Jump to content

Talk:Genie (feral child)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Sources

Several of the sources and external links in this article are to personal websites or blogs of people who are not known experts in this field of expertise. I will be reviewing these and removing them from the article shortly. Wjhonson (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Genie's location

Was looking through the history - noticed an edit was made to add that Genie is currently located in the X Center for Developmentally Disabled Adults, but it was unsourced.

I believe I heard some psychologist tracked her down there, or some other center in east L.A., but I don't remember my source.

Can this be found out?

--Vartan Simonian ʞlɐʇ 08:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No reliable source that I know of her gives her location except to say she is living in a group home in California somewhere. It also appears to me to be an unwarranted invasion of her privacy to try to find out, (as well as original research, of course}--Slp1 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a better question is why would you want to find out where a particular living person currently resides. Would it add some value to the encyclopedic article? Are you familiar with the controversy concerning attempts to publish the real name of Genie on Wikipedia? If you review the archive of this talk page, you will see that the issue has generated quite a lot of heat, but was resolved by "agreeing" to the deletion of such attempts. I am not an expert in matters of WP:BLP but my guess is that there is no benefit from attempting to publish where Genie is located since she is only notable for events occurring over 30 years ago. --Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. Probably the article is best without this unneeded information. --Vartan Simonian ʞlɐʇ 16:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Just for the sake of curiosity, who or what decides what is "unneeded information"? If her real name has been released it should be in the article. I will adhere to whatever policy wikipedia decides but I am most curious about my first question. 162.83.149.42 (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Who decides that is "unneeded information"? We editors decide, with reference to the various policies here. The one that very specifically applies here is WP:BLP, but WP:NOR and WP:V come into it too, of course. In this case, this section of BLP policy [1] about the privacy issues particularly applies. The decision was made not to include her name, since it has not been widely disseminated by reliable sources (amongst other reasons). Interestingly enough, a decision has also been made to withhold the name of the Star Wars kid, even though his name has been extensively and recently publicized (much more so than Genie's). The reasoning is similar: he is known only for one event, including the name doesn't add anything essential to the article, and of course it just prolongs the original harassment/victimization of a living person who never sought or desired the publicity.--Slp1 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand where you're going with harassment issue and I'll agree to disagree with you on that and not press on it further. I know all about the Star Wars kid incident and name issue that arose I was just curious about the reasoning of the decision. My question was made before I read lengthy discussion in the archives. I agree with Wjhonson to be honest but the rules are rules I suppose. Thanks for your prompt answer. 162.83.149.42 (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reasonableness of your response, even if you disagree. For what it's worth, I wonder if you might find yourself very glad of the 'rules' against including such identifying information if you or someone you care about found themselves in a similar situation.Slp1 (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I might be, but I'd feel slightly ashamed later. It's one of those grey areas I think. 162.83.149.42 (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No Slp1 it's not "original research" to find out where she lives. It might be research, but it does not need to be original. If some source states where she lives, that is source-based research, which is what we do here. It's not original. Wjhonson (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please look more carefully to what I actually said: I responded to a request to "find out where she lived" as tracked down by "some psychologist" by saying that there were no reliable sources stating exactly where she lived (I researched it, yes); and that trying to "find out" otherwise would be considered original research. --Slp1 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo request

I want to explain why I added the "needs-photo" paramater to the Wikiproject Biography temp. While I am aware that there is already a photo in this article, and I am NOT objecting to its' presence, it would be nice to have another photo that better displayed Genies' face, or at least, is from an actual camera, versus a movie still. Thanks. --Call me Bubba (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above from August 29 about why I didn't chose a nicer photo. Basically it probably wouldn't have been allowed under the strict nonfree use policies on Wikipedia. Although in this case it may be open to interpretation. For An Angel (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

redirects for discussion

I've nominated the two redirects pertaining to this article again. See here. For An Angel (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


Name

Um, I now that this has been discussed before but it took me only five (5) minuets to fine the subjects name. if it just takes that long then hasn't the damage already been done??? I mean lets look at the in another perspective, for arguments sake lets say some sociopath wanted to murder "Genie". If he wanted to kill her so badly (I'm not saying that anyone wants to, so be cool) then trust me he would find out her name and where she lives. And I did not have to even click on five sites to get her name, I got it by the second site. I am not trying to cause trouble (that is why I am not mentioning the name) but it seems pointless to try to protect her when that info is already out there. And I should also point out that if it is her safety we are concerned about that I am sure she is well protected in her group home.--Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 00:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

She's best known as Genie, anybody who knows her birth name is probably going to know her as well or better as Genie. No-one is going to search for Susie Shorthair (feral child). Having her real names in the page adds little value and would need to be sourced to references of impeccable reliability - in which case they should be integrated with the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not a question of sourcing. I believe her real name was reported in the local papers at the time she was freed. It's a question of respecting the privacy of someone who was a victim of a crime and is in no position the defend herself. Per WP:BLP we "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." --agr (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, they'd be from the 70's and unlikely to have a contemporary source. Skimming through BLP I don't see any reason to not include it if it's very well sourced but I've yet to a sufficiently good source. As far as I'm concerned, sources published in the 70's only available off-line, for a fee, discussed on websites of dubious, self-published reliability, aren't even a reason to have this conversation. The thing is, if we ever do find a source that identifies her by name and is sufficiently reliable to use, we would have a choice of removing that link because of the name, or linking to it and having it appear as a prominent link in the article. For that matter, ABCnews.com includes the last name of the family and first name of her brother. But since there's no comparable source for Genie's first name, there's no reason to discuss and we should cross that bridge when we come to it. I think that if we did have a source that's viable to cite her first name, it would be within bounds of BLP to use it. But that's a debate that is perhaps better had via e-mail. For now, I'm fine with letting the matter drop. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It's also a debate that took us months to resolve. Check the extensive talk page archive. I disagree that it would be withing the bounds of BLP to use her name if we found a reliable source for it. Most people would agree that Genie's case is a perfect example for WP:BLP#Privacy_of_names For An Angel (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. The extensive discussions here (in the archives), at WP:BLPN and at various redirect decisions been very strongly against inclusion of her name. This despite the fact there is one recent reliable source that actually does mention her birthname (before reverting to the use of her pseudonym). And Miagirljmw14 might want to consider the broader implications of her name being known: it isn't just that people might be able to find her (to do her harm or not), but that people who know her now, in her community, will have private information to which they have no right. The reason that the names of rape and abuse victims are not publicized these days is not really because we fear that they will be stalked etc, but because if it had happened to us or a loved one, we wouldn't want such private information about our past available to every Tom, Dick and Harriet we happen to meet at the store or the library. --Slp1 (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following external links for the following reasons. External links are to be kept to a minimum and these are not appropriate.

I think at least some of these are reliable sources; others not so much.
Given that this article needs all the help it can get, I will add these two, properly accredited, back to reference section (rather than external links), so that they are easily accessible for article development in the future.--Slp1 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems with intro/lead

This article doesn't say WHERE Genie lived. You have to read right down into the story before it is suggested that this took place in the United States or Canada.

Can someone clarify this, please? It should be right up the top of the story (remember the journalist's maxim: who, what, where, when, why and how.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Name again

I have twice reverted the addition of her parents' last name. This info provides no useful information to the article, and per privacy issues (esp. for Genie and her living brother), as well as the long discussions held about this topic on multiple forums, I do not support its inclusion. Per Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle I invite the editor in question to get consensus here for the addition of this name.--Slp1 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

her parents' names are in the mainstream media, so there is no reason to keep it out of the article. wikipedia is not censored. plus, it makes no sense for us to use a source that blatantly says her parents name, yet we go out of our way to censor the name from the article, even though anyone who views the source will see their name. again, wikipedia is not censored, so i have no idea why you've reverted this twice. i don't believe that policy backs you on this one. (Redacted) Theserialcomma (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
and you said it "provides no useful information" to the article. but the article has their first names. how is that useful information for protecting their privacy? why not just call them Parent X and Parent Y? or how about we just stick to what the sources say, and not censor wikipedia. it's not like i'm trying to expose genie's real name; it just looks awkward and censored that her parents' first names are only shown. that's what is not useful. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed not censored does but neither I nor anybody else is arguing that the name is offensive or objectionable as described by that policy. I am stating that per our WP:BLP policy, since the addition of the names add nothing to the article, they should not be included because they do significantly increase the likelihood that living survivors of abuse and their family members will be identified. The name of this family have been carefully obscured by virtually all media and scholarly sources for the last 40 years. One mention in one reliable source in the last 30 years (the others you provide are either/or not reliable sources, behind a pay wall, or don't mention the last name at all) is not enough to change this. I certainly understand that you find it awkward with the first names, and support the removal of their first names too, if you think that would help. In fact I'll do it straightaway.

One thing you might want to look at is the archives of the Star Wars kid. The name of this teenager was published much, much more widely than in this case, and still the consensus (which included many very experienced WP editors etc) has been not to use his real name. Nevertheless, as here, articles listed as references do contain the name; this was the compromise agreed there, and that we also accepted here.--Slp1 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are very serious privacy issues at stake here, and this is recognized in most of the published material about Genie, which tends to avoid using her real name. An organization as concerned as we are about protecting privacy rights should go out of its way to respect this consensus of silence. For the record, it took me some time to see it like that, as there obviously have been various sources that gave her name. However, the spirit of WP:BLP demands that we err on the side of caution when living people are concerned.--Cúchullain t/c 14:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
so we agree not to use genie's real name, whatever it might be. except we are talking about her parents. and the source as to her parents' first name http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4804490 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4873347&page=1, blatantly say her parents' first and last names. what are we protecting here? there is no guarantee that genie's real name is the same as her parents' names, and the source says her parents' names anyway. this is foolish. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • i support the removal of the parents' real first names if we cannot agree to trust abc news's decision to publish the first and last names. it should be full name or nothing at all. it doesn't read to me as encyclopedic just to list a first name, so nothing is better. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not a matter of agreeing with ABC's decision, it's a matter of weighing that decision against the decisions of all those other sources that did not publish the names in order to protect Genie's privacy. What do the other sources do? At any rate identifying the parents makes it easier to identify Genie and her brother, so if we are erring on the side of caution until we can sort it out we should leave the names out.--Cúchullain t/c 00:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
this is silly. the source says her parents' full names. why are we censoring what is obviously available in the source? we should either reject the source, remove any reference to the parents' real names (even if it's just their first names), or stay faithful to the source we are using. it's patently superficial to show her parents' first names, cited to an abcnews source, and when you click the source, it says their full names. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It's exactly the same solution that was arrived at with the Star wars kid; I don't see either case as either silly or censoring, but following the letter and spirit of BLP and our moral obligations to some fragile human beings. But anyway, at your suggestion I removed the first names of the parents a few days ago, and would be happy to remove the newspaper article too and replace it with a better source if that is really what is desired.--Slp1 (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

See this article in the L.A. Times giving again her full real name, and dated in 1994. Wjhonson (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Genie team"

The article mentions a "Genie team" a few times but never says what it was or who was a part of it. Could someone add an explanation of it? Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Second Foster Home With The Riglers 87.102.17.197 (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE put that Genie may not have actually been knowingly saying this? All we know is that Marilyn Rigler interpreted her words as "Potty chair", repeated this to Genie for confirmation, and it is very possible that Genie may have become fixated on the phrase, as children acquiring their first language tend to. The passage suggests that Genie said "potty chair" of her own accord, but hearing Marilyn Rigler repeat it may have encouraged her to feel that it was the right phrase to say, and so she repeats it, she may not have fully understood the implications and what she was saying. I will agree, it is also equally as possible that she DID understand, but we need to put this in.

Thanks, 87.102.17.197 (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Awful picture used...

I think this picture does a huge disservice to Genie, she was a very pretty, very lively girl, who (by everyone's admission) had something very sweet and captivating about her. That "bunny walk" was from the very early stages in any way. Surely we can put up one of the many pictures of this poor, tortured child where she actually looks beautiful and hopeful. Wait I am going to change it if I can do it. 79.130.187.91 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I had many other images of her to choose from when I added this pic to the article. Although I agree that there are "nicer" pics of her, I thought that any picture used to simply show her appearance wouldn't be allowed since it was an unfree image. I thought a picture displaying her "bunny walk" would be more admissable because it helps the reader's understanding of that characteristic of her. For An Angel (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
If you find other free images, you should definitely consider adding them to the article in another place. I agree that she should be represented in other ways, but not replacing the image. Ashleyy osaurus (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the image with basically the same picture but from a screen cap of the Nova DVD. It is a slightly better quality than the first one which was a screen cap from a youtube video. For An Angel (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not awful, don't be too critical. She still looks like a normal child. 178.94.198.70 (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

New section?

The article, as it stands now, seems to have little more than a history of the traumatic events that she went through. Isn't there more to say about Genie? For example, what the scientists and doctors learned from her regarding the nature of language aquisition and why (The Forbidden Experiment is not even mentioned). The intro says, " Psychologists, linguists and other scientists exhibited great interest in the case due to its perceived ability to reveal insights into the development of language and linguistic critical periods." But that subject is not mentioned again in the rest of the article. Shouldn't this be a big part of Genie's story?— Preceding unsigned comment added by For An Angel (talk • contribs) 2011-06-01T21:07:54

Yes, I agree, there is an awful lot missing from this article if only someone had the time or the energy to expand it. Maybe one of these days I will do it, but I'd rather work with others if they are interested. I have very little free time for WP these days! --Slp1 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Assumed Settlement.

I've pulled this inaccurate sentence at the end of the article. "In California, lawsuits are typically dismissed with prejudice in connection with settlement agreements. "

This is simply not true, a settlement is an agreement of the parties where the plaintiff agrees to pull the case, the court is typically uninvolved in settlement discussions. A claim that is dismissed with prejudice likely did not have enough evidence to lead a jury to believe the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zendu (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Genie's drawings

Her primitive drawing of a human figure contrasted with her more sophisticated animal drawings is quite illuminative. Is it possible to include them in the article? Ankh.Morpork 19:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link for people who don't have JSTOR [3]. I think the pictures would have copyright problems attached to them. The book review might well be useful, though. Goldin-Meadow is a big name in the field. Slp1 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a ton for bringing up the book review, I can see some potential for it. As to the drawings; yeah, I don't think they'd meet fair use, but they're actually very helpful for me personally. They give me some proof of her spatial and fine motor coordination, and it's a bit of a fire under me to keep moving and chugging on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I have emailed the AAAS requesting permission of use. Fingers crossed. Ankh.Morpork 01:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch; one of the problems with this article is that, by the nature of the subject, there really aren't many good options for images. I have OTRS access, so if they send something through OTRS I can verify it myself. Not sure how it will turn out, but I suppose we'll find out soon enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources in a BLP etc

I have just hidden a couple of sections per BLP as I am uncomfortable with the current sourcing.

  • As a self-published source, Rigler's letter to the editor [4] should not be used a source for any facts, most especially about a BLP. I haven't checked fully but a quick look in this article show that in other cases it is being used to support other more reliable sources, and as a source for Rigler's opinion, which are both fine in my view. Let's find other reliable sources about the callouses and harnesses; if it is significant per Undue, we will be able to find them.
  • I have also hidden the information about masturbation; as a BLP, I think we need the solidest possible sources for this information and a clear consensus about how this is going to be phrased; two likely reliable sources have been given; can the quotes from those books be given so that we can nail down exactly what they say, and that we can decide what, if anything, should be included on this subject? I should say that I've read widely about this person, and this information is not generally included in what I've seen. We need to decide what is right per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:BLP. Not saying it shouldn't be included. Just that it needs some discussion all. --Slp1 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I can only address the first part, not having the book being cited in the second. Rigler's letter is fine for the response to Rymer's book, for sure, because that is the response, but I'd agree it shouldn't be used for anything beyond what you say above. The other information that was hidden and sourced to that is all in Rymer's book, which seems to be regarded as an accurate account of Genie's progress (if not necessarily some of the behind-the-scenes business); I wouldn't be surprised if someone just accidentally copied the wrong reference for something. I'll hold off on doing anything until there are other comments, though. Also, is there some way we can comment out the second part without making the references go haywire? Thanks for fixing that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
If there is this same information in Rymer, then that's fine. All it needs for this to be BLP compliant is for the citation to Rymer to be added. I don't have the book at present, so perhaps you could add it. Slp1 (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought about part 2, and while again I don't have the book I really don't see what value it has. A lot of people masturbate at 13 years old, that's not really a particularly notable trait. It does get mentioned in a lot of sources, but it's not really an atypical thing, it's only the settings which would be considered abnormal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
"A lot of people masturbate at 13 years old"... No particular editor (Blade) should feel this is aimed particularly at him or her (Blade), but I think it's appropriate to remind everyone (Blade) that personal experience is a form of OR. To support such a statement someone (Blade) will need to gain consensus in an appropriate forum -- maybe SPI? (SPI = Sexual practices Inquiries) EEng (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not like I made this up out of thin air; any basic perusing of the subject would indicate that's certainly well within the typical time for those who engage in it to start. Fact-checked my old abnormal psych book just to make sure, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
<EEng looks intently at Blade of the Northern Lights for some seconds, narrowing his eyes to a squint as if trying to discern what is in Blade's mind. But Blade remains poker-faced -- he is either a master of self-containment, or utterly clueless. Finally...> Blade, you do realize my post was merely a mock insult, right? EEng (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC) P.S. But now that you mention it, if it's so typical then why consult an abnormal psych book? Huh? HUH? Answer me that, OK?!
Heh... I kinda thought so, but I wasn't sure; it's obvious now that you say it. I went with my abnormal psych book just so I wouldn't glut my browser history for the future, if you catch my drift (you seem to still have your wits about you, I have no reason to assume otherwise). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I added the content based on this source, page 312, regarding her frequent masturbation. The way it is described seems atypical but I would understand if such content was considered unnecessary. Ankh.Morpork 21:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A few suggestions

I have a couple of suggestions and comments and questions:

  • Can a few more dates, especially years, be added? It would help understand the flow.
  • Our text says that Butler didn't get the foster parent role officially without "intervention from Children's Hospital or any of the individual staff members" but one source says it was "Partly on advice from Children's Hospital, it was rejected."[5]. I think it is a case of he said/she said, but we probably need to clarify this.
  • Organization. I'm wondering if the lawsuit, early adulthood and loss of funds and interest sections could be combined in some way. --Slp1 (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you're onto something with the organization of the article; it's always hard to pin it down if you didn't start the article. I'll give that some thought. As to the dates; I've only just gotten hold of some of the research papers, so I should be able to put some more years in. I lamented in one of my edit summaries how none of the sources I had at the time followed chronology particularly closely (Rymer's especially), so now that I have more I should be able to add some more dates in. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The brother

The ABC article and the Curtiss book have two different versions of the movement of the brother. Curtiss says that he left his parents at age 3 and after making a bunch of developmental progress "was returned to his parents". The ABC article seems to say that he went to her when he was 4 and was still staying with the grandmother when she died. Maybe Rymer can break the deadlock about this?!! --Slp1 (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Rymer's book is saying he left to stay with his grandmother at 3, made a bunch of progress, and was returned upon his grandmother's death; basically Curtiss' account with an explanation for why he was returned. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Curtiss has him returning to the family before the grandmother's death. Does Rymer explicitly say something different? --Slp1 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't really say; all it says is he was living with his grandmother for "several months", doesn't have a specific time when he got back. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Sounds like he wasn't living with her when she died then, as he clearly went when he was 3 ish, and the grandmother died when he was 6 which is more than a few months. I managed to snatch a glimpse at a page or two of Rymer on Amazon and it seems the grandmother was visiting the family when she was killed, and the reason the brother saw it was because they were going across the street together for an ice-cream.--Slp1 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources

A couple of things:

  • I have removed the Maya Pines Civilizing of Genie refs because it isn't a book but is, as far as I can see an article in an ESL textbook. We have lots of highly reliable sources here and I don't think we need this.
  • I notice that the "Fuchs, Anne (2002). The Critical Period Hypothesis Supported by Genie's case" ref is actually a student seminar paper "from the year 2002 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Linguistics, printed single-sided, grade: 1,3, Ruhr-University of Bochum". This one is even more of a dubious source and I think I will be deleting it shortly.

It is probably all for the good as another suggestion I had was to prune the number of references for any statement to a maximum of three of the best ones. Too many refs look messy and can look a bit desperate too!!!Slp1 (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for chopping the out, I got the second one myself; they really don't add anything not already in other sources. Your second idea is a good one as well; I'll take some time to see if I can do just that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I've trimmed down a bunch, there are still a few more with more than 3; for a few it's pretty much inevitable, but I'm sure they can be trimmed further. I'll be back at this a little later on, I'll see if I can cut it down further. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Great! I'll have a look too another day.Slp1 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, I found this letter to the NYT book review about the Angiers article from Fromkin and Curtiss. It looks legit, but I can't find any sign that it was published. It backs up that Linguilist material you recently deleted. I wish we could find out more about it.Slp1 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it'd be better just to remove it until/unless we can figure out if it's legitimate (this is where my Wikipedian self clashes with my inner historian; I use things like that all the time when writing about history, it's frustrating to be handcuffed by only being allowed to use it if we're 100% sure it's real and feeling 99% sure it is). I was able to readd a little bit of it from one of the ABC articles, and if we can authenticate that letter it'd be great to be able to use it.
As an aside, using Rymer's book was very tricky; while the part of it chronicling Genie herself appears completely fine, the descriptions of what was going on behind her were very obviously (at least in my historian's mind) based almost entirely on the descriptions of a few scientists on the periphery who thought it was a politics-ridden nightmare. Except for talking about how completely crazy Butler/Ruch was, he included nothing from any of the people more centrally involved in the case, and given what Curtiss, Kent, and Rigler said about the situation it wasn't nearly so bad. That being said, the NYT review completely misrepresented a lot of what was in Rymer's book (he never accused the scientists of suits and countersuits and made it very clear that Genie's case supported Chomskian theory, among other things), and his portrayal of Butler/Ruch in the full book was much more negative than the New Yorker version; I say this both as a cautionary tale and so that you don't start worrying about how it's been used, I was very meticulous about what I used it for (my specialty in history is studying the Ainu people, and just about all the sources on them are equally if not even more slanted, so this is very familiar territory for me). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible review if this is to be a GA or FA candidate

I have done some biography review in the past, and I note the great effort an editor I very highly esteem is currently taking on this one. I am assuming that there is an intention to maybe get this to GA or FA recognition, and if when the changes are done anyone would want any sort of review, please let me know. John Carter (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll defer to BNL here, but when the topic came up earlier in this important work he's taken on, I think he said he was indifferent on the topic of GA or FA status. Others expressed a concern that featuring the article, as opposed to simply making it exemplary for the sake of making it exemplary, could bring unwanted - perhaps even unhelpful - attention to Genie, personally. I share that concern. David in DC (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not honestly sure what I want to do; part of me thinks it would be great to bring attention to it, part of me thinks that could ultimately make things worse for her. I don't personally care about having a GA or an FA to point to, it's entirely about trying to get the best possible article I can; that said, I also wouldn't have any aversion to doing it. Regardless, I still need to sort out the page numbers on Curtiss' book, which is proving to be a nightmare of a task (not least because I don't actually have her book right now, I'm going to have to get it off Amazon because I can't take Google Books anymore), and right now it's being expanded a little too quickly for consideration. If I ever do manage to finish this, I'll let you know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm leaving Monday for [destination redacted by the US Defense Intelligence Agency], where for about two weeks I'll have a good deal of free time between [recurring activity which is official purpose of visit redacted]. If you're still amenable to my making a copyedit pass, tell me where to start. I just love adjusting other people's prose. EEng (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
<gentle bump, and...> I'll be on the road for 24 hrs so please keep an eye on [6] unless of course you think an immediate block is in order. People like this make me SO mad! EEng (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I definitely think that it would be good to go for some peer reviews, GA and maybe even an FA eventually. You've done fantastic work on an important article and its quality should be recognized. But only when the time is right for you, I agree, totally.
I've been holding back a bit because I see that you are still working a lot on the article and I don't want to get in the way. On the other hand, I can take the Curtiss page numbers off your hands. It may take me a week or so, but this is a small job that I can do easily, and it will give you more time for more useful work. --Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
That would be hugely appreciated; although I still intend to get the book, it'll be at least a few weeks before I can get it. There are still a few holes I know I need to get, and every so often I'm finding pieces I can't believe I missed (c.f. tonight) or finding new sources from the ru.wiki (I don't speak Russian, but I think every source except one in their article is English-language), so I get the sense it'll still be a little while, but I definitely think I'm getting there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I had previously had a look at that Russian WP article in translation and as well as being a bit disappointed by their BLP values re naming etc, was a bit surprised by their content OR-wise. I'd be a bit cautious in some ways, though no doubt their original sources are good if that is what you are starting from. If you have any specific holes that you want filling from Curtiss then let me know what they are; otherwise I'll just start by filling in the page numbers for material you already have. Slp1 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, there are definitely some things out of whack with the Russian article, I've only been using it for the citations. If I think of anything I need from Curtiss, I'll let you know, but there's nothing that immediately jumps out at me now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds good. I'll get started as soon as I can.Slp1 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I've got the book and as you can see have started added some of the information. However, I have a question for you. Some of the material isn't totally supported by the Curtiss book. I removed, for example, the citation to the Kernicterus material as that isn't there at all. Other stuff is less obvious and harder to know what to do with. Curtiss supports some but not all of the material in sentences. For example, Curtiss says that there were two windows in the room, not one. She doesn't mention being "locked" in the room, or that the father was trying to hide Genie's existence - more that the whole family was in seclusion; she doesn't talk about the brother doing the feeding either. What would you like to do about this? My preference would be to be as clean as possible, putting the reference only after the part that it directly supports, but I don't have access to Rymer, so we would have to work together. BTW do you think the Key Study thingy is really a reliable source [7]? It doesn't seem the greatest to me, and might be worth replacing.Slp1 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Early on in the process, I was moving a lot of stuff around, and I've already noticed a few instances where I forgot to move references along with the corresponding text. It's shown up more in that section than anywhere else (there's a lot more from the article before I got there left in the early life section than anywhere else); I know I need to clean that up, I'll sit down and sift through it tomorrow. The Key Study thing can probably be replaced, what it's supporting is mostly in Rymer's book already and what little isn't are mostly small details; I'll pare it down as necessary. Admittedly, I'm somewhat handcuffed by the fact that although there are some old reports about this, a lot of them contain her real name and I've obviously actively avoided that. I'll see what I can sort out tomorrow. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know but I am not sure that there is any problem with references that didn't get moved; it is probably just that multiple sentence chunks are being supported by a whole bunch of references at the end, and some of them don't support some of the keypoints in one or more of sentences. I think it might be better to put the references more regularly at the end of sentences so that it is clear what supports what. Anyway, I'll continue on a bit and maybe as I go along make a few changes in the ways we are discussing if it seems to make sense. And try and replace the Key Guides thing, if I can.Slp1 (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay I've done all the page numbers I can do for now. I removed a few where I couldn't find the material in the book. Not to say that it isn't there. I've left a general one for her dissertation/book, and also for a large chunk of linguistic info which I really think needs to be sourced sentence by sentence if we are going to use Curtiss for this. I tried to do the sentence by sentence thing here [8]. Where the material is not supported by Curtiss or Nova I put in the Rymer reference, but it would be good to check that that is actually the case. I also added a hidden comment about the lack of interest in people: the refs I have (Curtiss and Nova) actually suggest the opposite so that needs checking up. Slp1 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks; I only speculate that because I noticed it had happened a couple times when I put the page numbers in for Rymer's book. The lack of interest in people was a result of ambiguous wording in Rymer's book, I fixed that and put the citation in. I'll sort through the rest of it now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I've gone through the whole article now, and I think I got everything; I'll check everything over again in 24 hours, after I've had a chance to step back. I'm also going to try and see if I can clean up a few formatting issues with the references and get some doi numbers as well.
On another note, I've still got a bit more content-wise to add here and there, so I'll have at that and make sure to keep everything in reasonable order. Also, I thought about getting a second image, and I think that taking one of Genie's drawings used in both Curtiss' book and Susan Goldin-Meadow's review would pass fair use. Aside from Genie's current inaccessibility, using one would show a drawing from that time in her life and would also illustrate the sharp contrast between her brain's left and right hemispheres being discussed in the article; text in the article lays it out in detail, so I won't repeat it here. Thoughts/comments on that would be appreciated; I'd rather figure out it's a bad idea before uploading anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It's looking very good to me. I think there's some extra stuff from the Curtiss book that I think will be worth including, for example, in terms of the picture of the family situation. But I haven't got the book with me at present, so it will have to wait till the weekend.
As far as the other question is concerned, I'm really not that well versed with what would be considered fair use, but based on what I know I'd be a bit worried about whether it would qualify. We'd need to have something quite a bit more about her pictures, and show that it was essential to understanding the subject. There is stuff in the Curtiss book about them, but I'm not sure how much. Once again I'll take a look in few days and see what there is. Slp1 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Rymer's book also has some information on the family history and situation as well, largely based on Curtiss' account; I think a bit more background on her parents might be helpful, I'm just not sure where exactly it would fit. I'll give it some thought. As to the image issue, I'll see if I can get someone well-versed in fair-use image matters to weigh in; I regularly talk on IRC with a Commons admin who knows this sort of thing as well as anyone, he'll probably have an answer. If that doesn't work, I'm completely out of ideas, as the AAAS still has copyright over everything (and the only other version with images, the Russian one, has one which definitely doesn't pass fair-use here and another which I can't for the life of me figure out what on earth the relevance is), so we'll have to make do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The picture thing is difficult I agree. Some ideas I have would be pictures of Victor of Aveyron and Étienne Bonnot de Condillac where they are talked about. There might be a few mentions of this sort that could be illustrated. Also I think the address of the house is known, and assuming it is still standing perhaps a photo of that. Another thing that I think would be nice would be some boxed quotes - perhaps of some of the more human reactions - of those directly involved. Even a few illustrative quotes from Genie herself. Slp1 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Some more quotes would be great, there are a couple in particular I can immediately think of ("Me want live back Marilyn house" and "Think about Mama love Genie", from during and after her stay in that horrifying first foster home after leaving the Riglers respectively, are two quotes that are in a lot of the sources, and something happier would be good to have too). A picture of her house would work well, if one exists, and/or a picture of Children's Hospital; wish I could do something about it myself, but I'm about as far away from California as one can get in the US. We have one picture each of Victor and Condillac, either or both could potentially be used. I was able to get in touch with the Commons admin alluded to above; he said there's a very good chance using one of her drawings would pass fair use, though he didn't give me direction for where I could get a definitive answer, so I'll see if I can find such a place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I've added Victor and had a good look on Commons and Flickr and the Library of Congress and googlepics for pictures of the scientists and the children's hospital. Sadly I've come up blank, and it looks like the Children's hospital she went to has now been replaced so sending a Los Angeles editor around to take a photo might be useless. A picture of Chomsky is a possibility though. I also found some much nicer pictures of Genie though see [9]. I wonder if we could switch in one of these and maybe even keep the bunny hop one as an example of that since it would be better illustrated with a picture. I believe the place to ask about non free images etc is here Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Even if we can't keep the bunny hop one I would support a nicer picture of her. --Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not we add another image of Genie, the bunny walk image should definitely stay; I for one couldn't visualize either how bad her condition was or her bunny walk at all until I saw it, and I suspect that would be the case for the vast majority of our readers. The way we could do it is use one of the ones from Flickr in the infobox and use the bunny walk screenshot next to the paragraph describing her state when she was first rescued.
To be honest, though, I'm not sure if those fully do her looks justice either; most of them look like fairly blurry and/or washed out screenshots from the NOVA documentary, and the ones that aren't just don't quite look right to me (and I have no idea what their copyright status is; at least with the NOVA shots I know how to claim it). I can think of a couple of places in said documentary where we could get screenshots (at least one is in black and white, not sure if that's a sticking point for you); I don't have the documentary myself, but I've seen it and it's not hard to get hold of. I can show you specifically what I have in mind if you think it's worth pursuing. That said, if one of the side-view shots looks good to you, go with it; though I don't have prosopagnosia, my own ability to recognize identical faces which have been rotated is listed as severely impaired, so I'm far more biased towards using straight-on pictures than most. More generally, I'm not really known for my taste in photography, so take anything I have to say with a grain of salt. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, of the three options, and as someone who used to do a lot of WikiProject Biography A-Class review, I think that the only sort of "assessment" which might be likely to draw some possibly unwanted attention to the article might be FA. There are a lot of GAs, and I think even a random selection of recently assessed GAs covers enough articles that the increased amount of attention it would draw on that basis would be minimal, although it might also make it less likely to draw more edit wars and the like. A-Class gets even less attention than that, although it does provide an indication that the article is basically complete or as complete as possible, which might dissuade any vandals or drive-by problematic editors. FA is another matter entirely. And, frankly, yeah, I can and do see how it might benefit the project if we had a few BLPs about people who maybe aren't lunging at the press at every opportunity, to maybe provide some indicators about how to deal with the particularly sensitive BLPs. But, having said that, I really doubt that this article would be likely to fail if it were to be nominated for any sort of independent review for any of those assessment classifications. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I've given it some thought, and I think we might as well send it to FAC; although it's very high-profile on Wikipedia, it's not exactly the most-visited page by our readers. And although as mentioned above I seriously couldn't care less about getting an FA, I also think this is a (thankfully) unique topic that would be very different from any of our other FAs. Whether or not it should be featured on the Main Page is something we can figure out if it passes FAR, we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. But in the meantime, it's still definitely not stable enough for FAC just yet (there are still a few issues we're working out; minor things, but still need the work), so we'll have to hold off for a little while anyways. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Williams syndrome

The first paragraph in section called "related cases" sounds like Williams syndrome to me. Does Rymer name the grad student? If so I'll look up the article and see if we can properly link to it. --Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's Jeni Yamada, who was the co-author of this paper; although he doesn't say it's Williams syndrome in his book, it sure sounds like it to me as well. The subject's pseudonym is Marta, if that helps. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I honestly had no idea that Yamada had written an entire book on the subject; here it is on Google books. I've got to break for the night here, but I'll look it over in more detail tomorrow; in the meantime, I've added it to the article. It doesn't seem to be Williams syndrome, I haven't found whether or not they were able to label her or if she was just a totally unique case. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I had a look too and I agree too that it doesn't seem to be Williams syndrome. So much for armchair diagnosis. On the other hand J.C.P. Williams was a most interesting person, and I've got distracted researching and expanding that article!! Slp1 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Certainly can't fault you for that, and you've certainly piqued my interest there now. From what I can see, she went through multiple diagnoses before the doctors pretty much threw up their hands and said it was just mental retardation. If her diagnosis changed since the book was written, I haven't found out yet, though something leads me to think it did. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Article title

Genie (feral child) just doesn't seem quite right to me. Upon looking at Category:Feral children, the only other person there who even comes close to resembling Genie is Kaspar Hauser (who I'd suggest really doesn't fit either). "Feral" would imply that someone grew up in the wild, or at least exclusively with some animals besides humans. For instance, Oxana Malaya is quite rightly described as a feral child, as is Marcos Rodríguez Pantoja; Genie doesn't fit this description at all. Although her upbringing was certainly inhumane and horrific, it was entirely within the confines of a room in her father's house. If I had any idea what a better title would be, I'd say what that was, but I really don't know what would fit; I just know that the current title doesn't seem particularly accurate. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Genie (child). Simple, and accurate. Genie can not be used because of the primary topic redirect to Jinn. Apteva (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Apteva, Genie (child) is a better choice (per WP:COMMONNAME). meshach (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
And now I'm wondering why I didn't see it all along... unless there are objections in the next few days, I'll move it there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't really like the (child) option. During the period for which we have most of the information on her, she was actually a teenager. On top of the accuracy problem, people with disabilities are often infantilized -and one could argue that Genie herself was, in the whole design and expectations of the studies made of her- and I don't think WP should perpetuate this approach. I realize that "feral child" and "wild child" both contain word "child", but they do have a different meaning as pairs of words. I'd rather look at how the most recent sources describe her: I suspect that we will find that "feral child" or "wild child" are used frequently, and that the terms have come to mean something other than "raised in the wild". Looking at the reliable sources seem to be how we are supposed to determine these things based on WP:ARTICLETITLE. I can do some sort of survey at some point, but can't do it straightaway. Slp1 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hence the waiting period... yeah, this is one of those instances where, in the absence of a good descriptive word, I think we're just going to have to make do with an imperfect title. Both "feral child" and "wild child" are the most commonly used (did a quick survey myself, though I can certainly do a more detailed one after Christmas), but neither one really paints a particularly accurate picture. If we have to choose between the two, the current one makes more sense. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I get five times as many pages using wild and genie than feral and genie, but ten times as many using genie and child (twice as many as wild). In google books there are 2,330 with genie feral child, 6,460 with genie wild child, and 612,000 with genie child. In google news it is 1 for genie feral child (if child is removed it drops to 0), 8 for genie wild child, and 2,210 for genie child. I would say child is the most common name. Apteva (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that your searches will be picking up all sorts of other uses of "Genie" - the Jinn, the character in the Aladdin Disney movie, the ones in Dungeons and Dragons, and many others from this (unexhaustive) list. We have to find instances of this Genie and see how she is referred to. Googlesearches of this sort are pretty much useless for determining article titles. Added to which, as I pointed out, the term just isn't accurate. Slp1 (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Genie was a child when most of the notability occurred. Sunjit Kumar of Fiji (the "chicken boy") is apparently considered a feral child, though he was raised, as far as can be told, with domestic chickens. So I don't find "feral child" a totally difficult disambiguator. "Neglected child" might be better. Rich Farmbrough, 00:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC).

I also don't have a problem with child, for the reasons you've elucidated, but Sunjit Kumar, like Oxana Malaya and Marcos Rodríguez Pantoja, spent his formative years with animals; this is what feral means. While Genie's father literally acted like an animal (to say figuratively would be insulting to animals), Genie didn't grow up in the wild. Again, there's no real good word to describe the conditions under which she spent her first 13 years and 7 months of life, so it's pretty much a question of which title is the least worst. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "feral" refers to animals, but from the survey I've done, the definition of the phrase "feral child" is somebody who is raised in isolation from human contact and/or in "wild" (which could be socially wild) conditions. Which certainly apply to Genie. See for example:[10][11][12][13]. In reliable sources, Genie's case is very, very regularly included in descriptions of feral children, though I did find one source that differentiates her from those raised by animals/in the wild.[14]. The other thing that just occurred to me is that one way of thinking about the phrase "feral child" is that it may also refer to the person's behaviour (ie wild or feral), rather than the specific conditions of the isolation. Slp1 (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone like "isolated child"? 24.91.246.166 (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have looked over, and cannot parse, WP:PROF, or I'd make this determination by myself. Through the process of researching this article, I've obviously been reading almost everything I can get my hands on by Susan Curtiss. Currently, her name is a redirect to this article, I'm starting to wonder whether she's prominent enough for a standalone article. I think I'm a little close to the topic right now to make that determination, but some feedback would be good; if I ever do get this finished (actually, I don't think it'll be much longer, but I thought that a couple weeks ago so who knows) I'd be more than happy to go at making an article for her. Normally I'd find whatever WikiProject this is most relevant to, but I suspect I'll get a quicker and more informed response here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi The Blade of the Northern Lights, yes, Susan Curtiss is notable by academic standards and you will be able to an authority control number for her too. So, I think you should definitely do it!--I am One of Many (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A few comments

I read this article many years ago, but to describe the picture of Genie's life that it now portrays as horrific would be the understatement of the year. Kudos for the fantastic and detailed work on the page. I've done some general copyediting on the article; I hope this change to complete a sentence was OK. Also, there appears to be a typo in footnote 87; the page range seems rather wide to me. Graham87 03:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Your work has been very helpful, so thank you very much. Indeed that was a typo; not quite sure how that happened, but now it's fixed. One of these days I'll get to finishing it, I think tomorrow will make 100 days of working on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible picture of Genie?

The Russian Wikipedia has a picture of Genie from a Nova documentary: [15]. The picture is NFC and used under fair use (Google translate): [16]. I do not know copyright well but maybe someone else could evaluate whether the picture would be an appropriate Fair Use addition to this article to show Genie after was discovered and in the midst of her early recovery. meshach (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually had another, fairly similar image in mind, from during her stay with the Riglers; it's also from the Nova documentary, but has much more contrast. I've been meaning to get to uploading it, it just takes a long time to write out a good FUR; I'll be back in around 12 hours, maybe I'll get it then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. BTW thanks for all the work you have been doing on this article lately. I have been following your changes and the improvement in the content, references, and prose has been impressive. meshach (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing; I'm quite glad to be doing the work. While you're here, do you think the two images we have in the article are in the right order? I've considered moving the news picture up to the infobox and putting the bunny walk image down in the Characteristics and personality section, but I didn't want to mess with things until I had another opinion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
My first choice would be to have the news picture in the info-box (switching what is currently in the article). That picture better shows her face. Even though it is years ago it is still the best we have. That is my two cents, either picture serves the purpose. meshach (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. I'll wait a few more days and see if anyone else has a different idea, and if there are no objections I'll move things accordingly. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Good Article nom

Just looking at this briefly, this is more than ready for a WP:GAN right now (and keep in mind the average waiting queue to get a reviewer is now several months...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


In its current state, this is one of best articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. I would pay money to read this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.22.86 (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's the idea. And I'm sure this latest awful business in Cleveland will see a bit of a spike in interest here; probably not nearly as much as when the Fritzl case came to the public's attention, but I'm sure at least a few people will have their memories/curiosity piqued. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Alt text

I don't really know what form it would take, but I think it'd be good if alt text could be added to this article, particularly in the images of Genie, so that visually impaired people like me could have an idea what she looked like (beyond what is already written in the text). Graham87 09:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that... I'll tinker with that a little bit tonight or tomorrow, when I have a little more time. The bunny walk picture is fairly low-grade, as is the one I'm intending to add, so alt text for those especially would be enormously helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; the recently added alt text sounds good to me! Graham87 02:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts on splitting, or not

I've been inactive, but watching this page for four years since a noticeboard report showed that an enthusiast was very keen to publish Genie's real name and current location (he had done a lot of research on Genie, and I think had a website). Blade's work has had sensational results—congratulations! While the page is long, and per WP:BIKESHED that would be sure to attract a lot of comment in GA reviews, I think a good case for not bureaucracy could be made—there is no rule about length that must be followed, and I suspect the current article is an exception that would not benefit from pruning. No one will force readers to read the whole article, but many will appreciate the encyclopedic details of a very tragic and compelling case. Some splitting could occur, but I'm not sure that applying a rule that all articles should be the same length would be desirable here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that you mention that; I've taken the liberty of scrubbing a few page histories in the last few months. I'm deliberately being vague on which pages, though those who know how to find out can, but suffice to say I made sure to make accessing her real name much more difficult. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Semi-colonic cleansing?

Maybe one reason why this article seems reader-unfriendly is that it uses too many semicolons--more than 100 of them! It may help to break some sentences apart by periods so the reader can have a rest.18.111.16.242 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Properly used, semicolons bind material into useful clusters within the larger paragraph, and are quite helpful. I've looked at those in this article, and while naturally I'd change this or that particular use, they're serving just that purpose here. EEng (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I've also thought, while copy-editing, that there were too many semi-colons. Most style guides suggest they be used infrequently - certainly more infrequently than in the current article. However, the problem with breaking the independent clauses into two sentences, I suspect, would be a "law-of-unintended-consequences" result. Semi-colonic sentences (kinda like that phrase) relying on one ref (or set of refs) would be broken into independent sentences, each requiring a ref or refs. That could be even clunkier than the multiple semi-colons are. So there you have it: clunk or clunkier. I dunno the solution. But I don't think it's a big deal. The article, as is, is a wiki-masterpiece. Complaining about semi-colons is kinda like criticizing a dog who can read for moving his lips. David in DC (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you see something specific by all means cut it back. I'm known for producing sentences which would make William Faulkner cry, so don't hesitate if you see something which would look better split up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been watching this article for a while, and have to say I think the research and dedication has been fantastic. However, I have to agree with others that at this point it is really too long to be just one article. I did the calculations and it is a 155KB of readable prose: the guidance says that we should start thinking of splitting at 50KB, should almost certainly do so at 100KB, and we are more than 50KB above that!! See Wikipedia:Article size. I haven't looked or thought about it that carefully but I think one obvious thing to do would be to move the bulk and detail of the specific linguistic changes, and their theoretical implications etc to a daughter article, with a summary in this biographical. In addition, the related cases at the end could be placed there also perhaps, or maybe even spun out into separate articles. I think these would make for greater clarity and focus, as well as greatly increased readibility. Obviously, I'd like to hear what others think about this, but I wouldn't mind if it is at all possible to come to a decision one way or the other (split or not split, and how to divide if so) fairly quickly. A friend of mine who is a scholar in this area is coming to stay for a week or so, arriving in a few days time. It would be a good opportunity to get an expert review but it would be much better to have any major changes done by that point. To be honest I think it will be an easier sell for me if we have some shorter articles to show, but that is not really a terribly important consideration!
Anyway, if people are open to a division, then I am willing to having a good read-through (I haven't done it for months), a proper think about a suitable reorganization, and some specific suggestions. Others could do so too, of course. But first step is to see if people are open for a division. Slp1 (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the size got away from me a little bit, I've been trying to whack it back. Some of it is Wiki-syntax (a couple of the refs are 50 bytes of text per use, and after having a few issues I preemptively archived as many pages as possible and added several thousand bytes of text that way), but there are still some things that can be cut back. My intention is to go through the Notes section and start chopping everything that's not 100% necessary, and then go from there. This is usually how I write IRL; I try to get all the information in one place, then start cutting it back, so it may be a few days but I should be able to take a big chunk out of the article size here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the size has got away from you; it's just that you are writing at least two articles at once: something like trying to combine Friedrich Nietzsche and Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche into one article. It would be a pity to lose the information, and I think having two articles is actually a good solution.
From what I understand, cutting back on wikisyntax or the references won't actually affect the readeable prose size at all, unfortunately. I counted it using this script User:Dr pda/prosesize, and it omits both in its prose counts.
I realized after writing my previous note that it may be unreasonable to ask people to "be open" to something that they can't see in a more concrete fashion. If I have time, I am willing to have a rough go at at possible split in my user space to show what options there are, but I don't want to bother if you are opposed to the idea.Slp1 (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion on splitting

I'm not going to have the energy to stay involved in detail, but here's a starting suggestion for splitting the article. In the current version [17], it seems to me that much/most/all of sections 1.3.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4.3, 4.4, 5 could be moved to a separate "more technical" article (not sure what that separate article would be called -- if the overall quantity of material were smaller I'd be suggesting that this material be segregated from the more biographical material, but still in a single article). Of course summary/example material should be left behind in the main article, suggesting to the reader that he can find more detail in the other article (not sure what form the cross-linking would take). EEng (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is long, but it is not too long by Wikipedia standards. I don't see a plausible way to split this article. The sections you list are topics covered in documentaries and long general articles about Genie, so if we follow the way the sources have provided the account of Genie, I don't see how it can be done other than in a long, but well-organized article.I am One of Many (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
My main point is to have a fairly uninterrupted narrative of her life, without all the heavy linguistic/scientific/study stuff (which is what the sections I listed above deal with). Then the linguistic stuff can come after the bio, or (as I suggested) in a separate article. EEng (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I am One of Many, If you see WP:ARTICLESIZE (and my explanation above) by WP's standard's the article definitely is too long.
It looks like EEng and I are thinking about much the same possible split, which is a good sign. Both articles would contain a summary of the material in the other article, so that they can stand alone, and links to the article too, of course.--Slp1 (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd be amenable to a split along those lines, having an article titled something like "Linguistic Development of Genie" or the equivalent. I'll have to write a new introduction for it, but the rest can mostly be taken from the sections EEng notes above. This article will have to summarize some of it, and that's the tricky part; while most of them will be pretty easy, the whole Language progress section will take some work. I'll hopefully have some time this weekend to work out the mechanics of that, it'd definitely make me feel a bit better about adding even a little more of the technical details of Genie's speech (I'm working through one last paper on the subject; for tonight anyways I'll stick it here, hopefully it won't take too long to navigate a split). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I was think about this article as a comprehensive article on Genie and I know that it is beyond recommended length, but my main issue was how to split it. I think separating out the scientific side in an article such as "Linguistic Development of Genie" is reasonable. There is clearly enough material to justify it, but it is also a big project.I am One of Many (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It's OK to start building linguistic article without feeling that main article has to be compressed simulataneously. It's OK if they're redundant for a while. Once you've built all you can into the linguistic article, then a separate phase can be dismantling corresponding stuff from main article, substituting summaries/most interesting details, with links to main article. Since linguistic article will probably shift around in its organization as you develop it, it's a waste of time trying to keep main article in sync with it until it's fairly well developed. EEng (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC) P.S. Blade, I'm going to recommend that your salary as Wikipedia editor be raised by at least 20% in recognition of your great work here. You deserve it!
Hi all. I think that title and division sounds very good. I agree with EEng that some overlap as the new article gets going is fine. Please let me know if you'd like some help. I'd be quite happy to do some summarizing, for example. But I don't want to tread on any toes. Slp1 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Further thought: Again, I think the core idea is to separate material of greatest interest to a general reader (primarily biographical) from the more indepth material. This indepth material is probably mostly re linguistic development and the research around it, but might also include some of the more detailed behavioral/developmental material and who-knows-what else. Therefore, I suggest not getting set on this other article being just "linguistic" -- see what naturally ends up in it, then title can be determined later. Or, the separate article might in fact be "linguistic" and other indepth material might be moved to separate sections of the main article, after the main biographical material. (Overall I think the current article is too chronological. That's not to say it's easy to develop a new organization -- it's not.)

I also think more extensive use of the Notes technique could be used to give the general reader a less winding road to follow e.g. the details on the development of the fathers mental illness could be shunted into one or more Notes.

Blade, your commitment to this subject is what is propelling this article toward greatness. But remember there's no hurry. Don't burn yourself out. EEng (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll start by copying over what's already here and removing/condensing some of the easy stuff; I'll have no difficulty getting some of the sections down to a paragraph or two. It's only the big ones that will be a problem, and I'll take my time on that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Update; I have a working draft, which is accessible through my latest contributions. To this point it's almost all copies of what's already here, the only really major rewrites I need to do is on her 1975 regression and how to briefly work in her movement between Children's Hospital, Butler's house, and then the Riglers' house. Also, while I'm here; in which place do people think the sections on Laura and Chelsea should go? I would think the more technical linguistics article, but a sanity check here first certainly wouldn't hurt. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE in regard to lede as it stands today

The lede, as it stands today, has been edited to facilitate a proposed split in the article. Please wait a week or two before proposing rearranging paragraphs --- to permit more work preliminary to the split. Once it's accomplished, some biographical info in the current lede will likely be moved up and some case study info will likely be stripped out to help form the lede to a second article. David in DC (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

When an article is undergoing any kind of major revision keeping the lead always in sync is a vain hope. I recommend focus on the organization of the body and letting the lead fend for itself until the very end. EEng (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genie_(feral_child)/Archive_2&oldid=1136757604"