has turned up.

Hawkins' typewriter has turned up. That matters. Hawkins' biography has turned up. That matters. Hawkins' poetry has turned up. That matters.

what I've written is far closer to NPOV

It's no more neutral to say Wanda Tinasky was Tom Hawkins

That assertion pretty much is neutral. The smoking gun was found: Hawkins' typewriter. The identical matchups in biography, from the time in Boeing to the hitchhiker to the Gaddis obsession, along with the recycled Hawkins poetry, are icing on the cake.

than it is to say Ted L. Nancy is Barry Marder.

Sorry, I have no idea of who these people are, beyond reading the link, which told me almost nothing. (I can recognize Seinfeld's picture, and somebody once explained what a "soup nazi" was to me.) Clue me in: was Barry Marder's typewriter found, and it matched that used by Ted L Nancy? Did Ted recycle twenty-old self-published Barry poetry that no else even knew existed? Did Ted drop all sorts of biographical details that match Barry's life rather closely?

You are, after all, saying the two equations are equal in regards to inherent neutrality.

future changes should be incremental from here

Your rewrite presented a unilateral interpretation as fact,

Because it is fact: starting with Hawkins' typewriter.

and purported to settle a matter that will likely remain undecidable indefinitely.

Is there any dispute left? On Pynchon websites, pretty much all you'll find is a link to The Wanda Tinasky Letters homepage, which has been dead for quite some time. What controversy is left? Maybe Kathleen Hawkins typed the letters, using her husband's biographical details, recycling his embarrassing poetry of the sort very obscure for very good reasons. And when Tom found out, he killed her?

I've restored the neutrality you snipped in accordance with the Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research policies.

Wrong. You are presenting an extremely minor viewpoint (the sort that Jimbo claims does not really even belong in Wikipedia, except as an ancillary mention for completeness' sake) as if it were on equal terms with the now majority POV.

I've also merged some of the details you removed without comment. Other than that, and notwithstanding your bizarrely pontifical tone here, I think your rewrite is a big improvement.

chocolateboy 12:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Facts are facts. There's nothing bizarre about that.

Summary

So far as I can see, the situation is this: T=P, or T=H, or T=X, where X is some as yet unidentified character.

Among scholars who were most interested in T=P, the matter is now definitely resolved. Former believers have egg on their faces and have taken up Ted L. Nancy studies, the nonbelievers are making a really loud show of not gloating, and a lot of past fence sitters are letting everyone know how they knew T was not P all along. By the rules on which POVs are considered neutral, T is not P is a matter of fact. Interested amateurs who disagree will have to set up their own webpage. Wiki may link to them.

So that, presumably, leaves T=H vs T=X as unsettled, with suggestive evidence pointing toward T=H, but nothing more.

But "presumably" here is utter nonsense!

Here's the key question: What convinced the scholarly community of people interested in T's identity in the first place to give up on P as the target? Was it new found evidence that Pynchon was in New Zealand the whole time? No, they got his California DMV records even. Was it new found evidence that Pynchon had had a stroke in 1984, and was unable to write anything for three years? Not that I heard. Maybe Pynchon was trapped in an elevator for three years during the mid-80s? Sorry, my back issues of the Weekly World News are at home, I'll get back to you.

Do you see? Nothing about Pynchon, beyond his bare denial, emerged to persuade anyone to revise his opinion regarding Tinasky. The only reason the unilateral rejection of T=P amongst interested scholars happened was because new conclusions about Tinasky emerged. Not wishywashy some evidence here, some evidence there, squishy viewpoints that leave debate room, leaving some scholars still trying to decide.

Nothing short of definitely pinning T down to a particular person ended the scholarly T=P debate.

And that particular person was Tom Hawkins. The now universal scholarly consensus that Tinasky is not Pynchon carries within it the universal scholarly consensus that Tinasky is Hawkins.

By the rules Jimbo states in the NPOV page, identify one reputable Pynchon scholar who thinks that Tinasky is Pynchon, and I'll accept that treating Tinasky as not Hawkins is a noticeable minority viewpoint. Otherwise, it's to be treated as a fringe viewpoint, to be mentioned solely to fill out the full story. Note specifically that not even the ultimate truth or falsity of the particular viewpoints matters.

So by starting the article as I did, "WT was the pseudoynm of TDH (1927-1988)", and similarly throughout the article, "H sent his last T letter", for example, I was simply following the rules. You, in contrast, are emphasizing the fringe viewpoint. It doesn't matter how many times you can say in truth that "nobody really really really knows": the overwhelmingly majority scholarly viewpoint among those who have studied the matter has settled on T=H, and that is where the article's NPOV belongs.

---

What a long-winded reply. If you restore my comments, instead of vandalising them, I might even take the trouble to read it.

chocolateboy 21:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You weren't vandalized by any possible meaning of the word. "Tit for Tat" is simply a point by point refutation of your mostly irrelevant accusations against me. "Summary" is an explanation of what NPOV means here. Be sure to review Jimbo's three levels of POV.--192.35.35.34 21:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research
Wikipedia:NPOV
Wikipedia:Civility
Wikipedia:Assume good faith
Wikipedia:Talk pages
Wikipedia:Google test: "hawkins" (34) v "pynchon" (309)
Wikipedia:People in glass houses...: Recommendations on how to read Tinasky are inherently POV. Save it for a fansite. [3] vs That Tinasky also wrote that it was to be set in Africa in 1910 could then be read as a false trail. [4]

chocolateboy 14:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:No original research

Nothing I've contributed meets this definition of "original research". You are confusing looking up somebody else's original research with Wiki's notion.

Wikipedia:NPOV

You are still unaware of Jimbo's three levels. Your citation of it remains worthless, if you do not even know what it says. Bottom line, all POVs are not created equal, and treating them as if they were is incorrect.

Wikipedia:Civility

I have seen little civility on your side. Your bombastic posturing and extreme exaggeration to the point of falsehood about your words being "vandalized" and "censored" were quite uncivil.

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Even more so. You take most criticism of shortcomings in your contributions as grounds for lashing out, firing as many countercriticisms at me as you have time for, almost none of which have any force. This list here of Wiki policy citations, without comment or explanation, is simply bad faith on your part, a weaselly attempt to pin numerous Wiki sins on my edits and discussion without having to actually do so.

Wikipedia:Talk pages

Good reference. Note the bit about discussions should use forward nested indentation, not the reverse nested indentation you introduced. And yes, I had to violate the recommendation about preserving your writing exactly, but that was to put my words back in their original form, and keep the discussion readable.

Wikipedia:Google test: "hawkins" (34) v "pynchon" (309)

So? What about the Google test? It's a rough guide to see whether a topic is worthy of a Wikipedia article, no more, no less. "Wanda Tinasky" by itself has over 4000 hits, meaning it's worth a try. "Thomas Donald Hawkins" has only 1 hit, the William Gaddis papers. It seems Hawkins sent Gaddis a copy of his "Gaddis = green" discovery, and Gaddis kept it, but I wouldn't know.

Anyway, all I conclude from the Google test is that "Wanda Tinasky" should be the main article entry and not "Thomas Donald Hawkins". As I've explained, according to NPOV, the article should most definitely be written from the POV that T=H. But the title should be WT, not TDH. This has the further advantage that it allows discussion about the WT controversy, whereas a TDH page should view most of the WT issue as off-topic.

Wikipedia:People in glass houses...: Recommendations on how to read Tinasky are inherently POV. Save it for a fansite. [5] vs That Tinasky also wrote that it was to be set in Africa in 1910 could then be read as a false trail. [6]

You were giving recommendations, in your final paragraph, on how to read Tinasky. That is an irrelevant POV recommendation on your point. In contrast, I was not giving any recommendations, merely explaining the mentality of the many readers that deprecated such a point-blank contradiction between Tinasky and Pynchon. You could object that these were weasel words, but nothing stronger. In this case, it's obvious that such readers are essentially identical with the Tinasky is Pynchon crowd, so the weaseling charge would be hollow.

And for someone talking about glass houses, well, you're the last person who should mention such complaints. You, in violation of the above cited Talk page policy, chose your own idiosyncratic style of tit-for-tat replying, involving re-indenting my words and deliberately making it rather difficult to reply in the same style, so when I re-indented back both our words in order to fit policy, you accused me of vandalizing? Give me a break.

In summary, you have been violating Wiki policy and recommendations from the beginning. I see hypocrisy and bad faith repeatedly.

I as might as well add is that I've come to the conclusion you have some agenda regarding Foster, and as such, you are imposing this POV in whatever little ways you can.

chocolateboy 14:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Newest changes

Recommendations on how to read Tinasky are inherently POV. Save it for a fansite.

Use of "self-styled" or "self-proclaimed" or the like is normally a weasel word, and is to be avoided by Wikipedia policy. Since it's normal for X's to call themselves X's, mentioning that an X is calling himself an X is only done to suggest that it's in X's imagination only. In the Foster cases of relevance here, this is blatantly false. He has been styled a literary detective by others, who have called him to take up the investigations. In my rewrite, "literary detective" appears in scare quotes in an accurate and neutral way.

Foster's work on the Klein case caught the attention of people who then contacted Foster regarding Tinasky, and so it is relevant. Foster's work on the Unabomber manifesto was very low key. Moreover, he was simply confirming what everybody knew anyway. His job was to defend the reasonableness of the search warrant that led to the full evidence. No feats of naming names, identifying overlooked clues, or the like. Unlike the Klein case, it was not major news, and did not attact attention to people looking for literary detectives. Hence, not relevant to Tinasky, either thematically or publicity-wise.

Foster uses "Don" for his book on the subject, so the link should display "Don".

The Ted L. Nancy mystery is of no relevance to Tinasky, therefore it does not belong here. What's relevant is that there was a ready-made audience of potential buyers, and that should be mentioned. Feel free to create a category of pseudonymous identity problems.

The exact dates of any particular letter are too precise compared with the rest of the article.

The excerpt from the bookseller's catalogue is Fair Use.

--192.35.35.35 18:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you'd assumed good faith before vandalising my response and embarking on an orgy of flamethrowing and blissfully offtopic original research, you might have noticed that, with a few minor exceptions, I liked your rewrite. I'm not sure why you feel the need to waste our bandwidth with a proof that Author Unknown is kewl, and Hawkins was Tinasky. I agree with both statements, but neither one is a truth universally acknowledged, and thus neither one should be treated as such in the article.

I also agree with most of the abovementioned fixes and rationales, with one or two minor (IMHO) exceptions:

• It doesn't say "literary detective" on Foster's passport, any more than it says "St. IGNUcius" on Richard Stallman's. He's not Auguste Dupin, and he's no more a detective than Robbie Coltrane is in Cracker, or a white hat hacker is in a cybercrime investigation.
• The exact dates of any particular letter are too precise compared with the rest of the article. I don't have a problem with that particular edit, but I don't think either of us is going to find a Wikipedia policy page that says: "contributions should endeavour to sink to the mediocrity level of their enclosing article".
• The excerpt from the bookseller's catalogue is Fair Use. Nah, it's an offtopic attempt to justify a judgmental POV ("extremely obscure failed Beat writer") in another article. [7]

chocolateboy 14:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

If you'd assumed good faith before vandalising my response and embarking on an orgy of flamethrowing and blissfully offtopic original research, you might have noticed that, with a few minor exceptions, I liked your rewrite. I'm not sure why you feel the need to waste our bandwidth with a proof that Author Unknown is kewl, and Hawkins was Tinasky. I agree with both statements, but neither one is a truth universally acknowledged, and thus neither one should be treated as such in the article.

You should reread that oft-cited NPOV article very carefully then, down to the section I referred you to previously, regarding an important qualification from the man himself. There is a hierarchy of POVs. Majority to noticeable minority to extreme minority. Specifically, quoting Jimbo:

---

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

---

Note that last sentence. As I pointed out before, you are hung up on proofs, whereas I am hung up on the established majoritarian viewpoint. To repeat what I wrote earlier above:

So by starting the article as I did, "WT was the pseudoynm of TDH (1927-1988)", and similarly throughout the article, "H sent his last T letter", for example, I was simply following the rules. You, in contrast, are emphasizing the fringe viewpoint. It doesn't matter how many times you can say in truth that "nobody really really really knows": the overwhelmingly majority scholarly viewpoint among those who have studied the matter has settled on T=H, and that is where the article's NPOV belongs.

I have no opinion regarding Foster's kewlness or lack thereof. The book was obviously a rush job, with all sorts of grating little mistakes. It's missing important details: I'd like to see more numbers, not just Foster's conclusions regarding his numbers. But his conclusion regarding Tinasky has become the overwhelming standard opinion in the scholarly community that studied the question. I've come across disagreement on-line, but no explanations. The strongest argument seems to be Foster is merely "self-styled", which is totally irrelevant.

While I'm here, let me point out that Jimbo's bulleted sentence was written with semicolons at the end of each intermediate bulleted clause. Proper grammar is simply to treat the bullets as eye candy. If you ignore them, and the associated indentation and capitalization, what's left should read as a grammatical sentence. I'll be putting good grammar back in the Foster article soon enough, and following Jimbo, capitalizing the clauses.

Similarly, hyphens versus em-dashes is a British versus American thing, and according to Wiki rules of style, an article on an American topic should follow American spelling and style, except for any explicit overrides, like the 86ing of the American rule of putting punctuation inside of quotations no matter what.

I also agree with most of the abovementioned fixes and rationales, with one or two minor (IMHO) exceptions:

• It doesn't say "literary detective" on Foster's passport, any more than it says "St. IGNUcius" on Richard Stallman's.

This is just silly. It doesn't say Shakespeare scholar on his passport either. I have no idea of what his standing is in his day job is compared to his sideline. I would not be surprised to learn that some of his colleagues would consider him a "self-styled Shakespeare scholar", but it is not appropriate to include that.

• [...] He's not Auguste Dupin, and he's no more a detective than Robbie Coltrane is in Cracker, or a white hat hacker is in a cybercrime investigation.

This statement of yours is inherently POV. His reputation is mixed, and as such, the use of "self-styled" is mere weaseling. It should be avoided, as in my rewrite.

• The exact dates of any particular letter are too precise compared with the rest of the article. I don't have a problem with that particular edit, but I don't think either of us is going to find a Wikipedia policy page that says: "contributions should endeavour to sink to the mediocrity level of their enclosing article".

My view is the article should read smoothly. Unless there's a relevant timeline being followed closely with regard to the letters, the mention of the date jars the reader. It is "weasel precision", so to speak. If we end up with a section where prominent letter features are listed (like the 1950 Boeing job, the Mendocino-based set in 1910 Africa novel, the Snyder poem, alleged copycats, etc.) then dates would be appropriate.

I'm aware that the incremental nature of articles means there will be bumpiness along the way, but the idea that this article will ever spell out the full argument for Hawkins=Tinasky seems questionable. That would be pushing the "original research" margin too closely. I'm dissatisfied with the pathetic state of incompleteness Foster leaves the argument in, let alone the pesky little errors like V for V. or "Kraft" for "Krafft", but Wiki is not the place to fix such.

• The excerpt from the bookseller's catalogue is Fair Use. Nah, it's an offtopic attempt to justify a judgmental POV ("extremely obscure failed Beat writer") in another article. [8]

Don't be ridiculous. It's not a "judgmental POV". It happens to be fact, supported by expert opinion: in this case, the bookseller's catalogue entry. And it most certainly is on-topic. One obvious question is why is it that nobody there in Anderson Valley considered their very own "Beat writer" Hawkins as a candidate for the author of the Tinasky letters? The question answers itself when you see the catalogue entry. "Beat writer"? Yeah, right, you can say, when you see that he was just a guy with a mimeograph machine and a stapler. Hawkins obviously had more innate talent than Rod McKuen, but blew it badly. He was a failure.

(Of course, not all self-published mimeograph works are failures. Ignoring the case of samizdat in the Soviet Union, jack green is a rare exception, and his Fire the Bastards! was eventually reprinted. If Hawkins ever does get reprinted, it will ultimately be due to his rediscovery following Foster's identification, and not any burning torch among some devoted fan all these years.)

I'm of two minds about whether to use "jack green" or "Jack Green". I have the vague impression from very far away that both are commonly used. I would favor the latter, solely for readability's sake. E. E. Cummings may or may not count as precedent: those famous minuscules were his publisher's idea.

And again, according to Wiki policy, citing sources, especially expert opinion, like Hawkins' online, is preferable to summarizing as I originally did. I cut and pasted from the catalogue since the citation is ephemeral. I'm also uncomfortable about citing a commercial site.

chocolateboy 14:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--192.35.35.36 19:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Again with the vandalism and the proof-by-ennui filibusters? I've noticed you've reverted very few of my improvements in the article, just as I have reverted very few of yours. You seem to be hellbent on flaming on the talk page while keeping schtum in the article. I'm happy to resume this discussion when a) it's actually relevant (i.e. it serves some other purpose than massaging your ego) and b) you learn to communicate without, by your own admission, violating Wikipedia talk page policy.

chocolateboy 21:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's quite clear that you have zero interest in civil or meaningful discussion, you continue with bombastic exaggeration and blatant lies regarding my comments here, and you are just engaging in nonstop spin.

--192.35.35.36 21:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mediation requested

Since you point blank refuse to discuss anything substantive, and mostly just throw out insinuations and innuendos, I have requested mediation.--192.35.35.35 22:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the page according to the rules of NPOV, and added numerous details. --192.35.35.34 17:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the page according to the rules of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:NPOV, and restored some details.

• I've reverted the first paragraph for the reasons given above. This part of your rewrite (particularly your use of Hawkins' date of birth and death in the opening sentence), in conjunction with the bibliography section, amounts to a Hawkins article by the back door. Such an article would clearly be successfully VfD'd on the grounds of non-notability, which, ironically, you go to some pains to demonstrate above and in the snipped section. Moreover, a simple Google search shows that the "truth" of the Hawkins attribution still lags behind the Pynchon rumour. It's not our job to propagate vulgar errors, but neither is it our job to campaign for the overthrow of the status quo.
• "That Tinasky also wrote that this novel was to be set in Africa in 1910 was dismissed as a false lead." I snipped this because a) Who cares? Why should this offtopic detail stay while Tinasky's gamesmanship with Pynchon gets emery-papered into a detail-free generalisation? b) There is no reference for it, and given the self-contradictory, subjective spin you gave it on its last outing, I believe that at least one reference corroborating this dismissal should be provided to dispel any notion that a pet reading is being parlayed into a scholarly consensus.
• "This yo-yo pattern of finding significant matches between Pynchon and Tinasky, while ignoring blatant contradictions". I'm sure that pattern can be criticised for its lack of rigour, or blindness, or what have you, but its dynamics have nothing to do with the vaccilating motion of a yo-yo.
• Unlike 'self-proclaimed "literary detective"', there's nothing snide or pejorative in the locution 'self-styled "literary detective"', which is patently accurate (he's no more a self-styled Shakespeare scholar than Paul Erdös was a self-styled mathematician.)
• "It is normally only as good as the input data, and Foster has had a mixed record of success as a result." Foster has had mixed results, but it's entirely down to limitations in the data, and no blame can be laid at Foster's feet for these contradictions and climbdowns? This gushing Foster fandom is given the lie by the "Elegy" and JonBenét Ramsey cases, as well as Foster's own caveat: "All I need to do is get one attribution wrong ever, and it will discredit me not just as an expert witness in civil and criminal suits but also in the academy."

chocolateboy 10:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I have rewritten the page according to the rules of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:NPOV, and restored some details.

• I've reverted the first paragraph for the reasons given above. This part of your rewrite (particularly your use of Hawkins' date of birth and death in the opening sentence), in conjunction with the bibliography section, amounts to a Hawkins article by the back door. Such an article would clearly be successfully VfD'd on the grounds of non-notability, which, ironically, you go to some pains to demonstrate above and in the snipped section. [...]

Yes, an article on Hawkins, failed and forgotten Beat writer, should be VfD'd, as you say. (There isn't even an article on Gershon Legman yet.) But then, Wikipedia does not have articles titled Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, minor mathematician, or Józef Teodor Nałęcz Konrad Korzeniowski, Polish sailor, or Paul French, juvenile sci-fi writer, or John Melville, dead body.

Note that in the last example, the news of the man's true name has not made it very far, either in Wikipedia or on Google, with Google giving many more hits to the erroneous "glyndwr michael" mincemeat than it does to the correct "john melville" mincemeat, 83 to 7, but not many in either case, and both are dwarfed by "the man who never was" with 10,400 hits.

Similarly, Wikipedia might someday have articles on the famous patients Freud wrote about under their pseudonyms "Dora", "Rat Man", "Wolf Man", "Little Hans", "Anna O." A "Dora" article that begins "Dora was Freud's pseudoynm for Ida Bauer (November 1, 1882 - ...)" would be entirely appropriate. An "Ida Bauer" article would not be appropriate, for the very reason you stated.

There would be a decision that would have to be made about whether the article should start with the biographical details, and move on to her reasons for visiting Freud, and what then ensued, or just start with the case details, and include near the end biographical details. That would be debated based on what is best for the article. There is no debate, as per your reasoning, that the article title is anything but "Dora". I would also expect uniformity between the various cases.

(I have not checked. Perhaps these cases are in Wikipedia?)

Compare the entry and debate on John Patrick Ennis. The article entry name is the name that has made itself notable, but the article itself begins point blank with his lesser known legal name.

In short, there is nothing un-Wikipedian about my approach per se.

• [...] Moreover, a simple Google search shows that the "truth" of the Hawkins attribution still lags behind the Pynchon rumour. It's not our job to propagate vulgar errors, but neither is it our job to campaign for the overthrow of the status quo.

The rumor's status vis-à-vis the new orthodoxy is irrelevant. Debunking usually lags way behind the original in any situation. The original mystery on top of a mysterious person was newsworthy. The revelation is usually tedious and boring.

Note that official confirmation of the true identity of Major Martin, the Man Who Never Was, has, in over a year now, made it to about 7 sites according to Google. This is in regard to a famous anonymous person, complete with memorable catchphrase, book, movie, and incredible historical real-world drama.

No status quo overthrow is being offered, by the way. It's already happened. Google surfing, as I demonstrate above, can be a very poor way to evaluate the status quo.

My edits have been NPOV, as defined by Jimbo Wales. Concerns for certainty about what the real truth are, although generally admirable, are not relevant to NPOV.

• "That Tinasky also wrote that this novel was to be set in Africa in 1910 was dismissed as a false lead." I snipped this because a) Who cares? Why should this offtopic detail stay [...]

It's on-topic. Anderson and others selectively propped up the rumor by ignoring or downplaying key discrepancies. I recall how I was amused by the similarities when I first heard about them (Tinasky writing a novel set in Mendocino County! Tinasky worked for Boeing way back when!), then accepting Pynchon's unique denial as authoritative (I believed had he played such games, part of the game would have been to say nothing), then getting livid when I saw the letters for myself, and the blatant omissions (the forthcoming novel was set in 1910 Africa? Tinasky worked at Boeing ten years before Pynchon?) that were not circulated on the rumor mill. That made it a borderline hoax, as far as I was concerned.

Nevertheless, I do not believe anybody was deliberately being deceptive. The psychology of paranoia and deception that Pynchon readers immerse themselves in made it inevitable. The Wanda Tinasky story is not just the letters, but the rumors, and why the rumors were given plausibility.

It's also the story of Tom Hawkins. I believe part of the story has become the bizarre pile of coincidences that have accumulated, which is why I had the "Anderson" coincidence bit. But this is a judgment call, which is why I did not put it back after you removed it.

• [...]while Tinasky's gamesmanship with Pynchon gets emery-papered into a detail-free generalisation? [...]

I'm sorry, I cannot attach any meaning to the above. I'd like to, I'm certain I've just been convicted of some awful Wiki crime, and given some chance I can clear by good non-name, but for now, I'll identify with K.

• [...] b) There is no reference for it, and given the self-contradictory, subjective spin you gave it on its last outing, I believe that at least one reference corroborating this dismissal should be provided to dispel any notion that a pet reading is being parlayed into a scholarly consensus.

It's in the Letters of course. Where else? To be specific, look up the notorious "purple-assed baboon" letter.

Note that when you elided this 1910 Africa assertion of mine out, the following sentence about the pattern continuing suddenly made no sense. (There was a second statement where that also happened.)

"Self-contradictory subjective spin?" What are you referring to? It's a case of Pynchon similarities being emphasized and Pynchon discrepancies being overlooked. The "self-contradiction" was that engaged by Anderson and others when they jumped to conclusions and didn't look back.

• "This yo-yo pattern of finding significant matches between Pynchon and Tinasky, while ignoring blatant contradictions". I'm sure that pattern can be criticised for its lack of rigour, or blindness, or what have you, but its dynamics have nothing to do with the vaccilating motion of a yo-yo.

I'm sorry, I thought you liked yo-yos in this context.

• Unlike 'self-proclaimed "literary detective"', there's nothing snide or pejorative in the locution 'self-styled "literary detective"', which is patently accurate (he's no more a self-styled Shakespeare scholar than Paul Erdös was a self-styled mathematician.)

Except the people in question are self-styled whatevers. That is precisely why it's considered a "weasel word". The complaint about weasel words is not that they are inaccurate, it's just that they are simply ways to sneak POV into "patently accurate" statements. It carries the connotation that the rest of the world thinks Foster is not really a "literary detective". This is neither good nor bad, but this connotation is definitely inaccurate. The media have portrayed him as such. It's why he gets calls asking for his opinion on various texts.

My version ducks the issue entirely, putting the phrase in scare quotes in an entirely unobtrusive way. This is what NPOV demands. Go back to the Sollog link I mentioned. As discussed on the talk page, "self-proclaimed psychic" became "psychic", as edited by someone who agrees that Sollog has no psychic talents.

• "It is normally only as good as the input data, and Foster has had a mixed record of success as a result." Foster has had mixed results, but it's entirely down to limitations in the data, and no blame can be laid at Foster's feet for these contradictions and climbdowns? [...]

Note the word "normally". Should Foster have known to compare known Shakespeare imitators way back when? I have no idea. It would have saved a lot of trouble had he done so.

• [...] This gushing Foster fandom [...]

"Gushing" and "fandom" accusations should be reserved for actual instances, like throwing in "polymath" or "polyglot", no matter how accurately. The statement I wrote remains entirely correct.

As for my views on Foster, I've included mention how his methods are not original on the Foster page. I've mentioned that I am not particularly whelmed by his popular writing. I've not yet mentioned that more mathematical and statistical meat, as the historians use, should be used, although I think I hinted at this somewhere. Not quite fandom.

Until this line of yours, you have shown a remarkably improved attitude about following the Wiki approach to discussion and conflict resolution. Try harder. I expect I can withdraw the request for mediation, and if it keeps up on this level, I'll approve of blanking previous discussion.

• [...] is given the lie by the "Elegy" and JonBenét Ramsey cases, [...]

I see no such contradiction. My sentence remains true in both instances. More data, and out came John Ford. Ditto regarding Ramsey. In the latter case, he changed his mind after learning something that was not yet public knowledge.

And as I said, I don't think we've heard the end of the "Elegy by W. S." saga yet. My own view is that I consider the authorship question less interesting than the techniques issue, and I give Foster special kudos for succeeding in convincing his skeptical colleagues to consider textual matching as a technique. The 1984 "Shall I die? Shall I fly?" attribution by others, in contrast, was simply laughed to death, and that status has apparently not changed.

• [...] as well as Foster's own caveat: "All I need to do is get one attribution wrong ever, and it will discredit me not just as an expert witness in civil and criminal suits but also in the academy."

I've commented on these on the Foster page. In brief: the caveat is erroneous regarding his legal qualifications, which follow definite rules, and absolutely irrelevant regarding his academic status, which follows no rules whatsoever.

chocolateboy 10:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm long-winded, as usual. Take your time.--192.35.35.36 20:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dash it all

Rather than discussing everything at once, I think one issue at a time is more reasonable.

I changed your "space-hyphen-space" sequences to bald "em-dashes". You changed them back. I included a tiny bit of discussion on this, but I assume it was lost in the crowd.

The reason I made the change is that Wikipedia policy regarding American versus British conventions is to follow the subject matter's nationality, if relevant, and if there is no relevant Wikipedia style override. Wanda Tinasky and all the characters involved are American. The Wikipedia style guide on dashes refers immediately to the dashes link. Inside, you can find the American versus British disagreement on dash style to mark off parenthetical comments. --192.35.35.34 23:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Welcome Gamaliel

If you look back over the recent history and above discussion, you'll see that there has been a sharp dispute on whether the article should begin or end by naming names, and we're in the middle of a now less inflammatory discussion. I think both sides would appreciate if you entered the discussion first.

An important related issue is what NPOV means in this situation. Review the lined-in comments of Jimbo Wales above: I say that the now accepted academic view is that Tinasky was Hawkins, that other views have been marginalized, and therefore by the rules of NPOV, T=H must be the background assumption for the whole article, with any wishywashy hedging, like your "widely believed", to be treated as an attempt to weasel in marginal POVs. Comments?

And why did you remove the book link? I put it there since chocolateboy claimed the explicit copy of the book description was "original research", which complaint I cannot fathom. My point, as explained above, is the extreme obscurity of Hawkins should, following Wikipedia rules, be spelled out with evidence, not blunt assertion. And further, his extreme obscurity is relevant to the Tinasky story. So at least the link should be there.--192.35.35.34 14:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand that this article has been the subject of some heated debate. I followed the link here from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Regardless of the previous debate, the introduction should mention both Pynchon and Hawkins in some fashion. To my mind, this is pretty much non-negotiable, as the introduction of every article should mention the most important facts about the topic of the article.

I wouldn't read any agenda into how I phrased a sentence fashioned at 4am my time, and to say I used it in "an attempt to weasel in marginal POVs" is absurd as if it were true it would be an attempt to weasel in a POV opposite of my own. I understand that tempers may be high here, but I think it would be more constructive not to quote rules at people or attempt to attribute motives to them.

I removed the book link because Wikipedia is not in the business of selling books, and it adds nothing of significance to the article. If you're using it to back up a particular point, putting it on the talk page is sufficient. Gamaliel 15:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What are the salient points about Wanda Tinasky? Three stand out. The letters themselves, the Pynchon identification, and the Hawkins identification. I believe the middle one should be deprecated. It certainly is the only reason general interest and notability exists regarding Tinasky in the first place, but I view that as a perception question. Over time, I expect it become less important, the Tinasky/Hawkins letters to be read on their own merits, with the Pynchon angle fading into a bizarre footnote.

In other words, this should be a "Wanda Tinasky the person" article, not a "Wanda Tinasky the affair" article.

I'm baffled that you find my comments about weaseling POVs as a bit of temper on my part. I've reread them several times, and I find nothing hostile in them. I'm merely stating my view of any and all comments that hedge on the T=H question: they don't belong, for the reason stated. Nowhere did I ascribe a motive to you.

As for quoting policy excessively, I've been responding to chocolateboy's numerous citations of policy with close to zero explanation of how I've actually violated policy. He has yet to respond substantively on any of these claims of his, or my claims re policy.

I have stated above that I am uncomfortable with a commercial link. I think it is significant, though. It's both a professional description of his writing (though possibly exaggerated) and of his extreme obscurity (probably accurate). Not just backing up a point, but the point itself. Why didn't anyone locally suspect their neighbor Hawkins? Why didn't anyone draw conclusions from Tinasky not flaming local Beat poet Hawkins?

On a related issue, I object to Hawkins being labelled a "Beat poet" or "Beat writer", even with an "obscure" qualifier. He was never more than a wannabe.--192.35.35.34 16:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Gamaliel: while I didn't particularly like the first paragraph the way it had been before, it was at least readable as a paragraph. Your version, made for the sake of saliency, ends with a jolting change of focus, leaving us with a dysfunctional paragraph.

Chocolateboy's edits have had the same problem. When I wrote that a key similarity (Tinasky was writing a novel based on Mendocino County!) was seized on, while a key discrepancy was overlooked (but set in 1910 Africa!), it was followed by a sentence that referred to this pattern of see and don't see. By snipping the 1910 Africa clause, the following sentence is now referring to a non-existent pattern.--192.35.35.34 17:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I accept that no offense was intended by your comments, but you should (as should we all) try to be more conscious of the way others may take your comments, regardless of intent.

I'm sorry that my addition to the intro is a bit jarring, but we can work on that. As I said, Hawkins should be there, as he wrote the letters, as should Pynchon. Pynchon may be a "bizarre footnote", but the mistaken attribution of the letters to him is the reason the letters are as notable as they are.

I still don't see what the book link adds. As proof of Hawkins' obscurity, it's unnecessary - is anyone saying that Hawkins wasn't obscure? As far as Hawkins being Beat, yes, he was a wannabee, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't describe him as part of a movement. The membership of literary movements isn't limited, there are no membership cards, etc. Gamaliel 18:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm blunt (in between the bouts of long-windedness) but I stick as much as possible to article-only comments. I also assume that nobody cares what I like or dislike--I simply expect my concerns to be a part of the consensus making process, to be accepted or rejected as you see fit.

I haven't reverted or edited your changes. I'm looking for consensus, and we'll fix the English later. But I hope you have the same goal regarding other issues.

Not every article begins with what its subject is most noted for. To take an example close to home, the Pynchon article just states that he is an American novelist noted for the complexity of his novels. No mention is made then of any particular novel that had pushed him into fame. No mention is made then of his notorious secrecy.

(Curiously enough, the article dates Gravity's Rainbow as the start of his reclusiveness becoming known. In point of fact, he was known for secretiveness when Time tried to photograph him in Mexico City after V. made him at least notable, and Pynchon fled through a window and into the hills.)

So far, we have three ideas as to how the article should begin: WT only (choc), WT/TDH (me), and WT/TDH/TRP (you). I see the three correspond to different emphases. ("Will the real Wanda Tinasky please stand up?") Choc likes the letters as letters. Versions before me even included an editorially suggested reading, which we've agreed does not belong here. I like the story of Hawkins as Hawkins. A nobody rescued from complete obscurity. You like, I gather, the later confusion.

I believe that NPOV pushes us to WT/TDH as being the focus. I don't see mentioning why anyone once cared about WT in the first place as fitting in the introduction. The tone should be "hello, you're here to read about WT, we're not too concerned how you probably heard about the subject, enjoy". In other words, I more or less agree with the missing editorially suggested reading POV, achieved not by explicit editorializing but by the barest of implicit hints. (As for the "more or less", the emphasis is on "less", though.)

Choc does not like "extremely obscure". He thinks "extremely" is POV. So I cited explicit evidence and sources from expert opinion to define the obscurity for me. Choc then rejected anything beyond the link. You then excised the link.

He was a wannabe and never got beyond that. Just calling him a Beat writer, even an obscure Beat writer, incorrectly suggests that he was known as one of the Beats. He wasn't. When he retired to Mendocino County, none of the local writers and poets connected their neighbor, Tim Hawkins, with any past writing. They never suspected that Tinasky, in the midst of flaming the local art scene for its many failures, was failing to flame the Beat writer amongst them.

You're right, there are no membership cards to literary movements. But Hawkins never got past the wannabe stage. He should not be described as if he did. I would be happy with "failed Beat writer" or "unsuccessful Beat writer".--192.35.35.35 21:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But every article should begin with what is most notable about a subject. If the intro to Thomas Pynchon doesn't mention his legendary secrecy, then I'll change it myself tomorrow to mention that. When I made my edit to the intro, I wasn't terribly concerned about the focus of the article, which should be of course on Hawkins. I disagree that merely mentioning Pynchon in the intro steers the article in any direction at all, it merely mentions the most notable thing about Tinasky, and the only thing that anyone unfamiliar with the particulars will probably know. Perhaps you don't find that terribly interesting or significant, fair enough, but it belongs in the intro. For example, say Band X had a thirty year career with tons of albums and critical acclaim, but were mostly known to the general public for a one hit wonder which is largely ignored/dismissed by the band's fans. That one hit wonder belongs in the intro of the band's article regardless of how minor it is in terms of their greater career and body of work simply because it is the best known song by that band.

"Failed Beat writer" is too judgmental to be NPOV, in my opinion, but "unsuccessful Beat writer" is acceptable to me. Gamaliel 10:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article guide says every article should begin with the most important facts about the topic, not the most notable. The two concepts overlap, of course, and sometimes the perception is the most important aspect of the story. But since the Tinasky letters now stand or fall on their own merits, I see no reason to promote the notability to importance.

The lead section guide does not even say anything about importance.

(Yes, I know you don't like rule quoting. But you are citing a standard that has not been adopted on Wikipedia, and then justifying your changes based on that standard.)

I do not consider your Band X example to be convincing. Sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes not. For example, Bill Buckner will forever be remembered for one bad baseball play. Bucky Dent will forever be remembered for one home run. Both articles mention this right off. I agree that this is appropriate in these cases.

In contrast, the David Baltimore article summarizes his scientific achievements—the Nobel-winning aspect is regarding something you may even have heard of—and only mentions his involvement in a scandal that achieved a great deal of notoriety, both inside and outside scientific circles, when it is relevant to his biography. The fact that Baltimore was vindicated in the end is probably why the scandal vis-à-vis Baltimore is only "notable", not "important".

I find the Tinasky/Pynchon connection drops far away from importance precisely because it is now known to be nothing but a strange footnote. It remains notable.--192.35.35.35 20:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

192.35.35.3*, I have repeatedly [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] asked you to stop vandalising comments, and you have repeatedly ignored these requests ("I had to violate the recommendation about preserving your writing"). In light of this, I am withdrawing from further discussion with you on this topic until you're prepared to abide by the rules ("don't edit someone's words to change their meaning").

If you're really interested in having a constructive discussion, I strongly suggest you learn to quote rather than vandalising my comments with interlineations. [15]

chocolateboy 18:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, progress! Can you cite an example of an interlineation of mine that had the effect of vandalism? The ones I've looked over are obviously non-vandalism. Apparently one of them somewhere somehow strikes you as vandalism, but you won't tell me which one.--192.35.35.35 21:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

You have made your repeated requests, and like pretty much every last one of your citations of the rules, you have given absolutely no indication in what sense you think the rules apply. I have read the rules page in question many times, and also the pages on vandalism, and as far as I can see, you're shooting bad faith blanks, and are engaged in a bad faith effort to avoid discussing the issues regarding what a Wanda Tinasky page should look like.--192.35.35.35 20:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Second time around. Yes, you have, and you continue to absolutely refuse to identify what you mean. Just like you absolutely refuse to justify your other lists of Wikisins you allege I have committed. And I stand by my quotation, for the reasons stated when I wrote it. You're merely quoting it out of context, and now scoring worthless bad faith huffy points on it. The issue remains, you've gone out of your way to absolutely refuse to discuss pretty much any points regarding the page, and have invented imaginary reasons to excuse your refusals, and larded it with ridiculous bombastic exaggerations.--192.35.35.35 22:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Third time around. It would help if you identify an actual example of my alleged vandalism, or an example of the meanings of your words changed by my edits. For example, when I accuse you of quoting me out of context, I refer to the specific sentence ("my quotation"). Of course, what it all boils down to is you do not because you cannot.--192.35.35.35 17:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)