The attribution ledger

The ledger for every quotation and credited idea on this site: what we quoted, whose it is, where it came from, and the day somebody read the primary and confirmed the wording.

Why this file exists. Star Stuff keeps a FACTCHECK.md because its risk is a wrong fact. This site's risk is a wrong attribution — a definition trimmed to fit, an object generalized, a paraphrase left wearing somebody's name. Queering Earth re-reads other people's work, so nearly every page carries somebody else's words, and the citation is the only evidence a reader has.

A search of our own library is not verification. See the credit-source skill.

What that rule is aimed at, and what it is not (added 2026-09-08). It is aimed at our own prose — a glossary gloss, a summary, a paraphrase — being read back later as somebody else's wording. That is the Kelly-on-Eno scenius failure: the thing being confirmed was a rewrite, and five files agreeing with each other were one witness.

It is not a rule that Ryan's quote collection is unusable. A direct quotation he transcribed from a paper he read, published with a citation to that paper, is a first-hand reading with the source named. Papers get rented, access lapses, and refusing to quote anything we cannot re-open today would discard years of legitimate collecting and quietly imply he did not read what he says he read.

So: re-reading is an upgrade, not a precondition. Where the primary is reachable, read it and say which copy — that is how the Jack edition difference below was found. Where it is not, quote it with the citation attached and name whose transcription it is. The citation is the thing that has to be right.

---

Verified Link to this section

Nick Walker — neuroqueering as a verb Link to this section

Quoted on: index.html

I originally conceived of neuroqueer as a verb: neuroqueering as the practice of queering (subverting, defying, disrupting, liberating oneself from) neuronormativity and heteronormativity simultaneously.

Source: Nick Walker, Neuroqueer: An Introduction, neuroqueer.com. Collected in Neuroqueer Heresies (Autonomous Press, 2021).

Verified: 2026-09-07, by fetching the page and reading the sentence in context. Wording matches exactly, including "liberating oneself from" without a preceding "and".

Note — the paraphrase we did not ship. The working tagline for this site was "Subverting, defying, disrupting, and liberating oneself from all forms of normativity," credited to Walker. It is not his sentence. His parenthetical glosses queering, and his object is specific: "neuronormativity and heteronormativity." Walker does write, in Neuroqueer Heresies, that "anyone can liberate themselves from the strictures of normativity" — a different sentence, in a different place. Generalizing his object while keeping his name on the words would have put our paraphrase in his mouth on the masthead. The page now quotes him exactly, names the two normativities he named, and says plainly that carrying the verb further out is our extension and not hers.

Pronouns updated 2026-09-07. Nick Walker uses he/him. This entry, index.html, and DECISIONS.md were all written with she/her and have been corrected together.

Do not "fix" this back by checking the website. neuroqueer.com's about page carries no pronouns for Walker at all — it names him by role, not by pronoun — so the site neither confirms nor contradicts the change, and our own mirrored corpus is mixed. The change was made on Ryan Boren's word, which is the better authority: he works alongside Walker, and a person's stated preference outranks a stale third-party page every time. If a future session finds a pronoun-bearing primary that says otherwise, verify it against something Walker wrote or said about himself — not against our own files, and not against a bio somebody else maintains.

---

Virginia Woolf — On Being Ill, and the edition trap Link to this section

Quoted on: nothing yet. Verified ahead of the sheet, because the trap here is one that verification-after-drafting does not catch.

Woolf published On Being Ill in The New Criterion in January 1926 and revised it for the Hogarth Press edition of 1930. Both texts are hers. Neither is a corruption of the other, and a quotation is only correct once it is attached to the right one.

The 1930 text, read from the Hogarth Press edition:

…it becomes strange indeed that illness has not taken its place with love and battle and jealousy among the prime themes of literature.

…literature does its best to maintain that its concern is with the mind; that the body is a sheet of plain glass through which the soul looks straight and clear, and, save for one or two passions such as desire and greed, is null, and negligible and non-existent.

The 1926 text reads "with love, battle, and jealousy" and "is null, negligible and non-existent" — commas where 1930 has and. In the same paragraph 1926 has "brings to light" where 1930 has "brings to view," "uprooted in us in the act of sickness" where 1930 has "by the act of sickness," and the phrase "and infinitely more," which 1930 drops.

Why this is the entry to read before quoting anything on this site. The 1926 commas look exactly like a modern editor tidying Woolf's polysyndeton — the scenius failure, arriving on schedule. They are not. They are her own earlier sentence, and the and…and…and is her later one. Had we "corrected" the comma version against the 1930 text, or the reverse, we would have produced a quotation that is wrong while looking more careful than the alternative. On a site built on re-reading, a wrong edition is a wrong attribution. Name the edition, or do not quote.

Sources: Virginia Woolf, On Being Ill, The Hogarth Press, 1930 — read from the scan held in the Stimpunks Knowledge System at inbox/A14 - OnBeingIll-1930.pdf (Columbia University Libraries copy, the edition limited to 250 signed copies, type set by Woolf herself). Compared against the January 1926 New Criterion printing, held at raw/woolf-on-being-ill.pdf.

Verified: 2026-09-07, by extracting and reading both scans, not by searching our own library. The note in SKS at notes/Resources/Unsorted/2025/On Being Ill.md carries the 1926 wording under a title that does not name an edition, and its body text is OCR-mangled ("the b o d y is a sheet o f plain glass"). It is a pointer. It is not quotable.

Plate 511, The Floral Magazine v.9 (1870) Link to this section

Used on: coming-to-terms.html

A hand-coloured lithograph of two orchid blooms, mounted as the sheet's plate.

Source: The Floral Magazine, volume 9, London: L. Reeve & Co., 1870, plate 511. Drawn and lithographed by Worthington G. Smith; printed by Vincent Brooks, Day & Son. Public domain, so marked by the Biodiversity Heritage Library, which digitised it.

Verified: 2026-09-07. Public-domain status read from BHL's own statement on the item.

The artist's name was read off the plate, not out of the metadata, and that turned out to matter. BHL's Flickr tags on a neighbouring Curtis's plate credit artist:name=Walter Wood Fitch; the signature on that plate reads W. Fitch, and the illustrator of Curtis's in that period was Walter Hood Fitch. BHL's tag is wrong. The Floral Magazine plate we did use is signed Worthington G. Smith, F.L.S. del et lith in the bottom-left corner, and that signature — not the catalogue record — is what this credit is based on.

Standing note for any future plate. A digitiser's metadata is a finding aid, exactly like an SKS hit. The object carries its own attribution in the corner. Read the corner.

---

Nick Walker — Postnormal Possibilities, and our masthead Link to this section

Credited on: index.html — the masthead, and Queering is a verb.

Not a quotation we made. A collision we found, and then said out loud.

The site's tagline is "Post-normal possibilities." The subtitle of Walker's book is Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities — verified 2026-09-07 against neuroqueer.com. One hyphen apart, on a site that quotes Walker on its home page, about the subject of his book.

Helen Edgar wrote the phrase in the founding brainstorm and may well have arrived at it herself; post-normal also has a separate lineage in post-normal science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, early 1990s) which nobody here has yet checked against the primary. So this is not a finding of borrowing. It is a finding that DECISIONS.md was asserting there was no risk here when there plainly is one, and that assertion has been corrected.

Resolved 2026-09-07: the masthead credits him. It reads after Nick Walker, linked to the book, with the full account in the section where Walker is already quoted. The page says he published it first, which is true, and claims nothing about how the phrase reached us, which nobody can honestly claim either way.

After was chosen over "his phrase" — which would take the coinage off Helen — and over silence, which was defensible only until a reader noticed the subtitle. The separate lineage in post-normal science is real (Funtowicz and Ravetz, "Science for the post-normal age," Futures, September 1993, checked 2026-09-07) and is not on the page, because it reads as a hedge on a credit that was freely given.

---

Nick Walker and Ezra Furman — the moth, the Earth, and two colours Link to this section

Credited on: index.html — the figure at the foot of Queering is a verb, in the caption under the drawing. Also described on the design sheet.

Not a quotation. An homage, which is a thing this ledger has to hold too, because an uncredited homage is a borrowing with our name on it.

What was borrowed, from whom. The cover of Walker's Neuroqueer Heresies (Autonomous Press, 2021) sets a human brain where a swallowtail butterfly's body would be. Our drawing sets the Earth there instead. The composition is his book's; the substitution is ours, and it is the site's own name — Queering Earth — as a picture.

The colours are Ezra Furman's, from Lilac and Black on Twelve Nudes (Bella Union, 2019):

We wear the lilac and black

Verified: 2026-09-09. The book's subtitle and cover were confirmed against neuroqueer.com on 2026-09-07 for the masthead credit (see Postnormal Possibilities, above); the same page carries the cover image. The Furman line was supplied by Ryan with the Genius link, and the caption quotes no more of the song than the two colour words it takes.

What the caption says, and why it says that much. After the cover of Nick Walker's Neuroqueer Heresies, which sets a human brain where a swallowtail's body would be, and after Ezra Furman's Lilac and Black. Ours is a moth, and the Earth is where the brain was.

Three things are load-bearing in it. "After" — the same word the masthead uses for Walker, and for the same reason: it credits without claiming his authorship of what we made. Naming the brain — because a reader who does not know the cover cannot otherwise see that the Earth is a substitution, and the substitution is the whole idea. And "ours is a moth" — because it is not the cover's swallowtail, and saying so is cheaper and more honest than a drawing that pretends to be one. The moth has no tails for exactly that reason.

Two tokens were named after the borrowing. --qe-lilac and --qe-lilac-pale entered the palette for this drawing, and the comment beside them in queering.css says where they came from. A colour cannot be attributed the way a sentence can — nobody owns lilac — but the pairing is Furman's line, and the tokens are the reason it now recurs across the site.

What the two colours are for, added 2026-09-09. Furman has said, of the song: "So I wrote this theme song for us, and gave us some gang colors: lilac and black." Us is trans women; the statement around that sentence is about solidarity and about being ready to defend one another's lives against a concerted political effort to make trans existence unliveable — Furman, in Clash, supplied by Ryan. Recorded here because a palette borrowed without its reason is a palette that will eventually be described as a nice purple, and because the site now wears these colours in two drawings. They are not decorative in origin.

---

James Shelton — Lilac Wine, and two singers who did not write it Link to this section

Credited on: index.html — the caption under the lilac bush above the footer.

Not a quotation. A credit, and the reason it needed one is the ordinary version of this site's characteristic failure.

The song reaches most people through Nina Simone (Wild Is the Wind, 1966) or Jeff Buckley (Grace, 1994). It is neither of theirs. James Shelton wrote words and music in 1950, for a Broadway revue called Dance Me a Song that ran a few weeks, where Hope Foye introduced it. Eartha Kitt recorded it in 1953 — thirteen years before Simone, forty-one before Buckley.

Verified: 2026-09-09, against the song's record and Shelton's). This is a secondary source and is named as one. The primary would be the 1950 copyright registration or the sheet music, and neither was reachable from here; the caption claims only what the credit line claims — who wrote it, when, and for what.

Why it is in this ledger at all. A cover so much better known than its original that the original stops being named is the same motion as a definition trimmed to fit a masthead: the work survives and the maker falls off it. Nobody invents anything; the attribution just quietly evaporates. So the caption names Shelton first and calls the other two readings, which is what they are — and which is the argument this whole site is built on. One song, read three ways.

---

T. S. Eliot — The Waste Land, lines 1–4 Link to this section

Quoted on: index.html — mounted whole above the lilac bush.

April is the cruellest month, breeding Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing Memory and desire, stirring Dull roots with spring rain.

Source: T. S. Eliot, The Waste Land (1922), lines 1–4, opening "I. The Burial of the Dead". Cited to the Poetry Foundation.

Verified: 2026-09-09. The Poetry Foundation refuses automated requests (HTTP 403), so the wording was checked against Project Gutenberg's transcription of the 1922 text. Both the source of the citation and the source of the check are named on the page, because they are not the same document and pretending otherwise would be the kind of tidy-looking claim this file exists to prevent.

Public domain in the United States (published 1922), so the four lines are mounted whole. That matters here: this site's stated risk is the tightened quotation, and an excerpt short enough to need no ellipsis is an excerpt with nothing to hide.

"Cruellest" keeps its British spelling. House style is US, and house style stops at the quotation mark.

Whose association it is. Helen Edgar's — she hears these lines the instant anybody says lilac, and said so while the drawing was being made. The page says that.

The recording, added 2026-09-09. The home page now carries a click-to-load embed of Eliot reading the poem — uploaded to YouTube by tim24frames, title T.S. Eliot reads: The Waste Land, confirmed via YouTube's oEmbed endpoint on 2026-09-09.

This one is not verified and is labelled as unverified on the page. Eliot recorded The Waste Land more than once, across the 1930s and 1940s. We have not established which reading this is, and we have no reason to think the uploading channel holds any right in it. The poem's text is public domain in the US; a mid-century sound recording of it generally is not, and the two are separate rights that this ledger should not be seen to conflate.

It is embedded rather than hosted — the bytes come from YouTube, and a takedown is YouTube's to honour — and the caption on the page says plainly that it is somebody else's copy of somebody else's tape. That is the honest description available, and it is deliberately not dressed up as provenance. If the upload disappears, the page degrades to a dead link rather than a false claim, which is the right way round.

The decision to carry it anyway is Ryan's and is recorded in DECISIONS.md.

---

Christina Rossetti — Promises like Pie-crust, and the colon at line 20 Link to this section

Quoted on: promises-like-pie-crust.html (the poem, entire).

Source: Christina Rossetti, Promises like Pie-crust, written 20 April 1861. First printed in New Poems by Christina Rossetti, Hitherto Unpublished or Uncollected, edited by William Michael Rossetti (New York and London: Macmillan, 1896), pages 130–131. Public domain. Read in two separately scanned copies of that edition:

• the Princeton Theological Seminary copy (the Benson bequest), as the Google Books PDF — redistributed by the Hymnology Archive, also at archive.org/details/newpoems00ross;
• the Victoria University (Toronto) copy at archive.org/details/newpoemshitherto00rossuoft — cited on the sheet, because it is the more durable host of the two.

Verified: 2026-09-08. The Princeton pages 130 and 131 were rendered as images and the type read, because the finding below is a single punctuation mark and a text extractor is not evidence about one. The Toronto copy was then read independently as corroboration: a different physical book, a different digitiser, a different OCR pipeline. The mark, the alternating indent and the date line agree in both. So the colon is the 1896 edition's, not one library's smudge or one scanner's artifact.

The finding: the first printing has a colon where the circulating text has a full stop.

Every other mark in the poem matches. The 1896 text has two full stops in twenty-four lines — line 16, closing the second stanza, and line 24, closing the poem. The circulating text has three. Eight lines end in colons in both.

The difference is grammatical, not cosmetic. A full stop closes "If you promised, you might grieve … I should fret to break the chain." into a finished sentence, and makes "Let us be the friends we were" a fresh proposal. The colon makes the stanza one movement in which the friendship is the consequence of what precedes the mark. And the line that acquired the extra full stop is the line about breaking the chain.

What is claimed, and what is not. We have not seen her manuscript. William Michael Rossetti printed from the seventeen notebooks she left and vouches in his preface for the accuracy of the dates in them; he says nothing about her punctuation, and the volume's notes section carries no entry on this poem at all (checked). So the colon is the earliest reading we can put our eyes on, not a certified authorial one, and nothing here claims anybody changed the mark deliberately — a full stop for a colon at the end of a quatrain is the most ordinary silent tidying there is. The claim on the sheet is only this: the earliest printing has a colon, the copies in circulation have a full stop, and quoting one while dating it to the other is a false statement about her. This is the Woolf edition trap arriving a second time, in reverse — see the entry above, where the tidy commas turned out to be the author's own earlier version.

Three things about the 1896 page that are the volume's typography and not hers, all normalised on the sheet and all said out loud on it:

1. A space before every colon, semicolon and question mark. French spacing, set that way throughout the whole book — visible on the same two pages in Sister Maude and Better So. Closed up in our text.
2. A drop cap. The poem opens PROMISE me no promises, after a large initial P, which is how the volume opens every poem. The word is Promise.
3. A full-capitals title over the poem, again for every poem. The volume's own contents page (p. 411 of the scan) gives it as "Promises like Pie-crust" — lower-case like, lower-case c — and that is the form the sheet uses. Modern editions mostly print Promises Like Pie-Crust.

The alternating indent is reproduced, not invented. The 1896 setting indents every second line, and .qe-poem .l-in in queering.css is that fact and nothing else.

The proverb in the title has no owner here, on purpose. "Promises and pie-crust are made to be broken" was proverbial before Rossetti used it. The attribution in circulation runs to Jonathan Swift's Polite Conversation (1738) — which nobody here has read in a primary — and secondary sources record printed uses earlier still. The sheet therefore names no originator for the saying. Do not "improve" this by adding Swift's name off a quotation site.

---

Huysamen, Hatton and Kourti (2026) — the paper, and its participants Link to this section

Quoted on: promises-like-pie-crust.html — three passages of the authors' own analysis and six participant quotations.

Source: Monique Huysamen, Chris Hatton and Marianthi Kourti, "Embrace Difference, Challenge Normativity: Towards a Neuroqueer-informed Ethic for Supporting Autistic Adults' Intimate Lives," Feminism & Psychology, 2026. doi:10.1177/09593535261422510. Manchester Metropolitan University (Huysamen, Hatton) and the University of Birmingham (Kourti). © The Author(s) 2026. Read from the PDF held in the Stimpunks Knowledge System at inbox/huysamen-et-al-2026-embrace-difference-challenge-normativity-towards-a-neuroqueer-informed-ethic-for-supporting.pdf.

Verified: 2026-09-08, by extracting the article and reading every quoted sentence in its own paragraph, plus a page render for the one below. Not verified by searching our own library.

Participants are credited the way the paper credits them — pseudonym, age, gender, sexuality and focus group, e.g. PhotonPulse_he_him, 47, male, heterosexual, men's group. The group is part of the identification the study gives them and is not ours to drop.

Two elisions, both marked on the sheet. Two of the authors' sentences are quoted from their middles, where the original lead-in is a framing clause:

• "…good social care and support for intimate lives is underpinned by a neuroqueer ethic…" — the sentence begins "These findings show that, ultimately, good social care…". The lower-case g is kept rather than raised to a capital, and the figcaption says so.
• "…becoming aware of, and being supported to safely explore, alternative ways…" — the sentence begins "This research shows that becoming aware of…". Same treatment.

Raising those letters to capitals is the small tightening this file exists to catch: it makes a clause look like a sentence the authors wrote.

One character normalised, and it is worth knowing why. Indigo_Regent's quotation is printed in the article with a lower-case l in place of every I — "l can honestly say l wished l had followed", five times, and nowhere else in the twenty-three pages. It is in the printed article, not an extraction artifact: page 12 was rendered as an image and read to be sure. It is almost certainly how the participant typed into the forum, preserved verbatim by Sage. The sheet prints I. A run of stray ls on a web page reads as our typo and is spoken aloud as "el" by a screen reader, and no word is changed by fixing it. Recorded here so that nobody "corrects" the sheet back against the PDF and nobody quotes the ls as a finding about her.

The paper writes "autistic" in lower case throughout. House style is Autistic. The quotations keep their authors' usage, our prose uses ours, and the sheet's footer says so — the difference is visible on the page and an unexplained inconsistency looks like carelessness.

British spellings inside the quotations are theirs — realise, defining, coliving. Preserved.

---

Amanda Van Slyke — the definition of solo polyamory Link to this section

Quoted on: promises-like-pie-crust.html

Solo polyamory is the idea that people are autonomous beings who have different needs and wants, and alongside good communication and mutual respect between all partners, no one puts rules on each other because no one owns one another.

Source: Amanda Van Slyke, How Polyamory Helped Me Advocate For My Needs As A Disabled Person, Thought.is.

Verified: 2026-09-08, by fetching the page and reading the sentence in context. Wording matches exactly. The author was read off the page, not assumed from the site: this definition circulates widely without a name on it, and it has one.

No publication date is given on the page, so none is asserted on the sheet or here. If a date turns up, it goes in this entry — do not infer one from a sitemap or a feed.

---

Charles and George Darwin — Climbing Plants, quoted but no longer mounted Link to this section

Quoted on: promises-like-pie-crust.html — Fig. 13's printed caption, and Darwin's sentence about tendrils torn free. No image of either is on the sheet any more; see the note at the end of this entry.

Source: Charles Darwin, The Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants, second edition, revised (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1876) — the essay first appeared in the Journal of the Linnean Society vol. IX, 1865. Read from the Cornell University Library copy scanned for the Biodiversity Heritage Library: archive.org/details/cu31924024538922. The scan's own front matter states "There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text"; the work is public domain on its date regardless.

Quoted, both from printed page 165 (leaf n178), read off the page image and not the OCR:

A caught tendril of Bryonia dioica, spirally contracted in reversed directions.

…never occurs with uncaught tendrils; and when this appears to have occurred, it will be found that the tendril had originally seized some object and had afterwards been torn free.

The artist was George Darwin, and the credit came out of the preface. Darwin's own sentence, on the page after the title:

The illustrations were drawn by my son, George Darwin.

Keep this paragraph even though the figures are gone. These are woodcuts and carry no signature at all — nothing in the block, nothing under the caption, and nothing in the IA or BHL metadata, which names only Charles Darwin as creator. Credited off the metadata alone the drawings would have gone up as his father's. The credit existed in one sentence of prose four pages earlier. When the object has no corner to read, read the preface. If anybody ever mounts a figure from this book again, that is the sentence to cite.

The sheet's reading of Fig. 13 is flagged on the sheet as ours. Darwin is explaining a mechanical necessity — a tendril fixed at both ends cannot coil in one direction without unwinding itself. Reading the reversed spiral as a picture of two people keeping their own liberties is our move and the page says so in the same breath. His qualifier about tendrils torn free is quoted too, because leaving it out would make the figure mean something tidier than it does.

Removed from the sheet 2026-09-08, for looks and not for accuracy. Both woodcuts were mounted as plates and then taken off at Ryan's note that they were "a little underwhelming" in black and white on a colour sheet. The verification above stands and nothing about it was wrong; the images are gone from images/ and the quotations remain. See DECISIONS.md.

---

Annales Musei Botanici Lugduno-Batavi, volume 1 (1863) — three chromolithographs Link to this section

Used on: promises-like-pie-crust.html — three plates, chosen by Ryan from the Biodiversity Heritage Library's Flickr stream.

Source: Annales Musei Botanici Lugduno-Batavi, volume 1 (Amsterdam: Apud C. G. van der Post, 1863). All three chromolithographed by Emrik & Binger of Haarlem, whose imprint is printed in the lower right of each plate. Public domain — so marked by BHL on all three, and settled by the date. Scanned from the Missouri Botanical Garden, Peter H. Raven Library copy; also at archive.org/details/mobot31753002764873.

Verified: 2026-09-08. Species names, Tab numbers, draughtsman signatures and the lithographer's imprint were each read off the plate at full scan resolution — the signatures are small and were cropped and enlarged to be sure of them. Th. Rocke in particular is set tight and small and was checked twice.

The volume was pinned by matching a leaf, not by trusting a caption. The Flickr descriptions give only the serial title, which ran to four volumes between 1863 and 1869 with the plate numbering restarting each time — so "Tab. IV" alone identifies nothing. The Flickr photo titles (n145, n180, n320) are Internet Archive leaf numbers, so leaf n145 was fetched from each of the four volumes in turn and compared: only volume 1's is the Gonystylus plate.

A metadata error, found the same way as the last one. BHL's Flickr tags on Tab. IV carry taxonomy:binomial=Gonystylus macrophyllus. The plate itself says GONYSTYLUS MIQUELIANUS, T. ET B., and that is what the sheet cites. The two names may well be synonyms in current taxonomy — that is a question for a botanist and not for us — but the object's own printed name is the object's own printed name. This is the third time a digitiser's metadata has disagreed with the corner of the plate on this site: see the Fitch note under Plate 511 above, and the Darwin woodcuts, where the metadata named the wrong Darwin.

Standing note, now with three cases behind it: read the corner. Every time.

---

M. C. Cooke — Illustrations of British Fungi, plate 85 Link to this section

Used on: promises-like-pie-crust.html

A hand-coloured plate on grey ground carrying two species: group A is Agaricus (Lepiota) sistratus, Fries, "in Gardens"; group B is Agaricus (Lepiota) mesomorphus, Bull., "in woods. New Forest." Both captions are printed on the plate and are transcribed from it.

Source: Mordecai Cubitt Cooke, Illustrations of British Fungi (Hymenomycetes), to serve as an atlas to the "Handbook of British Fungi", volume 1 (London: Williams and Norgate, 1881–91), plate 85. Read from the University of Toronto copy scanned for the Biodiversity Heritage Library: archive.org/details/illustrationsofb01cookuoft, leaf n112. Public domain — the Internet Archive record carries possible-copyright-status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT, and the date settles it anyway.

The artist was read off the corner, and then confirmed from the preface. The plate is signed M.C.C. in the lower left. The initials were checked at full scan resolution rather than guessed from a thumbnail. Cooke's own preface, on printed page 3 of the same volume, explains the convention:

Their initials are attached to the copies of their drawings.

— written of the contributors he thanks by name and initial (M.J.B., R.E.B., C.E.B., C.B., H.G.B., T.H., G.M., W.P., C.B.P., W.G.S. and Rev. John Stevenson). Other plates in the volume are signed with those initials instead, and plate 85's are Cooke's own. So the volume is a multi-artist book in which the plate tells you who drew it, and "Cooke, 1881" is not automatically the right credit for any given plate in it. Check the corner of each one.

Verified: 2026-09-08, from the scan of the plate itself and of the preface page.

---

Helen Edgar — Wyrd, Weird, and the Invention of Normal, and a byline that is not a transcript Link to this section

Quoted on: invention-of-normal.html

Three sentences are quoted verbatim from Helen's More Realms essay:

In Old English, wyrd meant fate, but not necessarily the fixed, predetermined fate the word often suggests today.

Somewhere along the way, worth got redefined as fitting in, while being different stopped being something we valued at all.

I think this is what wyrd actually means, human worth that was never about being static, never about being plotted somewhere along someone else's bell curve, but about always moving, always still taking shape.

Source: Helen Edgar, Wyrd, Weird, and the Invention of Normal, More Realms, July 2026.

Verified: 2026-09-08, by fetching the live page and reading each sentence in place. The SKS mirror at site/morerealms-com/posts/becoming-weird-wyrd-normality.md was the finding step and is not the authority; the live page is.

The byline was wrong, it shipped, and Helen corrected it. 2026-09-08.

The sheet first went out with a Written by — Helen Edgar row, on Ryan's instruction, because the argument, the sources, and the reading list are all hers. The draft flagged the risk at the time — a byline plus unmarked new prose is the same failure as a tightened quotation, somebody's name on words that are not theirs — and shipped anyway, with a caveat row instead of a fix.

Helen read it and declined:

do you think we should have these as Sourced from Helen Written by Ryan …? I can't take any credit beyond you reading my weird stuff

She is right, and the site had already written the answer down before the sheet was made. design.html defines the label as carrying "the date of the reading, and who read it," and says "a specimen is collected, not written." Queering Earth does not have bylines; it has Maker and Read by, on separate rows. The Woolf and Rossetti sheets use that grammar. This one reached for Written by and broke it.

Corrected to: Specimen — Helen's essay. Maker — Helen Edgar. Read by — Ryan Boren. The This text row now reads the argument is hers; the sentences around her quotations are ours, and this label is where we say so. Nothing about the quotations themselves changed; they were always marked and linked.

The general rule, now recorded in DECISIONS.md: a living person gets a Maker row for what they made and a Read by row for what they read, and never a Written by row for prose they did not write. A caveat row underneath a wrong byline is not a fix. It is the wrong byline with a footnote, which is exactly the shape of every other failure in this file.

---

Alby Stone — Wyrd, and the worth in the word Link to this section

Quoted on: invention-of-normal.html

Old English wyrd combines all the qualities found in the names of the three nornir: it means 'worth'; 'death'; and that which will happen or come to be.

and

something much more flexible and worthwhile than the rigid, impersonal and implacable force that fate is commonly expected to be

Source: Alby Stone, Wyrd: Fate and Destiny in North European Paganism, corrected edition (Heart of Albion Press, 2022; first published 1989), pp. 37 and 45.

Verified: 2026-09-08, against the extracted text of the PDF held in the SKS library (raw/WYRD-FATE-AND-DESTINY-IN-NORTH-EUROPEAN-PAGANISM.pdf), reading the surrounding pages rather than the search snippet. Page numbers in that book sit at the foot of the page, not the head — the extracted stream prints 36 before the text of page 37, and reading the marker as a header puts every citation one page early.

---

Karen Bek-Pedersen (2022) — Holinshed, the First Folio, and Theobald Link to this section

Quoted on: invention-of-normal.html, in the paste-up wall

Three quotations reach the sheet through Bek-Pedersen's article rather than from the originals: Holinshed's "goddesses of destinie… nymphs or feiries" (Holinshed 1808: 269), the First Folio's "The weyward Sisters, hand in hand, / Posters of the Sea and Land" (Furness Variorum), and Theobald's gloss on wayward (Theobald 1733: 392). Each caption on the sheet says so, with her page number, because a secondary source that says it is quoting is still a secondary source and the reader is owed the chain.

Her own conclusion is quoted directly:

Theobald may in one sense revert the picture back to the Scottish tradition of the 'weird sisters' by substituting 'weyward' with 'weird', but in doing so he bypasses Shakespeare altogether.

Source: Karen Bek-Pedersen, "Macbeth and 'the Weird Sisters' – on Fates and Witches", Scottish Studies 39 (2022), 58–80, at pp. 64, 73, 76.

Verified: 2026-09-08, from the PDF in the SKS inbox, reading the full article.

The finding that cuts against us, kept on the page. Bek-Pedersen argues that Shakespeare wrote weyward deliberately, that his three women are witches rather than Fates, and that Theobald's 1733 emendation "bypasses Shakespeare altogether." That is inconvenient for a reclamation of the Weird Sisters, and the sheet says so twice — once in the section and once in What this sheet will not tidy — rather than quoting her transcriptions and dropping her argument. Quoting a scholar's evidence while suppressing her conclusion is the worst version of the paraphrase-as-quotation failure, because every individual quotation is exact.

---

Mark Fisher — the weird as that which does not belong Link to this section

Quoted on: invention-of-normal.html

…the weird is that which does not belong. The weird brings to the familiar something which ordinarily lies beyond it, and which cannot be reconciled with the "homely" (even as its negation).

and, from a later paragraph of the same introduction:

is often a sign that we are in the presence of the new. The weird here is a signal that the concepts and frameworks which we have previously employed are now obsolete.

Source: Mark Fisher, The Weird and the Eerie (Repeater Books, 2016), introduction.

Verified: 2026-09-08, from the epub held in the SKS inbox.

No page number, on purpose. The circulating citation for the first sentence is "p. 8", and the epub has no pagination to confirm it against. The sheet cites the introduction and says the ebook carries no page numbers, rather than repeating a page it cannot see. A page number copied from somebody else's citation is an unverified claim wearing a footnote.

---

Tuck and Yang (2014) — refusal, and a transposition that is ours Link to this section

Quoted on: invention-of-normal.html

Refusal is not just a "no," but a redirection to ideas otherwise unacknowledged or unquestioned.

(p. 239) and

refusal is not a prohibition but a generative form

(p. 241).

Source: Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang, "R-Words: Refusing Research", in Django Paris and Maisha T. Winn (eds), Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry with Youth and Communities (Sage, 2014), 223–248. They are explicating Audra Simpson, "On Ethnographic Refusal: Indigeneity, 'Voice' and Colonial Citizenship", Junctures 9 (2007), 67–80, and the sheet credits her too.

Verified: 2026-09-08, from the PDF in the SKS inbox. Page numbers were pinned by splitting the extracted text on form feeds and reading the running head of each page, not by guessing from the position of a page number in the text stream.

The object was changed, so the sheet says whose move that is. Tuck and Yang are writing about settler colonialism, Indigenous sovereignty, and the research apparatus. Applying refusal to masking and compliance culture is our extension, and the sheet states it in a bolded sentence — The transposition here is ours, and it needs saying plainly — instead of letting their authority quietly cover our argument. Same discipline as the Walker entry at the top of this file: credit the concept, quote the original exactly, and own the move.

---

Elliot Wassell (2026) — Experiences of autistic joy, and a citation that was wrong Link to this section

Quoted on: invention-of-normal.html

…the key barrier to joyful experience is not autism itself but other people's lack of acceptance of authentic autistic behaviours such as stimming and pursuit of special interests.

(abstract) and, from Participant 28:

No matter how 'weird', 'age inappropriate', or 'useless' our passions might seem to them, for us, this is what makes life worth living.

(p. 249).

Source: Elliot Wassell, "Experiences of autistic joy", Disability & Society 41:1 (2026), 236–261. Open access, CC BY.

Verified: 2026-09-08, from the PDF in the SKS inbox.

The citation we were handed was wrong and is corrected here. The brief for the sheet gave it as "Wassell, E. (2025). Disability & Society, 41(3), 1–26." The article's own first page gives volume 41, issue 1, pages 236–261, dated 2026 — 2025 is the online-first date. Both the issue number and the page range were wrong, and "1–26" is the give-away of a citation taken from an online-first PDF before pagination. Anywhere else this citation appears in Stimpunks material, it needs the same correction.

Demographics quoted on the sheet come from the same paper: 86 participants, 86% female, 10% non-binary, 4% male; 67% report often experiencing joy; 94% actively enjoy aspects of being Autistic.

---

Ingram and Jacobsen (2025) — queercrip joy Link to this section

Quoted on: invention-of-normal.html

Queercrip joy is more than finding new happy objects—it is refusing to collapse 'positive' affects and 'negative' affects into a mutually exclusive binary.

Source: Megan Ingram and Kai Jacobsen, "Both because of and in spite of: Towards the reclamation of queercrip joy", Sexualities 28:3 (2025), 795–810, at p. 804.

Verified: 2026-09-08, from the PDF in the SKS inbox; the page was pinned from the running head of the page the sentence sits on.

---

Robert Chapman (2023) — Empire of Normality, and Quetelet at one remove Link to this section

Quoted on: invention-of-normal.html

Chapman's own sentence:

The error curve developed to predict the course of stars now applied to human normativity, and to be abnormal was to be a mistake of nature.

and his definition of the Empire of Normality as "an apparatus of material relations, social practices, scientific research programmes, bureaucratic mechanisms, economic compulsions, and administrative procedures".

Source: Robert Chapman, Empire of Normality: Neurodiversity and Capitalism (Pluto Press, 2023), introduction and chapter 2, "The invention of normality".

Verified: 2026-09-08, from the epub held in the SKS inbox. No page numbers: the epub has none, and the sheet says so rather than inventing them.

Quetelet is quoted at one remove, and the ellipses are structural. The sheet mounts:

If the average man were completely determined… we might consider him as the type of perfection; and everything differing from his proportions or condition, would constitute… a monstrosity.

Chapman prints that sentence in three pieces, interrupted by "he wrote" and "he went on". The two ellipses mark exactly those interruptions and nothing else, and the caption on the sheet says so, because an unexplained ellipsis inside a quotation of a nineteenth-century statistician is the shape a trimmed quotation takes.

---

Ombre Tarragnat — ethodiversity Link to this section

Quoted on: invention-of-normal.html

Ethodiversity, short for ethological diversity, refers to the intra- and inter-specific variabilities and differences in behavioural or existential styles in (human and nonhuman) animals.

and

The term 'ethodiversity' parallels 'biodiversity' and 'neurodiversity'.

Source: Ombre Tarragnat, What is ethodiversity?, 25 February 2025.

Verified: 2026-09-08, against Tarragnat's own site. The Stimpunks glossary entry was the finding step; the primary is the authority.

---

Public-domain texts on the Wyrd sheet Link to this section

Quoted on: invention-of-normal.html

• The Wanderer, line 5b — wyrd bið ful ārǣd, Old English as printed in Bright's Anglo-Saxon Reader. The English on the sheet is ours and is labelled as ours, because translators do not agree on ārǣd and picking one rendering silently would be picking a reading.
• Völuspá 20 — Old Norse after Neckel (1914) and the English of Henry Adams Bellows, The Poetic Edda (The American-Scandinavian Foundation, 1923), both as set out at Mimisbrunnr.info, which prints them side by side with five other translations.
• Tam Lin, Child 39A, stanzas 31–33 — Francis James Child, The English and Scottish Popular Ballads (Boston, 1882–98). Transcription cross-checked against two independent online editions of Child; they differ in OCR only (a red het gaud of airn is right, aim is a scan error). The sheet makes no claim about the ballad's date, because the earliest attestation of the tale and the date of the A text are different questions and neither was settled here.
• W. B. Yeats, 'The Stolen Child' — The Wanderings of Oisin and Other Poems (1889). The last stanza's altered refrain is noted in the caption, because quoting the invitation and calling it the ending would misreport the poem.

Verified: 2026-09-08.

---

Susan Schoon Eberly (1988) — changelings, described and not quoted Link to this section

Cited on: invention-of-normal.html

Source: Susan Schoon Eberly, "Fairies and the Folklore of Disability: Changelings, Hybrids and the Solitary Fairy", Folklore 99:1 (1988), 58–77.

Verified: 2026-09-08 — bibliographic details only. The full text is paywalled and was not read here, so the sheet describes her thesis and quotes nothing. If a future session gets the article, a quotation may be added; until then the absence of quotation marks is the honest signal.

The Bridget Cleary paragraph on the same sheet is a separate claim and was checked separately: died 15 March 1895 at Ballyvadlea, County Tipperary; her husband Michael Cleary maintained she was a changeling; nine people were charged; he was convicted of manslaughter. The earlier draft said "burned to death by her own husband and relatives" and named no verdict — the relatives' role and the cause of death are both contested in the record, and the sentence was narrowed to what is not.

---

The Tempest on the Miranda sheet, and the speech Theobald moved Link to this section

Quoted on: the-tempest.html

Six passages, all from the play: Miranda's "If by your art" / "O, I have suffered" (I.ii), Prospero's "Be collected. / No more amazement." (I.ii), "Abhorred slave" (I.ii), Caliban's "I had peopled else / This isle with Calibans" (I.ii), Prospero's virgin-knot warning (IV.i), Miranda's proposal "I am your wife, if you will marry me" (III.i), and "O, wonder! … O brave new world" with Prospero's "'Tis new to thee" (V.i).

Source: cited on the sheet as The Tempest (V. M. Vaughan & A. T. Vaughan, eds), Arden Shakespeare, 2004; original work 1611.

Verified: 2026-09-08, against the Folger Shakespeare Library's text of I.ii. Speaker prefixes, wording and act/scene attributions all match. The Folger prints "Abhorrèd slave" with a grave accent to mark the metre; the sheet prints "Abhorred", which is the Folio spelling and the one the draft used.

The editorial claim is the load-bearing one on this sheet, and it is confirmed twice. The sheet's central device strikes out PROSPERO and writes Miranda over it, so the claim "the Folio gives this speech to Miranda and Theobald moved it" is doing more work than any single quotation. Both halves check out independently:

• The Folger edition prints the speech with the speaker prefix MIRANDA.
• The Shakespeare Navigators note to I.ii line 351 states it directly: "In the First Folio the speech beginning 'Abhorred slave' [lines 351-362] is assigned to Miranda, not Prospero. However, Lewis Theobald (1688-1744), the first thoughtful editor of Shakespeare, assigned the speech to Prospero, for the good reason that it does not seem credible that Miranda as a three-year old child … would have been one who taught Caliban to speak."

One thing that note does not say is the date. It identifies Theobald by his lifespan and gives no year for the change. The sheet dates it 1733, which is the date of Theobald's Works of William Shakespeare — already cited on invention-of-normal.html, volume 5, for his substitution of weird for weyward in Macbeth. Same editor, same edition, two sheets. The 1733 date is therefore the edition's, not a claim found in the Navigators note, and anybody re-checking this should check it against Theobald's edition rather than against that note.

Butler is quoted, not paraphrased. "a stylized repetition of acts" is Butler's phrase from Gender Trouble (Routledge, 1990) and sits in quotation marks on the sheet. The sentence around it — gender as "a performative accomplishment that both the audience and the performer come to believe in the doing of it" — is ours, and is unquoted for that reason. Ahmed, Kafer, Slights, Thompson and Kathman are all described rather than quoted on this sheet; none of their sentences appears in quotation marks, and no wording is attributed to them.

"She has never seen a woman other than her own reflection, by her own account." That hedge is doing real work and must not be removed. Miranda says in III.i that she does not know one of her own sex and remembers "no woman's face … Save, from my glass, mine own" — but in I.ii she half-remembers "four or five women once that tended me", which is the claim this repo already corrected once in the Waterhouse caption on invention-of-normal.html (see the entry below). The two speeches contradict each other, and the sheet is citing the later one as hers rather than asserting it as fact. An editor tidying "by her own account" out of that sentence would re-commit the error the register apologises for.

---

Two citations that arrived wrong in the Miranda draft Link to this section

Corrected on: the-tempest.html, before it shipped.

The sheet's layout and reference list came from Helen Edgar's own Claude session and were adopted as sent. Two entries did not survive checking, and one was an attribution error rather than a typo.

• Kathman. The draft read Shakespeare Survey, 59, 220–246. The article is in volume 58 (2005), pages 220–46 — confirmed against Cambridge's own listing for How Old Were Shakespeare's Boy Actors?. The pages were right, which is what makes this one easy to miss.
• Chedgzoy. The draft credited Thompson's chapter to K. Chedzoy. The editor is Kate Chedgzoy; the surname had lost its g. Volume, chapter and pages (46–69) were right.
• Edgar. The draft cited Helen Edgar's Wyrd, weird, and the invention of normal with Queering Earth as the publisher, at queering.earth/wyrd-weird-and-the-invention-of-normal — an address that does not exist here. Her essay was published at More Realms in July 2026; this site published a reading of it at /invention-of-normal. The reference now names More Realms. This is the byline rule applied to a bibliography. Putting our name in the publisher field of prose Helen wrote is the same elision, running the other way, as the Written-by row she declined on Sheet No. 4.

Verified: 2026-09-08. Slights (SEL 41:2, 357–79) and the Thompson page range were checked at the same time and were correct as sent.

Left as sent, and flagged rather than fixed: Chapman's Empire of Normality is in the reference list and is not cited anywhere in the sheet's text. It is not an error — the argument it supports is carried by invention-of-normal.html, which quotes Chapman twice — but it is an entry with nothing pointing at it. Removing it would be an edit to Helen's list rather than a correction to it, so it stays and this note exists instead.

---

Waterhouse's Miranda mounted a second time Link to this section

Mounted on: the-tempest.html — the same file as on invention-of-normal.html.

Provenance, public-domain reasoning, medium, dimensions and alt text are all in the "Two paintings on the Wyrd sheet" entry below and are not restated here. Nothing about the image or its verification changed; it is the same scan, at the same address, with the same alt text, which was written from looking at the picture.

"Chosen by Helen Edgar" is not repeated on this sheet, and that is deliberate. She picked the plate for the Wyrd sheet, where the credit belongs and where it stays. Repeating it on a second sheet would extend a named contribution to a decision she did not make: mounting it here was ours.

What the draft asked for instead. It hot-linked the Wikimedia file with a JavaScript onerror fallback reading "Plate to be inserted … Reference held at Sotheby's / private collection. Source a high-resolution scan before publishing — see note to Helen." The scan had already been sourced and verified that morning for Sheet No. 4, so the sheet mounts the local file and the placeholder is gone.

One new claim in the caption, checked. The draft's caption calls it "forty-one years after his first, gentler Miranda of 1875." Waterhouse did exhibit a Miranda in 1875 — his second Royal Academy exhibit — and 1916 − 1875 = 41. He died in 1917, so "the year before Waterhouse's death" holds. Verified 2026-09-08 against the Wikipedia article on the painting). A caption is a claim like any other and gets checked like one — the same sentence this ledger already carries one entry down.

---

Two paintings on the Wyrd sheet, chosen by Helen Edgar Link to this section

Mounted on: invention-of-normal.html

• Edward Robert Hughes (1851–1914), Midsummer Eve, c. 1908. Watercolour with gouache, 114.3 × 76.2 cm; private collection. Commons file.jpg).
• John William Waterhouse (1849–1917), Miranda — The Tempest, 1916. Oil on canvas, 100.4 × 137.8 cm; private collection. Commons file.

Verified: 2026-09-08. Artist dates, titles, dates, media, dimensions and collection read off the Commons file pages; the Hughes medium and dimensions cross-checked against the Wikipedia article on the painting, because the Commons record says only "Painting" and a caption that says watercolour has to be able to point at something.

Public domain, and the reason is the artist, not the scan. Hughes died in 1914 and Waterhouse in 1917, so both works are out of copyright everywhere the term is life plus 100 or fewer, and both were published before 1 January 1931. The photographs come from third parties — a Birmingham Museums image for the Hughes, a Sotheby's catalogue image for the Waterhouse — and a faithful photographic reproduction of a flat public-domain work attracts no new copyright, which is the same basis on which the Biodiversity Heritage Library plates on this site are used. The captions credit the digitiser and say the work is public domain; they do not claim the scan is ours.

"Chosen by Helen Edgar" is in both captions and belongs there. She picked them, and on this site that is a named contribution — see the byline entry above for how nearly the record lost track of what she actually did.

Two claims in the Waterhouse caption were checked against the play, not against the painting. The caption quotes Miranda's "the third man that e'er I saw" (The Tempest I.ii, confirmed against the Project Gutenberg text) and places the brave-new-world line "in the last act" (V.i). An earlier draft said she had never seen anybody but her father and Caliban — wrong, she also half-remembers "four or five women once that tended me" — and dated the later speech "four scenes later", which is four acts. A caption is a claim like any other and gets checked like one.

Alt text was written from looking at the images, not from the Commons description, which is why it describes the fallen unlit lantern and the pink flowers in the rocks. Descriptions inherited from a catalogue record describe the catalogue record.

---

Pamela Demory — "to queer, then, may be to adapt", and the same sentence adapted by its own author Link to this section

Quoted on: index.html, in To queer is to adapt and The sentence adapts itself. Four quotations from Demory, in two places, plus one phrase she is herself quoting.

1. The slash (2019), quoted in full:

To adapt is to modify, to evolve, to transform, to repeat, imitate, parody, make new. To queer something is to make it strange or odd, but also to turn or transform it. To queer, then, may be to adapt; to adapt is to queer.

2 and 3. Two phrases from the same page, quoted inline: "suffer from the stereotype of being secondary, somehow less authentic" (page 1), and "If we think of queer as a verb, as a doing rather than a being, then to queer something is to deconstruct it, to demonstrate the instability of all those apparently obvious oppositions" (page 3). The three oppositions the page then names — male/female, homosexuality/heterosexuality, normal/deviant — are given on our page as a list in our own sentence, not inside the quotation marks.

Source: Pamela Demory, "Queer/Adaptation: An Introduction", chapter 1, pages 1–14, in Queer/Adaptation: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Pamela Demory, Palgrave Studies in Adaptation and Visual Culture, Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-05306-2_1.

Verified: 2026-09-08, by extracting the full chapter text from the PDF held in the Stimpunks Knowledge System at inbox/Queer_Adaptation_An_Introduction.pdf and reading the sentences in place. All three are exact, including the unpunctuated tail of the first ("to repeat, imitate, parody, make new" — no to before the last three verbs, which is Demory's own acceleration and not a transcription slip). Page numbers read off the running heads in the scan.

4. The same sentence, five years later:

As argued elsewhere, queer and adaptation are parallel terms, both shaping the ways that we approach or reflect on given texts. In other words, 'To adapt is to modify … To queer something is to make it strange or odd … or transform it. To queer, then, may be to adapt' (Demory 2019).

Source: Pamela Demory, "Queering Emily Dickinson for the Millennial Age", chapter 10 of Adapting Television and Literature, ed. Blythe Worthy and Paul Sheehan, Palgrave Studies in Adaptation and Visual Culture, Palgrave Macmillan, 2024. DOI 10.1007/978-3-031-50832-5_10. The chapter reads Apple TV+'s Dickinson (2019–2021, created by Alena Smith).

Verified in two halves, 2026-09-08, and the second half is not the primary.

• The quoted-within part is verified against the primary. Every fragment inside Demory's single quotes matches the 2019 chapter word for word, and every ellipsis is honest. She cuts "to evolve, to transform, to repeat, imitate, parody, make new"; she cuts "but also to turn"; she cuts the returning half, "; to adapt is to queer". Nothing is altered, only removed, and every removal is marked. This was checked fragment by fragment against the PDF.
• The framing sentence is not. "As argued elsewhere, queer and adaptation are parallel terms, both shaping the ways that we approach or reflect on given texts" is Demory's 2024 prose, and the 2024 chapter is paywalled and is not held in SKS. It reaches this site as a transcription supplied by Ryan Boren with the Springer link attached. The chapter title, its author, its book, its editors, publisher, series, and year were all confirmed against Springer's own record and the book's catalogue listings; the sentence itself has not been read here against the page.

What to do about that. Nothing, unless the chapter becomes readable. It is recorded here rather than quietly shipped because the difference between "read in the primary" and "transcribed by a person we trust" is exactly what this file exists to keep visible. If a future session gets access to the 2024 chapter, read that first sentence and either confirm it here or fix the page.

Why this pair is on the front page at all. The 2024 quotation is a demonstration of the 2019 one. Demory adapts her own sentence — trims it to fit a new argument, keeps her name on it, and the sentence survives as something no longer identical to itself. That is the exact manoeuvre this file was written to police in other people's hands, and the thing that makes it legitimate rather than a misquotation is visible in the text: the ellipses. The front page says so.

One phrase quoted at one remove, and labelled as such. The page also carries "repetition, but repetition without replication", which is Linda Hutcheon's definition of adaptation (A Theory of Adaptation, page 7) as quoted by Demory on page 3 of the 2019 introduction. Hutcheon's own book has not been read here. The front page names both people and says the phrase is quoted in Demory's introduction, which is the honest form: the citation on the page claims only what was actually verified, which is that Demory quotes Hutcheon saying it.

---

Emily Dickinson — Wild nights – Wild nights!, the 1891 tidy, and two scans that were not two witnesses Link to this section

Quoted on: wild-nights.html (the poem, entire, and seven lines of it again in a comparison table).

The specimen. Wild nights – Wild nights! — Fr269, J249 — written about late 1861 and sewn into Fascicle 11. The manuscript is one leaf in ink at Houghton Library, Harvard University: MS Am 1118.3 (38b), in Poems: Packet VIII, Fascicle 11, catalogued by the Emily Dickinson Archive as F269A. The poem is public domain; the photograph of the leaf is not, and has its own entry below.

The text on the sheet is R. W. Franklin's reading of that leaf, as published in the Emily Dickinson Archive and printed identically by the Poetry Foundation from his Reading Edition (Belknap Press, 1999). The sheet names the edition in the label rather than claiming the manuscript, and that is deliberate — see the last section of this entry.

Verified: 2026-09-08.

• The facsimile was fetched from Harvard's own IIIF image service at full size (2480×3824) and read at native resolution, stanza by stanza.
• Page 97 of Poems, Second Series (1891) was rendered as images and the type read, in three separately scanned copies, because the findings here are single marks and a text extractor is not evidence about a mark.
• Franklin's reading, EDA's transcription and the Poetry Foundation's text were compared character by character and agree.

The finding: the first printing tidied nine dashes down to one.

Nine dashes go in and one comes out — the em dash closing line 6, and it has acquired a comma in front of it. Four of her capitals are lowered: Heart, Compass, Chart, Sea. Eden keeps its capital because Eden is a proper noun in anybody's grammar and the other four were only proper nouns in hers. Three exclamation marks and three commas are added; a full stop replaces the exclamation at the end of stanza 2. Counting the marks rather than the changes: her five exclamation points become seven.

Three things on the 1891 page that are the volume's typography and not hers, all normalised on the sheet and all said out loud on it:

1. A two-line drop cap. The poem opens WILD nights ! after a large initial W, which is how the volume opens every poem. The word is Wild.
2. The same initial is why line 2 sits inset. Were I with thee, is set beside the drop cap, not indented by an editor. Do not "restore" that indent as an editorial choice — it is a consequence of the W.
3. A space before every exclamation mark, all through the book — the same French spacing as the 1896 Rossetti volume two entries up. House style of the volume, not her pointing.

The lineation is not a tidy, and the sheet says so. Dickinson wrote Might I but moor – and ran out of leaf, so Tonight – went on the line below. Franklin records that division in his textual notes (Division / 11 moor - |) and reads through it. Todd and Higginson set what was in front of them. One editor reproduced the poem and the other reproduced the leaf, and both are defensible. Do not "fix" the sheet by calling 1891 wrong about line 11.

The circulating text, and a word missing from it. The Academy of American Poets, read on 2026-09-08 out of the live DOM rather than out of a summary, prints a composite: the dashes restored, heart / compass / chart / sea still lower case from 1891, Ah, the sea! with a comma that is in neither, Wild Nights capitalized where neither the leaf nor 1891 capitalizes it, and line 11 as Might I moor – Tonight –.

The word but is gone, and it is the hinge of the line: might I but moor is a plea with a limit built into it, might I moor is a request for permission to dock. The page names no edition, no editor and no date, and says only "This poem is in the public domain," which is true of the poem and tells a reader nothing about the text. This is the Woolf edition trap and the Rossetti colon arriving a third time. Name the printing, or do not quote.

And the methodological finding, which matters more than any of the above. Page 97 was read in three scanned copies. The first two — the Internet Archive items poemsbyemilyd00dickrich (via the Commons DjVu.djvu), which is derived from it) and poemssecondserie00dickrich — agree with each other and are wrong. A broken piece of type makes line 11 read mocr instead of moor, identically in both, and it is unambiguous at native resolution. Both are digitised from University of California Libraries holdings. The University of Toronto copy has the word intact.

Two scans that agree are not two witnesses if they came out of one library. The Rossetti entry above says "two separately scanned copies" and it meant two libraries; that was luck of phrasing rather than precision, and this sheet nearly published a broken letter as a variant reading before the third copy was pulled. The rule, restated so the next session cannot miss it: corroboration means a different physical copy from a different holding institution digitised by a different pipeline. Two of those three is not enough. mocr is named on the sheet as a press defect and nowhere claimed as a reading.

What is not claimed. We read the facsimile and we are not setting our own readings of her marks against Franklin's. What is on the leaf is a great many short strokes of varying length and angle, some of which are dashes, some of which are exclamation points and some of which are the tail of the letter before them; the sheet says this in as many words. The dashes are set as spaced en dashes, which is a rendering convention and is disclosed in the poem's caption. If a future session wants to make a claim about a particular mark on this leaf, it needs Franklin's variorum apparatus and Johnson's, not an afternoon with the JPEG.

---

T. W. Higginson to Mabel Loomis Todd, 21 April 1891 — the letter about this poem Link to this section

Quoted on: wild-nights.html, two paragraphs of the letter.

Let us alter as little as possible, now that the public ear is opened.

One poem only I dread a little to print—that wonderful "Wild Nights,"—lest the malignant read into it more than that virgin recluse ever dreamed of putting there. Has Miss Lavinia any shrinking about it? You will understand & pardon my solicitude. Yet what a loss to omit it! Indeed it is not to be omitted.

Source: Thomas Wentworth Higginson to Mabel Loomis Todd, headed 25 Buckingham St. / Cambridge, Mass. / Apr. 21, 1891, printed in Millicent Todd Bingham, Ancestors' Brocades: The Literary Debut of Emily Dickinson (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1945), page 127.

Verified: 2026-09-08, by rendering page 127 of the scan held at archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.29377 as an image and reading the type, not from the OCR — the OCR of that page mangles the ampersand to &: and the footnote marker to ®, which is exactly the kind of noise that turns into a false quotation. The salutation is small-capped DEAR FRIEND; the em dashes are closed up as printed and the sheet says so, because house style spaces them and a quotation keeps its own pointing.

Bingham's own footnote corroborates the page. Her note 5 on that sentence reads Poems, Second Series, p. 97 — the same page we read in three copies for the entry above, arrived at independently.

Two things the sheet says about this letter, and one it does not. It says Higginson knew exactly what was in the poem — the apparatus of denial and the decision to publish are in the same paragraph — and it says he wrote let us alter as little as possible two lines before the poem reached the press with eight of its nine dashes gone. It does not say Higginson made those changes. Nothing read here establishes whether the pointing on page 97 is his, Todd's, or the compositor's, and the sheet leaves that open rather than pinning it on the man whose letter we happen to have.

Miss Lavinia is Lavinia Dickinson, the poet's sister, identified in the caption.

---

The manuscript image — Houghton Library, and the first plate here that is not public domain Link to this section

Mounted on: wild-nights.html.

File: images/dickinson-1861-wild-nights-houghton-ms-am-1118-3-38b.jpg, 1400×2159.

Credit, in the form the archive requires: Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA — Poems: Packet VIII, Fascicle 11. Includes 20 poems, written in ink, ca. 1861, MS Am 1118.3 (38b). Emily Dickinson Archive, <https://www.edickinson.org>.

Licence: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. The archive's Copyright & Terms of Use page, read 2026-09-08, states that images of manuscripts, attribution information and transcriptions on the site are governed by that licence, that no permission is needed for "personal research, in-class teaching purposes, school projects and assignments, blog posts, or other non-commercial uses", and that the material "must be used with accompanying credit line to the owning institution".

How the three licence conditions are met, so that a later session does not undo one of them by accident:

• BY — the credit line above is in the plate's caption, with the catalogue record and the archive both linked.
• NC — queering.earth carries no advertising and sells nothing.
• ND — the file is unaltered. It is not cropped, rotated, colour-corrected or resampled by us. It was requested from Harvard's own IIIF image service at /full/1400,/0/default.jpg, so the scaling was performed by the rightsholder's server and the bytes on disk are the bytes they returned. If a future pass wants a different size, ask their service for it — do not resize this file locally.

This is the first thing mounted on this site that is not in the public domain, and the sheet says so in What this sheet will not tidy. The poem is public domain; the photograph is offered under a licence, and we take the archive at its word rather than arguing about whether a photograph of a flat public-domain manuscript can carry a copyright of its own. That is a decision about how this site behaves rather than a legal opinion, and it is recorded in DECISIONS.md.

One thing we did not do. EDA also asks that reuse of "edited texts, as presented in the Johnson or Franklin volumes" be taken up with Harvard University Press. The sheet quotes a twelve-line public-domain poem in a critical reading, names the edition at every use, and links the archive — the same footing as the Arden text on the Miranda sheet. The transcription is credited to Franklin and never presented as ours.

---

The terms quoted on the Dickinson sheet, and who coined each one Link to this section

Quoted on: wild-nights.html. Seven sources, three of them at one remove and all three labelled as such on the sheet itself. Verified: 2026-09-08. Every DOI below was resolved through DOI content negotiation and the title, authors, journal, volume, issue, pages and year read off the registered record — the first draft of this sheet carried three citations written from memory and two of them were wrong, which is the reason this paragraph exists.

Three citation errors caught before the sheet shipped, all of them written from memory into the first draft and all of them the shape this file exists to catch:

1. A fabricated DOI for the Hogenkamp paper — 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1546642, a plausible Frontiers identifier for a paper that is in Autism in Adulthood. A DOI invented to look right is the worst thing on this list, because it resolves to somebody else's work.
2. The Walker interview as aut.2021.29014.njw. The registered DOI is aut.2020.29014.njw — the article is 2021 and the identifier is 2020, which is exactly the trap.
3. A wrong Medium slug for the Trauma Geek piece. The right one is the glossary's own link and it was there to be copied all along.

Standing rule, which is the Miranda lesson in a new place: a DOI, a slug, a volume number and a page range are claims like any other. Resolve them, or take them verbatim from the page you actually read. Never type one from memory.

Why belonging is credited to the glossary and not to a person. The passage quoted — "Belonging means more than being included…" — sits in the Stimpunks glossary entry between a webinar link and a quotation from Hari Srinivasan (2026), and carries no byline of its own within the entry. Rather than attach it to whichever neighbour is nearest, the sheet credits the glossary and says in the caption that it is doing so. If a future session establishes an author for that paragraph, credit the person and fix the caption.

Two extensions on the sheet that are ours, and are labelled ours. Both are in What this sheet will not tidy:

• Limerence requited is not limerence. Tennov's term is defined by uncertainty and is "almost always one-sided". The reply asks for the intensity with the uncertainty removed, which is a different thing needing a different name. The credit for limerence stays with Tennov and the requited version is named as ours. If we changed the meaning while keeping the word, the rule is the same as if we had changed the words.
• Helen's assemblage runs the other way. Her sentence is about moving "away from restrictive assemblages" — Deleuze and Guattari's lines of flight — and the reply's "realest assemblage" is one worth arriving at. The word covers both in Deleuze and Guattari, so this is an extension rather than a misuse, and the sheet says which direction each of the two sentences runs.

---

Ryan Boren's reply in verse — our own words, and the punctuation we added Link to this section

On: wild-nights.html, thirty-two lines in two .qe-verse blocks.

The verse is Ryan Boren's, written for a person rather than for a readership, and mounted at his request. His instruction was explicit: "Don't revise my writing above except to give the verse proper poetic formatting/punctuation."

What was changed, in full, because an unmarked edit of our own text is the same failure as an unmarked edit of somebody else's — the rule the coming-to-terms label already sets:

• Nothing else. No word was added, removed, reordered or replaced. No line break was moved. His line-initial capitals are his and are kept exactly, including the lower-case continuation lines (that we co-make, segued to the calm, held not in tension, that has been requited and matched).
• Terminal full stops added to the four stanzas that had none: after Regulated peace, A love-tangled spiral, Woven delightfully, and And be our realest assemblage.
• Commas added after Calm quiescence, Denouement after arrival, In your heart and your body, In your mind and your soul, and that has been requited and matched.
• One full stop added mid-stanza, after Nor our constructs of gender, because Let's rest the guise begins a new sentence.

The sheet's label carries the row Reply in verse — Ryan Boren. Punctuation set for print; the words and the line breaks are his. That row is the disclosure and it is not decorative. If the verse is ever edited further, the row and this entry both need changing.

The links inside the verse are ours, not his prosody. co-regulation, Stimmy, glimmers, Somatic, limerence and assemblage are anchored to the glossary and to Helen's page. They add no words and change no line.

---

Sarah Prager (2020) — the set of four, and the sentence we quote of hers Link to this section

Quoted on: flower-codes.html, index.html

The whole of Sheet No. 7 exists because Prager put violet, pansy, green carnation and lavender on one table in Four Flowering Plants That Have Been Decidedly Queered, JSTOR Daily, 29 January 2020. The gathering is hers and is credited as hers on both pages. The reading — that the four are one process caught at four moments — is ours.

Two sentences of hers are quoted directly, both read from the live article on 2026-09-08 by fetching the page and reading the body text rather than a summary of it:

The green carnation became a queer symbol in 1892 when Oscar Wilde instructed a handful of his friends to wear them on their lapels to the opening night of his comedy Lady Windermere's Fan.

One of the most notable uses of "lavender" comes from the historian Carl Sandburg, who wrote in 1926 of Abraham Lincoln: "A streak of lavender ran through him; he had spots soft as May violets."

Read the article, not a summary of it. The first pass at this sheet took her Sandburg sentence from an automated summary of the page, which rendered it accurately but would not have supported quoting her. A summariser is a transcription, and this ledger already holds an entry (the Kelly/Eno warning inherited from Star Stuff) about what transcriptions do to wording. The quotations above come from the article's own HTML.

---

Carl Sandburg (1926) — the streak of lavender, and the man it is about Link to this section

Quoted on: flower-codes.html

Joshua Speed was a deep-chested man of large sockets, with broad measurement between the ears. A streak of lavender ran through him; he had spots soft as May violets. And he and Abraham Lincoln told each other their secrets about women. Lincoln too had tough physical shanks and large sockets, also a streak of lavender, and spots soft as May violets.

Source: Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years, volume 1 (Harcourt, Brace, 1926), page 265, opening Chapter 54. On page 266 the figure returns for both men at once: "had given these two men streaks of lavender, spots soft as May violets."

Verified: 2026-09-08, in two independently digitised copies from different holding institutions: the University of British Columbia Library's copy, scanned at the University of Toronto (abrahamlincolnpr01sand), and an Internet Archive copy scanned at Cebu (abrahamlincolnpr0001carl). Both read identically; the only differences are OCR artefacts on the word May. 1926 first-edition text, US public domain.

Three further Internet Archive copies were checked first and thrown out as witnesses. All three were scanned at the same centre, which is one pipeline and therefore one witness. That is the rule the Dickinson entry in this file wrote down after two copies from the same library agreed on a broken piece of type; this is the first time it has been applied before an error rather than after one.

The correction, and it is the point of the sheet. The sentence in circulation — including in Prager's article, and in a great many other places — is presented as Sandburg writing of Abraham Lincoln. The words are exactly Sandburg's and the "him" is Joshua Speed. Sandburg does extend the figure to Lincoln, in the next sentence but one and again on the following page, in different words each time.

This is not a fabrication and must not be written up as one. No word was altered, the author, book and year are right, and Sandburg did say it of Lincoln too, so the substance of the claim survives intact. What moved is the referent. Prager names Speed in her very next sentence and her book is partly about him, so this is compression in a much-retold line rather than ignorance — which is precisely why the sheet frames it as the site's own failure mode found in the wild, and not as a gotcha. If this entry is ever summarised, keep that framing with it.

---

Lord Alfred Douglas — Two Loves, and the line the court flattened Link to this section

Quoted on: flower-codes.html. The sheet's title is taken from line 3.

I dreamed I stood upon a little hill, / And at my feet there lay a ground, that seemed / Like a waste garden, flowering at its will / With buds and blossoms. There were pools that dreamed / Black and unruffled; there were white lilies / A few, and crocuses, and violets / Purple or pale, snake-like fritillaries / Scarce seen for the rank grass…

Source: Lord Alfred Douglas, Two Loves, first published in The Chameleon, December

1894. Public domain.

Verified: 2026-09-08, from the Wikisource transcription), read as raw wikitext rather than through a summariser. This is a single transcription and not a scan, which is weaker than everything else on this sheet. It is recorded here as such.

Corroborated in part. The poem's existence, its title, its author and its venue — The Chameleon, alongside Douglas's In Praise of Shame — are confirmed independently in The Trial of Oscar Wilde: From the Shorthand Reports (Paris, privately printed, 1906), read from the Internet Archive scan trialofoscarwild00wildrich. The final line is quoted there in court, which corroborates that line and no other.

A real variant, and the sheet makes something of it. The poem reads "I am the Love that dare not speak its name" — capitalised, a personified figure who has just given his name. The 1906 shorthand report has prosecuting counsel quoting it as "the love", lower case. The sheet quotes each source with its own capitalisation and says what the difference does.

Open, and cheap to close: a scan of The Chameleon itself would upgrade the garden lines from one transcription to a primary. Not found in the sources searched on 2026-09-08.

---

Wilde's answer in court, April 1895 Link to this section

Quoted on: flower-codes.html

Mr. Gill. — "I daresay! There is another sonnet. What construction can be put on the line, 'I am the love that dare not speak its name'?"

Witness. — "I think the writer's meaning is quite unambiguous. The love he alluded to was that between an elder and younger man, as between David and Jonathan; such love as Plato made the basis of his philosophy; such as was sung in the sonnets of Shakespeare and Michael Angelo; that deep spiritual affection that was as pure as it was perfect."

Source: The Trial of Oscar Wilde: From the Shorthand Reports (Paris, privately printed, 1906), pages 58–59. Public domain.

Verified: 2026-09-08, from the Internet Archive scan trialofoscarwild00wildrich, read as OCR text. The answer is quoted from where it is cut, not to where it ends — Wilde's speech continues past "perfect" for two more sentences. Stopping a quotation early at a sentence boundary needs no mark by ordinary practice, but an ellipsis is set there anyway and the caption says why, because this is a sheet about quotations that got shorter on their way through the world. If a future pass wants the rest, it is in the same paragraph. The reporter's own note that Wilde spoke "with great emphasis and some signs of emotion" and that the gallery answered with "a medley of applause and hisses" is quoted in the caption from the same page.

One thing the sheet corrects in passing: Gill calls Two Loves a sonnet in open court. It is not one. The sheet says so.

---

Alcaeus on Sappho, and Wharton's note on garlands Link to this section

Quoted on: flower-codes.html

Violet-weaving, pure, soft-smiling Sappho, I want to say something, but shame prevents me…

Source: Henry Thornton Wharton, Sappho: Memoir, Text, Selected Renderings and a Literal Translation (London, 1885), rendering a fragment of Alcaeus. Wharton glosses the epithet ἰόπλοκος as "violet-weaving" and notes the manuscript variant ἰοπλόκαμος, "with violet locks". The second quotation, "that plaiting wreaths was a sign of being in love," is Wharton's rendering of the ancient commentary on a different fragment. Public domain.

Verified: 2026-09-08, from the Project Gutenberg text of Wharton (ebook 57390).

Two things the sheet is careful about. The epithet is Alcaeus describing Sappho, not Sappho describing herself, and the sheet says so. And the famous "many crowns of violets" fragment is not in Wharton at all — its fuller text came off a papyrus published in 1902, seventeen years after this edition — so it is not quoted here. A later pass wanting that fragment needs a post-1902 public-domain translation, not this one.

---

The four botanical plates on the flower codes sheet Link to this section

Mounted on: flower-codes.html

All four are public domain in the United States and all four are captioned with artist, publication and year on the page.

Both of the flagged plates are captioned with the problem on the page, in the caption, not in this file only. The violet is an American species standing in for a Mediterranean one and the caption says so. The carnations are pink and white because a green carnation is a white one stood in dye — no botanical plate of the flower Wilde's friends wore exists or could. Mounting either without the caption would be the quiet generalization this file exists to catch: an object standing in for a different object with the label left attached.

The violet is logged as Open, below.

---

Claims on the flower codes sheet that are named as somebody else's and not asserted Link to this section

On: flower-codes.html

The sheet's own rule, stated in a note on the page: where a claim belongs to a scholar and we have not read the primary, the claim is named as theirs and not repeated as ours. What that covers, all of it from Prager's article:

• Wilde and the green carnations at Lady Windermere's Fan, 1892. Quoted as her sentence, in quotation marks, with "we have not read that back to a primary and do not assert it here as our own" beside it.
• George Chauncey and the pansy craze. Named as the source Prager cites, with Gay New York named as where the account lives, and "we have not read it, so we are pointing at it rather than reporting it."
• The violets in The Captive, 1926; the Lavender Scare; Betty Friedan's "lavender menace"; the Lavender Menace action of 1970. Listed on the sheet as things her article carries, with the reader sent to her for them. The closing section says plainly that the taking-back of lavender "is Prager's to tell in her piece and the historians' to tell in theirs; we have not read it to a primary and so we do not tell it here."

The .qe-drift list near the foot of the sheet is the one place this gets close to the line. Its lavender card compresses the arc into "a purge in the 1950s, an insult meant to frighten a movement in 1969, and a slogan printed on a shirt in 1970" — dates that come from Prager and are not sourced on our page. It reads as summary rather than assertion and the paragraph immediately under it disclaims it, but if any part of this sheet needs a credit-source pass before it grows, it is that card.

---

The pansy etymology Link to this section

On: flower-codes.html

thought, remembrance

regarded as a symbol of thought or remembrance

Source: the Online Etymology Dictionary entry for pansy, read 2026-09-08. Old French pensee/pencee, from penser "to think", from Latin pensare "consider"; into English mid-15c. as pense; the slang sense "recorded by 1929", which is linked at the point of use on the page.

Not a dictionary of record. Etymonline is a compilation, and for a claim carrying this much of a section's weight the OED would be better. The derivation is uncontroversial and the 1929 date is the load-bearing part, since it is what puts the word's turn inside the same decade as the drag scene that took the flower's name. If anyone here has OED access, this is a five-minute upgrade.

---

The labels treatment on the Coming to Terms sheet — seven sources, and which copy each came from Link to this section

Quoted on: coming-to-terms.html, in the section appended below Ryan's 2022 essay.

Verified: 2026-09-08. Six of the seven below were read in the work they come from. The seventh is a transcription of speech from a video and is labelled as one, on the page and here. Jordynn Jack's Gender Copia, the eighth source on that section, has its own entry after this one, because it is the one that started the day unreachable and did not stay that way.

What the "not from our own library" rule does and does not mean, corrected 2026-09-08. This entry first said the Stimpunks glossary pages were "the pointer, not the authority" and left it there, which is too strong and was corrected on Ryan Boren's objection. The rule exists to stop our own prose — a glossary gloss, a summary, a paraphrase — being read back as somebody else's wording; that is the Kelly-on-Eno scenius failure, where the thing being confirmed was a rewrite. A direct quotation Ryan transcribed from a paper he read, published with a citation to that paper, is not that. It is a first-hand reading with the source named, and treating it as unusable would throw out years of legitimate collecting and quietly assert that he did not read what he says he read.

So the working rule here is: re-reading is an upgrade, not a precondition. Where the primary is reachable, read it and say which copy — that is what happened with all six below, and it is what turned up the edition difference in the Jack entry. Where it is not reachable, a Stimpunks quotation with its citation attached is quotable, and the sheet says whose transcription it is. Papers get rented. Access lapses. The citation is the thing that has to be right.

1. Sonny Jane Wise — the smorgasbord.

If we're rolling with the analogy of a smorgasbord, there are a lot of different ingredients that make up the diversity of our minds. You could say each individual is a plate of various ingredients and tasty treats. Each of us are our own unique combination of ingredients and there are infinite combinations of ingredients.

Sonny Jane Wise (they/them), The Neurodiversity Smorgasbord: An Alternative Framework for Understanding Differences Outside of Diagnostic Labels, Lived Experience Educator. Read from the live page. "Each of us are" is theirs and is kept — the sentence is not tidied to agree. The date on the sheet, 27 September 2024, is the page's own datePublished; the page prints only "27 September" in its visible furniture, so the year comes from the site's structured data and nothing else.

2. Florence Ashley — the building materials.

To arrive at a gender identity, we arrange gender subjectivity like building materials. My theory helps us understand how different people offer seemingly incompatible accounts of their gender identity without questioning their authenticity or validity. They simply arrange similar building materials differently.

Florence Ashley, "What Is It like to Have a Gender Identity?", Mind 132:528, 1053–1073, doi:10.1093/mind/fzac071. Read in the published PDF hosted by the author at florenceashley.com, whose running head reads Mind, Vol. 132 · 528 · October 2023 and whose first page carries the DOI. The passage is the abstract, and the sheet says so. Pages and issue confirmed against Crossref; the month on the sheet is the one printed on the article itself, not Crossref's later print date.

3. Ira David Socol — the hinge.

Only when people get to choose their own labels will we get anywhere toward building an equitable culture.

Ira David Socol, guest post Using "Correct Language" And "People First", Bowllan's Blog, School Library Journal, 12 May 2009. The original address no longer resolves; read in the Internet Archive capture of 4 March 2021, which the sheet cites as such. It is the closing sentence of the post, immediately before the author's biographical note.

4. Nick Walker — the verb, then the adjective.

And, just like queer, the adjective form of neuroqueer can also serve as a label of social identity. One can neuroqueer, and one can be neuroqueer.

Or, to put it more concisely (but perhaps more confusingly): you're neuroqueer if you neuroqueer.

Nick Walker, Neuroqueer: An Introduction, neuroqueer.com. Read from the page, which states it was first published Spring 2015 and revised Summer 2021, and which points readers to Neuroqueer Heresies for the citable version. The italics are his and are reproduced, including the italic be — which is the whole point of the sentence and would vanish in a plain-text copy. Two paragraphs, not adjacent in the original: one intervening paragraph is elided and the sheet sets them as two blocks rather than running them together. Same source as the masthead quotation already logged above; Walker uses he/him.

5. Helen Edgar — the wrong object.

However, it is not labels that disable us or our children, it is the bureaucratic structure that attaches value and resources to labels rather than to authentic needs. When a child is only seen as deserving of support once labelled, the problem lies with the gatekeeping logic and finances of the institution and system, not the real identity and needs of the child.

and, on the slip wall:

Labels can become barriers when used inflexibly or in a pathologizing way.

Labels can also be liberating when used to affirm identity, understanding, and belonging when adopting a neuro-affirming approach.

Helen Edgar, Inclusion Needs Recognition, Not Erasure: A Neurodiversity-Affirming Approach, Autistic Realms, 18 October 2025. Read from the live page; the date is its datePublished. The byline reads "Helen Edgar (Autistic Realms) following a conversation with David Gray-Hammond". "pathologizing" is spelt with a z in the original, against the -ise spelling used elsewhere on her site, and is kept. The two slip sentences are consecutive lines in the original and she does not choose between them, which is why both are on the same slip rather than one being spent as the site's own conclusion.

A nearby sentence of hers — "Labels aren't everything but they can go a long way…" — was not quoted, because the same sentence contains "Autisic", a typo, and quoting it would mean either reproducing the typo, silently fixing it, or hanging a [sic] on a colleague. None of those three is worth it when the better sentence is two paragraphs down.

6. autisticltd — the shedding.

A list of words and identities doesn't really begin to scratch the surface of my experience and it's making me more insular than I'd like.

I'm reveling in the shedding of labels whilst appreciating the immense privilege I have to know who I am, to have words for my experiences, and the resources to find my own.

Shedding my labels, Autistic and Living the Dream, 4 March 2024. The blog carries no personal name. The post byline is the handle autisticltd, the contact page 404s, and no name appears in the page metadata; the sheet cites the handle and says on the page that it is doing so. That is a choice to respect, not a gap to fill — if a name is later published by its owner, this entry and the sheet can be updated together. "reveling" is spelt with one l in the original and is kept.

7. The Leftist Cooks — the buffet.

Language is not a set menu, it's a buffet.

Spider-Verse, Identity Politics, Leftist Infighting, and the Oppression Olympics, The Leftist Cooks, YouTube, uploaded 20 August 2023 — channel and upload date confirmed from the watch page. The wording is Ryan Boren's transcription, taken down while watching and published on the Stimpunks glossary.

This one was cut from the first draft and then put back. It was cut because every route to the caption track returned empty, so the wording could not be re-checked against the video: the en and en-asr tracks both return zero bytes to every format parameter. That is a reason to label the quotation, not to bin it. A spoken line has no authoritative text at all — there is no printing to go back to, only somebody's ear — and the citation names the video, the channel and the date, which is everything a reader needs to go and listen. So the sheet carries it with the transcription attributed on the page.

What is not done, in either direction. The line is not smoothed, and the buffet/set-menu construction is not reworded into our own prose either. Borrowing the figure while dropping the name would be the same taking with the credit filed off, and it is the move this file exists to catch.

---

Jordynn Jack — Gender Copia, and the two editions that punctuate it differently Link to this section

Quoted on: coming-to-terms.html, the section A copia, not a category — one block quotation from p. 3 and three inline quotations, two from p. 3 and one from the Conclusions on p. 14.

Source: Jordynn Jack, "Gender Copia: Feminist Rhetorical Perspectives on an Autistic Concept of Sex/Gender", Women's Studies in Communication 35:1 (2012), 1–17, doi:10.1080/07491409.2012.667519. Department of English and Comparative Literature, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Verified: 2026-09-08, by reading a scan of the printed article, supplied by Ryan Boren into the SKS inbox mid-session after this entry had been opened as a gap. Pages read: 1–4 and 13–16, which covers the abstract, the copia passage, the Conclusions, and the works-cited list. The running head on p. 1 gives the volume, pages and year directly; the issue number is Crossref's.

This entry began life in Open and said the article was unreachable. It was: OpenAlex reported no open copy, Semantic Scholar's abstract field is elided by the publisher, tandfonline returns 403, and every hit in our own library was one of our own pages quoting it. The sheet therefore described Jack's argument and said in the same breath that it was describing rather than quoting. The scan changed that, and the section was rewritten to quote her. Worth leaving on the record that the gap was named on the page before it was closed, because that is the behaviour this file is trying to make ordinary.

Jack writes autistic in lower case. House style here capitalizes it. Her sentences are reproduced as she set them, and the sheet says so in the caption, because the alternative is correcting a scholar's usage inside her own quotation marks.

The edition finding: slashes in print, equals signs in the digital text.

The passages as quoted on the Stimpunks glossary pages this material was gathered from read masculine=feminine, sex=gender, male=female, nature=culture, and symbolic=embodied. The printed pages read masculine/feminine, sex/gender, male/female, nature/culture, and symbolic/embodied.

Neither is a mistake, and this is not a correction of Stimpunks. Ryan Boren states that his piece quoted directly from the paper and that the wording is exact to the edition he read, and that is the better authority for what that edition says — the same principle already applied to Nick Walker's pronouns above. A solidus rendering as = is an ordinary artifact of a publisher's own digital typesetting, and the title of the very same article is Sex/Gender in both. So: two renderings of one text, both real, and a quotation is only correct once it is attached to the copy it came from.

Queering Earth quotes the print pages, because the print pages are what this session read, and the caption on the sheet names that copy. Do not "fix" the Stimpunks glossary against this entry, and do not fix this entry against the glossary. This is the Woolf trap in miniature: tidying either one against the other produces a quotation that is wrong while looking more careful than the alternative. If a future session wants the digital edition's characters on the page instead, it needs to cite the digital edition.

Erasmus, at one remove. Jack's "(17)" is a page reference to Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam: On Copia of Words and Ideas, ed. Donald King and David Rix (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1963), read off her works-cited list on p. 16 and cited on the sheet as she cites it. We have not opened that book, and nothing on the sheet quotes Erasmus — the sentence about his two books, one on abundance of words and one on abundance of matter, is our own gloss and is supported by the title alone. An earlier draft dated De copia to 1512 and linked a 1521 Strasbourg scan; the date came from a tertiary source and is gone.

---

Stimpunks Foundation — kintsugi, and the line this site's seam came from Link to this section

Quoted on: design.html, in Age, and where the gold goes

Four quotations, all from the same page, all exact:

The cracks are where the gold goes.

we are not broken. We are kintsugi.

Kintsugi doesn't restore the original object. It makes something that couldn't have existed without the break.

Masking is the opposite of Kintsugi.

Source: Stimpunks Foundation, "Infodumplings: Kintsugi and Finding the Gold Within You", 6 May 2026.

Verified: 2026-09-09, against the mirrored post in SKS (site/stimpunks-org/posts/infodumplings-kintsugi-and-finding-the-gold-within-you.md, whose frontmatter carries the canonical URL above). The mirror is our own publication, so this is the one case where SKS is the primary — it is a copy of a page we wrote.

Capitalization preserved. "Masking is the opposite of Kintsugi" carries a mid-sentence capital K, and "we are not broken" opens lower-case because it is a fragment of "The thesis: we are not broken. We are kintsugi." Both are left as published, per the house rule on quotations.

Why this entry exists at all, when nobody asked for it. The kintsugi device on this site — --qe-marigold spent on a correction rather than on a mounting — was designed on 2026-09-09 from a general reading of kintsugi, and the working notes, the commit message, and the register entry all described it in our own words: the gold goes on the mend. Then a library search turned up our own foundation's page on kintsugi, published four months earlier, saying "The cracks are where the gold goes."

Nobody plagiarised anything. But a house phrase already existed, we had reinvented a near copy of it, and the version that would have shipped read as though the idea originated in a stylesheet. Over-crediting others and under-claiming for ourselves is the safe direction, and it applies to our own colleagues at least as much as to strangers. The page now cites theirs and calls ours the small version.

And it supplied the argument the design page was missing. "Masking is the opposite of Kintsugi" is what makes this device belong on a site about queering normativity rather than being imported warmth: a site about the cost of passing cannot file its own corrections where only maintainers can read them. That sentence is theirs. The application to an accession register is ours, and the page says which is which.

---

Hisamatsu Shin'ichi — the seven characteristics, at one remove and with the name unsettled Link to this section

Credited on: design.html, in Wabi-sabi, and which parts of it we can actually claim

The seven principles the section scores against are attributed to Hisamatsu Shin'ichi, Zen and the Fine Arts, Kodansha International, 1971 (ISBN 0870111507; English translation by Tokiwa Gishin). Hisamatsu (1889–1980) was a Zen philosopher at Kyoto University who studied under Nishida Kitarō and founded the FAS Society.

We have not read it. The seven reach this site through a peer-reviewed paper that cites it:

Source (secondary, and named as such on the page): Lomas, T., Etcoff, N., Van Gordon, W., & Shonin, E. (2017). Zen and the Art of Living Mindfully: The Health-Enhancing Potential of Zen Aesthetics. Journal of Religion and Health, 56(5), 1720–1739. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-017-0446-5>

Verified: 2026-09-09. The citation was pinned from Crossref's own record for that DOI rather than from a search summary — volume 56, issue 5, pages 1720–1739 — because the Wassell entry above is this ledger's standing lesson about online-first dates and unpaginated PDFs. The set of seven was cross-checked against three independent renderings. The paper itself was not read in full, and neither was Hisamatsu; nothing on the page is presented as either source's wording.

Three things the page says out loud rather than smoothing over.

1. The seven are not wabi-sabi's. They are characteristics of Zen art. The list circulates online as "the seven principles of wabi-sabi", which is a relabelling that happened in transmission — Zen aesthetics and wabi-sabi overlap and are not the same thing.

2. The third one's name is unsettled and we could not settle it. Lomas et al. give koko (austere sublimity). Another rendering of the same seven gives shibui/shibumi (lofty dryness) in the same slot, with the same sense. The page uses koko, says the renderings disagree, and says it cannot resolve it from here. Only the book can.

This corrects a claim we made earlier the same day. The first version of the 2026-09-09 register entry and decision log stated flatly that the design article had swapped shibui in where Hisamatsu has koko. That is not established — at least one rendering of Hisamatsu gives shibui for that characteristic. The confident version was written from memory before anything was checked, which is precisely the failure mode this file exists for, and it was caught by the decision log's own instruction to verify before the claim reached public copy. Corrected in DECISIONS.md, in changelog.html, and here.

3. What survives the correction, because it is checkable. Whatever the term should be, the design advice that prompted all this glosses its third principle as quiet, unobtrusive beauty revealing depth over time — a definition with no age in it. That is a statement about two texts a reader can open, and it needs no ruling on Hisamatsu's vocabulary. It is also the reason "patina" recurs in that literature without ever becoming a principle.

Not cited for anything it does not support. Leonard Koren's Wabi-Sabi for Artists, Designers, Poets & Philosophers (Stone Bridge Press, 1994) is named on the page as the book through which wabi-sabi reached English-language design writing, and for nothing else. We have not read it either, so the page makes no claim about what Koren does or does not enumerate — which is the specific temptation here, since several secondary summaries attribute "seven principles" to him too.

---

Emily Dickinson — Letter 997, and three small changes on the way to us Link to this section

Quoted on: monotropa-uniflora.html

That without suspecting it you should send me the preferred flower of life, seems almost supernatural, and the sweet glee that I felt at meeting it, I could confide to none. I still cherish the clutch with which I bore it from the ground when a wondering Child, an unearthly booty, and maturity only enhances mystery, never decreases it.

Source: Emily Dickinson to Mabel Loomis Todd, 30 September 1882 — Letter 997 in The Letters of Emily Dickinson, p. 689. AC 765, in pencil; first published in Letters (1894); postmarked 30 September 1882. Todd had sent her a painted panel of Indian pipes on 24 September.

Verified: 2026-09-09, by Ryan Boren, from his own copy of the Letters. The sheet quotes the first two sentences only and the primary continues.

Three differences from the version we started with. The reading of this letter in general circulation — including the More Realms essay this sheet follows — differs from the Letters text in three places:

A dash where there was a full stop, a capital lowercased, and a word inserted. Nobody did this on purpose and it is the most ordinary thing in the world — it is what happens to a quotation copied from a copy. It is recorded here for one reason: the sheet's own subject is that Dickinson's punctuation and capitals were regularised by her first editors, and here is the same three-part drift happening to the same writer in 2026, in a friendly source, at a scale of three characters. The pattern is the finding, not the fault. Our text follows the Letters.

Not corrected on More Realms from here. Helen's essay is hers. Logged in DECISIONS.md as an open item for a session in that repo.

---

Emily Dickinson — 'Tis whiter than an Indian pipe, and the alternatives 1896 adopted Link to this section

Quoted on: monotropa-uniflora.html, mounted in full

Source: About 1879, in pencil on a fragment of stationery — Amherst Manuscript 483. Text from R. W. Franklin, The Poems of Emily Dickinson: Variorum Edition (Belknap Press, 1998), Fr1513A, as published in the Emily Dickinson Archive.

Verified: 2026-09-09, against Franklin's text and textual notes in the Archive record. The rendering in the More Realms essay matches Franklin word for word; only the dash glyphs differ, which is typesetting rather than text.

Dickinson left alternatives, and the first printing took two of them. Franklin records three: imply] denote (line 5), intimate] designate (line 6), What function] What customs (line 8). The Archive's publication history reads: "Poems (1896), 156, as three quatrains, with the alternatives for lines 5 and 8 adopted." So the version that circulated for decades reads denote and What customs, and neither is an error — she wrote both. An editor resolving a poet's options silently and printing the result as the poem is the same move as removing her dashes, which is the subject of Sheet No. 6, and the sheet says so.

---

Virginia Woolf — the androgynous mind, and a hedge worth keeping Link to this section

Quoted on: monotropa-uniflora.html

He meant, perhaps, that the androgynous mind is resonant and porous; that it transmits emotion without impediment; that it is naturally creative, incandescent and undivided.

Source: Virginia Woolf, A Room of One's Own, chapter VI — Hogarth Press Uniform Edition (1935), pp. 148–149; first published September 1929.

Verified: 2026-09-09, in the book, from the copy Ryan put in the SKS inbox. This closes the open item that had stood since 2026-09-08, when the line was found on More Realms cited to a secondary rather than to Woolf.

The wording is exactly right, and the attribution was the only problem. The circulating form — "resonant and porous… naturally creative, incandescent and undivided" — is Woolf's, with the ellipsis correctly marking the clause it drops. Nothing was tightened.

But the sentence is a guess about Coleridge, twice hedged, and we keep the hedge. Two sentences earlier Woolf writes "Coleridge certainly did not mean, when he said that a great mind is androgynous, that…" — so the he is Coleridge, and Woolf's own sentence opens "He meant, perhaps," after a preceding "Perhaps the androgynous mind is less apt…". Quoting from "the androgynous mind is resonant and porous" turns Woolf speculating about another critic into Woolf defining a mind. It is a small strengthening and it is the shape this ledger exists to catch, so the sheet quotes from He meant, perhaps and names Coleridge in the caption.

---

Mary Oliver — the attention sentence, and the wrong book Link to this section

Quoted on: monotropa-uniflora.html

Attention without feeling, I began to learn, is only a report. An openness — an empathy — was necessary if the attention was to matter.

Source: Mary Oliver, Our World (Beacon Press, 2007).

Verified: 2026-09-09, by Ryan Boren, from his own copies — including by failing to find it where it was supposed to be.

Two findings, and this is the clearest example of tightening in this whole ledger. The sentence is widely quoted, and the More Realms essays this sheet follows quote it, as:

"Attention without feeling, is only a report." — Mary Oliver, Upstream: Selected Essays (2016)

• Wrong book. It is not in Upstream. Ryan owns Upstream and looked. It is in Our World, nine years earlier — a book Oliver made around Molly Malone Cook's photographs.
• Trimmed, and trimmed in the place that matters. Three words are gone from the middle — "I began to learn" — which turns something Oliver came to over time into an aphorism she hands down. And the whole second sentence is gone, which is the one that says what attention needs instead: "An openness — an empathy — was necessary if the attention was to matter." The quotation as it circulates states the problem and drops the answer.

A citation nobody could check. The reason this survived is that a reader who wanted to verify it would have gone to Upstream and not found it, and most readers do not go. It took someone owning both books.

Not corrected on More Realms from here. Logged in DECISIONS.md for a session in that repo. Our sheet quotes the full two sentences, cites Our World, and says on the page that this is not where the line is usually credited.

---

Dinah Murray, Jeanette Buirski, and Wenn Lawson — monotropism, and a byline that lags a name Link to this section

Credited on: monotropa-uniflora.html

I haven't really ever had a career, I've had a mission.

Source of the quotation: Dinah Murray, interviewed by Kate Fox in Dalgety Bay about a month before her death on 7 July 2021, quoted in Fox's tribute to Dinah Murray, 16 August

2021. Verified: 2026-09-09, on Fox's page. This reaches us through Fox rather than from a recording, and the caption says so.

The coinage: monotropism was coined by Dinah Murray with her neighbour Jeanette Buirski, and set out in Murray, Lesser and Lawson (2005), Attention, monotropism and the diagnostic criteria for autism, Autism 9(2), 139–156, <https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361305051398>. Citation pinned from Crossref. The paper itself has not been read here, and nothing is quoted from it.

The third author is Wenn Lawson, and the journal's byline reads Wendy Lawson. He is a trans man who has published as Wenn for years. Crossref, the journal record and most citation managers still carry the 2005 byline, so a citation generated automatically deadnames him. Reproducing a publisher's record over a living author's own name is not neutral accuracy — it is a database outranking a person. The sheet cites him as Wenn Lawson and states what the byline says, so the paper is findable without that cost. Helen Edgar's essay already does this correctly and is where we saw it done.

---

Stimpunks Foundation — the mission, and two wordings of it on one page Link to this section

Quoted on: mission.html

We exist for the direct support and mutual aid of neurodivergent and disabled people.

Stimpunks builds accessible infrastructure and public tools that support disabled and neurodivergent people to live with dignity, challenge dehumanizing systems, and design environments that honor difference as strength.

We enable the weird, feral, chaotic, and magical people.

Source: Stimpunks Foundation, Mission, stimpunks.org.

Verified: 2026-09-09, read from the page itself rather than from our own library. The three sentences are in the "We, Stimpunks" statement blocks; the third heads the We enable section.

Their capitalisation and their spelling, kept. House style capitalises Autistic and Disabled and spells honour; the quotation does neither, and a quotation is not the place to apply house style. honor and dehumanizing are US spellings on a US foundation's site.

Two wordings of the mission appear on that one page, and we quoted the longer. The "We, Stimpunks" block says Stimpunks builds tools that support people to live with dignity, challenge dehumanizing systems, and design environments that honor difference as strength. The Mission Compass further down the same page says it enables people to live with dignity, and stops there. We quoted the first because it is the fuller statement and because our page leans on its three verbs; noted here because a reader who checks the primary will find both, and discovering a discrepancy unrecorded is how a ledger loses its value.

Not paraphrased, deliberately. /mission says so in the sentence introducing the quotation: the paraphrase is where a mission goes soft, and paraphrase-wearing-a-name is the failure this whole file exists to prevent.

---

Helen Edgar — More Realms, and the method stated on her own landing page Link to this section

Quoted on: mission.html

This is not a place of conclusions or answers, it’s a place to wander, to feel, to think sideways, expand, explore and be inspired.

Source: Helen Edgar, More Realms, landing page.

Verified: 2026-09-09, read from the page.

Her punctuation, including the comma splice and the curly apostrophe. The sentence joins two independent clauses with a comma; that is how it is written and it is not ours to tidy.

Why it is on our mission page. Queering Earth says there are no hard facts here for everything and that the room left open is the product. Helen had written the same commitment on her own site before this one existed, in her words rather than ours — so the page quotes her rather than restating it, which would have made our sentence look like the original.

---

Open Link to this section

Two sentences on the Miranda sheet claim a little more than their source does Link to this section

On: the-tempest.html, second paragraph. Found: 2026-09-08, while verifying the draft. Left as sent — fixing either means changing Helen's words, which is not this session's call.

Neither is an invented source. Both are the failure CLAUDE.md names as this site's characteristic one: a source tightened rather than fabricated, with the attribution left attached.

1. "the first recorded use of it as a person's name in English (Wikipedia contributors, n.d.)"

The cited article) says Shakespeare "originated use of the name as a forename", and says in the same breath that Miranda existed as a surname before him. A surname is a person's name. So the sheet's sentence is a step wider than the source it credits, and the source contains the counter-example.

The narrower claim — that Shakespeare coined it as a given name — is what Wikipedia supports and is the interesting claim anyway. Suggested fix, for Helen and Ryan: "the first recorded use of it as a given name in English." One word, and the citation becomes true.

2. "He built it from the Latin gerundive of mirari, to wonder at"

The gerundive derivation is correct Latin — mirandus, -a, -um is the gerundive of mirari, and "she who is to be wondered at" is a fair rendering of it. It is simply not in the cited source: Wikipedia says only "from the Latin word mirandus" and never mentions the gerundive or mirari. So the Latin is ours, and it is standing inside a sentence that reads as Wikipedia's. It wants either a Latin dictionary behind it or a sentence break that puts the citation on the half it actually covers.

Why this is worth an entry rather than a quiet edit. The sheet's title turns on this etymology — To Be Wondered With is a one-preposition move on to be wondered at — so the gerundive is not a decorative aside, it is the load-bearing claim of the whole sheet, and it is the one claim on the page with nothing verified under it.

---

The wrong violet is mounted on the flower codes sheet Link to this section

On: flower-codes.html, first plate. Found: 2026-09-08, while choosing the plates. Mounted anyway, with the problem in the caption.

The violet the sheet is about is the Mediterranean sweet violet, Viola odorata. The plate mounted is Viola pedata, the American birdfoot violet, photographed for a New York state museum survey in 1918. It was the public-domain violet plate to hand.

The caption carries the correction — "This is not Sappho's violet… The plant is the genus, not the poem" — so nothing on the page claims otherwise, and a note at the foot of the sheet asks readers for a better plate. The fix is one line of markup and a new caption the day a public-domain Viola odorata plate turns up. Until then this is the only object on the site standing in for a different object, and it is doing so out loud.