Talk:Ernest Hemingway/Archive 2

Death

I see a lot of stuff in the Death section about undiagnosed mental illnesses he may have had, but there's not a word about him suffering from cancer at the time of his death, though this is what I've always heard. Why isn't it mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.64.146 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He had skin cancer, but nothing terminal. That's why it's not mentioned. SBHarris 22:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The death section is missing. Strange that a FA that is a bio has no section on the person's death. --71.110.90.242 (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See the section "Idaho and suicide"; fyi, "suicide" typically involves some form of dying. María (habla conmigo) 12:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My, aren't you just the pleasant one. Again, I'll state there is no section on death. Someone looking up the article for quick information may simply scan over the one that begins, "Idaho..." Since, FYI, Idaho typically doesn't involve death. --71.110.90.242 (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose a separate "death" section could be split out, but "suicide" has more information. There is no separate section for "birth" in his early life, so I presume the section here is arranged in parallel. Since the section actually treats more than Idaho it might also be as fairly called "Mental illness, death, funeral and burial." I personally would prefer "Mental illness and suicide" since that seems to foreshadow content and make sense a bit better, even before being read. SBHarris 03:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently the sections are named roughly by place and time/event: Paris; Key West; etc. I have to agree with Maria - a scan of the table of contents would show Idaho and suicide - ergo death. Idaho is important because he left Cuba for a new place and in Idaho went crazy (though that may have been brewing earlier). Suicide because he killed himself, which was sensational and controversial in that the suicide was denied. It seems fine as is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oak Park a "village"

Hemingway's mother frequently performed in concerts around the village.

What village is being referred to? Oak Park is, and was, a big suburb of Chicago, not a village. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oak Park is in fact a village, at least according to their official website. Peccavimus (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hemingway and Mental Illness

Validity and Timeliness of Hemingway's diagnosis of Manic-Depressive Illness, today known as Bipolar Disorder. Should it be included, what are reliable sources, how should it be worded.Tstrobaugh (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

First, I suggest that Tstrobaugh read WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. Second, he has linked above to an abstract of a reliable medical source, but has not provided full quotes-- from the abstarct only, it appears doubtful that the source adequately backs the claim, or that the claim enjoys widespread medical consensus, as in the case of Johnson. Third, I suggest that Tstrobaugh might read Samuel Johnson to understand the quality of the medical sources backing Johnsons' post-humous TS diagnosis (and there are *many* more, from top experts in the field). Unless Tstrobaugh can come up with similar medical literature backing the post-humous diagnosis, that info has no place in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If who ever is making this claim would please provide a review article or medical textbook per WP:MEDRS I will look at it and give my opinion.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The modern criteria for bipolar I and II disorders are here. Please note that for both them them: Episodes of Substance-Induced Mood Disorder (due to the direct effects of a medication, or other somatic treatments for depression, a drug of abuse, or toxin exposure) or of Mood Disorder Due to a General Medical Condition do not count toward a diagnosis of Bipolar [I or II] Disorder. Thus, this is basically an impossible diagnosis to make in a chronic alcoholic who is still drinking. Since EH spent the last 15-20 years of his life as an alcoholic, how can anyone today possibly diagnose him based on history from that time? Alcoholism makes people happy-then-depressed, happy-then-depressed. You know? If the diagnosis of "manic depression" came from a psychiatrist who actually saw EH, we need to know who it was. The diagnosis would be notable (even if we might not agree with it today), but its existance should be something better than one person's hearsay, repeated without being sure of its provenance. The legal, journalistic (and biblical) standard is "two reliable witnesses." So if two separate people say that Dr. X said after examining EH that he was manic depressive, that should be enough. Even though (as I said) I wouldn't believe it, I wouldn't argue against inclusion here. SBHarris 00:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Bipolar only came into existence in 1953 [1] a few years before his death. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, from the source you pointed to above: "Bipolar disorder is the modern term for manic-depressive illness. Emil Kraepelin introduced the term manic-depressive illness in 1899 in the sixth edition of his psychiatric textbook. For Kraepelin, manic-depressive illness was a single morbid process. It included manic, mixed and depressed states." What is your point with the "1953" comment?Tstrobaugh (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the abstract of Christopher Martin's article from which this information seems to originate. [2] As It's heavily qualified as I've noted above. I have boldly added a piece, here, clearly attributing the information and adding qualifiers. Am quite happy for these edits to be reviewed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the evidence is clear that there are insufficient primary sources for a diagnosis. Literary medicine is a great pastime but the standard for Wikipedia remains two or more primary sources, does it not? Panera3769 (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. Can you link to the relevant policy requiring multiple sources? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox information

For an article such as this it's best not to fill the infobox with influences. The infobox was cleaned out by another editor in January with this edit. The article itself indicates the influences and relationships with a number of writers, all cited and verified with scholarly reliable sources. Moreover, because a writer such as Hemingway had a large number of influences, (Pound, Kipling, Fitzgerald, Proust, to name a few) and influenced much of 20th century American lit., it is subjective to add only some influences and not all, but that's beyond the scope of this article. The infobox, is there is one, needs only basic information such as birth date and so on, in my view. For more information see WP:DISINFOBOX. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, a student project for a 200 level English class isn't considered a reliable source. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Protect again

If any admins have this page on their watchlist, please replace the semi-protection that was lifted recently. A lot of vandalism here. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup. "He also had a rare illness which made him fireproof." Made me lol irl though. Icanhasaccount has an account 02:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanhasaccount (talk • contribs)

Suicide

"Hemingway's chin, mouth, and lower cheeks were left, but the upper half of his head was blown away." Isn't that a little too much graphic detail on his suicide? Sure, you shouldn't censor information, but that just seems like too much. -65.30.183.17 (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Will have a look at that. It wasn't that graphic when originally written. Thanks for posting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Favorite meal

I read somewhere that Hemingway ate his favorite meal before he committed suicide. Could we possibly add that information? Bulldog73 (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know and according the sources used to verify the article, Hemingway woke up early one morning and shot himself at about 6:30 / 7:00 a.m. His wife was still asleep. I can't imagine, somehow, the man in the kitchen cooking and then shooting himself. But just to make certain, I'll the biographies again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

He was in the foyer or "hall" of the house, just inside the main entrance/front door. Historically you may know that all Northern European houses were originally built around a great Feasting and Sleeping Hall, with the other rooms, just side rooms. As houses evolved, the "hall" shrank until it's now just a short "vestigial" space to wipe feet and hang coats and things, inside the front door. Hemingway's house in Ketchum was of this design, and that's where he killed himself. It was tiled, like most entrance places, and would have been the easiest part of the house to clean (and was in fact cleaned very rapidly, despite the gruesome job). It was also closest to the outdoors and the light. We can speculate that H. didn't want to kill himself in his dark basement, from which he'd retrieved the shotgun. This information (minus my historical explanation of foyers), as well as the info about the damage to his head, is in Meyers, pp. 560-61.

BTW, if H. had just had his favorite meal before killing himself, it would a pint of grapefruit and lime juice, white rum, and grenadine. No cooking required. SBHarris 16:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No; according to my source (which is by the way an Uncle John's Bathroom Reader), some of the things he ate were New York strip steak and Caesar salad, if I remember correctly. He did, however drink a glass of Bordeaux. Bulldog73 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hate to tell you this, but your bathroom reader is wrong. He could not possibly have cooked a steak, made himself a salad, all in the wee hours of the morning, without waking his wife, and then found the key to the locked gun cabinet and shot himself in the head. Just didn't happen that way. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Last Book

Dear Friends,

Please help me, as I understood "The old man and the sea", Ernest Hemmingway, was infact written while living in a small east coast village in Southern Africa with a friend who assisted him in correction plus health which was not well- Is this in fact so?

Kindest Regards, Nicol 20th Feb. 2011 South America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.99.191 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, he wrote it at his house in Havana, Cuba. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tudza, 5 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

According to a recent book, Hemingway's Guns: The Sporting Arms of Ernest Hemingway, the shotgun Hemingway used to kill himself was not made by Boss. It was made by W.C. Scott.

Tudza (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Will look into it. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

After checking, am not inclined to change this at the moment. The best-known biographers, (Baker, Meyers, Mellow and Reynolds - all listed as sources in the article) claim it was a Boss shotgun. The earlier biographers had access to family interviews, and it would have been reported in the press at the time. Certainly he had a gun cabinet in his basement with more than one rifle/shotgun, but consensus seems to be the one he chose that morning was the Boss. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Per above, I'm going to decline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobel prize speech audio fragment

Copied from my talkpage in response to these edits [3], [4], and this comment to explain my revert of the inclusion of the file.

Copied text:

Hi Truthkeeper88- The audio fragment is a from a well-known (but minimally documented) set of recordings that Hemingway made with a portable wire-recorder in his home. Most of these recordings were apparently done in Cuba, and several show him to be deep into the bottle-- although amusing and informative nonetheless. The ones that have been circulating for the past two decades come from a Caedmon Audio cassette/CD release called "Ernest Hemingway Reads Ernest Hemingway" (ISBN-13: 978-0898459586), and the copyright implies the rights are held by the Hemingway Estate (although truly, they provide almost no substantive information in the notes). I suppose I could add the track number (there of course is no page number)to flesh out the reference. The main point here, which I tried to clarify in my caption note (apparently not successfully) is that although Hemingway was not in Stockholm, this is the speech he prepared, and was read for him by U.S. Ambassador to Sweden John C. Cabot. LATER, apparently in December 1954, according to Caedmon, he recorded the speech at home with the wire-recorder. I added the fragment to the Wikipedia page just to give a flavor of Hemingway's speaking voice, which I find always adds another dimension to our understanding of an individual-- I'm thinking of young students who may working on a report, or just in curiosity about such a huge literary figure. Does that answer your concern? Seeker56 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeker56 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern is this: if the estate holds copyright, can we use the fragment? Anything that hasn't been donated to the JFK Library is clearly held by John and Patrick Hemingway (or their heirs), and I don't know enough about copyright re: ogg files. Because this is a featured article, it's been through a image review, and I don't want to add anything that infringes on copyright. If this speech is included in the NobelPrize.org site I'd feel more comfortable using it, but am not all that comfortable using copyrighted material. The Hemingway estate is very protective about their copyrights. Also, we need a secondary source explaining the circumstances of the recording. If you could get that to me, and we can clear up the copyright issue, then I'm not against adding it. Oh, btw if you end your posts with four tildes ~~~~ your sig will appear automatically. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like some input, and will research the copyright status on this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've found this on Nobelprize.org. My ear isn't good enough to tell whether their different readers. If it's the same person, we should use the Nobelprize.org piece, which is already linked in the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hemingway's journalism and writing teacher

Can you explain, truthkeeper, why you have twice removed mention of Hemingway's school teacher Fannie Biggs and the source I cited? And why you say there is no mention in the source of 'sentimentality' - have you looked? "In his junior year... Ernest enrolled in Journalism and in a writing course built around the short story. Both were taught by the best teacher in the school, Miss Fannie Biggs... Miss Biggs conducted her Journalism course as though the classroom were a newspaper office... Miss Biggs's criteria for a good article were: "Tell your whole story in the first paragraph; develop details in relation to their importance; leave the least important things to the end. The editor may have to cut your stuff". In addition she gave exercises in expanding one-sentence news items to fill a column. Possessed of a sharp tongue, but a fair and perceptive critic, Fannie Biggs saw to it that her best students went on to produce, as Ernest and Marcelline did, the high-school weekly Trapeze... In her journalism course, Fannie Biggs emphasized such techniques as how to arrest the reader's attention, how to convey information clearly and quickly, and how to edit. But in her writing course the demands were greater. The cliches and stereotypes that could give journalism a casual and familiar tone now were to be abjured. Posing and mannerisms would not be tolerated, and sentimentality would be mocked...." (pp.25-26) I read this book (Along with Youth by Peter Griffin, OUP 1987) a few months ago and was surprised to find no mention of this woman in the article when I checked it last night. I've no problem with my contributions being cut or edited on stylistic or other grounds if justifiable, but it strikes me as rather odd that you think this information about a remarkable woman who seems to have been a formative influence on EH's writing style is not worthy of inclusion. Costesseyboy (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. First, thanks for bringing this to the talk page. The problem with a biography of person such as Hemingway is that it's difficult to make choices regarding what should go in and what shouldn't while keeping the page from getting any longer than it is. Also, because it's a featured article the formatting for sources has to be consistent. I'm not entirely convinced we need to name a writing teacher and I've read the major biographies about Hemingway and quite honestly have never heard of Fannie Biggs. I did look to see whether Michael Reynolds, who wrote a four volume biography, mentions her. He does, but very little ( see page 260 ). So we don't really know how much she influenced him, but apparently we know about her teaching style. The emphasis here has to be on Hemingway and not on all the people, of whom there were many, who influenced him. That said, I like the description of the piece about the school orchestra he wrote for the Trapeze, which I think can work well as a transition sentence in that section and then I was thinking that the information about Ms Biggs might go into a note. It you don't mind, I'd like to give it a little thought as to how to do it well. I'm also thinking that a longer bit could be devoted to her on the article about the iceberg theory where I've focused more on his style and influences. Hope this is helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all, take your time. Sure, we can't know 100% that she influenced his style, but it seems likely since apparently she was known for advocating, broadly, the kind of style he became famous for. Even just the fact that she taught him journalism and the short story - 2 things EH is celebrated for - I find significant. I can't find exactly where Griffin got the info on Biggs but he spoke to 3 of EH's classmates - and the Oxford University Press is a pretty well respected publisher. I think it's really interesting that a writer whose writing style, as well as his lifestyle, is often characterised in such masculine terms may have owed at least some of what made him so successful to a female teacher. I do think FB merits some mention - she has to be at least as worthy of inclusion as the fact that he had a lot of cats (!) and some of the other detail here.Costesseyboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC).

Probably will get to this by the end of the weekend. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added here, but it needs a little work to be better integrated and not just another factoid. I'll add more in some of the subarticles if a place can be found to fit it in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Cuban nationalization of the Finca

The Cubans started nationalizing US oil and communications business property after July 1960 about the time the Hemingways last saw Cuba, but I have been unable to find out when they formally nationalized private US citizen's real estate. Diplomatic break was in Jan 61 and Bay of Pigs in April 61 and Cuba's formal announcement of a fully socialist government in May, 1961 (implying no real property ownership by foreigners). But Hemingway was well-respected in Cuba, including by Castro (I have some quotes) so it may well be that the Cuban government did not formally move again the Hemingways until EH's death in July 61, and then only against his "estate." Mary Hemingway negociated with the Cuban government for some personal property, which suggests that the issue was "negociable" for the Hemingways, if not (by July, 61) for the US gov. Even so, remember, the US economic embargo hadn't happened yet, and would not happen until early 1962, and the missile crisis not until October of 62, now 15 months after EH's death. The break with Cuba didn't happen all at once. I'd like to know the full story, but have changed the article so it doesn't state that Finca Vigia was expropriated in 1960, which I'm reasonably sure was not true, as that would have been only months after the Hemingways left on personal and friendly terms with Castro.SBHarris 04:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that now it doesn't match the source. I drove down to the library to read Mellow (I don't own that book) and while it's true Hemingway left for the last time in July 1960, Mellow merely states that property was taken after the Bay of Pigs. I'll check the more recently written Reynolds to see whether he has a more expanded version of that time period. If not, we should stick to the sources, imo. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source must say 1961, not 1960, since the Bay of Pigs was two months before EH's death. The article previously said: "In 1960 the Finca Vigia was expropriated by the Cuban government after the Bay of Pigs Invasion, (two months before Hemingway's death)..." At minimum that must read "1961," source be damned. SBHarris 17:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the 1961 part is right - the date was wrong. The diplomatic relations information isn't in the source, but maybe Reynolds has more to say. Will get to it a bit later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Reynolds agrees with Mellow. EH & Mary left in July because on July 7th Castro threatened to take the property of Americans and foreign nationals. I'll tweak the section a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Good. But is Castro talking only industry (this is still early when he's just nationalizing oil refineries because they won't refine Soviet oil), or does Castro really talk about private real estate? If the latter, then it all fits. But isn't the end of July about the normal time for EH to leave Cuba, anyway? Cuba (as Florida had been before) are for snow season. Summer and Fall is his favorite time to be in North America, so it's no wonder that he should go to Idaho after Spain after Cuba. But then being stuck in Idaho for the Winter. Poor EH probably was not helped in the worst of his depression, in the first North American Winter (60-61) he'd had to endure for some time, and some of that was Wisconsin! It might have helped if he could have wintered in Cuba.

BTW, it has come to me (alas I cannot put it in until it occurs to somebody else) that EH probably suffered paranoia as a result of being taken OFF his reserpine sometime in the fall of 1960, which is a pretty good antiparanoic drug (the first known effective drug-- actually herb-- by hundreds of years, at treating paranoia in schizophrenia). So the very thing they did to make EH less depressed (not a bad idea to try-- as reserpine does cause depression, as does alcohol), probably also made him crazy. That happens occasionally also in treating very depressed people who have psychomotor retardation (can't eat, can't get out of bed) with amphetamines (which raise the brain's dopamine, much like electroshock and removing reserpine). What happens sometimes, is they get paranoid or get out of bed only to kill themselves. In retrospect (hindsight is 20-20), when EH started to have severe paranoid delusions, they maybe should have put him back on his old reserpine. Instead, they put him on "Largactil" which is chlorpromazine (Thorazine) the new antipsychotic available in the late 1950's in the US (the ONLY one, I think). Apparently it didn't work very well, or else he didn't take it, or at the end had been taken off it. Sigh. These days EH would be a classic dual diagnosis patient. I think he actually got about as good a psychiatric care as was available in his time, but he had so many problems, that it wasn't enough. SBHarris 22:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Was just thinking about reworking that section a bit to show that he was there in the summers at that period. I need to read a bit more first. They threatened taking the homes of Americans and foreign nationals in July 1960, which makes some sort of sense because obviously he wasn't the only American to own property there. The medical stuff is interesting: he apparently was doing fairly well, lost welght, looked good, and then left Cuba and went off to Spain alone and spiraled quickly out-of-control. Would be nice if a doc with an interest in writing and EH were to publish a paper on this. Then we could use it! Anyway, I'll pick at it a bit, read a bit more and pick a bit more. Also, some of this information can be added in fully expanded versions to the Finca Vigia page, and probably also The Dangerous Summer page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Iceberg theory - Hemingway's phrase or was it invented by someone else?

The article states: "Hemingway referred to his style as the iceberg theory." Is this true? Where exactly did he use this phrase? I've looked up the Carlos Baker ref on pg. 117 and it never attributes this phrase to Hemingway himself. Can someone supply a citation of H. using it? Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

He discussed in letters as early as the 1920s and describes in his book Death in the Afternoon, which is supplied in the writing style section. I'll try to find one of the early letters and add, but won't be immediately. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I not questioning that he discussed and described the idea which, without doubt, belongs to him. It's the phrase "Iceberg theory". Did he coin it or was it (more likely) a phrase invented by critics (or others) to refer to this writing style? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it's his phrase, written about in letters from Paris in the early 1920s. Still trying to get to this. Soon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

At the moment have one source, but am sure others exist. In "Hemingway's Poetry and Paris Apprenticeship" Vernal Kale writes that Hemingway scholar Beegel believes Hemingway himself referred to it as the iceberg theory by name as early as 1921. See Kale, Vernal. "Hemingway's Poetry and the Paris Apprenticeship". The Hemingway Review. Spring 2007. Vol. 26. p. 64. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Following a recent XKCD cartoon which stated that following initial links in articles eventually leads to Philosophy, it was discovered that Hemingway didn't do this. So pages were changed until the path lead to Philosophy again 128.231.213.25 (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It goes to Philosophy now because the Iceberg Theory page now has a link to Writing Style that wasn't there before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.231.213.25 (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite following this - the iceberg theory article has existed for over a year and I don't think the link has been changed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dressed as a girl as child

It says here the following, which seems worth mentioning: 'It seems that it was his mother Grace's habit to dress him, as a child, in long white frocks and fashion his hair like a little girl's. It was a 19th-century custom to dress infants alike, but she took it to extremes. She referred to him, in his cute lacy dress, as "Dutch dolly". She said she was his Sweetie, or, as he pronounced it, "Fweetee". Once, when Ernest was two, Grace called him a doll once too often. He replied, "I not a Dutch dolly... Bang, I shoot Fweetee". But she also praised him for being good at hunting in the woods and fishing in the stream in boys' clothes. It was too confusing for a sensitive kid. He always hated her, and her controlling ways. He always referred to her as "that bitch". He'd spend the rest of his life in a galloping parody of masculinity. Dutch dolly indeed. He'd show the bitch there was no confusion in his head.' Malick78 (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That article published in advance of the 50th anniversary of his death keeps cropping up. I'd rather use something from one of the biographies instead of the newspaper article, and prefer not to go into such detail, because I don't think it's necessary here. I'll add something about his being dressed as a girl. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Influence and Legacy

I'd just like to add that David Sim included a fictionalised biography of Hemingway in his 27 year long graphic novel series. The 'Form and Void' book fictionalises Hemingway, but contains vast detail. Appreciation of Sim's work is vastly complicated by Sim's use of misogyny in his plot. Jsemmel (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to write a page about the novel, if it's notable, and then to link in here. Per WP:Trivia we try to keep the influence and legacy section to a reasonable length. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Wilj003, 2 July 2011

Misspelling: "contrapuntal" is misspelled as "contrapunCtal", in the "early life" section description of his views on his childhood cello lessons.

wilj003 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

done...Modernist (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)}

On being followed

An interesting article here reveals some interesting notions about the circumstances before the suicide. Perhaps he wasn't all paranoid about being followed?

Anyway, the article mentions a FOIA request, so there should be more around, if anyone can research this claim in more detail. 85.179.0.60 (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in the article in a footnote, but I might pull the footnote out into the text while this stuff is floating around. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me Hemingway's perception, the Cuba connection and J. Edgar Hoover's harassment is newsworthy and of interest...Modernist (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It can be reworded a little using the biographies because most of what's in Hotchner's op-ed is in the biographies. The problem is that EH really was quite sick at that point - he was in the Mayo very soon after. So separating the wheat from the chaff is hard. Probably the best thing to do is to re-read Meyers - he mentions FBI letters, pull out the note into the text, and then add what Hotchner has to say but attribute directly to him. Won't get to it until a bit later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Good plan, given the context - late 1950s, early 1960s, its no wonder no one believed him...Modernist (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Also given that he lived in Cuba, helped Ezra get out of the hospital, and on and on. Most of it was in the note which I've pulled out. Somewhere in history is the story of being watched in Ketchum while eating at a restaurant. I'll have to trawl through and will pull it out, but I think per WP:WEIGHT, that's probably enough. Btw - don't know whether you clicked into the FBI link just added to the ELs - I wouldn't if I were you. It made my browser crash. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I was reading the FBI files, no problem. Makes you wonder about Hoover and Hoover's paranoia, it's a great link...Modernist (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That's good, must be my computer. I've been through the history as far as when I started the expansion and can't find the "They're watching me anecote" but I remembering writing it & then thinking it was too specific, so it could be anywhere. I'll have to go to notes and the books. In a little while. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the FBI kept tabs on EH sometimes in his life, especially while jaunting between revolutionary Spain, and (later) to post-revolutionary Cuba, but the comment in the restaurant in Ketchum is I think on the day of his return to town from the Mayo on the day before his suicide, or perhaps the previous evening. Hemingway was by this tima completely paranoid, worried that he'll be jailed for paying his taxes late (though he had always scrupulous about this, as he always was about money). Meyers or somebody makes a big deal about the FBI following EH to the Mayo, but it's just as likely that they knew he was there because EH got his doctors to write them a letter informing him that he was (god knows why). And his docs did so, just to calm him down. So the idea that some of EH's paranoia in the US in 1960 is even partly justified on THAT basis, I think has not been proven. SBHarris 18:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your perspective is always helpful. I'll look at what Reynolds wrote - his biography is more recent - and I can't remember that section off the top of my head. Both Mellow and Meyers recount the "they're in bank watching me" in the restaurant conversation and to an extent I think these conversations become derivative at some point. This needs to be presented in a balanced way, and with good sources. The FBI files themselves are primary sources, so can't be used. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened to Hemingway's collection of art?

can someone tell me what became of Hemingway's art collection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.136.2 (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Ernest Hemingway in Milan 1918 retouched 3.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Ernest Hemingway in Milan 1918 retouched 3.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 21, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-07-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 00:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

American author Ernest Hemingway (1899–1961) in 1918, dressed in the uniform of an ambulance driver for the International Red Cross during World War I, where he was stationed on the Italian front. On July 8 he was seriously wounded by mortar fire. Despite his wounds, Hemingway carried an Italian soldier to safety, for which he received the Italian Silver Medal of Bravery. He sustained shrapnel wounds to both legs, underwent an operation at a distribution center, spent five days at a field hospital, and was transferred to the Red Cross hospital in Milan for a six-month period of recuperation.Photo: Ermeni Studios; Restoration: Beao

Edit request from Kadhgar, 21 July 2011

Spelling of Lanham vs. Lanaham
Hello, the name "Lanham" is falsely spelled as "Lanaham" several times in this article (one correct spelling). Apart from the linked Wikipedia article the spelling is also confirmed at . Kadhgar (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Kadhgar (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out. They've been fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

use of pronoun

'as did his life of adventure and his public image' is the second his needed? The Gaon (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Will have a look at it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of clarity

'He was seriously wounded and returned home within the year' in what year did he return home?The Gaon (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point; will clarify. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of numerals for notes

Would it be more helpful if instead of 'note 1' the letter a was used and so on for all the other notes. The Gaon (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't have a set style to follow for notes, but I prefer to use the numbering. Don't see a compelling reason to change. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

typesetting for the boat named Pilar

I note that the caption for the File:Ernest Hemingway 1950.jpg reads:

Ernest Hemingway in the cabin of his boat Pilar, off the coast of Cuba

however, both MOS:TITLE and WP:MOSSHIP recommend that named vessels have their names italicized. Hence that caption might be rewritten as:

Ernest Hemingway in the cabin of his boat Pilar, off the coast of Cuba

the vessel's name appears in three times in the article text outside of image captions. The first time it is italicized, but the subsequent time it is not. For context the appearances are:

1. and he convinced the Cuban government to help him refit the Pilar to ambush German submarines
2. In fact, the FBI had opened a file on him during WWII, when he used the Pilar to patrol the waters off Cuba

I hope that helps. 67.86.64.52 (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I know; it keeps getting changed. I'll put it back in italics. The whole section about the Pilar, the Cuban government, the FBI, needs expansion, but was hoping to shove into into one of the pages about a book to keep this from getting too bloated. It might work in a note here; will think about it. Thanks though. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

arms factory in world war I section

The article says he describes the explosion of an arms factory in Italy incident in Death in the Afternoon. EH also describes the incident in the short story "A Natural History of the Dead" pg. 441-2 in The Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway, Scribner's Sons: 1953. fyi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.184.220 (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed he did. Since I haven't read the Death in the Afternoon section, can anybody say which is the longer and more complete exposition, so we don't have to mention them both (or at least can confine one to the footnote only). SBHarris 17:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's better to keep the single allusion to Death in the Afternoon because the short story is probably only a stub if it even exists. But it's good to keep this in mind to add to the short story page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the "short story" is really an essay. The part about the Milan explosian is about 400 words within it (see it if you have a complete short stories, like the "Finca Vigia" edition), and quite detailed. It is also from a much nearer perspective in 1933 (16 years after the fact) than EH's memories at the very end of his life. But again, I don't know what the material in Dangerous Summer is like. Incidently, the detail in "Natural History" rings true. EH thought blown up human bodies come apart randomly from what he could see, but of course that is not true-- they break at stress and weak points like everything else. Example: the reason EH found women's scalps intact on fences is that scalps are trememdously strong, being internally braced with hair like re-bar. Women's scalps even more than men's, since the hair is thicker. And so on. EH could not explain all this, but he records it with a camera-eye. SBHarris 18:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the Short Stories. Death in the Afternoon is somewhere in a stack of books, but I'll have a look at it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Hemingway's fiction was successful because..."

The intro has the sentence, "Hemingway's fiction was successful because the characters he presented exhibited authenticity that resonated with his audience." I see a few problems with this claim: it is a fairly speculative claim (evaluating the reasons behind someone's success always is), but the tone suggests absolute certainty; it pretends to distill the success of a complex writer whose influence can be felt in a variety of ways on modern literature into a single simplistic statement (i.e. he was definitely successful not just because his characters were "authentic", but this sentence does not give that impression); the word "authenticity" is vague and needs definition; it is not clear this is an especially distinctive characteristic of Hemingway's writing. A simple fix is "Himingway's characters exhibited authenticity that resonated with his audience." An even better fix is to leave this out: the way it is, it does not contribute much to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.153.182 (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I agree; it is the opinion of a few critics and still exists in one of the subsections, but shouldn't be presented in such an unequivocal manner so early in the lead. I've removed it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Islands in the Stream

Reference to this book in "Notes" section links to Kenny Rogers/Dolly Parton song of the same name. Please fix. Relgif (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I've fixed it. Truthkeeper (Talk) 13:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

Gellhorn left Hemingway. Either an inaccurate or unclear statement that should be changed. Gwytherinn (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you reference that assertion? I'm removing your tag till you do...Modernist (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Moorehead, Caroline (2003). Gellhorn: A Twentieth Century Life. Henry Holt & Co. ISBN 0805065539. Though to some extent it is already described in the last paragraph in the section "Spanish Civil War and World War II". It is also mentioned in this article: "Remembering Martha Gellhorn". The Atlantic. Retrieved 27 June 2011. Gwytherinn (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that he was no longer living with her, and involved with another woman, I think it's a question of semantics about who left whom. She did walk out of a hospital room where he was being treated for a headwound. I have read all of the Hemingway biographies, and can tell you the sequence of events, but truly it's much too much for this page, and honestly I'm not happy with the current fix. Moreover, the link you provided above is incorrect: in fact Hadley was the first of his wives to leave. This is amply supported by Hemingway biographies. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's quite vexing concerning the inaccurate source. I would agree that the current fix isn't great - according to the Gellhorn biography, they had already split when Hemingway took up with Welsh. Gwytherinn (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

External Links Addition

• Hemingway legal files collection, 1899-1971 Manuscripts and Archives, New York Public Library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnandreRIP (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Funkygerbil, 14 September 2011

Please change:

• Miller, Linda Patterson (2006). "From the African Book to Under Kilimanjaro". The Hemingway Review. 25 (2): 78–81}.

to

• Miller, Linda Patterson (2006). "From the African Book to Under Kilimanjaro". The Hemingway Review. 25 (2): 78–81.

because of a syntactical error Funkygerbil (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please add: — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnandreRIP (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added the link below. I think that's what you're requesting. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Writing style section

This section is choppy. I propose the following changes: the fourth paragraph is about two totally different things: his what-if scenarios and the iceberg theory; the content changes abruptly. Starting with "The concept of the iceberg theory", the rest of the paragraph should be placed back in the third paragraph, which deals with the IT. The first part should be added between "experience of world war" and "After World War I" in the second paragraph, which will tie the WWI experiences together and then provide a transition to the IT in the third paragraph. The sixth paragraph also splices two totally separate things—the simplicity of prose and the supposed disdain for emotion. "Many of Hemingway's followers misinterpreted" should start a new paragraph and the lines before it in that paragraph should be merged into the previous one. The last part of the sixth paragraph (starting with "This use of an image") is also unrelated to anything else in that paragraph, and it should be made its own paragraph dealing with his influences. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's had a number of editors add to it over time, and as it was being written. I'll have a stab at it, but not immediately. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not demanding change right away this second, particularly since it looks like that section made it through FAC in mostly the present form. I just think some of the paragraphs have unrelated parts and I'm hoping to work toward making it better. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to think about this and certainly anyone else can take a stab. The section is 800 and some words long - doing a section about a topic such as EH's writing style in 800 words is almost impossible. Much of it is developed and expanded in daughter articles. The section begins chronologically - describes his early review for The Sun Also Rises and also the reason for the Nobel Prize - prob his two biggest achievements. It then explains the change in style after WWI, explains (in two paras because one is too long) the iceberg theory with specific examples and then discusses the grammar. The last para needs work, is a hodge-podge written by multiple editors and I believe was on the page from god knows when or added to during the 10 month long rewrite. Anyway, will think about it and see what can be done. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reorganized a bit and see that the section has degraded a bit too. Since you're aware of what FAC is, you should know this also went through a GA, and I wasn't the only editor to work on the piece. In fact about half of the writing style section was written by another editor. Feel free to make and account and add, change, whatever needs to be done if you have access to sources. It's a tricky section to get right. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Tripe on his death

I have already violated the rules of the forum by the title. I think that Mr. Hemingway would be offended (actually perhaps prone to action.) Yes, he liked to drink. What a waste of space on a great man and author. Should be removed.

Writing in "Ernest Hemingway: A Psychological Autopsy of a Suicide", Christopher Martin evaluates the causes of the suicide: "Careful reading of Hemingway's major biographies and his personal and public writings reveals evidence suggesting the presence of the following conditions during his lifetime: bipolar disorder, alcohol dependence, traumatic brain injury, and probable borderline and narcissistic personality traits".[158] Martin claims suicide was inevitable because Hemingway "suffered from an enormous burden of psychiatric comorbidities and risk factors for suicide", although without a clinical evaluation of the patient, Martin concedes a diagnosis is difficult.[158] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.188.154.235 (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of EH's contemporaries thought the "great man" more or less wasted the last 15 or so years of his life in a bottle. That's a large fraction of his adult life, and almost the same amount of time he spent writing great prose. Why should this part not get some significant attention? SBHarris 02:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

age upon death

shouldn't his age at death be 72? basing this on dates of birth and death as stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.142.243 (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Citations

Rather than tagging citations or fixing, let's get rid of the Harv style because they are difficult to use and not user friendly. I'm am willing to do this - I still have access to all these sources. Would like consensus please. And btw - the page did not have harv references when I began work on it; I added them without being aware that consensus was necessary. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A better option than removing the Harvard references is to convert them to {{sfn}} references. I find them easy to use and maintain. The article is stable enough for this approach, and I could do the converting. Please see Ted Bundy for an article that has been converted to this style. --Dianna (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to have no templates at all. In fact am considering starting immediately. There's really not a single argument to keep templates on this page, particularly given the size. To be clear: I'd like consensus to remove all templates. And please do not convert to sfn. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the templates. --Dianna (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Let's let some others weigh in, shall we. In the meantime it's not time effective to fix templates that might be taken down, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is internal consistency. After that; dont worry unless you come across a warrior. TK, also dont listen to friendly admins pushing you towards cite templates. A reality is that a lot of content editors, esp in the humanaties, might land on a page and rather than help will run in horror at the sight of them. They scream beginner but you already know this. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Ceoil; as long as things are consistent, there's no reason to use a template. I personally find the Harvard template utterly confusing, and I can only imagine how it must appear to new users who wish to contribute. In comparison, short footnotes are so easy to add, alter, and decipher. It really comes down to what the major contributors are most comfortable with, however, since they're the ones who will have to deal with it most. María (yllosubmarine) 20:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil is of course perfectly right; all that matters is a consistent presentation whether you use templates or not. I pretty much always use the {{Harvnb}} template and I find it very easy to use, but hey, it's a big world; use whatever citation style you're comfortable with. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Consistency is really the key here, in my opinion. I tend to use the cite templates if I'm creating an article from scratch, but otherwise I just go with whatever is is place and clean it up if need be. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a nightmare. I've converted all the citations in the references but can't save w/out breaking everything. I've started converting in the text, but it's full of multiples and what I do I'll break some (?), a lot (?) of cites. The page does need work, I've known that for a while but didn't want to deal with it because it's so big. Right now, I have to decide to leave it as it is this very moment, or to try to convert and break and fix. Help! Truthkeeper (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well... I propose we leave it for this evening. The wiki won't explode. In the meantime, let's divvy up the paragraphs that need fixing. I'll take half, but I can't really do them until tomorrow. Send me the text of what you have, tell me which paras. you will do, and I'll work on the rest. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Or make a sandbox, if that way is better.:) Kafka Liz (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Got an edit conflict, tried to back out, closed the wrong window and now the issue is moot. But yeah, I've done some sandboxing. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This happens; used to be it was possible to recover things, but either I'm doing it wrong or Firefox is. Guessing it's me, but link me to the sandbox and I'll have a look. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the helpful advice. Maria, I respect your opinion as a fellow FA writer about Am Lit and you've been with me on this since the beginning when I was very new and green. I agree that the Harvard templates are difficult for casual editors and I'm finding - given the list below - that it's difficult to maintain. Also I click into here fairly often when I'm working on related pages and have noticed that it takes much too long to load - it's way too template heavy. I'm converting to non-templated short notes, not the template sfn version that Dianna recommends. To everyone else - yeah I know it has to be consistent and it's a bear of a page to maintain, so might as well give it thorough going over and fix prose issues and other things while I'm at it. Liz, I'm working here in my sandbox and moving over para by para so I'd don't lose my mind and we don't get too many interim edits. With the Thanksgiving holidays I'll have to step away after today, will try to hack out some of it today, but I don't see it as a crucial has to be done immediately sort of thing. Anyway, if you're not working on anything else would love some help. The prose needs polishing too and I know you're good at that, so go for it! Truthkeeper (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see what I can do. I'm a bit rusty these days, so bear with me if I screw it up. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You won't screw up. At the moment all I'm doing is removing the templates and freewriting as shortnotes, going para by para. I'm in the Paris section. When that's done, I'll bundle up some to reduce the blue on the page. Then I'll move in the reformatted sources. Then it will be done. Easy as pie. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Already had an ec - I wasn't sure you were still around! I made a few small copyedits - eliminated a couple of passive voice sentences, etc. - but I'll move down to the Key West section and work there. I'll stay in the sandbox and let you move the paras over to the main article. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I kept the edit window open while I was copying over. We can hopscotch - when I'm done with Paris I'll jump to the war section or whatever comes after Key West. I'm not thrilled with the writing but it's really hard with these big pages and I burned out with it, so any fixes are great. I'm adding inlines as I go along as a reminder to come back to some particularly bad sections. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree with the removal of the citation templates. This is being done without consensus and I'd favour the adoption of {{sfn}}, as it will simplify the ref/Harvnb that have been the established style until just some days back. Alarbus (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Although the sfn template seems superior to harvnb in some ways, I think an existing style should not be changed without consensus.MW ^ℳ 14:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Plain and simple TK has consensus, among all the main editors of this article...Modernist (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I need to point you at ownership, again? You don't get to discount the opinions of "trespassers". Alarbus (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you need to read up on WP:OWN, WP:NPA, and learn about the creation of these feature articles...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

TK, Kafka Liz, Maria, Ceoil, Malleus, me, hmm looks like consensus...Modernist (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading up on the whole featured article debacle:

• File:Wikipedia’s poor treatment of its most important articles.pdf

Alarbus (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's all yours Alarbus. I don't care what happens here anymore. If anyone else cares they can fight it out. I'm not into it and am unwatching the page and walking from here.Truthkeeper (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I believe this falls under Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Featured articles. The article has become less-than-stellar since its star was awarded; this is of course do to the heavy traffic it receives every day, which is both a blessing and a curse. Things simply degenerate over time. The citation style has become a large part of that, and rather than deal with future issues of confused template styles/inconsistent formatting, TK and others familiar with this article have decided to switch to simple, shortened footnotes. The process is almost complete, as you can see, and I think it's a great improvement. María (yllosubmarine) 15:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it a regressive step that is a diservice to readers. Alarbus (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion, others do not hold that opinion - re-read WP:NPA before continuing this crusade...Modernist (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sharing your opinion is not a personal attack. Alarbus (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I suppose this comment which directly preceded your comment here was just you kidding around? [5], and here [6]...Modernist (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I can make a strong and compelling argument why it's better to change the citations, but am my way out the door. Will do so later. For now let me just mention that there wasn't an "established" style until I introduced the Harvard templates without consensus, which was wrong. But I was a new editor and didn't know. As for owning, FA stewardship gives latitude to that, but it's really irrelevant. The arguments are what count. Will be back later. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And to add (I really don't have time for this today!) go ahead and argue if you want, but please respect the women who have worked on this. It will be better when done. And I will bring forward arguments for the reasons. In the meantime, because I've copyedited heavily in mainspace, I'd respectfully request that no one change the standing version at this time. Thanks all. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation problems

1. Cites #48 and 49 call for a book by Mellow but don't state which one.
2. Cite #80, 81: There is no book in the bib written by Mellow in 1985.
3. Cite #103: There is no book in the bib written by Lynn in 1995.
4. Cite #134 calls for a 1999 book by Reynolds, but there is no such book listed in the bib.
5. Footnotes #171 and 175 call for a book by McCormick, but there is no such book listed in the bib.
6. Footnote #178 cites Baker but there are three books in the bib by Baker. Which one is it?
7. Jamison-Redfield is listed in the bib but is not referenced in the article.
8. Lingeman, Richard is listed in the bib but is not referenced in the article.
9. Reynolds, Michael S. (1997) is listed in the bib but is not referenced in the article.
10. Starrs, Roy is listed in the bib but is not referenced in the article.

--Dianna (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. Please stop tagging. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• And please strike the "problems" above. Thank you. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Diana, offer trivial complaints to sate sour grapes often? listed in the bib but is not referenced in the article. O for fuck sake. Get a life. Such moral superiority and arrogance from a person who has not interest or knowledge of the subject matter. You are the enemy, you are the problem; an admin who is now persuing an editor from bitterness over a seperate and equally trivial argument. Nice. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It would have been easy to fix. People come along and dump stuff in; this page gets 10,000 views each day. This was absolutely not necessary. At any rate, I'll be dismantling all the templates so it will be easier to edit. This was my first FA and I shouldn't have used template. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Your just cross fire TK, dont worry about these pricks. The edits were even unnessary; biblo does not equal sources. Ceoil (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil, I remind you for the second time to comment on the content, not the contributors. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Dianna, will you please explain how you became involved with this and why you're doing it? Yesterday you lectured me how much work there is to do regarding a content dispute that wasn't a content dispute; on your talkpage, after I nicely apologized for snappiness you counseled a Buddhist sense of non-attachment, then came to my talk and told me to use Harv references [7] when I was in the middle of trying to write an article and reading a very difficult source; then you came here and put up a list of "mistakes" from a page that went through FAC in May 2010, has 10,000 views per day, and needs constant update, which doesn't always happen. Please explain the reason for the long list above - am I to drop everything I'm doing to see that it's fixed? Also, your attitude, while not uttering a single incivil word, is incredibly rude by taking writers away from writing, and yet you feel it necessary to warn an editor not once but twice in this entire episode. Although you are an administrator, I don't appreciate the "drop-what-you're-doing-and-see- to-my-demands" attitude; nor do I appreciate the warnings. I think the list you've posted above is far and beyond more rude than anything Ceoil could ever say. So please explain to me what's happening so I can get the right wiki attitude. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I came across the edit war by chance last night, as I have been editing a lot of templates lately. Alarbus gave you a place where you could check the contrast level yourself, but he was not very clear about why the colour is important, or how to check it out yourself. So I got involved in that discussion. Today, I had a look at the Hemingway article to see how the grey you had chosen fit in with the other templates on the page, and the citation section was bright red; there were many Harv errors. So I went to your talk page to let you know about the cool script which enables easy location of Harv errors so that your could make the required corrections. Your response was not to install the script and view the errors, but to come here and suggest immediate removal of the Harvard templates. This would be a great way to make the red go away, but it is not the way to get the citation errors fixed. So I listed them here on the page. It was not my expectation that you would drop everything to fix this, and I am sorry if it seemed that way. Sorry that I have hurt your feelings. --Dianna (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It was your intention to have me fix. You see something in bright red because you have a script; in my view a script is not the answer. This is a complicated page and I've been thinking for months that the citations need to be redone because people keep editing it and dropping stuff in - that's why you see errors w/ your script that I don't want to install because I'm trying to write. If it wasn't your intention to have these things fixed you could have fixed them yourself - except for the html files that don't have page numbers everything else would have been easy to fix. Instead you tagged heavily, made a list, pulled me away from something I was doing, warned Ceoil when he called you on it, and now say it wasn't your intention. Then please explain why the list and tagging. I'm truly confused. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I did fix many of them myself. I fixed all of them that I could resolve myself before I posted the list. I have to go out now and will not respond any further today.--Dianna (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, don't bother to respond. Many could have been fixed. But, hey, I'll stop work on the page I was working on and fix this page. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

But I do have a question when you're in a position to respond: why did you, as an administrator, ignore a one editor's 5 reversions which we all know is a bright line, and yet issue two warnings on separate pages for civility to another editor. This is something I need to understand before I can return to editing. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've seen myriad articles with sources listed in the references that are not directly cited in the article. Some reading has to be done for background, after all, yet may not serve best to back specific statements. Another factor to consider is the circumstances of an addition to a bibliography. I've found that sometimes drive-by editors add works of tangential value, and I know from experience that it can be exhausting to track and evaluate such additions. It's important to evaluate each inclusion and each removal as best possible, challenging as it may be. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Certaily true, but its not all that relevant to what is actually happeningn here. Diannaa is being disingious and we all can see that fairly clearly. As TK pointed out she was quite clealy meant to respond, NOW! OR ELSE!, and note the tearsness and self satisfaction of Diannaa's listy post, obviously intended as a QUD, a so there. I would love if WP:OWN had provisions aginist this sort of rubbish; as it is now it gives licence to tourists and can only be met with the much older and more innate DEFENDEACHOTHER. The pity is that defend is becoming all the more necessary. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Way too much in the way of incivility going on in here. Suggest that anyone who's feeling really frustrated and snappy take a breather for a few days. Do something quiet and gnomish. And read this. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect; fuck that, and the editors here (Dianna excepted) are far from gnomish. Why can I not call a spade a spade. Whats actually going here is bitchiness bordering on bullying. CIV should not trump the right to see and call things as they actually are. In other words fuck off back to your cave and let grown ups face and answear each other. Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil, Pesky's just trying to pour oil on troubled waters... no need to jump down his throat. He's not the issue here. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, sorry Pesky I insuniated that you were a well intended but cluless bollicks. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I like the Freudian slip: "answear". :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just John Donne. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Diannaa, first I'd like to thank you for bringing to my attention the problems here w/ sourcing. The result will be a much better sourced, and hopefully at some point copyedited page. So in that sense it's a winner - an improved page is always a better product. That said, as a final comment I just want to say that this could have been handled better. There was no reason to put a list of "problems" on the talk page or to change the syntax in the article. What you couldn't have known is that after tonight, between family obligations, holidays, and work, I won't be very active on wikipedia until January. So from my point of view it had to be taken care of b/c I don't like seeing a laundry list here. I'd ask again for you to strike your comments. I'll be mostly offline for the next few days because of the holiday in America, and then very busy at work. As I have a chance I'll fix the remaining issues: some books need publisher locations, others dates, etc. And the copyedit needs to be finished and then I'd like to reduce the citation clutter. Once that's all done, maybe by January, I'll ask someone to look over the sources very carefully because inevitably I always miss something. So bottom line: it's a better page. For that, thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong in posting a list of problems. It is an attempt to draw attention to problems so that they can be fixed by anyone who has an inclination to do so. There's nothing more to it, apart from being helpful. Thanks.MW ^ℳ 13:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor typo and missing info

- In 1.1 Earlife:

Clarence and Grace Hemingway lived Grace's father, Ernest Hall for a short period after their marriage, [4] for whom they named their first son.[note 1]

Shouldn't there be a preposition (IN) and a HOUSE somewhere as well as a comma after Ernest Hall as in :

lived IN Grace's father'S HOUSE, Ernest Hall,

Good catch! However, Ernest Hall was a person, not a house. :) I've changed it to "lived with Grace's father, Ernest Hall, for a short period..." I'll leave your second comment for TK or another more knowledgeable than me. María (yllosubmarine) 13:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

- In 1.2 World war I

Early in 1918 Hemingway responded to a Red Cross recruitment effort and signed on to be an ambulance driver in Italy.[14]

I see no mention of the reasons for his "choice" of enlistment (ambulance driver). Was it because the US was still officially neutral or of possible physical problems (eyes? near-sightedness?), keeping him thus from actual fighting which, if I remember well, was one of the great regrets of hs life: not having been able to get into a real fighting unit? Or a bit of both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.116.66 (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The US wasn't neutral in 1918 and EH had no worse eyesight than Harry S Truman who went to war at the same time (having used a ruse for the eyesight test) and fought as a U.S. soldier in Europe (as did so many others). It was do-able. I can only guess that EH wanted the romance and the Italian nurses, and not the bootcamp! And also the chance to say "screw this war, I'm out of here" if he ever wanted to-- as indeed the hero finally actually does, at the end of Farewell to Arms. That's a lot more difficult thing to do, if you're actually in the regular American army and you're not some romantic foreign volunteer. SBHarris 03:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this. He joined because of a recruitment effort in Kansas City. It's a good question and can easily be added. Will take a few days though. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 23 November 2011

Please change:

• Scribner's agreed to a full-length book verision

to

• Scribner's agreed to a full-length book version

because of a spelling error

Thanks, I've fixed the typo. María (yllosubmarine) 14:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for removing templates

First some background & restating from above I think: I began work here as a new editor when I thought it was required to use citation templates. For a page like this with this many citations, it's not possible to add the full citation one after the other (which is how I began) so I learned how to use the Harvnb style, and never really liked it, but it seemed a good enough solution.

Eventually with experience I learned that we are not required to use citation templates, and for about six months I've planned to come back to this page to fix the citations. The problems with the citations are this:

• the writing is choppy. I thought that each and every sentence had to be wrapped up in a citation template which gives very little movement for writing that flows when using many sources. So I would write short little sentences, add a Harvnb template, etc., all the way to bottom.
• It's better bundle cites and add at the end of a section. The problem with Harvnb is that they don't lend themselves well to bundling; I know I've tried.
• the templates are expensive. I tried very hard to keep this page within a reasonable load time, and I think if the casual reader were to have the choice between images or templates, they might prefer images. I need to look closely at the page size tool, but I know size of the page has shrunk. That's good from a loading point-of-view, and good because more details (words!) can be added.
• The templates are inflexible. Certain things simply are very difficult to do: to indicate a source that's an html article w/ no page numbers, to deal w/ multiple authors, or multiple editions, or a single author who published four sources, two in the same year, and so on.
• Writing out sources by freehand is easy. We don't need templates to render a certain way: names, titles, publisher, ISBN, stuff like that - it's easier to format without the template.
• Templates are confusing to new editors. This page gets a lot of activity and seeing something like this:

{{cite book |title=New Critical Approaches to the Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway |editor-first=Benson |editor-last=Jackson J.|chapter =Actually, I Felt Sorry for the Lion |year= 1990|publisher=Duke University Press |location= |isbn=0-8223-1067-8 |ref=CITEREFBaym1990|last=Baym |first=Nina}}}

is mind boggling. Also for some reason in that example someone moved the name to be at the end of the parameter list. Dunno why. When I first saw these as a new editor I wanted to run. Here's the alternative:

*Baym, Nina (1990). "Actually I Felt Sorry for the Lion". in Benson, Jackson J. (ed). ''New Critical Approaches to the Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway''. Durham: Duke UP. ISBN 0-8223-1067-8.

It looks much better in the edit window and is more inviting to new users.

• What Harvnb has to its advantage is that a user can click from cite to source. That's very cool, at least so I thought until I realized they don't render that way on all browsers. I tend to test out what I'm doing on as many different browsers as I can. So if they're expensive and don't always bring a benefit, there's really no reason to use.

• To make a better experience for the reader I still intend to bundle cites to eliminate the sea of blue, hopefully cut by about 20%, perhaps more, and play around w/ the formatting. Of course the other really big problem is that not all browsers support columns - I can set this to three columns making a very short distance from cite to source, but anyone running IE will only see a single long column of 200 cites. That's unfortunate and hopefully will be fixed some day.
• Finally, when the formatting issues have been sorted, the really important part will be to copyedit and make the writing flow better - which truly is the most important issue to consider.

I realize this is long. I hope it explains to Alarbus and MangoWong and the rest of the world what we're doing here. We are not ruining the page; we're making it better. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm mostly just a wikignome, although by now a pretty experienced one. And I have to agree with Truthkeeper, that there have indeed been times when I was confronted with an article that was such a maze of formatted cites that I simply threw up my hands in horror and did nothing. Awien (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates and the relevance of recent PowerPoint

Sorry, for making a new header, but the above battle is really long and can't be arsed to read all of it, but I got the gist.

1. If the main writer wants to go with plain citations, I support her. First she is doing the work. Second, the templates slow the page down big time when saving or for first time users (SV was right, Mall was wrong; and I like Mall more than SV but...they ran the test and it is smoking gun). 3rd and very minor, it is easier to see the formatting one is doing, less of a blackbox with glitches that Nikkimaria has to catch. 4th and very minor, if we did LDR as well that would be megacool (it moves the endnote text to the end of the article so one can read the prose).

2. Defacing the article to have an edit war is some really nasty practice. And it is amazing that someone with a FORMAT NIT would be dissuading the most important person (the content provider).

3. I support full protection if needed. Serious.

RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

P.s. Sorry to grandstand, but not sure if my work is being used to imply FA is bad...and that therefore TK is wrong. Heck, this is the sort of article I want more of! It's fucking Ernest Hemingway! Nobel Prize plus mega hit count. Plus my doc has a lot of different analyses and messages and questions and ideas. Reducing it to FA is evil is strange (but then, this is Wiki).

-TCO

Removed inappropriate addition

As per above...I removed an inappropriate, and intended to be personal attack on this featured article and the people who have contributed more than 1000 edits to its creation. It also didn't make any sense in the context of the above threads, except as one editor's crusade against this article...Modernist (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a reply to you; you suggested I go read; I did. Do not remove my posts. Alarbus (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your post was inappropriate, and basically absurd...Modernist (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

From my talk page

I see you've continued your regression of the Hemingway article. FAs are supposed to represent the best that Wikipedia has too offer, and you've taken your article quite a few steps away from 'our best'. For example, this could have offered:

• Martin, Christopher D. (2006). "Ernest Hemingway: A Psychological Autopsy of a Suicide". Psychiatry. 69 (4): 351–361. doi:10.1521/psyc.2006.69.4.351. ISSN 0033-2747. PMID 17326729.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

which gives digital object identifier and PubMed links that would allow people access to the source (per WP:V). Even better form would be to use:

• Martin, C. D. (2006). "Ernest Hemingway: A Psychological Autopsy of a Suicide". Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological Processes. 69 (4): 351–322. doi:10.1521/psyc.2006.69.4.351. PMID 17326729.

  (am wondering about that page number, though)

This article was well on its way to being a well made web page, but you've hauled it back towards a paper paradigm. Seen this?

• wmf:Resolution:Openness (and strategy:Openness)

The citation templates you people are so against are about usability ("Supporting the development and rollout of features and tools that improve usability and accessibility"). And the "templatey things" I've been doing a lot of are about accessibility (they're mostly {{navbox}}es getting brought into compliance with WP:HLIST). You and your friends, above, are working at odds with the above resolution, so you should not be surprised when you find yourselves being criticised — by the WMF's executive director or by a 'drive-by n00b'.

Alarbus (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this post - if anyone feels this article doesn't stand up to FA standards please take it to WP:FAR. In the meantime please leave comments here instead of on my talk page. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also the issue of FA standards not being well-set.

• Br'er Rabbit

Alarbus (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please adhere to WP:TALK and stay on topic. This talk page is for discussing the article, not for... whatever you may be insinuating. If you have concerns about the Featured Article criteria, feel free to voice them at WT:FA?. María (yllosubmarine) 02:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That also would be futile. Alarbus (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I see these apparent attempts at needling as somewhat counterproductive. I understand, Alarbus, that you may be feeling abused, but if article improvement is in fact the goal here, as I presume it is, can we not try to set aside our differences and communicate in a less argumentative fashion? You have a strong opinion regarding citation style, if I understand correctly, yet you seem to be arguing that there is a content problem as well, which does not necessarily follow. If I've misconstrued the situation, please elaborate: I am listening. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Pejoratives such as 'needling' and 'argumentative' only poison things. Yes, I see the implementation of citations here as (now) quite deficient, lacking links, structure, failing to facilitate verifiability; a disservice to the project and the readers. I've no real issue with the 'content' — the prose, the imagery — although I've not read the recent changes. You (FAC) dismiss implementation, structure, and markup as 'style', which it isn't; style is ephemera such as what gets italics. Style is about presentation. An article is more, at least some are. There's no real point in bothering, here, as this (and FAC) is about a group mutually supporting their turf. Alarbus (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies - it was not my intent to use pejoratives, but I do genuinely think there are some communication difficulties here. And I don't think "argumentative" is necessarily a pejorative term. Perhaps you are unaware of how your tone comes across to others? Again, this is not intended as an insult. I've been guilty of similar at times - it can be hard to gauge tone sometimes in a purely written medium. I think everyone here has good things to offer - as long as we can try to remain calm about it. And really, I think that you are wrong in assuming that "There's no real point in bothering", etc. Most people, I find, will listen to you if you take the time to listen to them in turn. What I am trying to say is that both sides here are rather passionate about the material, and that no one appreciates feeling ignored or denigrated. That goes both ways. Does this make sense?

I'm tired, and pretty much out for the evening, but I'm happy to discuss this further if you wish. I just don't like seeing this type of dispute going on, and I'd like to try to calm things if we can. Until later, Kafka Liz (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Mostly I was referring to the abuse the louts have heaped on me. This is site is awash in argumentativeness. It's a lot of why n00bs flee. Did you watch Gardner's video? Wikipedia, the online game where you can 'murder' nuns and tourists by the thousands (ironically, abetted by scripts). Anyway, you're making sense, although I still see this 'fight' as a lost cause, so I've let it go. I only ever made two trivial edits to this article. Alarbus (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alarbus - a couple of things. First, when I came to this page I was new - I didn't even know what FAC was or where it was or anything. But I did know there were factual inaccuracies on the page. So I fixed them and fixed and fixed, for nine months. I know we won't agree about the citations, but I have a logical reason for doing them that way - it wasn't done from spite. It's something I've been thinking about for a while. Second, I tried installing the whitespace script and it didn't work. What am I doing wrong? That's actually a script I'd like to use. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I remain skeptical of that.

looks right; try:

Note: After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Internet Explorer: hold down the Ctrl key and click the Refresh or Reload button. Firefox: hold down the Shift key while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R). Google Chrome and Safari users can just click the Reload button. For details and instructions about other browsers, see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

you might want to see my post at User talk:Kafka Liz#proper structure

Alarbus (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Might want to". Alarbus you are either very stupid, very young or very naieve. At the very least your oppurtunististic and self righteous without having earned the right to be like that. Tut. Tut. Tut. Ceoil (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is where communication breaks down, when you make a statement like I remain skeptical. Do you know me? Do you know why I wrote this page? Please tell. Re the script, did read your page, did clear cache, am not all girlie stupid. I'm using Safari & it aint working mister. I know how to test it too btw. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alarbus, I like clarity. Can you please explain, clearly, why you object to removing the templates from the page? Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

{{editrequest}}

Please change line 3 from:

{{pp-semi-indef}}{{pp-move-indef}}

to:

{{pp-move-indef}}

Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss and reach consensus

Please discuss these two versions of the page and reach consensus. About 200 edits difference here.

• Version One: With templates and not copyediting
• Version Two: without templates and with much clean - up

I do not own this page; I am not a FAC groupie as has been said of me many times. I'd like to see rational and logical discussion and then for others to take over the page and decide what to do with it. I'll be gone. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Can there be any doubt? Version 2 represents a quantum leap forward in clarity for both reader and future editor. Thanks TK for the considerable amount of labor you've been pouring into this very FA worthy article. Reworking an article is hard enough but to have to do it while shouldering a load of specious criticisms is frankly a shame. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I also vote for Version Two without cite templates. Version one is editorially nearly opaque and unapproachable. It only serves to remind me why I hate template citation style-- this article should serve as Wikipedia's best illustration of why citation templates are evil. Anyway, my thanks for providing us with a version that dispenses with them. SBHarris 18:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think we should go forward with version two, containing the latest copyedits, which would otherwise have to be repeated. However, we will need to restore the use of sfn templates etc as the current references are still partly incorrect and practically speaking unmaintainable. Of the thirty or so citation errors (reported by User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js) in the version which got its FA star (about which I guess the less I say here the better) many were still uncorrected in version one above. It is completely impracticable to check all the current references and their related citations by hand, so I decided to check a few of the previously reported errors. The first I checked has been corrected, the second not. If I can easily find a long-standing problem uncorrected in the current version then I (or someone else) will clearly have to sort it out. The easy way to sort this out is to restore a maintainable source format and then correct the reported errors. Even if subsequent editors don't check their changes properly it will then be easy for watchers (now including me) to check each change. --Mirokado (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate where the citation error is by using a footnote number. My eyesight isn't great, so I do make mistakes. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Three of the references to Kert have no corresponding citation as far as I can see. You can search for Kert.

Mechanical help goes only so far: I would in any case have to ask whether a name or date is incorrect or a citation missing, but at least with help from a script we can immediately see where most of the problems are and you the main author would recognise and be able to fix most of them immediately. You clearly understand that having to rely on eyesight (whether good or not) is not the answer for dealing with nearly two hundred references. More below. --Mirokado (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Kert is attributed twice and each time has a corresponding citation. I do see that some of Kert cites have the wrong date. It should be 1983. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Kert is quoted by name in the article body twice; the first instance is in the "Paris and Toronto" section: "Bernice Kert, author of The Hemingway Women, claims Hadley was "evocative" of Agnes, but that Hadley had a childishness that Agnes lacked." - and her book is cited, but after the following sentence rather than this one. I don't know if the cite perhaps migrated, or if it is meant to apply to both sentences, but it would probably be best to have one after the sentence containing the quote. The other one looks fine. She is also quoted or cited four other times in the article. The year seems to be wrong on most of these - the publication date should be 1983, not 1999 - unless you're working from a later edition? The one I'm seeing (but not able to access currently) in my library was published in '83. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the date should 1983. The first attributed part about Hadley applies to both sentences and is from the same page/s, but I can cite twice. That's not a big deal, just creates a lot of blue. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Went to fix it and then remembered the page was locked down. D'oh. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• You've got it right (at your peril) Some of the old issues were fixed (more, more) before version one was discarded. nb: version one is really this (dunno about the bn...). Best of luck, Alarbus (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the "current references are still partly incorrect and practically speaking unmaintainable"? I think handwritten, shortened footnotes are easier to edit than templated footnotes, but that's just my personal opinion. As for them being partly incorrect, can you give some specific examples? And, if these examples are then fixed, then why should a template be reintroduced? Not everyone has this tool you mention, after all. María (yllosubmarine) 21:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• A couple of things: Maria the tool doesn't format the refs, it simply displays formatting errors. Assuming the tool works, and I've found that not all tools work in all browsers. Next, yes there are still a couple of errors. The page is edited frequently, a Hemingway piece has been on the main page twice since July and I haven't tidyed since those TFAs. I think the point of editors coming to a page from a TFA is to allow them to edit. Some sources have crept in that I haven't added and I'm still trying to locate them - one is the reference to the "Art of the Short Story" - I need to find where that was published. I hadn't bothered with that because two long sections - "Style" and "Themes" should have a complete rewrite, which I'd intended to work on as I have time this month. Those are the most difficult sections because many many sources need to be consulted and distilled and I expect quite a few of the sources to be swapped out. As for comments that there were 30 errors when it went to FAC, that's fine to point out, and I am very willing to clean up. I simply want to have a rationale for why a certain citation style is preferable over another. I still haven't received that explanation. So instead of saying things like "version which got its FA star] (about which I guess the less I say here the better) " it would be nice to have constructive and actionable suggestions. Or alternatively, I'd suggest that anyone who feels the page is not up to FA standards, which has been said more than once, please take it to FAR. Also, just to add, of course anyone with access to all the sources and with the content knowledge is free to rework the sections I mentioned above. Furthermore, I had and still intend to ask for a source review when the entire page is reworked. At this point it's not quite done. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To Maria: please go through all 193 references and check that every one of them matches a citation, then go through all the citations and make sure each of them has at least one reference. Then double check to make sure you have not missed anything. Also check that there are no duplicate references to the same work and page number combination. Once you have done that you will understand very well what I mean by "practically speaking unmaintainable". I have now given the example I have already found, see above. --Mirokado (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, TK and Mirokado. It's obvious I'm not familiar with the tool mentioned, and I obviously don't see the markup issues that are sometimes alluded to. (I'm not technologically disinclined, I'm just not interested in that side of Wiki development.) As I've said before, I personally choose not to use templates, yet I somehow manage to spot-check the shortened footnotes in the articles I write. It's my understanding that there are handy tools (AWB?) which can fix repeated refs, or ensure that a certain style is used consistently -- even if an article does not use templates throughout. Isn't there even a citation bot, or am I making that up? The point is, if such glaring issues exist, I think we can endeavor to fix them without adding templates, which are confusing and alienating to many editors, especially those new to Wikipedia who may wish to contribute worthwhile sourced material. María (yllosubmarine) 13:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To Truthkeeper: I was trying hard to just answer the question about one or two! I will write a detailed response above to the question "why templates?" but I don't have time tonight. Clearly the citation problems should have been noticed at FAC time but: ein Schritt nach dem Anderen. We should separate clearly the question of the cleanup to the article content from the citation style question. Fairly clearly we will want the cleanup. It is so easy to switch the citation style with a "little script" I suggest we convert to using sfn and friends at least to sort remaining problems out and we can then convert back depending on the consensus for doing so. I am happy to help with the mechanics of that, either way. Your time will be much better spent dealing with the substantial content issues you mention. --Mirokado (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mirokado - using your one step at a time advice, I had in fact intended to go through from top to bottom and check page numbers against sources. The sections I copyedited, I checked against sources as I went along. Other sections haven't been done yet. I'd also like to see fewer citations which can be achieved through bundling and tweaking page ranges. When I have a good chunk of time (very busy these days!) and fresh eyes, it's not too hard to find the problems. That it went to FAC with problems doesn't surprise me since a. it was my first FAC and b. I finished the page 3 months before I had eye surgery, so I was working with impaired vision. If you'd like to convert now to identify problems that's fine with me, but just wanted to give fair warning that it's not yet locked down and there will be changes. I would want to see strong consensus from contributors either one way or another before converting because to be honest I haven't the energy to go through this page again and again working on citations. So let's decide now whether we keep with no templates, or put the templates back. Btw - I realize the tone is exasperation and apologize for that. The page is locked down at the moment and nothing can be done, so let's use the time to discuss the merits of various citation styles and identify the problems. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have started writing a "little script" to do the conversion, but rather than convert the article, I will first generate a summary of section headings, converted inline refs, references section and citations. We can put that in a sandbox and update it as convenient. Easy to feed back any mechanically-detected corrections to the main article. Once that is working reliably it can just as easily create the full converted article text in a sandbox so we can compare the two and, as you suggest, identify the problems and decide in a reasonably relaxed way what we want to go forward with. The script will always be useful so no effort will be wasted either way. --Mirokado (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine with me, as long as you realize that I'll be making changes in mainspace once it's unlocked. To be clear: I didn't change the citation styles out of spite. My main objective for this page is to keep it easy to maintain and easy to edit, because it is highly viewed. Not everyone uses the sfn or harv styles and those discourage editing, as is mentioned above I think. Another thing is that when I was tidying I noticed that the syntax for multiple refs was all over the place; when I format free-hand I use a simple syntax, i.e. <ref name = Meyers51ff</ref> that allows flexibility in terms of changing page ranges without the danger of breaking the refs. That's a bit that still needs tidying and I'd like to see kept if possible. Finally, on the subject of citations: probably about 30 percent of my edits to the this page have been to citations because I found the citations templates to be inflexible and difficult. I'm trained to write sources free-hand, which is much easier for me and had I known citation templates weren't required when I began work here I wouldn't have used them. I don't use them on other pages and although I make an ungodly number of edits to each page I build, this page by far exceeds the number of edits anywhere else; I think that's because I hadn't used a citation style that to me is simple and flexible, fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I understand that, just carry on editing as normal once the article is unlocked, as far as I am concerned. --Mirokado (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Nikkimaria for semiopening the article again. I will be making a few minor changes to references for consistency. These are the first results of the outline I am preparing, but that is not yet ready for public display. --Mirokado (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was happy to see the page unprotected - thanks Nikkimaria. And thanks Mirokado for those changes. I have blind-spots, so little errors like that are near impossible for me to see. Most of the time I miss them. I have played with my preferences a bit which is at least giving me a better sized edit window and a slightly more clear font, so that's helpful too. I'll dig in here a little tonight, and pick at it as I have time over the next few weeks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please correct spelling

Please correct the spelling of Hemingway in ref 165:

• Heminway, Ernest. Death in the Afternoon. New York: Simon and Schuster

Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Gotta wait until the page is opened to editing again...Modernist (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well you and I would have to wait, but that is the point of having the ep request, so that we can point out what is necessary and a sysop can do it. --Mirokado (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it will die from the lack of a 'g'. People routinely spell his name wrong. Until the issue of the citation styles here have been resolved nothing more to be done here and per policy whether the request is necessary. I think it's not. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Har. OK, another policy page for me to read. I have just started looking at the sections above and may respond... --Mirokado (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

While the citation style may change and a minor typo insn't going to bring Wikipedia crashing down, fixing it should be uncontroversial so I edited through the full protection to do so. Nev1 (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Good man Nev. This is all becoming very trivial. Ceoil (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation tweaks

Perhaps time for a new section to request citation etc tweaks.

• Please provide a citation for Oliver (1999). --Mirokado (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• I suggest "Quoted in" instead of "qtd. in", it will be clearer and the abbreviation is not really necessary. --Mirokado (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Please provide year and ISBN for "McCormick, John. American Literature 1919–1932. London: Routledge." --Mirokado (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oliver citation is available at The Sun Also Rises. I'll copy over when I can. McCormick is not a source I used and I'll be swapping out, but in the meantime, there is no ISBN. Published before ISBNs. Per MLA, which I follow, I prefer "qtd. in" but since I've changed it now three times, really don't care what it is. Anyone can do what they want here. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I had been meaning to ask whether you were following a particular convention. In that case I suppose we had better follow it properly! I'll look for the Oliver citation in that article. You've done it! Thanks. (The point of asking rather than just looking for something plausible on Worldcat or whatever is so you can provide the edition which matches the page numbers you are using). --Mirokado (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I wonder whether the citations not actually used in the article (or at any rate some of them) can be moved into a Further reading section rather than being removed? That I will leave up to you. --Mirokado (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• The volume/issue formatting for MLA has changed recently and I think it's better to have those spelled out, so no I'm not adhering 100% to MLA, although I'm on the fence about that. Honestly haven't had the time to decide. Also, I've placed the dates in a different place, closer to the author name for easy scanning, which deviates from MLA. I don't care if you want to reformat completely. Up to you. Only one source isn't being used and we don't need it - very long explanation for which I have no time at the moment. I'd prefer not to have a further reading section - it only sets up nightmare maintenance since there are thousands of articles (literally!) about Hemingway. But if you want it, that's fine. I really need to get to work now. Sorry. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Off to work you go! No I won't reformat just for the sake of it and no Further reading section is also OK. --Mirokado (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please provide a citation for Scholes (1990) (I've looked in TSAR, it is not there either). --Mirokado (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Please provide a date for the Benson, 309 inline, there are two Benson citations. --Mirokado (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• There all here in the templated version. When I detemplated I inadvertantly closed the window before saving, and then copied in an earlier version with mistakes. To be honest none of this has been necessary, but will get to it when I can. And as I posted to your page, there are no deadlines although I do appreciate your help. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have sorted those out, (Benson was linked but without a date). --Mirokado (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please check the Baker (1981) citation which seems not to be used. Not a problem if you intend to use it "soon" anyway. --Mirokado (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Suicide

Good grief, I need to first discuss it on the talk page if I want to delete a single line from the article??? I thought we were supposed to be bold.

Anyway, it is my position that the graphic detailed description of Hemingway's suicide is something that we do not need in this article. Who wants to know this? So I suggest to delete the line which describes exactly which parts of his head were still there... KarlFrei (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Per bold, revert, discuss we're in the discuss cycle. That sentence keeps being changed over and over. It's the same issue that was brought up when he committed suicide. My inclination is to add the details because it was a very spectacular suicide: he knew exactly what he was doing, chose the exact spot in the house for it, and obviously shooting oneself with a shotgun will cause massive injury. The direct quote that you mentioned is necessary because it pins what happened to a source. I'm can go either way on this, so lets see what consensus is. Personally the sentence doesn't bother me, but if we need to scale back the detail, per consensus, that's fine too. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Being bold is useful when being circumspect might hold an article back, but this isn't your average article. Where there are several active editors it is often a good idea to discuss non-minor changes on the talk page first. As for the sentence about only the chin mouth and cheeks remaining, it perhaps isn't strictly necessary as the quote immediately before already explains that he "blew his brains out", but equally it is illustrative. I'd lean slightly towards including it clearly conveys the after aftermath, whereas "blew his brains out" is somewhat informal. Nev1 (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with KarlFrei that the gory details are excessive in an encyclopedia article. In fact even "blew his brains out" is a bit much. Could we tone both statements down to something factual but less graphic? If it is accepted that he was making a statement, that could be mentioned as a point of information. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can come up with a specific phraseology to propose. Awien (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am actually in favor of including all the gory details. This is a unique amalgam of online information about an important writer of 20th century literature who to some extent changed non-fiction and fiction writing as we know it. I think WP:UNCENSORED applies here...Modernist (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, Modernist, we're not talking anything even remotely like censorship here. Nobody is proposing that we hush up the fact that he committed suicide. Nobody is proposing that we hush up the method. All KF and I are asking is that we refrain from going into excessive graphic detail. Recording the fact and the method are quite sufficient information in terms of their relevance to furthering our understanding of Hemingway's ethos. "Blew his brains out" is already more than we need to know to understand that, but I'll buy it because it's part of a direct quote, and because there is something Hemingwayesque about it in its colloquial bluntness. Dwelling on the details of the result not only illuminates nothing, it is actually merely a repetition of what has already been said, with added unenlightening and unnecessarily ghoulish details. Let's please drop the sentence in question. Awien (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, it's a terrible, terrible thing to read, but I think it should stay. As writing it's effective, it describes (however graphically) Hemingway's final act on this earth...Modernist (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that some details about Hemingway's suicide should be kept, I also agree that there's a much... "nicer" way to present them. I propose the entire paragraph be changed to the section in the quote box. I hope this can satisfy everyone - it isn't excessively gory (or so I think), and neither does it leave out information that is relevant to his suicide. Murmuration (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Three months later, back in Ketchum, Mary found Hemingway holding a shotgun in the kitchen one morning. She called Saviers who sedated Hemingway and admitted him to the Sun Valley hospital; from there he was returned to the Mayo for more shock treatments. He was released in late June and arrived home in Ketchum on June 30. Two days later, in the early morning hours of July 2, 1961, Hemingway shot himself with his shotgun. After retrieving his gun from the basement storeroom where it was kept, Hemingway went to the front entrance foyer of his home: there he placed the barrel of the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger, which resulted in extensive damage to the upper-half of his head. Mary called the Sun Valley Hospital, and Dr. Scott Earle arrived at the house within "fifteen minutes". Despite his finding that Hemingway "had died of a self-inflicted wound to the head", the story told to the press was that the death had been "accidental."

I'd appreciate it if we could put this discussion on hold for a little while during the holidays when I'll be gone mostly. Let me just throw this out: the suicide is a very important issue. I interviewed the first person at the scene - Hemingway's wife asked that the coroner's office not label it as a suicide and they complied. I had this in the article at some point, and need to search through the extensive history or my notes to because there is actually a source for that (Baker). Had it been a suicide he wouldn't have been allowed to have a catholic burial - there is also a source for this. Also for years Mary, his wife, denied it was a suicide. An accidental gunshot wound, which was put on the coroner's report, is quite different that a deliberate suicide. The sentence is continually changed for very obvious reasons but I have to agree with Modernist, that the facts are important. And btw - I didn't write the "gory" bits, but I did, quite intentionally, add the quote. It has to be tied to a direct quote as far as I'm concerned. This is an issue I actually know a lot about, but am very tied up at the moment. And I'd still like to see a very strong consensus to change. It's been this way for over two years and can wait for another week or more. Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper: I’m sorry, but I need to respond now because I’ll be on an almost complete three-month wikibreak after the holidays. Obviously I won’t make any changes before then, and I don’t need an answer. (And whatever you celebrate, may it be a very happy time).

My main objection is to the sentence “Hemingway's chin, mouth, and lower cheeks were left, but the upper half of his head was blown away”. These details are totally unnecessary in terms of clarfying the fact that the death was a suicide, since that has already been stated twice over: “‘quite deliberately’ shot himself with his favorite shotgun” and "pushed two shells into the twelve-gauge Boss shotgun ...put the end of the barrel into his mouth, pulled the trigger and blew out his brains”. And it is restated yet again when Mary’s explicit admission is recorded a couple of sentences later.

I can be happy with simply removing that sentence (Hemingway's chin, mouth . . . ) and letting everything else stand. I suspect this would satisfy most people, hopefully yourself included. Best, Awien (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. I didn't write it- and honestly can't remember when it was written - it was added w/out a cite and I did put in the cite. We can remove completely but there's no guarantee it will stay out, so for the moment I've commented out (sorry very very busy right now!) to keep the ref. I'll add it to my notes later today or tomorrow and then it can be gone. Enjoy your break and the holidays and thank you very much for the work you've done here. It's been appreciated. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)