Jump to content

Talk:Ernest Hemingway/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Ernest Hemingway templates

consensus is to not have the templates on this page. Discussion about templates elsewhere should happen elsewhere. The discussion is degenerating and I see no value in continuing it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In a joint discussion at WP:NOVELs regarding multimedia templates at Charles Dickens, Stephen King, Jane Austen, H. G. Wells, Mark Twain, Jules Verne, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert Louis Stevenson, Agatha Christie, Bram Stoker, Felix Salten, Arthur Conan Doyle, Truman Capote, Curt Siodmak, Dashiell Hammett, Émile Zola, Washington Irving, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Oscar Wilde (mostly plays), Alexandre Dumas, Hans Christian Andersen, Nikolai Gogol, Leo Tolstoy, Edgar Allan Poe, A. J. Cronin, Ernest Hemingway, H. P. Lovecraft, John Steinbeck, Herman Melville, Wilkie Collins, H. Rider Haggard, Thomas Hardy, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Henryk Sienkiewicz, John Wyndham. There was no consensus to change from having the templates on the talk page. However, it does not make sense to set individual policies at each page individually. The logical thing to do would be to set a uniform policy at WP:NOVELs or WP:LIT. In the last month even the folks at WP:BARD agreed to put templates on William Shakespeare now that we finally have a complete set of all his plays. Hemingway is one of the oddest authors because many of his most important works (The Sun Also Rises, A Farewell to Arms and For Whom the Bell Tolls) only have two or three notable related wikilinks. Thus, there is a modicum of misinformation in including the works that have more of them. However, It makes more sense for all the most important authors to have uniform policy. Jane Austen and Agatha Christie have collapsed the templates. Would that be a reasonable compromise here?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I read the consensus as no consensus, meaning no consensus to include or remove. I think it looks silly here, and for ernest it should be removed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there was consensus to do things willy nilly on each individual page. Silly is a hard thing to begin to argue with. Could you make a more cogent statement. I understand that we could not get consensus to do it at Shakespeare until we had a complete set of his plays. Would you feel more comfortable with 3 link templates for his most important works and then have a complete set of templates for his most important works. Does it look silly for another reason other than that his most important works don't have enough links. I don't really know what you mean by silly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
we have hundreds of thousands of biographies here, consistency is of little value. I think its additional and unneeded fluff and on WS's page it's horrendous and the very definition of template spam. Such templates could live on the page of the work, but not the author, esp given adaptations of Hemingways work had nothing whatsoever to do with him or his life.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
There may be hundreds of thousands of biographies, but there are only a few dozen authors with enough significant adaptations of their works to have multiple templates dedicated to the adaptations of individual works. Within specific fields biography policies differ. What I am asking for is whether you have a cogent reason why Hemingway's page should be uniquely different from the other few dozen similarly notable authors. If that is not the case and you think all authors should have these templates removed, I encourage you to renew discussions at WP:NOVEL or WP:LIT where a broader policy could be set. I don't want to have to argue this 30 different times. In summary, I think we could go 1 of three ways. 1. You accept my offer to cap the templates on this page as I have done as a compromise; 2. You explain why the Hemingway page should uniquely have the templates removed; or 3. You pursue renewed discussion of removing them broadly from all of these pages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • P.S. If 2 is your choice, I suspect the case could be made that Hemingway is almost the only author who has multiple templates although 3 of his 4 most important works do not. I am unable to offer a solution for The Sun Also Rises. I could cobble together a modest 3 link template for For Whom the Bell Tolls and if I stub out the 1966 TV miniseries, I could cobble together a 3 link template for A Farewell to Arms. Then it would not be so unusual. That is the best I can do for this author.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    • If your real complaint is that it looks silly for 3 of his 4 most important works not to be represented by this templating system, I am stubbing out what I can to create {{For Whom the Bell Tolls}}, {{A Farewell to Arms}} and {{The Sun Also Rises}}. I actually think I will be able to stub out a third link for TSAR as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I have created the links for each template. Of course each article is always a work in progress. I don't know how else to interpret your silly statement. I hope that makes it look less silly.--07:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I think whether there are enough links for a template or not is irrelevant- what is relevant is, is the link to this material relevant for the biography of an author. For example, when someone creates a famous performance of a Mozart symphony, should we add that to mozarts bio page? Or if someone produced a version of a play, should we add production details to the page of the playwrite? To me this is the same issue - I wouldn't see us building a list or adding a wiki-table of adaptations of hemingway's work to his bio, so I don't see why we would add the templates either. It looks silly because it's jarring to have trivial tv adaptations of some minor Hemingway novel on his biography - if one were to read a biography of Hemingway in the real world I very much doubt such adaptations would merit a mention anywhere within. The only case for mentioning an adaptation on his bio is when it is relevant to his bio - for example, if it happened during his life and he had some influence or reaction to it. But adding stuff that happens after he died doesn't even fall into the realm of 'posthumous impact IMHO - it's simply trivia that is reasonable on a page about The work but not on a page about a person (esp when detailed pages exist about each of the works- there is lots of other material about the primary works themselves that has no place on his bio, so why would keep such material off the page but add material about derivations of his work instead?). As for your compromise I appreciate your attempts to find a compromise position but I'm afraid my position is relatively inflexible, as I think that material has no place here. I know that a centralized discussion failed to produce a consensus EITHER WAY - but I'm not sure if broad consensus was hence achieved for the other 30 or did you just add them? Since we don't have a broad policy, this is like the infobox debate, it goes back to individual consensus, I don't think there's anything unusual about this. Again the existence or non-existence of relevant templates is a red herring here, this should apply to all authors biographies, the question being in which case can one link to derivative works from same whether through template or link - I think in this particular case at least it just don't fit. But I will not fight if a consensus here sees otherwise.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
When the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Archive_16#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates prior broader discussion reached no consensus on the aformentioned list of similarly notable authors the closer suggested that although these authors all have multiple templates a reasonable consensus might be reached separately for authors that have more or less than 5 templates based on a rule of 5. At no point was the suggestion made that a broad discussion at WP:NOVEL devolve into individual discussions on each author's pages. Now that Jane Austen editors have collapsed the templates and separately William Shakespeare editors have decided to include such templates but also collapse them, I don't think it is unreasonable to include them in collapsed form. From the list of authors above, those with 5 or more of these templates is shorter: Charles Dickens, Stephen King, Jane Austen, H. G. Wells, Jules Verne, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Oscar Wilde, Edgar Allan Poe, and Hans Christian Andersen. WP:BARD has also decided to add William Shakespeare. Can you clarify to me how your arguments are any different than those presented at the broader discussion which reached no consensus and suggested that future discussions either resume on the whole list or those for authors with more than 5 templates. P.S. re Mozart, when I was going through WP:VA subjects and creating templates, the relevant discussion was held at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_113. P.P.S. As far as playwrights goes do you know of any other than Shakespeare and Wilde that are relevant to this discussion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Tony, I don't feel the desire to continue this debate further. I've laid out my reasoning above, I'm not concerned about consistency with those other articles, if I head over to start editing those I might jump into the fray. We should let others who edit here give their opinion, I'm pretty sure I know how @Victoriaearle: feels but I hope she will join and give her views.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Given my question and your response, I will infer that your response means that you are unable to distinguish your commentary from those made at the broader discussion and are unable to cogently state a reason why Hemingway should be handled any differently than William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Stephen King, Jane Austen, H. G. Wells, Jules Verne, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Oscar Wilde, Edgar Allan Poe, and Hans Christian Andersen. I am sure the two of you may agree. I am just not inclined to believe that a 2-1 decision should hold sway over a discussion with over 2 dozen participants, especially if neither of you can distinguish this argument from the others. If you come up with a 4-1 decision, I will leave you alone.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Are they the primary contributors to this FA? In any event, I've reverted the templates and don't wish to have them here for lots of reasons, much of which Obiwankenobi articulated. The comment regarding the 2-1 decision is particularly offensive imo. Victoria (tk) 21:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (copied from User_talk:Victoriaearle) Also, I want to revisit the argument against the above templates. You said your arguments were already stated by Obiwankenobi. His argument was basically that the links were irrelevant to the subject because the adaptations are generally not the content that a reader of a biography is interested in. However about two-thirds of the contents of the links above is redundant with {{Ernest Hemingway}}, which has a Film adaptations section. Why do you have a Film adaptations section in the main template if adaptations are irrelevant to the biography?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (copied from User_talk:Victoriaearle) I'm deciding whether to post an explanation to the Ernest Hemingway page when I get a chance. At the moment I'm unable to edit and don't expect to be able to until the weekend, so it will have to wait. A number of factors are involved here – issues of trivia, stewardship of FA pages, the overuse of templates, otherstuffexists, etc., and I'd like to gather my thoughts and present them cogently. And frankly I'd wanted to be out on an extended break (or perhaps even retire), so I'd also like to decide whether this is something I care to be involved with. One thing though: I've brought five Hemingway pages through FAC and am the primary editor on those pages. Yet you asked about the {{Ernest Hemingway}} template, "Why do you have a Film adaptations section in the main template if adaptations are irrelevant to the biography" - surely an experienced editor such as yourself can read contribution history and find who added what where? That template looked like this in 2008 - before I even started editing here! Furthermore, there are reasons I avoid editing that template and those are reasons I won't revisit. Victoria (tk) 18:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • At WP:BARD, they decided to wipe out longstanding elements of content at William Shakespeare in favor of the templating system I have been working on. There are a lot of advantages to having dedicated templates for each work rather than the current film adaptation section in the main template.
  1. Non-film adaptations (such as plays, musicals, operas and ballets) are also included.
  2. I don't know Hemingway that well, but if any of his fictional characters are notable enough that they have or should have their own articles, they can be included.
  3. Adaptations that don't share the name of the source (such as The Breaking Point and Hemingway's Adventures of a Young Man) are more easily associated with the proper works.
  4. Other related content, such as Kathleen Eaton Cannell (A Farewell to Arms) can be incorporated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If you don't want to edit {{Ernest Hemingway}} yourself, I would remove the film adaptation section with an edit summary that says something like "content removed in favor of {{To Have and Have Not}}, {{The Old Man and the Sea}}, {{The Killers (short story)}}, {{For Whom the Bell Tolls}}, {{A Farewell to Arms}}, & {{The Sun Also Rises}}".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Leave the page alone - the templates are neither wanted or needed...Modernist (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
If they are not needed, why do you already have a film adaptation section in the main template?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The editors here are consistent in their inability to articulate cogent arguments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, that edit conflict disappeared my plea. To start again @Tony T... Speaking as a reader of Wikipedia, I find sections in the article improve the flow of a biography of an author. I enjoy descriptions of the spread of an author's concepts and works; enough that I will readily follow links. On the other hand, a template at the end of an article, that must be unpacked, and that then presents an unattractive list, well, meh. As an editor, I find the structure and process of templates interesting, by not always appropriate. The question: is Wikipedia a work for the masses, or a work for specialists? There is not necessarily a contradiction, but is not Wikipedia primarily for the vast majority of users? And is not good prose the best path to a subject? I understand that you are interested in the template process, but you are pushing your interests onto content providers who see things differently. Your questioning of the presence of a section on adaptations shows, I think, that you see the template process and structure as contradicting prose sections. And with that you have set up an adversarial discussion. Please don't; I'd like a good reading environment and a good editing environment. - Neonorange (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the gist of TonyTheTiger's argument is "However, It makes more sense for all the most important authors to have uniform policy." This is wrong. It does not make more sense "to have uniform policy," as the Jedi stated so cogently above. The premise fails so the argument is unsound. In some cases it may make sense to have a zillion templates. In others not. Let the editors who put their time, thought, and energy into the articles figure it out for themselves on the article talk pages. Also, per Modernist.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I am still waiting for a cogent statement why you have a film adaptation section in the main template if you believe adaptations are not relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
To pass the time until that happens maybe you can go put a {{Waiting for Godot}} template on Samuel Beckett.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
4 to 1...Modernist (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
You have proven you can count to four.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Tony, I can see your point, and I'd be all for removing the films from the Hemingway template, as it seems there are many more adaptations/etc than we have listed there, so if we aren't all inclusive better to remove, and keep the adaptations to the by-work-templates, which can show up on the pages of the works. Ultimately, this is a matter of opinion, there is no right or wrong. Some pages have info boxes, some don't, some pages split out bibliographies, some have them included locally, some pages have 5 photos of the subject, some have 1, there isn't any need for false consistency, even across famous authors.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I am going to get back to tagging all the talk pages properly for these templates (which is how I noticed this issue). I do think the by works templates have a lot of advantages over an adaptations section. However, you are free to omit both alternatives from any page by local consensus. You are all free to just shout in unison at the guy backing the templates. No one has claimed that they can present a cogent argument to prefer to have an adaptations section to by works templates. I think it would be better to have a uniform policy for all notable authors. I can lead a horse to water. I don't know what you are going to do with your main template. All but three of the works presented in its adaptations section have been done enough times that they show up on the prominent works templates. At some point in the future, I may spend some time with the categories for all these templates. This is probably a few years down the line. I will be interested in seeing what has happened with this page when I come back to these templates at that time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Tony, I asked you to wait until the weekend when I could pull my thoughts together. I asked you to give me time. I asked you not to crosspost what was on my page to here. You've ignored all those pleas. I've just returned from the eye-doctor, have dilated eyes and a screaming migraine at the moment. Please be courteous enough to give the primary editor a chance to weigh in at a time when it's convenient. What is wrotng with asking for that? Victoria (tk) 21:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I just moved the conversation here because you said you wanted to hold the conversation here. All kinds of discussants suddenly awoke when I did so. I am sorry if you did not want me to move content here until later. Comment when you have time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Break

Oppose adding the templates for the following reasons:

  1. Confusing, misleading and inaccurate: this version shows the templates in place. I had to look three times to realize that "Novels by Ernest Hemingway" had to be clicked open to show the other templates and I wouldn't have known what to do if I hadn't read about it here. I would think "Novels by Ernest Hemingway" would give navigational aid to exactly that: novels by Ernest Hemingway. But instead there are templates about 5 novels, not presented at all by order of publication, and a single short story for some reason. When each of those templates is clicked open they lead to various subarticles - and I find those links problematic as well. Keep in mind that these are examples only because I've not had time to investigate fully. The template for "A Farewell to Arms" includes a link to Hemingway's Adventures of a Young Man - purportedly a movie about Nick Adams and A Farewell to Arms which is just odd because Nick Adams isn't in A Farewell to Arms. The same template in the "Inspirationd" (???) section points to Pauline Pfeiffer - sorta, kinda appropriate because she did undergo a difficult childbirth while he was writing the book, but that information definitely needs to be in the page (it's a page I've long meant to get to for a full expansion); but more likely EH's wartime relationship with Agnes von Kurowsky was the inspiration there. BUT - and this is important - it's better for information such as that to be reliably sourced and in the text.
  2. WP:TRIVIA says "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information". The problem with Hemingway is that according to Charles Oliver in Ernest Hemingway: A to Z, "the [Hemingway] mythology grows larger with every year" and he also says, "an aspect of the mythology is a deluge of allusions to Hemingway in the media" (pp. 142-144). At one point this information was in the article and if it's not, I'll replace it. Also I've mentioned this Time magazine piece at the end of True at First Light, [1] which questions the issues of the Hemingway name being given to brands of furniture and so on. There is so much trivia, (and we shouldn't be adding trivia anyway), that's it's impossible to add it all. A cursory glance of the templates shows me a Metallica song, a play apparently performed at a single venue on Long Island, and a relatively new opera (apparently also performed only once). Apologies if I'm wrong, but I've not taken the time to look at all the articles the templates link to. In my view, we can to without that trivia. The making of one of the movies is mentioned in the text of The Sun Also Rises, but that section has degraded and needs some work, which I'll do. All the movies that were made from the books should be mentioned in the body of that book's article - they were important. He really wanted to write work that would translate to film.
  3. Consensus: I've not counted how many people have posted here, but it looks to me that we've reached consensus. The discussion of the templates was raised at Wikiproject novels and it did not achieve consensus. Let me repeat: it did not achieve consensus. Nor has the inclusion of the templates achieved consensus on Charles Dickens and frankly I'm very opposed to seeing them on pages such as Cinderella where the template is so awash with trivia it violates the spirit of WP:Trivia. But that's off topic and brings me to WP:Otherstuffexists.
  4. WP:Otherstuffexists isn't an argument we should use here. For lots of reasons. This page and The Sun Also Rises are FA and so should present the best of Wikipedia (I know, the pages have degraded and this is a wake up call to spruce them up). Hemingway in every way is unique. And so on. I could write more, but this is enough. Victoria (tk) 21:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Your arguments confound me for the most part because you have made no attempt to clarify why you want to keep a film adaptation section in the template content, but not these individual by works templates which are an improvement on that content and could serve to upgrade that content. You also seem to have a misunderstanding of the difference between adaptations/inspired works and trivia. However, I will let the issue go in terms of including the template on this bio for now. However, I have never heard an argument against including a works template such as {{The Sun Also Rises}} on the page of that work such as The Sun Also Rises. No one here has ever stated that {{The Sun Also Rises}} does not belong on The Sun Also Rises. I don't think we should hold that discussion here anyways. Let's talk about the merits of adding {{The Sun Also Rises}} to The Sun Also Rises at Talk:The Sun Also Rises.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In that case writing the comment was a massive waste of time when I didn't have time to waste. Moving the discussion to another page doesn't achieve much imo - except dictating that the issue keeps going. You're pushing the issue relentlessly and quite honestly won't stop until you win. I lost the will to fight these kinds of things long ago and if articles are to be junked up with misleading templates, then whatever. I refuse to be involved with stupid fights like this. The templates are frankly crap. Victoria (tk) 14:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Tony stop this crap already and go push your BS somewhere else - WTF - it's not needed or wanted - and I'm getting sick of this tasteless look at me crap...Modernist (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm off then. Victoria (tk) 15:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring to Tony...Modernist (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    • And making a senseless statement at that. It has nothing to do with me. Even in places where the templates are contested on the bios, the have never been contested on the works themselves. You can surely pick a more intelligent fight than one based on your own inability to read (see below).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, very prickly these days! Victoria (tk) 15:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Farewell to Arms

If possible I'd like to keep the conversation in one place and for convenience here for the moment. If people want to move it elsewhere that's okay too. Also would like to note that I'm surfacing from an excessively busy month and haven't had the opportunity to get into the sources to check all the adaptations - that will take a bit of time. I have discovered that Hemingway's Adventures of a Young Man is based on EH's Nick Adams stories and not on A Farewell to Arms according Oliver, Charles (1999). Ernest Hemingway A to Z: The Essential Reference to the Life and Work. New York: Checkmark Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8160-3467-3, see page 150. I've reffed that page accordingly and removed the entry from {{A Farewell to Arms}}. Victoria (tk) 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014

After reviewing the "Descendants" section, I feel that it would be relevant to add that American Fashion model and Actress, Dree Hemingway, is also a well known living descendant. I think this information is valuable to those who are seeking information on his living descendants as well. I would suggest the following edit:

Mariel Hemingway has two daughters, model Dree Crisman and Langley Crisman. Great-granddaughter of Ernest, Dree Hemingway is both an actress, and a model. She's appeared in several runway shows, as well as campaigns for Abercrombie & Fitch, DKNY, and editorials for Teen Vogue.

Resources can be found: Dree Hemingway IMDB, Models.com Profile [[2]], [[3]]

Thank you for your consideration.

Escapewinterlake (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Escapewinterlake (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

HI, thanks for the request. We made a decision here to go only as far as grandchildren on this artilce so I think it's best that Dree Hemingway link into her mother's article and can also link into this page too, but it's not really necessary to mention all the great-grandchildren here. Victoria (tk) 00:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Templates redux

This version includes all the other links from the additional templates. Would this make everyone happy? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Victoria, a couple of options (with minor amendments): OPTION 1 OPTION 2 --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Prefer OPTION 1. Thanks again for doing this! Victoria (tk) 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
At Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Break Victoriaearle detailed her reasoning behind her Option 1 selection: "Because some are novels, some short stories, some very loosely based adaptations whereas EH was on set and heavily involved with others, it makes more sense to have the template as OPTION 1 with the works separated by novels, short stories, non-fiction, posthumous, then film adaptations, television adaptations, and perhaps stage adaptations." Given that we are now relegated to how we are going to spruce up the adaptations within {{Ernest Hemingway}} I am now a proponent of Option 3B, which is an identical, but more flexible reworking of Option 2. The reasoning is due to the broader issue on how to templating will be handled on the adaptation pages. I remain unconvinced that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL requires the entire unified template to be placed on the page of each adaptation. Thus, I think The Sun Also Rises (ballet) would be fine with just a {{The Sun Also Rises}} template. An adaptation of one work need not be linked to adaptations of all other works and all other Hemingway works to which it is unrelated. Option 1 and Option 2 would likely lead to the mass deletion of all the smaller by works templates. Option 3B retains the flexibility to nest the smaller templates within it and use just those smaller templates on the adaptations pages. While I understand Victoriaearle's reasoning, I think a template should assume that the reader knows what work he is looking for adaptations from. This follows from the page naming conventions in which we assume readers know how to spell the subject that they want to find. If we assume the reader who is looking for information about adaptations, knows which work he is looking for, it is more helpful for him to see the template presented with adaptations separated by works.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I prefer OPTION 1 because it shows the bibliography in a separate line. With OPTION 2 and Option 3B I see a problem with the other two short story film adaptatins, The Macomber Affair and The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film) as well Islands in the Stream (film), the adaptation of the posthumously published novel. If those were to be formatted like the others for the sake of consistency it gets to be quite vertical imo. Would like to get others to weigh in and like to get some version of {{Ernest Hemingway}} implemented and resolve the issue on The Sun Also Rises if possible. Victoria (tk) 15:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is an Option 3C that includes the bibliography where you want it and retains the nesting that I feel is needed so that by works templates can be used to properly template the adaptations. I am not proposing anything with more verticality than you see at 3C so opposing something that is not at issue and is not being proposed is sort of unusual. The other adaptations are presented as simply as possible. The 3C presentation should not be confusing for people seeking adaptation navigation assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
My question is this: why split out adaptations for only five of the novels and one short story and leave the other short story/novel adaptations in a section called "Other adaptations"? If the template is to split out adaptations by work, shouldn't all the adaptions be treated consistently? Victoria (tk) 11:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
To me that is like asking why the article has a "Selected works" section that only list 6 works rather than all of his works. It seems obvious. Organizationally, only 6 works are worth splitting out in this section because they are the only ones with a critical mass of adaptations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. In that case, how do feel about moving the Bukowski short story to the section devoted to the "The Killers" and the Metallica song to section devoted to For Whom the Bell Tolls? Victoria (tk) 00:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Here is Option 3D with those two changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The nesting is redundant. We don't need all the little navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Without them, all the adaptations have to have this huge template with irrelevant information. Why do you want all that content about Hemingway on a work that is not even by Hemingway. Previously, you have tried to claim that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL mandates that the entire template be included on the the adaptations, but it says no such thing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Having the one large template on each page is fine - it can be collapsed if necessary. And for WP:BIDIRECTIONALity, the articles are included in the large template, thus the large template should be transcluded. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The reason that BIDIRECTIONAL even seems to apply is because the large template is malformed. Having adaptations on the larger template is like having a Category:People from Illinois and Category:Children of People from Illinois grouped together. So now you put this massive template on the adaptation pages. Each adaptation is only related to other adaptations of the same work in a thematic sense. Also, Victoriaearle and I have been going back and forth for several days working toward a compromise on this template and you just jump in and make changes to your view of the world.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Ummm, if they're notable, then the children of people from Illinois are also people from Illinois. Anyway, I've included the changes suggested between yourself and Victoria in my new version. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
No people are from where they are from not where their parents are from.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Robsinden, Why are you making all these changes (redirecting the whole set of templates) without any consensus. We have been discussing {{Ernest Hemingway}} for days and reaching a compromise and then you come by and make changes to another way without really participating in the discussion. After we have worked toward a compromise, you come by and say. Hey I am going to do it this other way because I think that is what is right. There is a formal WP:TFD process for templates that are possibly redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is unanimous at Talk:The Sun Also Rises#Template removal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you talkong about the consensus regarding the main work at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Proposal. There was no consensus that {{Ernest Hemingway}} is necessary on the adaptations. Victoriaearle and I have been working back and forth to achieve consensus. Your recent heavyhandedness at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL for the sole purpose of supporting your edits here was uncalled for. Note that you said this in regards to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, which is that it really only works when the templates stay on point and smaller templates exist. Many would consider {{Ernest Hemingway}} a large template (you even say above that it may need to be collapsed) and there is no consensus here to force it onto every page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI: 1., I expected that with the compromise the main template would be used in lieu of the subtemplates; 2., because of this - an editor to whom I owe an enormous debt for peer reviewing this article when as a new editor I first began the rewrite and who in so many ways inspired me to keep plugging away on this project - I won't be taking part in this conversation any more. It's not a time for conflict. Victoria (tk) 15:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the discussions above "so that by works templates can be used to properly template the adaptations" or at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Proposal, which clearly defined the topic as the main article. Are you just helping Rob to get his foot out of his mouth, by doublespeaking and then running away to hide (no disrespect to the dead)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Tony, that last comment is utterly inappropriate; withdraw it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you talking about my apology to the dead or the foot in mouth?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The long and the short of this is that Robsinden has wiped out a lot of template content that was never discussed (neither at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Proposal nor in this thread). I will be reverting his edits to the consensuses that were reached. He can then pursue a WP:TFD if he likes by properly raising the discussion rather than changing guidelines to say whatever he wants as he did this morning. I am unsure why Victoriaearle had expected him to make edits that were never discussed and inconsistent with what was discussed. Whatever offline relationship they may have they need to be transparent here on WP so that we can all understand expectations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Tony, there is clear consensus to merge all the templates at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Proposal. And Victoria mentions above that she thought you were merging and not nesting. I really don't know what you are playing at. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Re-read the proposal and the responses. Not sure where Victoria said, this but I kept saying I was nesting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You must have missed the bit where Victoria mentioned "implement changes to {{Ernest Hemingway}}", which is a clear reference to the previous discussion, where my proto-merged templates were discussed. (See Talk:The Sun Also Rises#Break). --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
And hang on - I've just spotted something about an "offline relationship"!!! What the hell are you playing at Tony? WP:AGF FFS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This has gone way too far - yesterday when I was literally in tears at the death of a woman who I considered a wikifriend, and having been pinged four times prompting me to make a quick comment before I logged out, I got told I was "running away to hide", [4]. Earlier, I got told I was "leading the charge", I was condescending to ballet (a female dancer dances en pointe, a novel cannot (but the source uses it, so I see now where it comes from)), and I got told by Tony, "I have never heard of an editor with your level of experience misconcieving templates in the way that you have", [5]. I got told I don't "consider the opinion of a general reader (and informed Wikipedian) who appreciated the presence of an article and a navbox as helpful", [6]. I got told I was proposing the deletion of a template, [7], which had to be found by reading between the lines. Now I'm told I have an offline relationship with someone I've never interacted with on WP!, [8].
  • To be clear: 1., I am trying hard to disengage from Wikipedia (precisely because of these types of conversations), and 2., I firmly believed that Tony and I were discussing the design of the Ernest Hemingway template. Nothing more, nothing less. To personalize to this level is unacceptable and I wish someone would do something about it. This place being what it is, I know nothing will be done, but I have the choice to disengage, unwatch the page, turn off the notification system - all choices I intend to exercise. Victoria (tk) 17:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

In the image of the Hemingway Memorial in the section "Idaho and suicide", please close the quote in the caption. 99.26.131.34 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for spotting the typo. I think, since the words are an inscription, rather than a quote, that italics are a better choice. If you thnk quotes are the better choice, please feel free to make another request. - Neonorange (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2014

In the "World War II" section, it says "biographer Kenneth Lynn claims Hemingway fabricated accounts that he went ashore during the landings". However, Lynn's analysis refers only to third party hearsay. Lynn omits to discuss the primary evidence: Ernest Hemingway's article "Voyage to Victory" in which Hemingway details his experiences on D-Day without explicitly or implicitly claiming he went ashore. As Hemingway's version not only contradicts Lynn's and is the version he placed on the public record, rather than alleged private conversation, I suggest that the phrase about Lynn re Hemingway be deleted.

Also, if Hemingway's article is true, Meyer's description of Hemingway as "precious cargo" is misleading as Hemingway claims he cruised in close enough to Fox Green beach to land troops from a LCV(P) within range of German fire. So a qualifying phrase is needed like, "Hemingway claims his craft went close enough to land troops and take on wounded and he saw the faces of men diving out of a burning tank."

Resources: Hemingway, Ernest. "Voyage to Victory", Colliers, 22 July 1944. in White, William (ed). Hemingway: By-Line. London. Grafton Books. ISBN 0-586-20929-8.

Thank you for your consideration. This is my first edit request, so apologies for any formatting errors. Dr Hodder (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dr Hodder thanks for posting and welcome to Wikipedia. You've managed to uncover one of the oddities of Wikipedia (and to an extent Hemingway too). For featured articles such as this, we tend to avoid primary sources and instead distill what the scholars and biographers say. For this particular request, Hemingway's piece in Colliers would be considered a primary source. The second consideration is that this article relies very little in what Hemingway himself had to say about his own exploits (for the obvious reasons). That said, I realize that Lynn's biography is perhaps less critically regarded than others and will take a look. Meyers is an acceptable biography to use, and I'd prefer to continue to lean on him, but will also investigate a bit more and see what Reynolds has to say about this incident and then edit accordingly. It may take a few days though. Victoria (tk) 17:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I've deactivated the template while Victoriaearle looks into the request. That will take the request off the list of requests needing to be serviced. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
To add more to answer the request: I've looked into this found that Hemingway got on a landing craft but the craft was unable to land because the area hadn't yet been swept for mines and they came under German fire, so the craft returned him and the other passengers to the ships where all the journalists were forced to stay. So Meyers is right, and Lynn maybe right too (still waiting to read Lynn). They did not land - they did get close enough to Fox Green to be in some danger and to be in sight of the carnage on the beach. It's also worth noting that Hemingway had been in a fairly serious car accident about a week earlier, serious enough that he was reported to have been killed and to give him yet another concussion, which may or may not be worth taking into consideration. Anyway, once I read Lynn, I'll tweak the section a bit, but not to the extent suggested. Victoria (tk) 18:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Victoria and Older and ... well older.
I appreciate your point about primary sources. However, you will find that Michael Reynolds paraphrases Hemingway’s article and so, by implication, accepts its claims as true. So does Robert Fuller: “He [Hemingway] watched American troops storm the Normandy beaches on D-Day and wrote about it for Collier’s after returning to England without ever having set foot on French soil.” (My emphasis. See “Hemingway at Rambouillet”, The Hemingway Review, Volume 33, Number 2, Spring 2014.) It would be fine to reference Reynolds and Fuller on this, yet it would mean that Wikipedia is going around in circles. Reynolds also accepts that Hemingway’s craft was under direct fire on D-Day (which I had missed). This does not fit Jeffery Myers’s description of Hemingway as “precious cargo”. Please also note, I suggested that the reference to Hemingway’s article be flagged with the phrase, “Hemingway claims...”, to alert Wikipedia’s readers.
Also, your assertion that Hemingway’s “craft was unable to land because the area hadn't yet been swept for mines" is misleading. As Reynolds says, “Later, when Navy destroyers blasted out some of the German guns, Hemingway’s landing craft finally got its men and supplies into the surf and quickly backed out again, picking its way through underwater obstacles tipped with mines.” (Reynolds, p98.) Your implication that Hemingway wrote his article while he was still suffering from concussion, and so accidently fabricated his account, is drawing a long bow, if it is not mere unsubstantiated speculation. Whatever, the point remains the same, Lynn’s allegation against Hemingway takes a circuitous route through hearsay and not primary sources which objective historians, like Reynolds and Fuller, reference.
There is also the possibility that Hemingway did go ashore at Fox Green Beach, which he later talked about in private conversations, only he was careful not to admit to this in his articles during the war because he would be arraigned (as he was later for a different reason) and would lose his credentials as a war correspondent. Kenneth Lynn’s sarcastic dismissal of the claims around Hemingway on D-Day is motivated by prejudice, not thorough research and a cogent evaluation of all the evidence.
I want to clarify that my argument re Lynn’s allegation is not “what Hemingway himself had to say about his own exploits” but, rather, what Hemingway did not say. Further, if Wikipedia is going to accept hearsay in place of primary sources then it runs the risk of allowing a straw man to be set up just so it can be knocked down, as Lynn does in this case. The significant point about Lynn here is that, in contradistinction to Reynolds and Fuller, he avoids referencing Hemingway’s article. The omission is glaring.
Regards, Dr Hodder (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I had hoped to get a copy of Lynn's book sooner (still waiting!) but because the 70th anniversary is in a few days, had a look at Mellow instead. I've kept and attribtuted Meyer's remark about "precious cargo", because all the sources I've read mention he was still bandaged, reported dead a week or so earlier, and so really was "precious cargo". Nothing derogatory is implied, either in the article, or in my remarks above. I've quoted a bit of the Collier's piece from Reynolds. And I've hidden Lynn for now, but am interested in what he writes. Thanks for pointing to the recently published piece in the Hemingway Review - I have limited database access but will search.
Reynolds says (p. 97-98): "The coxswain could not decide if the route into the beach was clear of mines, the lieutenant was not sure if this was Fox Green or if they should put ashore. Finally confused and frustrated they began the run into the beach where Hemingway could see that [Hemingway quote here] … [cont on page 98] When the German machine fire picked out their landing craft, Hemingway dropped down and the lieutenant took the LCVP back out to sea." Reynolds goes on to say that later the LCVP "got its men and supplies into the surf and quickly backed out again." He goes on to say that EH was returned to the Dorthea Dix.
Mellow says, (page 533) - "Like most of the correspondents on that first day, Hemingway was not allowed to land on the beaches," and also says he was returned to the Dorothea Dix. Mellow goes on the say (same page) that EH did in fact claim to Colliers that he landed "with 57 stitches in my head".
Unfortunately unless his private conversations were subsequently published in reliable sources so we can verify, they can't be used here. Yes, it does sometimes seem as though we go in circles here but we try our best.
When I've had time to find and read Fuller and Lynn, I may swing through and smooth a bit more, but hopefully this clarifies for June 6th. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 02:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Silver Medal of Military Valor

Material, attributed to Lynn (1987), "a claim disputed by Kenneth Lynn who notes that Hemingway received the Italian Silver Medal of Bravery with only a vague citation, not the gold medal that such a feat would have merited" was recently inserted into this article. I reverted the insertion, as another assertion by Lynn is currently under review. A quick look at the medal as awarded in World War I leads me to question the assertion: the Gold Medal of Military Valor was awarded only 368 times, while the Silver Medal was awarded 38,614 times. I'd argue, from these figures, that 'carrying an Italian soldier to safety' fits the Silver Medal award better than the Gold (even upon reading the description at http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2006/spring/hemingway.html, "Hemingway carried a wounded Italian soldier to safety and was injured again by machine-gun fire", the Silver seems a fit), and the assertion should be discussed on this talk page. - Neonorange (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Neonorange, yes the Putnam piece is a strong source and has the benefit of being available online. That he received the Silver Medal of Honor is not disputed. Here's what Meyers has to say about the event:

According to a contemporary Red Cross report, probably written by Hemingway's superior Captain Jim Gamble, "Hemingway was wounded by the explosion of the shell which landed about three feet from him, killing a soldier who stood between him and the point of the explosion and wounding others." Ted Brunswick, in a letter to Ed Hemingway written on July 14, six days after the event, stated that Hemingway, though badly wounded and nearly killed had acted heroically. "An enormous trench bomb hit within a few feet of Ernest while he was giving out chocolate. The concussion of the explosion knocked him unconscious and buried him with earth. There was an Italian between Ernest and the shell. He was instantly killed while another, standing a few feet away, had both legs blown off. A third Italian was badly wounded and this one Ernest, after he had regained conciousness, picked up on his back and carried to the first-aid dugout." (Meyers, Jeffrey. (1985). Hemingway: A Biography. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-42126-0, 30-31)

I think that's fairly indisputable and the edit you reverted changed the meaning of the cited material.
I don't have a copy of Lynn's book but will try to get it from the library. I've thought for a long time this article needs a top-to-bottom rewrite (it's been four years since achieving FA) and so I'll put that on my to-do list and with the rewrite will most likely add a scholarship section where I can address the various biographers (including Lynn). Sorry for being longwinded, but it's best for people to see the cited material directly. Oh, and I'll try to get to the edit request above this weekend, but it really only needs a bit of tweaking. Victoria (tk) 15:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Michael Reynolds' Hemingway: The Early Years (part of his five-volume biography, still the most authoritative account of Hemingway's life) also dismisses the story that Hemingway carried a wounded soldier on his back, and explains how Hemingway got the myth started. (He also points out that Hemingway in effect retracted the story when Frederic in The Sun also Rises explicitly denies performing any heroic act like the one Hemingway earlier attributed to himself.) No biographer since Meyers treats the story as anything other than Hemingway's invention. Why should WP continue to endorse exploded myths? I hope an editor who works regularly on this page will look at Reynolds and revise accordingly. - Macspaunday (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC
"(A)n editor who works regularly on this page": that could be Victoria (tk) (see article history); in fact, that's the editor to whom you just replied. I am sure this can all be worked out, after, what, nearly a century, ten days is ... - Neonorange (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've tweaked it slightly, [9], and cited to James Mellow (1992). Mellow says, (page 60-61), "Hemingway would describe the event in several fictional and factual accounts of his baptism by fire, most of them contradictory and many of them elaborated over the years. He once claimed that the depiction of Frederic Henry's wounding in a A Farewell to Arms came closest to the truth. There, except for the fact that the three wounded soldiers, one of whom was dead, were depicted as four Italian ambulance drivers, Hemingway's account seems to jibe with the official citation for his receiving of the Medaglia 'd Argento al Valore … "Gravely wounded by numerous pieces of shrapnel from an enemy shell, with an admirable spirit of brotherhood, before taking care of himself, he rendered generous assistance to the Italian soldiers more seriously wounded by the same explosion and did not allow himself to be carried elsewhere until after they had been evacuated."
Re Reynolds (four volumes, by the way), yes, he explains the perpetuation of the myth, which to a degree had to do with Scribners PR efforts. I think some of that material should probably go to A Farewell to Arms, which is still in need of full expansion. One more thing, as the "editor who works regularly on this page" (1600 + edits), I found the tone a little demeaning. Just saying. Victoria (tk) 15:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Wait, wait! I, at least, absolutely was NOT referring to anyone in particular when I wrote "an editor who regularly works on this page," meaning, of course, any one of the many editors who would inevitably have worked on a page as extensive as this one. Someone else identified that phrase with a particular person, but it never even occurred to me that that meaning could have been drawn from the phrase. I was simply showing respect to the editors who regularly work on this page, just as I hope that visitors to pages that I work on would defer to those who regularly work on it. Please look again at the comment, and you'll see that nothing even remotely demeaning could have been intended by it.
I'm appalled at the thought what was (I thought) clearly intended as statement of deference to those who work here could have been taken as anything else. (Incidentally, it never even occurred to me until two minutes ago to look at the history of the page to see who has edited it; it's clear to anyone that a page about a major writer would have had many editors over the course of time. It's simply not the case that anyone who offers a single edit to a page like this would take the time to study the edit history of the page. To the casual visitor, what matters is what's on the page, not the history of how it got that way.) - Macspaunday (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Macspaunday, it's probably not worth belaboring, and, as you've explained, is perhaps a simple misunderstanding or an issue of indenting. I thought in this post you were responding to my previous post in the thread. Had that been the case, then yes, replying to the person who does make a lot of edits here along the lines of "Why should WP continue to endorse exploded myths? I hope an editor who works regularly on this page will look at Reynolds and revise accordingly", can be read as asking for someone else to take a look, revise, review, fix, or whatever. But anyway, I've tweaked, I hope to your satisfaction, and let's just leave it at that. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 20:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I finally understand how my comment could have been taken as a comment on the preceding post, because, thanks to the indentation, it appears on the page as if it's an indented comment on it. But in fact I wrote my comment nine days after you wrote yours, and, when I wrote it, I didn't take the trouble to look back at what came before; I was simply adding another bit of evidence after reading Reynolds' book. And I indented simply so that there would be a visible distinction between contributions, not with any idea of responding to the immediately preceding text. My comment was simply adding to what I remembered of the thread, not responding to anything specific. This is why I was puzzled to read that I had "responded" to anyone's post, because I wasn't responding at all - I was merely coming back and having my say. Anyway, I'm glad to know that no offense has been taken because nothing of the sort was ever intended. - Macspaunday (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ancestry

Why is the origin of his family never discussed in the opening article? What nationality were his parents? Were they Italian, German, English, French, Dutch, Spanish? Both of his parents last names are English but that is just a guess. I would like to see his ancestry listed in the article as is the case with most notable people on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.116.19 (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, okay. I have information about this in sources and will add a sentence or so. Victoria (tk) 21:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

where are the archives?

clearly there are older versions of this talk page that have been archived, however unlike any other site where this is the case, there is no link to any of the archived content. someone mind creating them? i have no idea how --92.193.26.186 (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Huge thanks for pointing that out! Comments are archiving but who knows where! It will take some untangling, that's for sure. This weekend's project. Victoria (tk) 16:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The archive box was missing, now added, please see the top of this page. --Mirokado (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Phew! Thanks, Mirokado. That was easy. Victoria (tk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Nagel

I don't know how to properly edit so I'm sorry if the formatting of my post messes things up.

In the Writing Style section, it is said that "The Sun Also Rises is written in spare, tight prose that influenced countless crime and pulp fiction novels and made Hemingway famous"[158]. The source given is Nagel, James. (1996). "Brett and the Other Women in The Sun Also Rises". in Donaldson, Scott (ed). The Cambridge Companion to Ernest Hemingway. New York: Cambridge UP. ISBN 978-0-521-45574-9 However, nowhere in this source is crime fiction mentioned. I'm wondering where, if anywhere, a critic has discussed Heminway's impact of crime fiction/hardboiled stylistics?


Nagel, James. (1996). "Brett and the Other Women in The Sun Also Rises". in Donaldson, Scott (ed). The Cambridge Companion to Ernest Hemingway. New York: Cambridge UP. ISBN 978-0-521-45574-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.133.118 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting. I've moved your post to the bottom (where we put new posts), checked the source and rewrote accordingly. Thanks so much for noting this - it was wrong. Regarding the question about crime fiction, I'll try to see what I can find and post here. Victoria (tk) 23:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Misattributed Quote.

The following quote is misattributed to "Death in the Afternoon." Shouldn't this be cited as from "A Farewell to Arms"? The quote is below (footnote 162 is the authority given ...):

The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.

Wikiquote agrees it is misattributed. [1]

So does Google Books. [2]

--18:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)John A Kelly (talk)

Thanks for noting! It looks like the mark-up for the quote box was copied and a quote added without changing the attribution. I've commented it out for now. The quote boxes need some work and I'll get back in a few days or so to sort them out. Victoria (tk) 20:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I removed the comment notation and updated/fixed the reference. FWIW, the reference was correct, once upon a time, and then it was changed, apparently. (It may not be perfect, but it should do, for now.) This is a quote that we don't want to lose, IMHO. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
John Kelly, Thanks for drawing attention to this and finding a reference. John and Victoriaearle, We can always update the reference but, for now, the quote is back in place. My understanding, given very limited time to explore the issue, is that one version of the book contains the quotation and another does not, FWIW. I'm still trying to locate it in my version -- the Google Books link may help me to find it. When time permits, I'll fix the reference that we're using now. (As I noted in my quick response last night, the reference was correct a long time ago, though there wasn't a page number. Much later, the attribution was apparently changed, inadvertently, it would seem.) I like the quote and would hate to see it removed or get lost in the shuffle, as I noted above. We can always fine-tune it. Hope we're all in agreement. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I thought I'd fixed this, but apparently not. Anyway, I see that page numbers are needed. Off to sort through the bookcases to find the book. Back in a bit. Victoria (tk) 20:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I see from this discussion (where I had a different user name!) that I couldn't find my copy of A Farewell to Arms in 2012. I do remember locating it, but it's disappeared again. Anyway, I decided to go with the Scribner's 1929 version from g-books, with a link (but it's only a snippet view) instead of using the reprinted Simon and Shuster editions. In the meantime I'll keep looking and when I find the book will probably update again. I've also updated the sources to it reflects the edition used, and I updated the other quote box too. Thanks Elizabeth Blandra for noting and responding here! And thanks for the help. Busy holidays and all that, and I'd completely forgotten. Victoria (tk) 21:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wikiquote http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ernest_Hemingway#A_Farewell_to_Arms_.281929.29. Retrieved November 12, 2014. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ Farewell to Arms: The Hemingway Library Edition. Retrieved November 12, 2014.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2015

Please add to the notable awards section:

Bronze Star

Thank you

80.110.50.173 (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a reference: www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2006/spring/hemingway.html Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that we should honor the request. Here's a supporting quote from the reference that follows it (and also highlighted, above):

"In a small ceremony in June 1947 at the U.S. embassy in Cuba, Hemingway was awarded a Bronze Star for his service as a war correspondent for having circulated "freely under fire in combat areas in order to obtain an accurate picture of conditions. Through his talent of expression, Mr. Hemingway enabled readers to obtain a vivid picture of the difficulties and triumphs of the front-line soldier and his organization in combat."" www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2006/spring/hemingway.html Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Edgars2007 Hemingway's Bronze Medal award is already covered; the last paragraph in section 1.8 World War II (and cited). If, on the other hand, the request is for addition to the Notable awards section of the infobox, well, that section is, for a person whose primary notability is as an author, for awards in the literary field. —Neonorange (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hemingway's Guns

I was listening to a podcast recently, entitled Ernest Hemingway's Guns, and the author of the book of the same title was discussing with the host the controversial subject of the gun that Hemingway shot himself with. He stated that he met with a local blacksmith who claimed to have been asked by Hemingway's wife to destroy the gun, so that it wouldn't be passed around as a morbid curio. Apparently he kept a small box of receiver parts, and they were identified as, not the Boss shotgun of lore, but a W.C Scott shotgun. I'll include a link to the page including a transcript of the podcast. Hemingway's Guns Can anyone who owns the book confirm this and, as I have not yet ten edits, update the page with the information suitably? Chalysseus (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chalysseus, I'm not sure if the book you mean is this one? If it is, I'd probably need to spend some time having a look at it before adding to this article, which is in a fairly stable condition. Currently the bit about the gun is sourced to Jeffrey Meyers and he used the coroner's report as his source (as did Carlos Baker), so I feel fairly confident in terms of verifiability with those sources. I see that we used Michael Reynolds in that section too. I'll dig out all those books and take a look again, and at the one you suggest, and then report back. Might take a few days. Victoria (tk) 00:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the very same. According to the book, or at least the podcast, there is no evidence that Hemingway ever owned a Boss shotgun. As for the coroner, I'm sure a mistake could be made. After all, all these shotguns look the same!Chalysseus (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, having read it. The book also cites Wikipedia, which is a problem, and frankly adds more fuel to the fodder. I've checked Michael Reynolds' Hemingway: The Final Years, [10], the most recent scholarly biography, and he concurs on page 358. I've checked that the Meyer's quote is transcribed properly and it is; I also checked that Meyers got his info from the coroner - who was the first person there. It might be wrong, but on Wikipedia, and particularly for featured articles we cite the most scholarly sources, so I wouldn't be comfortable changing it to a source that cites Wikipedia. Victoria (tk) 13:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Adding: that quote probably should have been attributed to Meyers, but I've swapped it out for Mellow's version in this edit. Mellow is a reliable source and he doesn't specify that it was a Boss gun. Thanks, by the way, for bringing this up. Victoria (tk) 15:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your help. As a firearms buff and a Hemingway fan, I was probably a bit quick to jump on the W&C Scott bandwagon. I haven't read the book, but I will try and get my hands on it. Chalysseus (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hemingways "confession" regarding a war crime

Please check the yellow marked sections at the end of this document (the beginning is German, at the end it's original E.H.): Relevant text passages regarding war crime(s)

There are two incidents E.H. writes about, that are discussed here and in the internet elsewhere. Perhaps someone can transform this into one or two sentences in the main article (the part about WW2 would be most fitting).

Summary of the two incidents:

  • Hemingway shoots a German uniform wearing soldier who is very young, which he discovers after closer examination. He is still alive, E.H. gives him of his own morphine tablets. No war crime at all, soldiers in uniform sadly are targets in a war. Furthermore, Hemingway deeply regretted this incident, because the young man was the in age of his own son.
  • E.H. tells the story of killing an SS-soldier (who actually were called "Armed SS", primarily forming elite fighting units, usually not involved in "SS special operations" atrocities, from which the image of the "evil SS super nazis" is contrived of). The SS-soldier is prisoner of war, is supposed to tell military secrets, which he insolently refuses to do, saying something about E.H. being a coward, belonging to a degenerate mongrel race and that the Geneva convention forbids E.H. to do harm to him. Hemingway describes himself killing the man, shedding a lot of blood. If this story was true, E.H. executed a prisoner of war, which is a war crime by all known standards (even if the war criminal would be an evil super nazi).
    • Conclusion: E.H. was famous for bragging, especially for describing himself as an ultra tough macho type of guy. And he was a talented writer. The passage he writes actually could be used in a Hollywood film, including the dialogue, where a good and brave Rambo style US soldier kills a dirty nazi pig after giving him the chance to repent for his many terrible sins by telling secrets, that would save countless lives of fellow GIs. The scene continues with another evil super nazi seeing this and, being a coward if he isn't standing armed against women and children, hastily tells every war secret he knows to the brave GI. I don't believe that E.H. is telling the truth here, he is inventing a film scene. This goes along with the opinion of the professor who writes the expertise in the above linked document ("Gutachterliche Stellungnahme" in German).

Ernest Hemingway is in all probability no war criminal. --143.164.102.13 (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

    • Yes, I have access to the letters but generally we don't use them to bolster his own stories. I also have access to the two biographies cited and will take a look at the relevant pages. Nonetheless, the material cited here in this article is based on other biographers who are clearly reliable sources and so it has to be reported that the charges were brought. What actually happened, whether or not he left his weapon in his room, we can never really know. On a side note, I'm a bit concerned that this pdf contains personally identifiable information. Maybe not such a good idea to link it on WP? Or perhaps consider removing the info from the pdf? Victoria (tk) 22:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2015

Not done, no request made. — Neonorange (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015

Please add this reference to "External Links"

Ernest Hemingway's journalism at {http://www.historicjournalism.com/ernest-hemingway-1.html The Archive of American Journalism] 71.215.199.53 (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Done TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 01:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Influence and legacy

Statue of Hemingway by José Villa Soberón, El Floridita bar in Havana

Hemingway's legacy to American literature is his style: writers who came after him emulated it or avoided it.[1] After his reputation was established with the publication of The Sun Also Rises, he became the spokesperson for the post–World War I generation, having established a style to follow.[2] His books were burned in Berlin in 1933, "as being a monument of modern decadence", and disavowed by his parents as "filth".[3] Reynolds asserts the legacy is that "he left stories and novels so starkly moving that some have become part of our cultural heritage."[4] In a 2004 speech at the John F. Kennedy Library, Russell Banks declared that he, like many male writers of his generation, was influenced by Hemingway's writing philosophy, style, and public image.[5] Müller reports that Hemingway "has the highest recognition value of all writers worldwide".[6]

Benson believes the details of Hemingway's life have become a "prime vehicle for exploitation", resulting in a Hemingway industry.[7] Hemingway scholar Hallengren believes the "hard boiled style" and the machismo must be separated from the author himself.[3] Benson agrees, describing him as introverted and private as J. D. Salinger, although Hemingway masked his nature with braggadocio.[8] In fact, during World War II, Salinger met and corresponded with Hemingway, whom he acknowledged as an influence. In a letter to Hemingway, Salinger claimed their talks "had given him his only hopeful minutes of the entire war" and jokingly "named himself national chairman of the Hemingway Fan Clubs."[9]

The extent of Hemingway's influence is seen in the tributes and echoes of his fiction in popular culture. A minor planet, discovered in 1978 by Soviet astronomer Nikolai Chernykh, was named for him (3656 Hemingway);[10] Ray Bradbury wrote The Kilimanjaro Device, with Hemingway transported to the top of Mount Kilimanjaro;[11] the 1993 motion picture Wrestling Ernest Hemingway, about the friendship of two retired men, Irish and Cuban, in a seaside town in Florida, starred Robert Duvall, Richard Harris, Shirley MacLaine, Sandra Bullock, and Piper Laurie.[12] The influence is evident with the many restaurants named "Hemingway"; and the proliferation of bars called "Harry's" (a nod to the bar in Across the River and Into the Trees).[13] A line of Hemingway furniture, promoted by Hemingway's son Jack (Bumby), has pieces such as the "Kilimanjaro" bedside table, and a "Catherine" slip-covered sofa. Montblanc offers a Hemingway fountain pen, and a line of Hemingway safari clothes has been created.[14] The International Imitation Hemingway Competition was created in 1977 to publicly acknowledge his influence and the comically misplaced efforts of lesser authors to imitate his style. Entrants are encouraged to submit one "really good page of really bad Hemingway" and winners are flown to Italy to Harry's Bar.[15] Since its introduction in 2004 Blizzard Entertainment's MMORPG Word of Warcraft includes a NPC quest giver named "Hemet Nesingwary" (an anagram) whose interests include big game hunting. He has appeared in multiple locations throughout the game's evolution.

In 1965, Mary Hemingway established the Hemingway Foundation and in the 1970s she donated her husband's papers to the John F. Kennedy Library. In 1980, a group of Hemingway scholars gathered to assess the donated papers, subsequently forming the Hemingway Society, "committed to supporting and fostering Hemingway scholarship."[16]

Almost exactly 35 years after Hemingway's death, on July 1, 1996, his granddaughter Margaux Hemingway died in Santa Monica, California. Margaux was a supermodel and actress, co-starring with her sister Mariel in the 1976 movie Lipstick.[17] Her death was later ruled a suicide, making her "the fifth person in four generations of her family to commit suicide."[18]

References

  1. ^ Oliver (1999), 140–141
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Nagel 1996 87 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Hallengren, Anders. "A Case of Identity: Ernest Hemingway". Nobelprize.org. Retrieved 30 November 2011.
  4. ^ Reynolds (2000), 15
  5. ^ Banks (2004), 54
  6. ^ Müller (2010), 30
  7. ^ Benson (1989), 347
  8. ^ Benson (1989), 349
  9. ^ Baker (1969), 420
  10. ^ Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003) Dictionary of Minor Planet Names. New York: Springer Verlag. ISBN 3-540-00238-3, 307
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Oliver144 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Oliver (1999), 360
  13. ^ Oliver (1999), 142
  14. ^ Hoffman, Jan. "A Line of Hemingway Furniture, With a Veneer of Taste". (June 15, 1999).The New York Times. Retrieved September 3, 2009.
  15. ^ Smith, Jack. Wanted: One Really Good Page of Really Bad Hemingway.(March 15, 1993). Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 7, 2010.
  16. ^ Miller (2006), 78–80
  17. ^ "Margaux Hemingway Is Dead; Model and Actress Was 41". (July 3, 1996). The New York Times. Retrieved May 14, 2010
  18. ^ "Coroner Says Death of Actress Was Suicide". (August 21, 1996). The New York Times. Retrieved May 14, 2010.

Aeberbach (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done (if this post is a request, the material is already in the article). Almost word for word. — Neonorange (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This is not a "spot the difference competition". If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Formatting issue

@Professor JR:, just let you know that I restored an earlier version of the "Cuba and the Nobel Prize" section, because moving the images had left the section with a squashed quote; see here, scroll down. I don't know whether I lost other changes in the process. Apologies if I did. SarahSV (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah for that. I've fixed another formatting issue today and made a few other tweaks. @Professor JR:, thanks for the edits here - it does need some tidying. But we need to keep the WP:FA criteria in mind and I'd like to keep it as clean as possible for the mid-month main page run of one of his works. I haven't been able to curate and won't be back for a few weeks - hoping watchers can pitch in. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 14:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Victoriaearle: I'm apparently not as 'Wiki-literate' as you, nor as familiar with the more arcane subtleties of 'Wiki-speak' terminology, and have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about when you write: "we need to keep the WP:FA criteria in mind and I'd like to keep it as clean as possible for the mid-month main page run of one of his works". Please explain (in lay terms, preferably.) Thanks. --- Professor JR (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. If you see a link like WP:FA (there are lots of them!) and don't understand what someone is talking about, the first thing to do is to follow the link and read at least the first part of the page. Ernest Hemingway is a "Featured Article" (FA) which means it has been peer reviewed to meet our highest standards for accuracy, completeness, presentation and so on. For this reason we pay particular attention to edits to FAs so that the quality is maintained. In this case, in addition, one of his works is scheduled to appear on the main page later this month, so we can expect higher readership for a few days and it is important to keep the article tidy for that.
It is always better to check changes by inspecting both diffs (the Show Changes button) and the preview (Show preview button) before saving. If there are images near the change, it is also worth while checking the preview while changing the width of the browser window to make sure the display is still tidy. In this case the pictures interacted poorly with a quote after the change. --Mirokado (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016

Dear sirs, my name is Alex Fernández de Castro writing from Barcelona, Spain, I would like to add a book about Hemingway I recently published in Spain to the "Sources" section in the Wikipedia article devoted to Hemingway. It is a book about "The Farm", a Joan Miró painting that Hemingway bought as a present to his first wife Hadley in 1925. It now hangs at the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC. My book (which so far has only been published in Spanish language) is called "La Masía, Un Miró Para Mrs Hemingay". It was published by Publicacions Universitat de Valencia on June 2015, ISBN 978-84-370-9668-1. You can find it quoted at the webpage of the NGA, among the info related to "The Farm" by Joan Miró: [11]

Let me finnish by saying that for the sake of accuracy and due respect to Ernest Hemingway, I am glad this page is protected.

Sincerely, Alex F. de Castro

Alex fernández de castro (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Hello Señor Fernández de Castro. It seems unlikely that your book is currently used as "a source" for the article. Even if it is not, it's not usual to add non-English language books to "Further reading", unless written by known subject-matter scholars. Nevertheless, the subject matter of your book looks very interesting, and is probably pertinent to one aspect of Hemingway's life. So perhaps it could be used to source an addition to the text? Let's see what other editors say. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 and Alex fernández de castro:
I have just seen this request. It is certainly possible to imagine a new section, in the present article, covering the topic of Hemingway as art collector and enthusiastic admirer of European and American painters.[1] This would provide an opportunity to mention Joan Miró and The Farm—evidently a notable work of art—with an English translation of Señor Fernández de Castro's book as one of the cited references. I would strongly support the development of such a new section, and will therefore keep this in my watchlist with the intent of making helpful contributions in due course.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 14:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Fully support. A good idea. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Thank you for your prompt reply of support, Martin, and (belated) Happy Easter!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Thanks for your 'Thank You' button, Martin.
For planning purposes: there is Ernest Hemingway and the Arts[2], which seems perfect for a putative new section on the subject; I might even give it a go...
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hemingway, Colette (2000). "Ernest Hemingway (1899–1961) and Art". metmuseum.org. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
  2. ^ Stipes Watts, Emily (1972). Ernest Hemingway and the Arts. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-00169-7.

Papa Hemingway, missing

It seems odd to me that this article, in all its comprehensive splendor, never mentions one of the most basic facts that we've all learned elsewhere: Hemingway was called "Papa" by his intimates and his admirers. The article only mentions "Papa" at one point, where it quotes a 1960 cable to his wife that he signed, "Love, Papa."

I wanted to add a single sentence to establish the fact; but honestly, I couldn't find a proper spot to insert it. The article is clearly crafted with care, and at each point where I looked, the insertion would have disrupted the flow. That's why I'm coming to the talk page, instead of being bold.

The information can be supported by at least the following citations:

Would anyone care to identify a good place for the insertion of one sentence stating "Hemingway was called 'Papa' by his intimates and his admirers," and citing those two references? Are there strong objections to such an addition? Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC), rev. 21:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: Dear Lwarrenwiki;
Thank you for raising this interesting point. As soon as I read your entry above, it made abundant sense to me to include a short reference to it. It is clear, from the sources you so thoughtfully provided, that Hemingway began to be referred to as 'Papa' at about the time of his trips to Pamplona, after 'Bumby'—who also called him 'Papa'—was born. Therefore, I would suggest that we insert a single sentence (that I have highlighted in bold face, just in this instance) at this point in the prose, within the fourth paragraph of the section on Paris:
"With his wife Hadley, Hemingway first visited the Festival of San Fermín in Pamplona, Spain, in 1923, where he became fascinated by bullfighting.[1] It is at this time that he began to be referred to as 'Papa'.[2][3] The Hemingways returned to Pamplona in 1924 and a third time in June 1925; that year they brought with them a group of American and British expatriates: Hemingway's Michigan boyhood friend Bill Smith, Donald Ogden Stewart, Lady Duff Twysden (recently divorced), her lover Pat Guthrie, and Harold Loeb.[4]"
What do you think?
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 12:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Pdebee: Thank you, Patrick. I've inserted the information exactly as you suggested, and I appreciated your courtesy in going to the considerable trouble of showing me the spot and allowing me to take the credit for this edit. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: Dear Lwarrenwiki;
Thank you for your very courteous feedback and for implementing the change. It really was no trouble at all to draft the sample above, as it helped to validate a good place for adding the new text. Thank you once again for your excellent initiative.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 07:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Meyers (1985), 117–119
  2. ^ Harrington, Mary (December 28, 1946). "They Call Him Papa". New York Post Week-End Magazine. p. 3. Reprinted in Bruccoli, Matthew Joseph, ed. (1986). Conversations with Ernest Hemingway. Literary conversations series. Univ. Press of Mississippi. pp. 42–45. ISBN 0878052739. ISSN 1555-7065.
  3. ^ Richardson, Hadley (n.d.). "How Hemingway became Papa" (Audio segment (4m 37s) from interview). Interviewed by Alice Hunt Sokoloff. Archived from the original (MP3) on 2016-04-18. {{cite interview}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Published at Baker, Allie (June 28, 2010). "How did Hemingway become Papa?". The Hemingway Project. Archived from the original on 2016-04-07. In this clip, Alice Sokoloff asks Hadley if she remembers how the name 'Papa' began, which was sometime during their years in Paris. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Nagel (1996), 89

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2016

orezal si je uho 193.198.185.226 (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Stick to sources! Paine  09:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Grace Hall Hemingway

Dear fellow editors,
I am leaving the present message out of courtesy to other editors interested in this article.
Today, a redlink was added for Grace Hall Hemingway, here, which I then linked to the article on Grace Hall Hemingway at the German Wiki. In the near future, I intend to translate the latter and create a corresponding article here, but if someone else is itching to do this, then please feel free to do the honours.
Also, existing occurrences of the name Grace Hall Hemingway on Google show it spelt without a hyphen between 'Hall' and 'Hemingway', so I removed the hyphen that featured in the prose before the edit that created the redlink today. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 23:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: The article about Grace Hall Hemingway is now available at the English language Wikipedia.  Done
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 19:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's nice, much better than the redlink or the link to the German article - well done. I have plenty of sources and might add to it. To change the topic, I'm not crazy about the page views box at the top of the page, but leave it consensus whether or not we need it. Victoria (tk) 20:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Victoria,
Thank you for taking the time to give feedback on this; it's always nice to be appreciated. Thank you also for taking the initiative of linking more articles to Grace's, as this is what I had hoped would be a useful outcome. As for the 'page views' template at the top of this talk page, I have no particular attachment to it; I was curious to learn about this article's appeal and am amazed that it receives so much traffic, which I had not expected. Please feel free to remove it if that would assuage your concern(s), and thanks for being so frank about it; I won't mind in the least.
With kindest regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 22:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this is a vital article with a fair number of page views. The only reason I mentioned the page view thingie is that it's also available in history: go to history, click the "page view statistics" link, and you'll get this page. I'm not sure whether one is more accurate than the other or they mirror each other, but let's wait to see if anyone else objects. Re Grace, there's lots of info about her in the EH biographies I have, so if you don't mind, I'll bulk it up a bit when I get the chance. Anyway, well done on that page. Victoria (tk) 23:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Victoria,
Thank you for pointing out the usual method, which I have used so regularly I sometimes created direct wikilinks to track the traffic on some favourite pages (are we allowed to admit this? ). When I stumbled across the 'page views' template, I started to use it occasionally, since it saves time. I simply copied it here thinking other editors would like to see the traffic without having to click on anything.
However, the fact that you were "not crazy" about it is reason enough to remove it, and I'll do it now.
Re-Grace's stub, I would be only too pleased to see other editors build on it, since all I really wanted to do is improve on the red link created yesterday. So, thank you very much for your interest in building it up, and for everything else you do in support of our encyclopedia.
Please keep well, Victoria, and thanks once again for making contact.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 00:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016

205.223.221.20 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Writing habits. Request for assistance.

Someone told me that Hemmingway rose early in the morning and wrote on a mechanical typewriter. That person said that he wrote 1000 words at a time and then edited them later that day. That person also said that Hemingway worked on his typewriter while standing up (which I am dubious about). See:

Maybe some established user can add some of these factoids to the article?--24.130.14.143 (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, his writing habits are described at the beginning of this Paris Review article. He did use a (mechanical) typewriter, considered high-tech when he bought his first one in the 1920s, and he did write standing up. He was a slow writer and rarely wrote 1000 words in a day. Then he'd rewrite the next day. Yes, I think some of this information can be added to the article. Thanks for asking! Victoria (tk) 13:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

American Socialists?

I don't see why this list needs to be linked to at the bottom of this page or why he's on it. Hemingway associated with socialist movements during the Spanish Civil War, but I don't believe he was ever a socialist himself, and the article mentions nothing of the sort. Calling him a socialist is like calling J.R.R. Tolkien a fascist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.122.109 (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I agree - no need to add 'socialist' here. He is a lovely author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.149.36.178 (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It bears pointing out that "socialist" is not a pejorative term, it's a simple statement of fact. Whether Hemingway was or was not a "socialist" has nothing to do with whether he was a "lovely" (skilful?) author. The point is not pedantic; we deal in facts here, and conflating them with value judgements ("socialist good/socialist bad") threatens that work. (And, on-point: there is in fact no evidence that Hemingway adhered to any socialist party.) Laodah 19:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic

It should be referred to as "Mayo Clinic," not "the Mayo Clinic." Like "Wikipedia," not "the Wikipedia" or "Rockefeller Center," not "the Rockefeller Center." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.55.24 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent addition to the Spanish Civil War section of Ernest Hemingway

I reverted a clause added in good faith to the Spanish Civil War section (added phrase in italics):

In 1937, Hemingway agreed to report on the Spanish Civil War for the North American Newspaper Alliance (NANA),[86] arriving in Spain in March with Dutch filmmaker Joris Ivens., visiting cities like Madrid and Valencia, among others.

I thought it best to revert the edit—the cited source is a blog—almost all the references in this featured article are citations to well-regarded Hemingway biographies. In addition, the added clause doesn't really work. If Hemingway had a particular experiences in Valencia and Madrid, then it might be worth adding a sentence or two if Wikipedia reliable sources can be found—otherwise, no. — Neonorange (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Neonorange I'd have to dig out my books and trawl through to see what's written about that period and weave something together. Can't get to it immediately, but remind me in case I forget. Thanks, Victoriaearle (tk) 21:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of "contravention of the Geneva Convention" (of 1949)

I noticed the sentence about the potential violations of the Geneva Convention (where the singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949). Any possible violations would have been in 1944 or 1945 (and prior to the 1949 convention). The plural could be appropriate but further clarification is necessary as this is not just a quick disambiguation fix.

The article text seems implies the charge was somewhat formal (an exaggeration?) and was related to a corespondent leading troops (perhaps a violation of the Third Geneva Convention?). However, allegations of potential Geneva conventions violations apparently also relate to his shooting a German (SS) soldier (war story is apparently from a letter he wrote in 1950). Archived discussions:[12],[13].

Can we please further clarify which of the Geneva conventions and which war story that the violation allegation relates to (they must be prior to convention of 1949)? Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's explained here on page 408. I don't have Lynn's book that it's referenced to; I believe Sbharris does. While I'm here, just to clarify: at the moment I'm unable to edit. Once I'm back I'll write up something abut the "Crook Factory" if we have consensus (after reading about it yesterday in Michael Reynolds biography, I'm not entirely certain we need to add much more). I've read more about the trip to China and will add a few more sentences to that section. But in the meantime, there's nothing I can do and I'm unable to keep replying. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ernest_Hemingway/Archive_4&oldid=1136705257"