Talk:Pearl S. Buck

Yet More about "Good Earth"

I'm replacing the highly patronizing use of Buck's first name 'Pearl' in this article (except where contextually appropriate) with the impersonal neutral last name 'Buck'. Why? Who contributed all this information? - chances are (high) that they were no one with whom Buck was personally acquainted. Having said that, I appreciate the potential confusion in the text with Pearl Buck's husband's name John. L. Buck; use of which being truncated to 'Buck' (a minor problem of text confusion). However, the more important issue here is the use of any persons' first name (family/first cultural conventions aside) which carries the immediate underlying implication of intimacy, OR, it is by default, extremely patronising. ALL Wikipedia articles/contributors should bear this in mind for future (and current) contributions. Cheers, Karl Gillies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleetacon (talk • contribs) 01:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

More about "Good Earth"

It pains me to see how little about the book is written in her Wikipedia entry. Its like a Salinger entry without a mention of "Catcher in the Rye". It's a HUGE part of why she's famous in the first place. I'd do it myself but I wouldn't even know where to start. Someone please add this. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny Ice Cream (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this comment. How strange to have an article about Pearl Buck that only mentions The Good Earth in the Bibliography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafong (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the book has its own article, so most of that will naturally reside there.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's split off "Home"

The long and detailed description of her house (Green Hills) seems like it ought to be on its own web page, linked from here. If there are no objections, I will move it. Dark Formal 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't make sense

"The family was sent to Zhenjiang, China in 1892 when Pearl was 3 months old. She was raised in California and learned the Chinese language and customs from a teacher named Mr. Kung. She was taught English as a second language by her mother and tutor. She was encouraged to write things at an early age.

In 1910, she left for America to attend Randolph-Macon Woman's College [1], "

How was she raised in California if she was in China from 3 months until 18 years? Furthermore, to say that she "was taught English as a second language from her mother..." defies logic. Is that supposed to mean Kung taught her Chinese before she learned to speak English? -by the mighty anonymouse—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.41 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Move?

Why isn't it ("Pearl S. Buck") at Pearl Buck (currently empty)? I dictionaried it and she is the only famous Buck (note that's a surname here). --Menchi 23:35 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Pearl S. Buck" is the name she's generally known by. RickK 00:32 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think we can redirect "Pearl Buck" here? Or make that a disambiguation page? If so, disambiguate from whom? --Menchi 00:37 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, I can't think of anyone else who would be called by that name, so my vote would be for a redirect, but if somebody can come up with somebody else who uses that name, then it should be a disambiguation page. See how firmly I take a stand? :) RickK 01:31 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, very firmly. But you do relect on the tremendous flexibility of WP. I have just made the redirect, but it can easily be changed later shall Pearl T. Buck be borned a decade from now and be famous 30 years from now.

Thank you for your input.

--Menchi 01:38 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Adoption

Were the adopted children Chinese? -- Error 00:45, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They were mostly of mixed ancestry. She wrote in "Essay of Myself" that most were born of Asian mothers and mostly American fathers. --QueenStupid 21:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There were 6 adopted children. The first 4 adopted children were White and the last 2 were mixed White and Asian. I took a tour of Pearl Buck's house (Green Hills Farm) in Dublin, PA, where I saw pictures of the children and also asked the tour guide about their ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.32.85 (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Error on where she lived in China

The article states that Pearl Buck lived in Zhejiang, while she actually lived in Zhenjiang, Jiangsu province, China.

Water Margin aka All Men Are Brothers

I'd be grateful to anyone who can add a few sentences about her adaptation of the classical Chinese story The Water Margin

Chinese tutor Mr. Kong or Mr. Kung?

Everywhere else I have seen Mr. Kung including here http://www.english.upenn.edu/Projects/Buck/biography.html

Weird Sentence?

"In her Lifetime original series, Pearl S. Buck would write over 100.5 works of literature" huh?? --216.165.11.242 04:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

another "weird" sentence in the Legacy section: "It was her efforts to foster Chinese women's liberation through her writing, and to serve as a translator that both empowered and silenced many women's voices and experiences in the process." What is being said? Empowered and Silenced? Doesn't make sense.<bluff city dweller> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluff city dweller (talk • contribs) 16:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Divorce

I'm curious as to why she divorced her husband. I read this in an "about the author" from The Good Earth and thought there might be more info in the article here. 67.76.228.3 21:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Biography

Are articles for biographies of Buck really necessary? Just wondering, since I just fixed a link for one, thus creating a red link calling for an article. QueenStupid 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am confused by the "Biographies" section too. Both the books listed there are by Pearl Buck, not biographies of her. So they should be in the "Bibliography" section. For actual biographies you should just have a wikified ISBN. Dark Formal 22:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert to be sure - but my grandfather did know Buck in China so . . .... so i think that these are biographies that Buck wrote - one, i think of her father or perhaps both parents. The Exile is her dad and the Angel is her Mom - but please check it out. Carptrash 22:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

From target: http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/pearlbuc.htm and from looking at a list of her works in one of her books at the library, I know now that they are written by her. The library didn't have those books, so I don't know if they are biographies. Anyway, I will change the section header to be under "Bibliography." Also, should this "Bibliography" be changed to "Selected Works" or something to that effect? QueenStupid 00:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have both those books around here somewhere [maybe in the PILE] , but checked with Carpwoman - and they are biographies of her parents written by her. I'll think about the section headers a bit. Carptrash 14:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Undeserving?

While the Nobel prizes for literature are known for the writers ignored (Henry James, Mark Twain etc), it is hard to imagine there is a prize less deserved than Pearl Bucks. Her books include some that are simply unreadable (Imperial Woman--cheesy melodrama) and some that add nothing to the sum of hunman knowledge (Portrait of a marriage). The cruel irony is that she received a Nobel Prize for her American-centric maunderings about China while one of the great writers of the 20th Century, the Chinese master Lu Xun, vanished from Western view.

I haven't read all of her novels, but I think 'cruel irony' is a little harsh on the award and on her. I thought Imperial Woman was a pretty insightful book. I felt pity and anger for Tsu Hsi when I read it, as opposed to the extremely negative view most of my Chinese relatives have of her. I think this is a popular view of the last empress, and Pearl S. Buck, with that knowledge, really showed her readers a more sympathetic picture. I know she was no historian, but her works brought Asian culture to light in the Western world. Lu Xun's work sounds very interesting, and I thank you for letting us know about him. I'm definitely going to find some of his work. QueenStupid 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments like "unreadable," "cheesy melodrama," and "maunderings" are hardly NPoV and, to those who know the work, are quite simply inaccurate. Buck's books, aside from being excellent storytelling, made many non-Asians far more interested in China than they would otherwise have been. Her influence was vast and the Nobel was appropriate. Athaenara talk 11:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree at all. The dispute should be mentioned. Her Nobel Prize was regretted enough for the commitee to create a "lex buck" (which has the purpose to prevent another misstake like her by limiting the prize to people that already have been on the short list before) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007 134.105.82.221 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 11 October

Can you give a source for that information? If verifiable, it would be worth mentioning in a neutral way. --Foggy Morning 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This comment about the poverty and cheesy nature of much of Buck's writing seem appropriate and well stated. Apart from a certain childish romanticism, Imperial Woman is turgid nonsense. The point about Lu Xun is well put--an extraordinary writer with one of the greates ranges of any writer in the 20th century. Novelist, historian, literary historian, journalist of great power. His newspaper essays are just extraordinary and offer a powerful sense of China at one of the most turbulent and fraught times in modern history. Once you read Lu Xun, Pearl Buck becomes unendurable.

All the unsigned comments above are cowardly as well as inappropriate. If you have an axe to grind with PSB's writing, source what supports your argument and edit the article... otherwise go haunt a literature blog. Buster (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well a few concluding remarks regarding the comments above:

• The unknown critic is correct in pointing out that Nobel Prize for Buck was heavily critized and resulted indeed in the so called Lex Buck (now you have to be shortlisted twice before the Nobel Prize can be awarded to you)
• He is also correct in pointing out that many critics consider(ed) Buck's writing as shallow or uninteresting for the most.
• He's not quite correcting calling her cheesy, undeserving or unreadable, because that's not quite in line with the facts. Many of her books were bestsellers, so they were obviously readable to many. Her work was enormously influential for the western perception of China.
• Though there might be other authors providing a more realistic picture of life in China in the first half of the 20th century, she's still provided a relatively realistic picture compared to most other writers at the time.
• While some criticism of her work might be fair or at least arguable, there was plenty of criticism which is rather questionable in retrospective, since it was heavily biased by chauvinistic and ideological attitudes of the time.
• Since the 90s there has been somewhat of a mostly positive reevaluation of PSB's work by literature scholars, critics and authors, which dismisses much of her past critics for the reasons stated above. Her work has experienced a reappraisal or rediscovery in the West and in China alike. Interestingly enough some Chinese scholars even consider her a "chinese" writer of sorts.
• Lastly all the personal opinions that WP-editors might have of PSB are largely irrelevant. The only thing that matters here, is a somewhat fair representation of what reputable sources say about PSB. In that regard you can easily verify the points i've stated above if you google for recent publication on PSB.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Buck's humanitarianism and her organization coming "under fire"...

Pearl S. Buck International has consistently received "A" ratings from charity watchdog groups, and PSBI receives particularly good marks for its child sponsorship programs, which are judged to be extremely efficient. Examples include:

The Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance [1]

The American Institute of Philanthropy (As a Top-Rated Charity) [2]

"Best in America" at Independent Charities of America [3]

The statements about "Pearl S. Buck International coming under fire" run counter to the public perception and those of the nonprofit watchdog community, which is based on audited financial statements and significant oversight.

While an article was written alledging management misconduct at Pearl S. Buck International in 2004, it was considered poorly sourced (the primary source was a fired employee) and did not result in any penalties for the organization. Furthermore, the wiki post suggests that it is inappropriate to "redirect" donations to pay for staff salaries (which is not true).

The article about mismanagement at PSBI is misleading and contradicts the confirmed standing of her organization within the charitable and philanthropic community. Considering also that there is no source listed for this citation, and that its claims have not been verified in any official way, I argue that it misrepresents her humanitarian contribution. I suggest that it be stricken.

--ChrisLeyda 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I almost deleted...

I almost deleted the Chinese and Pinyan spellings of her name. It would seem obtuse if every English Language Wikipedia article had the Chinese (and/or other foreign language) representations of people's names in them, as Wikipedia is not a language study guide. However, after reading the article, and seeing that she spent significant time in China, and wrote about her experiences, it seems contextually appropriate. Perhaps it would belong in another section of the article, however, other than the intro, as the intro gives no clues as to why we are reading Chinese language representations of an American;s name. I will leave it up to the regular contributors to the article to decide if and how to do that. Jerry 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese name and pinyin are appropriate because she is still known in China. cwh 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Illustrator of her works is entirely relevant

The Illustrator of her works is entirely relevant. It is factual, and referenced with the NY Times article. Undid JNW's deletion of this important aspect. Maxwell illustrated works for Pearl S. Buck for nearly 10 years. --Rocketsquirrel (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Illustrators, plural

Factual, but not integral, unless your references make it clear that Maxwell maintained a special or exclusive relationship with Buck, which might be worth mention, i.e., 'Maxwell was the only artist to illustrate Buck's work for a ten year period, at the author's insistence'. Currently, the passage makes it appear as if Maxwell was the only artist who illustrated Buck's works, which was not the case. If this is a valid heading, what you have contributed thus far is a start---other prominent artists who illustrated her works included Dean Cornwell, Martha Sawyers, Benton Clark, Gustaf Tenggren, Kurt Werth, Charles Hargens, Esther Brock Bird, and William A. Smith. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to promote particular individuals, and thus far that is the appearance here. JNW (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Then add them

I intentionally put the title "illustrators" on the section, knowing that there were more illustrators than just Maxwell, to avoid POV. If you have references for Cornwell, Sawyers, Clark, Tenggren, et. al., they should be added. Currently, the passage makes it appear as if Maxwell was the only artist who illustrated Buck's works... untrue. It says he illustrated The Exile and Fighting Angel. How can one infer otherwise? Maxwell illustrated more works for Buck, including "China Sky" and serialized magazine editions of The Exile and Fighting Angel in Collier's and Woman's Home Companion magazines. But I am still working on suitable referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketsquirrel (talk • contribs) 14:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation to add others. In the interest of fleshing out a heading you created in a biography on Pearl Buck, you might want to research other illustrators as well. JNW (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Illustrators section

Personally, I have to wonder about the relevance of such a section in what is essentially a biography of the subject. I know that the author does not necessarily generally select those who illustrate their books, so unless there is some clear evidence that the author chose the artists, or knew them in a significant way personally, I'm far from sure that the section really should be in this article. Now, if the works are significant enough to be mentioned in the biography of the illustrator, that would be a separate thing entirely. And certainly such content would be welcome included in the content relating to the individual book itself. But the essence of such an article like this is the subject of the article herself, not her books per se, so unless the illustrator made a significant, recognized contribution to the artist's life or work, I am far from sure that such content should be in this article about the author herself. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To me the current placement is awkward and give it some undue weight. I would rephrase and move it under each of the two books in the bibliography section; if and when the books have their own articles they can be sent there. If there is more to the story/connection then possibly explore what that is as it may merit inclusion or prominent placement. Benjiboi 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the section should be removed entirely. It is not relavent to Pearl S. Buck. This is a biographical article, not a holding place for trivia and pet interests. Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree to a point, remove the section and add the info in the bibliography section instead, the whole article needs expanding so, to me, removing information is not the answer. Every article is an organic process with sections growing unevenly. If consensus is that it simply has no place in the bio then maybe document on the talk for future editors. Benjiboi 00:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How are the illustrators of an author's body of work "trivia?" Decide how it should best be sectioned, sure, but to trivialize the relationship between literature, art and illustration and excise these facts from an organic encyclopedia seems a bit extreme. --Rocketsquirrel (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's a biography of Pearl Buck, not an entry to include those who worked with her in the fields of art or literature, from which hundreds of people would be included. An encyclopedic biography covers the essentials of a figure's life. To use it otherwise suggests an agenda. 69.37.21.94 (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Forgot to sign in. JNW (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If the illustrators figured prominently in the author's life, then they could reasonably be included in the biography where appropriate. However, the illustrators of an author's work tend in general not to be particularly relevant to the author's life, which is the subject of this article. This is not saying that the illustrator's wouldn't deserve reasonable coverage in articles about the works themselves, but the policy of WP:Undue weight makes it very questionable whether such information belongs in an article about the life of the author. John Carter (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Immature writing style of article

I find I'm unable to get much past the first one or two paragraphs of this article because it reads like a fourth-grade essay. Aside from grammar/syntax/punctuation errors (of which there are, sadly, a not insignificant number), the style itself is simplistic to the point of being almost nonsensical. Examples (all from first paragraph, which, I guess, is an example all by itself):

She was raised in China and learned the customs from a teacher named Mr. Kung.

Buck learned ALL the Chinese "customs" from one person? Did "Mr. Kung" have a bigger name? Or did his close friends just call him "Mr."?

She was encouraged to write things at an early age.

By whom? What, exactly, are "things"? And how does this encouragement differ from that provided to most children (of literate families) during their early-education careers?

“The streets [of China] were alive with rumors- many … based on fact- of brutality to missionaries …”

What's with the punctuation here? Not to mention: Huh?

If no one objects, I'd like to clean up this article in a relatively massive way. I'll check back in about a week, and will begin editing then.

Sugarbat (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and made some small changes to wording. Still far from a great article in particular the odd Historic site reference that seems detached. Is this her homestead? If so should it not move slightly up the page?--Vagon (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"With no irony, she has been described in China as a Chinese writer." Shouldn't this sentence just be, "She has been described in China as a Chinese writer"? I don't understand why the "with no irony" part is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.209.39 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The 'irony' thing was fixed. In future, please feel free to make changes yourself. —Zujine|talk 15:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

PSB A Missionary?

When she returned to China until she resigned from the mission board in 1932, she was a missionary, but it hardly seems right that the missionary signboard take up all the space at the side of the page when she was actually so critical. ch (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Made some minor changes, which I hope are agreeable. --Zujine (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

PSB banned from Nixon's China Trip

A story on NPR, today, recounts how Chairman Mao's wife banned PSB from Nixon's China Trip by maligning her as an enemy of the Chinese state during China's Cultural Revolution. This should be worked into the article.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125682489 Buster (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the tip. I will work it in. —Zujine|talk 06:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Big Wave - the movie

No mention to the movie "The Big Wave (1961)"? Based on the book with the same title, with the production described in the book "A Bridge for Passing" (1961). Or all the other movies?

The Big Wave (1961) - IMDb

--Cesarakg (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's a great find, please add links—or I will ;-) The novels that were made into films have pages of their own, and the films could be mentioned there as well. LittleBen (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You do that. Please. :) I'm not confident in my english writing skills --Cesarakg (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Newly-discovered novel

I'm in a bit of a hurry, so don't want to spend time figuring out all the formatting for references. There is a recently-discovered novel by Pearl S. Buck, which is due to be published in October this year. I've added that to the article. The source is here. I'll add the reference to the article later, if nobody else gets there first. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Pearl Buck & Nazi Adolf Eichmann

Re: Pearl Buck

I believe a very important item in her bio is missing. Under her "Humanitarian" paragraph, there should be mention about the time when Pearl Buck advocated for Israel to spare the life of Adolf Eichmann after he was sentenced to death by hanging as a Nazi War Criminal.

This is not a small thing. It's not to judge her either way, but at that time in history, it was a very big issue. Ms. Buck was very famous and it was contentious that she was making a plea for his life. And since this was a segment in her life which was highlighted, I believe it should be incorporated in her Wiki page.

(As I'm studying Eichmann more in depth now, I ran across this issue and saw that it was not mentioned on Buck's Wiki page. Whether it was a good thing or not, it matters not. As I already mentioned, this is not a judgment issue; it's just a part of history. Buck did involve herself into a part of this contentious historical period, and it should be incorporated into her bio. Regarding human rights, was she known to be anti-capital punishment? I suppose I'm suggesting that anyone who is an expert on Pearl Buck might know the reason(s) she petitioned Israel to not hang Eichmann (what was her particular interest in this one case, etc.)

As I'm not an editor (nor an expert on Pearl Buck's life), I thought I'd bring it forward to be discussed among editors on her Wiki page.

Here is sentence in Wikipedia on that subject on Eichmann's Wiki page:

"Eichmann immediately petitioned Israeli President Yitzhak Ben-Zvi for clemency. Prominent persons such as Hugo Bergmann, Pearl Buck, Martin Buber, and Ernst Simon spoke up on his behalf."

Thank you, C.S. Palmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.99.178 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Seven years on, still no mention of her motives in making the appeal. The story makes no sense without it. Valetude (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Seven years is not true. The request was for making a mention in the Humanitarian section, and that was done in 2018. As for motives, someone who has access to the book Eichmann : his life and crimes, pp. 319–20, can try finding out. Jay (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Sixties Scoop

Here's why I cut the paragraph on Buck's role in Sixties Scoop. This would be relevant information, though a little too long and out of proportion, but 1) WP:Verify requires reliable source, which a television report is generally not and 2) I cannot find even this cited source or any other which mentions Buck or her role with Google searches "Tim Fontaine, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network - APTN, Tim Fontaine, 2012 Pearl Buck" or "Find Link" 3) Less important, but the article Sixties Scoop does not mention her.

If anyone can find such a source, please restore a shorter version. ch (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Pearl S Buck Page - Keeping Edits

Made edits according to suggestions received, i.e., Shortened AND Provided Citation. I had originally provided documentary television series now I have provided source of information as National Archives of Canada, file name and number. So these edits are good now?

Last week I was informed by some that are employed to 'safeguard' the legacy of Pearl S Buck (and their investment in a musical production on her life) that they do not want this information published; I hope that is not the reason the information is being taken down beginning last week. 4.35.92.19 (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm a visiting administrator. You added the citation incorrectly (use <ref>..</ref> tags). I don't see any file number in what you wrote. I also did not manage to find a mention of that file in 10 minutes searching on the Canadian archives web site. Can you show us how to verify that the file exists? Can you provide quotations from the file in support of your text? Is the information in testimony given to the commission or in conclusions written by the commission? So far you are quite a bit short of satisfying wikipedia policy on verifiability. You would actually be better off citing a summary from a newspaper report; can you do that? Zero^talk 15:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to 4.35.92.19 for your dedication to a good cause and your perseverance. Your edit was indeed more in proportion, but the problem is with the sourcing. Wikipedia's policies may seem obstructive, but over the years I have come to understand the reasons behind them. This piece of information about Buck's participation is significant. I have no problem with the information and as far as I can tell, neither do the other editors. But on the other hand, Wikipedia cannot allow either favorable or unfavorable information without documentation that can be checked. Generally the policy is to refer to a WP:Secondary source, that is, to a source that is not just one person's testimony. I appreciate that this is burdensome, but would you want Wikipedia to allow just any information to be added to an article about you or one of your organizations?

By the way, in looking for a reliable source, I spent much more than the ten minutes the visiting administrator did (administrators don't have as much time). If we can find a reliable source, I will be glad to help put it into good Wikipedia form.ch (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I added some material on the 1960s from Peter Conn's detailed biography and put the Sixties Scoop into another sentence with a "citation needed" tag. Is this OK?ch (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I found one source published by New York University Press Briggs & Marre. This discusses Welcome House and Sixties Scoop, but does not mention any connection between the two and also does not mention Buck's personal participation.

My search also found a blog, USA Placed Victims, whose posts show that there is a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. I hope that we can restore good faith communication! ch (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it seems there is an organised campaign to insert this material, but nobody yet has given any indication that they have examined the sources, or indeed evidence that the sources exist. I will protect this article against editing if this continues. Zero^talk 13:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

* Thanks Zero0000, you may well be right about an organized campaign, but I think we should make clear that you and I are not "organized" (well, maybe I should speak only for myself as one of the least organized people I know) and that we are not gatekeepers or protectors of PSB. I have done research on Buck and am familiar with her work, but I am not now nor have I ever been connected to Welcome House, to any musical about Buck, or to anyone connected with them. To be clear, the editors who have removed questionable material are only following Wikipedia policy that is applied to all material and we are interested only in fairness.

BOTTOM LINE: There is no problem adding a proportionate description of Buck's organizational or personal participation Sixties Scoop if it can be reliably sourced! ch (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I entirely agree. Personally I know nothing at all about the subject and have no axe to grind except to enforce the rules of Wikipedia. If a source satisfying WP:RS can be identified, a correct summary of the source is welcome here. I strongly suggest that people search newspaper archives. There are quite a few, many online, that would have covered this information if it is public knowledge. In particular, if an official enquiry verified it, that will certainly have been covered in the press. On the other hand, if it arises from claims to an enquiry that the enquiry did not accept, it must be presented as someone's claim or not at all (depending on the prominence of the accusation), not as a fact. Zero^talk 01:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome House specialised in getting Asian children adopted, at a time when the great majority of adopting parents were white and wanted white babies (and this was the so-called "Baby scoop era" in which large numbers of illegitimate children of all races were taken for adoption). It would be astounding if the House did not assist Canadian and US authorities who had Native American children who required adoption. It's difficult to see how WH, let alone Buck personally, is supposed to be blamed for assisting legitimate social service agencies to find adopting families for the children in their care. If some of those children were taken from their parents for reasons that would no longer be considered legitimate, that's hardly the responsibiliy of the agency that looks for families to take them in. At most this deserves one sentence if a proper citation can be found. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

p.s., I came here because I saw that a case regarding this issue that has been opened at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I should add that I've looked for sources myself but have so far found nothing. I don't doubt the truth of the basic claim - that WH facilitated adoptions from Canada, but that does not seem to be identified as a significant issue in the, admittedly fairly small, literature on the topic. Paul B (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather astonished to see dispute resolution request for this and personally given what I've seen so far I'm beginning to doubt the "good faith". Other from the IP posting on my talk page that's copied here, the user showed no inclination to engage on the article's talk page despite several explicit requests by other editors, instead he might have tried to get his content into the article by assuming 3 identities.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Not strictly relevant to this talk page, but there are many wildly exaggerated and unsupported statements about adoption in Canada that have been added to several pages (Baby Scoop Era: In Canadian maternity "homes" and hospitals, up to 100% of newborns were stolen from their legal mothers during the birthing process and trafficked for adoption purposes. These newborns were stolen under an illegal secret Health and Welfare protocol. In addition to being exploited for their reproduction, these young women were subjected to multiple abuses, including sex abuse, forced unpaid labour, and physical and mental torture. [4]). I suspect that a pressure group have realised that by latching blame onto someone respected and (moderately) famous like Buck will help to publicise their cause, however tenuous the connection. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Pearl S Buck - Canada Scoops Victims Placed In USA By Pearl S Buck's Welcome House Adoption Agency

There needs to be a section that describes the unique and essential role that Pearl S Buck and her Welcome House Adoption Agency played in the transiting and placement of victims of Canada Scoops in USA. Every time that information, and it is well and thoroughly cited, has been added to the Pearl S Buck Wikipedia page it has been deleted for no reason other than that the information - if it's not considered within the context of the time that the 'transiting' of the Scoop Victim children occurred - contradicts the descriptions of her work that are more easily perceived as honourable.

Descriptions of her participation and that of her Welcome House Adoption Agency in placement of Canada Scoops Victims in USA is contained in National Archives of Canada, Truth & Reconciliation Commission - Canada Victim Statement Files, were included in an academic documentary published and distributed by Aboriginal People Television Network, both of which were then thoroughly verified as being supported by evidence by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). WV NYC (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment WV NYC, please understand that you are wrong to say that "well and thoroughly cited" information has been has been deleted "for no reason other than that the information ... contradicts the descriptions of her work that are more easily perceived as honourable."

Here's why:

1) The information is not "well and thoroughly cited." As explained in the policy WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, which you really need to read, neither a television program nor a government document qualify, even if there were a reference which allowed others to see them.

2) The information was NOT removed because it contradicted her image. It is absolutely irrelevant whether or not her work can be perceived as honorable. As both I and Zero0000 have sincerely said, we would be happy to have the information added if it can be properly documented, and in any case, if information is documented, neither my view nor Zero's would matter. ch (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What Hogwash, Or 'White Wash' Is More Like It

You are now saying that if Pearl S Buck's participation via her Welcome House Adoption Agency in the 60's Scoops, a.k.a., Sixties Scoops, a.k.a., Canada Scoops, in particular her role and that of Welcome House's in the transit, actually let's call it like it is, human trafficking of Canada Scoops victims to USA had been verified it would have then been announced in the media;

However, And Of Course, While It Is True That The Media Does Cover These Events, It Is Also Not Necessarily True That If An Event Is Taking Place It's Going To Be Covered By The Media, i.e., Media does not cover all events. In fact it's because media doesn't cover all events that information-resources like Wikipedia became valuable, maintain their value.

And, in my own line of work, I have been paid very well to keep negative information regarding my clients actions out of the media. Keeping negative news about people, companies, countries out of the media is an industry. Not part of my industry but something that we are offered by other service providers are Wikipedia Placement Services. On average the charges are anywhere from $4-10k/month for 'Wikipedia Content and Editorial Experts' who then monitor and make sure that the information about clients that appear on Wikipedia complement the clients' public image goals. So as far as validating an event according to if it did/didn't get media coverage, media coverage is a near worthless indicator. You know that though. I mean if I know that, you certainly know that.

Never mind that this 'information about Pearl S Buck and her Welcome House Adoption Agency has been explained in the media, and most thoroughly via Aboriginal People's Television Network (APTN) documentary which I have provided adequate and accurate citations for and which Wikipedia has then deleted. APTN is a highly regarded academic style media outlet managed and staffed by many well regarded North American Indian scholars.

What's more, while you are expressing that it has to be covered by media to qualify for placement on Wikipedia and when it is shown to have been you then express it has to be covered by certain ilk of media which via your subsequent deletions we are going to guess the media who did cover it are not a part of, you then contest the validity of the statement that 'Pearl S Buck and her Welcome House adoption agency were involved in placing victims of Canada Scoops in USA.' You do so saying that even documentation provided on Pearl S Buck Welcome House adoption agency own letterhead, evidence that supports the information provided by National Archives of Canada and APTN, is not sufficient. I mean if their own words on their own letterhead isn't sufficient for Wikipedia, what will be?

The people entering information on behalf of Pearl S Buck page have even gone so far at one point as to say that while Pearl S Buck and her Welcome House adoption agency were involved in Canada Scoops from the USA side, it wasn't her fault, she wasn't in control of her own business, i.e., they place blame for Pearl S Buck Welcome House adoption agency role in brokering/transiting/trafficking Canada Scoops Victims to USA on that of some Arthur Murray School dance instructor. Now THAT is something that, especially because of how well that story would fit into a musical (Pearl: The Musical, set to premiere at New York City's Lincoln Center, August 2015) AND because nobody has ever heard that allegation before, needs more citation, right? 4.35.92.19 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Pearl Buck was in her 70s when these events took place. I've no idea how "hands on" she was at Welcome House at the time - post-1960. Why are you so keen to "blame" her personally? What purpose does that serve? Is it somehow worse if Buck was responsible for decisions rather than Harris? Why? I suggest that if you want to develop content related to this issue then the best approach would be to create a separate article on Welcome House or perhaps Pearl S. Buck International, which is the name the charity now uses [5]. But you still need independent reliable sources. So far all you have mentioned is a TV documentary, which does not seem to be readily accessible. Is there any mainstream academic literature on the role of Welcome House or discussion in the press of any relevant findings of the "Truth and Reconciliation" commission?

BTW, I have no particular interest in Buck. I read The Good Earth ages ago, mainly because I fell in love with Luise Rainer when I saw the film on TV as a teenager. I wasn't overwhelmed by the book. If this article is to be faulted, I'd suggest that it's because it does not discuss the extent to which she is often said to be the least worthy winner of the Nobel Prize from a purely literary point of view.

If you think there is bias here, then I think the best place to leave a message would be at WP:NPOVN, which is a noticeboard for discussing issues of neutrality. Paul B (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added a subsection on Harris (there seems to be some incidental repetitiousness, so maybe a copy edit is in order, but I'm too tired). Again, I could find nothing significant about Canada (well nothing at all actually) in the sources, which seem to be about scandals in the South Korean press and in US papers about Harris's alleged sexuality and financial mismanagement. The main issue seems to be Buck's absurd idolisation of him (he's described by one irreverant source as "her Liberace"). Paul B (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Friends: I suggest that we do not need to respond to charges such as those at the head of this section and above. At least four editors have given clear and patient explanations to no avail. There is in fact now a sentence in the article on the charges. Unless new material or new sources are presented, there is no point in wasting our time repeating our explanations or responding to the same charges. While it is clear that we have followed the policy Do Not Bite The Newcomers (even if they bite us), the article Internet troll may or may not be relevant.ch (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but that does not mean that we should not take the opportunity to see whether the article can be improved in certain areas, and whether it has, or had, a rather too reverential attitude to its subject. Paul B (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, the article is in fact stublike in the later portions, which a shame, since Peter Conn's biography supplies a lot of material from a well-informed and sympathetic but critical view. I only meant to suggest that we not be distracted.ch (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes the current distraction aside there are a lot of things that could be improved and there is not Peter Conn's but variety of "newer" books and articles on her from the 1990s (which are somewhat coincide with her reevaluation), some of them are already mentioned in the further reading section. There is also often more critical or negative scholarly material on her from 1930 to 1970 included the criticism of her nobel award and the infamous "lex buck". In fact there is probably enough material to write a longer section on the history of her popular and scholarly reception, which changed over time. Currently we don't even mention movies based on her novels or stories in the legacy section, there at least 6 major international or Hollywood one, that I'm aware of.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Request protection

Since they IP doesn't seem to get it, it might be time to involve an admin for semiprotcting this side and/or admonish the IP and its related fresh accounts.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is time for ANI, yes, but it is not just an IP. There are two other accounts associated with this individual (User:WV NYC and User:USS SF NYC). And this is not the only article affected. Paul B (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It is semi-protected for one month, but it won't help much. Zero^talk 13:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I blocked WV NYC for one week and will block any apparently related accounts making the same edits. This has gone on long enough. Zero^talk 11:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Pearl S Buck "Under Fire" - Canada Scoops Victims Placed In USA By Pearl S Buck Welcome House Foundation

It's a shame that, when it comes to the role that Pearl S Buck and her Welcome House Adoption Agency played in Canada Scoops/60's Scoops in USA, that what started out in 2012 as a really good, cooperative-compassionate relationship with the people at Pearl S Buck International - Welcome House Foundation is now becoming tainted by these denials within the Wikipedia page of Pearl S Buck, i.e., the attempts to minimize her role in bringing Canada Scoops victims to USA and the simultaneous scapegoating/making a former Arthur Murray dance school instructor, Theodore Harris, culpable is misleading and leaves a question mark over the validity of the entire page.

If there is any value placed on accuracy and full-context then Pearl S Buck's role has to be admitted. It can even be admitted along with a description of the context of the times during which it happened, i.e., most of these victims are relieved to have been taken out of the poverty marked by severe malnutrition that they were being raised in and which never would have provided them with the opportunities that they were given in USA by the smart placement decisions made by Pearl S Buck Welcome House adoption agency, and which allowed several of them to achieve real material and reputation success, millionaire status, national championship titles, etc.

This page needs a fresh crop of Wikipedia administrators working on it, certainly not all but a good portion aren't well intentioned, aren't informed, aren't capable of doing a good job on the Pearl S Buck page, they are doing more harm than good.4.35.92.19 (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This Page Is More A Public Relations Fact Sheet Than A Periodical Like Reference

this Pearl S Buck Page is more public relations tool than periodical reference. Why is that? In particular Pearl S Buck's unique and integral role in the transiting of Canada Scoops Victims-Children to USA via her Pearl S Buck Welcome House Adoption Agency. After editing and allowing this information to stand for several months it was deleted by Wikipedia administrators with China ISPS (china investors funding the Pearl: The Musical premiering at Lincoln Center in NYC In August 2015, i.e., the promoters were very disturbed to have their US production team be upset upon learning of Pearl Buck's involvement in Canada Scoops). Now after realizing that denying what is well cited isn't a smart strategy they are allowing references to Pearl S Buck's involvement to be published on Wikipedia but only if another person is stated as being responsible for her involvement. it's a ridiculous manipulation of the US involvement in Canada Scoops that was initiated with the 'China ISPs' 64.134.240.40 (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There is not a true sentence in this paragraph, except (perhaps) "Why is that?": Wikipedia is not a "periodical reference," Buck had no role in transiting, "Wikipedia administrators" did not delete "this information" (I did, and I am an "editor" not an administrator"), I do not have a "China ISP" (whatever that is), there is no way of telling from an IP whether anyone is an investor in "Pearl: The Musical," and.... what!? ... "China ISPs" initiated the Canada Scoops? ch (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The next edit after he added the text was by an editor with a Chinese name [6]. Needless to say, the edit was not a deletion. It was a simply a minor change in another part of the article. As CWH says, the deletion was much later [7] Paul B (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous use of "needs cites" tag

I have recently seen the widespread misuse of a template by tag-happy editors on many writers' pages, including this one. I'm talking about the use of the "refimprove section" tag on bibliographies or lists of writings. What kind of citation is needed? A third party writing attesting to the fact that someone else saw the book? What is ridiculous about the indiscriminate use of this tag is that Wikipedia by and large is never cite-checked rigorously for anything. No one carefully goes through a page and looks up the cite to ensure it says what it is supposed to and then attests to having done so. This is what a real scholarly reference work does. In fact, just having a supposed source is treated like a talisman here. Slapping a source on something makes the statement supposedly supported non-removable. I don't even go into the question of the evaluation of reliability, etc., of the source. Yet the "needs cite" tage is slapped on things in a ridiculous and haphazard way because no one goes through an article with a view to its overall balance, accuracy, sourcing, etc. The most obviously unsupported statements (whether true or not) can go unsupported and yet a "needs cites" tag can be slapped on a bibliography. The tag says unsupported facts can be deleted. This one was added a year-and-a-half ago and no cites have been provided. Is it time to remove the Selected Bibliography? AnthroMimus (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there's some overzealos and often mindless tagging, that is at best not particularly helpful and at worst simply nonsensical. Imho such tagging is actually deteriorating the quality as it irritates readers, sometimes annoys other editors and clogs maintenance queues.

I can only suggest to fight back. At least I've been removing such obviously questionable or nonsensical tags, whenever I've come across them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I suspect some of that tagging is due to the in appropriate use of tools, probably scanning sections or paragraphs for footnotes and suggesting a tag whenever it doesn't mind sufficiently many.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)