Talk:Annie Proulx

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

United States: Vermont / Wyoming Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vermont portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (assessed as Low-importance).
	Wyoming portal This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming (assessed as Low-importance).

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Perishable stuff

An encyclopedia as People Places and Things. Sad. Fifty years from now the editing of perishable stuff like this wll be enormous. The article could be reduced to 250 words and still be relevant.--Buckboard 06:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but the information is here, so let's keep it.Dvmlny 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec origins?

why this notation? logically a nation should follow as a modifier of national idenity, no? last i looked, quebec was a province, not a sovereign nation. would it not be more appropriate to list "canadian", or "franco-canadian origins", etc.? -- Denstat 07:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been taken care of.Dvmlny 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oscars Dust-up

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Brokeback Mountain didn't win Best Picture! Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.7.89 (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the concern, but just be sure to keep it out of the article section.Dvmlny 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the section describing the Oscars article, the heffalump part seems sort of POV, gratuitous, maybe even a little celebrity-mongering, I don't know. Is there anyone watching this article with an opinion? I think it ought to be cut.Dvmlny 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole section on the Oscars 'Dust-up' needs to be re-thought, or just excised from the article entirely. At the moment it certainly has undue weighting for what - at least in the context of such an important writer of contemporary literature in English - is an exceedingly minor controversy. Perhaps mention of it could be reduced to a passing reference somewhere in the body of the article, which is frankly the most coverage it deserves in an encyclopedia article. SpaceyHopper 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any response, I have made the change I suggested above. 86.31.112.89 10:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I'm deleting the section 'criticism of academy awards'. It was added without reference to the discussion here and frankly gives undue weighting to what I've already described as 'an exceedingly minor controversy' in the context of the wider career of an 'important writer of contemporary literature in English'. Furthermore, this section is merely a re-hash of Proulx's own words to which a reference is provided in the very first paragraph of this wikipedia entry. SpaceyHopper 01:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether her post-Oscar's article should stay or not, the paragraph speculating on the meaning of 'heffalump' needs to go. It is pure wikieditor guessing. If someone can provide a notable source for the speculation, by all means re-include it. Ashmoo (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'm going to delete that whole section again. It's been re-written since I last changed it, but it's still crap. SpaceyHopper (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted this section again. It's full of opinion asides, commentary, original resource and is totally uncited. There may be some facts in the story, but all the stuff about what it's supposed to mean is clearly some Wikipedia's editor's opinion and personal interpretation. It does not belong on this page. And that's before we even begin to consider whether it's notable enough to have an entire section to itself. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to itemize what's wrong with this section;

Biographies of living persons. The material in the paragraph is both uncited and controversial. Policy is clear on this that it should be removed.
Original research. The paragraph contains personal interpretation and commentary of events. This is original research and does not belong on Wikipedia.
Notability. The events discussed in the paragraph are not notable and are given undue weight within the article.
Consensus. Discussion by other editors on the talk page has repeatedly led to this paragraph being removed.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this section is notable because it made international news at the time, and because it was, by design, a very public statement of dissatisfaction by the author herself. The ensuing controversy was so great that Ms. Proulx was forced to shutter her own site (this was noted on the site), and even today she continues to answer questions about the incident. I've taken pains to cite the article in question, and could gladly scare up hundreds more clippings that make reference to this event. Is it as important as her biography and novels? No, but it did break through the national consciousness for several weeks and draw a line in the sand for the sensibilities of literary adaptation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.85.7 (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is far more neutrally phrased than previous attempts, but the fact that it is uncited remains a problem. Clearly the opinion piece was written by Proulx, but you have provided no evidence that it caused any reaction or controversy. If it made international news then you'll have no problem providing cites. Please do. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the recently appended citations are of some use. The reaction in the blogosphere was explosive, but I have tried to hew toward more moderate MSM sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.85.7 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early story?

There is a short story, "The Customs Lounge", by "E.A. Proulx", in the September 1963 issue of If, a science fiction magazine. The magazine gives no biographical information. Given the unusual name, this seems very likely to be Annie Proulx. Does anyone have any further information about this story? Mike Christie (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An ISFDB editor pointed me at a reference, so I've included the story and reffed it. Mike Christie (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critics

I've cut down the section on BR Myers' attack on Proulx's work, for a few reasons. What was there made it sound as if Myers' criticism was targeted primarily at Proulx, when in fact she was just one several writers that he attacked. Also, to have given a whole (albeit short) paragraph to the Myers attack gives the incident an unjustified and misleading weight; Myers is not an authority on contemporary American fiction, his specialism is North Korean Studies. Finally, this article is supposed to cover Annie Proulx; Myers and A Readers Manifesto are both fairly covered in Wikipedia articles of their own, to which this article is linked. SpaceyHopper 14:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title corrected

The title of the article, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, should reflect how the person is commonly referred to:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Per this Wikipedia article on Proulx, "She has written most of her stories and books simply as Annie Proulx" and she is known as such, not as "E. Annie Proulx"; therefore the title of this article is "Annie Proulx," not "E. Annie Proulx." Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask E. Annie Proulx your questions about The Shipping News

Your chance to improve this article! EAP will appear on the BBC radio programme World Book Club discussing The Shipping News and Brokeback Mountain. This is a page with ways to submit questions.[1] Recording will probably take place in August or September 2008. I will add the date when when it is announced. EdQuine (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?

How do you pronounce her name? Those symbols don't show up on my computer, so I need someone to just explain it to me using normal letters. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Proo" (as in 'proof') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.255.215 (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video interview

There's a video interview with Proulx at The Wheeler Centre^[1] (Australia) online... she talks about Bird Cloud, the property she lives on, and some of the people who have influenced her writing. Not sure if anyone can be bothered adding and referencing that data! http://wheelercentre.com/videos/video/annie-proulx/ 202.137.76.76 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ The Wheeler Centre

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The Wheeler Centre

[1]