Talk:Shambleau

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels: Short story Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Short story task force.

This article ends by stating "The story became an instant success in a country where lynching was a common occurrence and at a time when the Ku Klux Klan was at its strongest."[2]--this contradicts the wikipedia article on the KKK which shows the KKK had declined by 1930 to 30,000 members from a height of 6 million members in 1924.NeilCoughlin (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious in general as to exactly who the heck the 'commentators' are. A google search on Bernard Fields turns up a virologist - is that the guy in question, or what?198.111.161.34 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, the use of IP-addresses sows a fair amount of confusion, but another IP edit, of 3 August 2009, clearly asserted that Fields was the author of

"Lynching in American Culture", New York, 1987

-- even tho yet another removed both the bulk of the quote and that citation.
   While the failure to ID the publishing house (especially in re the publisher-rich venue of NYC) could reflect either incompetent scholarship or deceit, the distinction is moot since absence of the work from e.g. LoC pretty well rules out the use as a RS of the full or truncated text, or any part of the work. Thus i remove the last scrap attributed to Fields.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2015‎

   An IP acct with an oeuvre heavy in undo-worthy edits was used to add a q-mark after the period of one sentence. I'm undoing it; if someone wanted should subsequently want to address the intended opinion -- perhaps that the assertion is dubious? -- that'd be none of my business.
--Jerzy•t 22:51, 3 & 00:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

   Two quotations in the article are opened with a quotation mark but never closed, producing an eerie effect, and (at best) requiring the reader to check for places (besides the end of the sentence or 'graph) where the closing q-mark might plausibly belong. Someone may feel justified in making a guess, but IMO both the end of each quoted passage, and (in light of the shoddy punctuation) the wording must be checked against a reliable source, lest we endorse an equally shoddy transcription. Having no certainty my further attention will suffice to find a RS before i'm distracted, i'm converting them both to indirect quotations for now.
--Jerzy•t 23:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]