Jump to content

Talk:Ernest Hemingway/Archive 5

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

RfC about covert work section

There are borderline neutrality-issues with this RfC.Overall, there is a strong consensus that the sources are weak and not suitable to include the proposed information.Hence, the proposed inclusion is opposed.Winged Blades Godric 09:01, 14 April 2017 (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.

Are the topics of Ernest Hemingway's NKVD recruitment, OSS rejection, Office of Naval Intelligence work in Cuba (Crook Factory), and participation in "missions" in France undisputed facts that are necessary in a comprehensive biography? Johnvr4 (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, are the topics allegations that are author opinions that require due weight and multiple expressions of doubt?
The topics are currently presented in the article with the following text, "A 2009 book suggests during that period he may have been recruited to work for Soviet intelligence agents under the name "Agent Argo."Reference# 101
Follow-up questions based upon previous discussion:
  • Which high-quality sources should (or should not) be used for these topics? The current source for this material is the Guardian
  • How much information should be used from these sources?
  • Should the categories American Spies and/or American spies for the Soviet Union be added? Johnvr4 (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Comment I can only comment on the 'recruited by Soviet agents' allegation. The Guardian source is pretty sceptical: Was he only ever a pseudo-spook, possibly seeing his clandestine dealings as potential literary material, or a genuine but hopelessly ineffective one? The latter reading would chime with his attempts to assist the US during the second world war in his fishing boat El Pilar, patrolling waters north of Cuba in search of U-Boats, making coded notes but only one sighting. I see no reason to not include properly weighted this 'allegation', though it hardly amounts to that since no one seems to be claiming that he actually DID anything EVER and being willing to help USSR in early '40s when it was an ally of the West, does not seem very extraordinary. Giving some detail of his 'exploits' (or lack of) as an agent would seem more worthwhile than his 'code name', which gives a spurious legitimacy to the story. … … ps, 'Spy' categories Q. below, definitely not. Pincrete (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not "undisputed facts" at all, and some "sources" are rather fictitious in nature and appearance. [1] shows this as a book promotion. He definitely did do work for the Office of Strategic Services, which was not much of a secret. Did he ever meet with any Soviets? Sure. That did not make him a Soviet Agent, however. And his actual spy results seem to have been close to nil even for the OSS. By the way, a few Soviet agents were on the order of Our Man In Havana for effectiveness themselves, and likely added in "famous names" just to keep their paymasters happy. Collect (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Include mentions, otherwise ... - Yes, include some mention in the article. Just follow the cites, and convey what they say in WP:DUE weight of prominence. Inclusion should be determined by WP:DUE prominence rather than our passing any judgements of truth, and any contention or doubts in the sources out there are just part of the mention in article. I'll also note these seem separate items with notably different commonality -- the ONI more common than France, France more than OSS, and NKVD is by far less mentioned than OSS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Deciding what and how to include additional material from Nicholas Reynolds' new work will be easier when there is more commentary on this very new book—published March 14, 2017 (the day this rfc was created). So far reviews have been few and short, with some skepticism expressed. Fortunately, this policy helps us out, as does, as you mention, WP:UNDUE. This sentence
A 2009 book suggests during that period he may have worked for the KGB under the name "Agent Argo".
is now in the article (and has been since 2013).
Wikipedia's Ernest Hemingway article is almost entirely sourced to scholarly, published sources. Nicholas' Reynolds new book will come under scrutiny that will evaluate its relation to the large body of Ernest Hemingway scholarly work. — Neonorange (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (involved editor) As was explained in the prior sections above: Recent Edits, Espionage, and Quality sources, the material is verifiable and repeated in numerous very reliable sources. The source I used in a bold edit was commentary on Nicholas book and current WP policy is that CBS news is not fictitious as was an assertion made above. Nicholas' book and CBS are not the only sources for the material. Our multiple reliable sources do not treat this as an allegation. Apparently many editors, despite our sources, incorrectly feel this material contains unfounded "accusations." For this particular view please see WP:Reliable sources and undue weight and WP:Alleged (WP:Words to watch) in dealing with accusations and due weight. Nicholas as a reliable source is not just due to his recent book see: [2] [3]. The Guardian article that is cited is an announcement for the publication of Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (Yale University Press) which is another yet reliable source for this material. Nicholas' book is only the latest Reliable source. I don't feel that we must wait for new commentary on his book. He, as an EM biographer is a solid reliable source for the material and he seems to be the most reliable authority on the subject of EH's covert work. Last, WP:FACR requires the subject article to be both well-researched and comprehensive, neglecting no major facts, details, or context. A featured article would need the ONI work in Cuba, OSS rejection, NKVD recruitment and missions in France (with OSS association, killing the German soldier, leading the resistance, possible exaggeration of the story, etc.) material to comply. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Ernest Hemingway is a featured article with over forty sources and two hundred citations, mostly to recognized works by Hemingway scholars. This is to be expected for the biographical article of an important writer, winner of the Nobel Prize, who died more than 65 years ago. The life of such a person is investigated and written about extemsively. Wikipedia requires featured articles like this to use the best sources.
This "RFC", is malformed in that it asks Are the topics of Ernest Hemingway's NKVD recruitment, OSS rejection, Office of Naval Intelligence work in Cuba (Crook Factory), and participation in "missions" in France undisputed facts that are necessary in a comprehensive biography? as if there is disagreement. However, the disagreement is whether it is necessary to have high quality sources or is it necessary to include poor quality sources or primary sources which have not received scholarly attention in the sixty-five years since Hemingway died.
The one recently published source, Writer, Sailor, Soldier, Spy by Nicholas Reynolds, was published on the day this RFC was initiated. So far there have been no significant reviews (i.e. longer than a few paragraphs) of this book (and one of those short reviews, in Publishers Weekly, is more than skeptical 'This thoroughly researched exploration of Hemingway’s military adventurism fails to deliver a convincing conclusion...The book is filled with admissions that "no one is likely to ever know" the extent of Hemingway’s involvement with the Soviets and overly puffed-up martial language...'). If the Nicholas Reynolds books contains new, well documented information, then I am sure it will attract comentators who are well equiped to assess. For now, the Hemingway article has this mention:
In January 1941, Martha was sent to China on assignment for Collier's magazine.[100] Hemingway went with her, sending in dispatches for the newspaper PM, but in general he disliked China.[100] A 2009 book suggests during that period he may have been recruited to work for Soviet intelligence agents under the name "Agent Argo".[101] They returned to Cuba before the declaration of war by the United States that December, when he convinced the Cuban government to help him refit the Pilar, which he intended to use to ambush German submarines off the coast of Cuba.
I agree with Victoriaearle, who wrote above in this section:

...for an article like this ours is to choose the very best sources and stick to them like velcro. As far as I can tell Nicholas Reynolds is not a Hemingway scholar yet most of the information already exists in the scholarly biographies and it's in the article. We can add more material about the Crook Factory if everyone's in agreement - cited to the scholarly biographies. I'm busy in real life at the moment and can't get to the books immediately, but am happy to spin some of it out somewhat. That said, I don't think we should be citing a book by a non-Hemingway scholar published in 2017 and getting media attention. Happy to get thoughts from others.

I am for what makes this a better, more reliable article, and worthy of Wikipedia featured articles. — Neonorange (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose (invited by the bot) The RFC taken literally is mal-formed, but I'm reading between the lines that this is about inclusion/exclusion of the weakly sourced items. Such things need strong sourcing to be included. And the "back door" of saying that it's coverage of what "some people said" should not be considered as being valid for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are issues with this RfC being malformed (most importantly not neutrally-stated among others) but the proposed information is definitely not undisputed an lumps together non-significant information with information that is quite within WP:FRINGE. The sources are weak and the conclusion is a product of WP:SYNTH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussions

The topics are currently presented in the article with the following text, "A 2009 book suggests during that period he may have been recruited to work for Soviet intelligence agents under the name "Agent Argo."Reference# 101

Follow-up questions based upon previous discussion:

Expressions of doubt

Are the topics allegations that are author opinions that require due weight and multiple expressions of doubt such as suggests and may have been recruited required?


Which sources to use?

Which high-quality sources should (or should not) be used for these topics?


Alexander Vassiliev et al. book

Is Alexander Vassiliev et al. book The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America a reliable source for such material?


Alexander Vassiliev Russian file transcripts

Is there any hint of 'conspiracy theory' in Alexander Vassiliev smuggling the notes and transcripts of files archived in Russia out and donating them to the Library of Congress? Does this fact affect the reliability of the notes given the accuracy determined by confirming with the very highly researched Venona project?


Nicholas New book

Is Nicholas's new book Writer, Sailor, Soldier, Spy reliable?

reviews:


Nicholas previous work

Is Nicholas' previous work reliable?

How much can we say from them?

How much information should be used from these sources?


Spy categories

Should the categories American Spies and/or American spies for the Soviet Union be added give "Failed KGB Spy" in the source?

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.

Death causes

Dementia and CTE from at least two book sources. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/04/28/ernest-hemingway-may-have-had-cte-and-it-may-have-killed-him/ Johnvr4 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 

Johnvr4 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

This edit introduces repetition. The issue is addressed in the previous paragraph and cited to high quality sources. For reasons that require a long explanation, Hotchner is not always considered a reliable source. It's better to rely on scholarly biographies, which is what's been done. If this continues, will someone please report the edit warring. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A new source for the claim? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ernest-hemingway-suspected-undercover-work-russia-us-book/ Johnvr4 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
See below. Essentially we need to use scholarly biographies, which is what's being done in the article. If you're interested in why it's best not to use Hotchner, I'll explain, but my time has been somewhat limited recently. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Who is Hotchner and what is Hotchner's relevance to the link I provided above? Johnvr4 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Although i do not have this book to verify, the source for the material I added appears to be Nicholas Reynolds and not Hotchner:

"Hemingway committed suicide in 1961. Reynolds believes his later letters reveal the writer was haunted by his Soviet connections.“He says, ‘You know, I did confidential things for the Soviets. And if that came out now, I’d be a candidate for the gallows,’” Reynolds said; “You think that worry was weighing on him?” Mason asked; “I’m pretty sure it was. And on the last night of his life, he looks over at the next table and he says, ‘Those two guys over having dinner, they’re from the FBI,’” Reynolds said.

It that not the majority opinion of the reliable high-quality sources? Or is it simply a repetition that is in several reliable sources or it it too much speculation about the cause of ones suicide or illness? (FBI was following him, he believed it, Hotchner discounted the idea as paranoia and was surprised it was all true.)
Consider also Nicholas Reynolds' previous writings on the spying (and possible motivations in the source):

It is impossible to know; there is just not enough information, and that situation is unlikely to change unless his entire NKVD file becomes accessible or previously unknown Hemingway letters come to light. We are left with the irony that four organizations that could not agree on much—the NKVD, OSS, FBI, and Department of State—all arrived separately at the same conclusion: Ernest Hemingway may have wanted to be a spy, but he never lived up to his potential.

His recent book apparently adds the missing components of files and letters (doesn't it?). Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. This is what happened. Hemingway had dinner at the Christiana Lodge in Ketchum (now torn down, I believe) and told his dinner companions the light was on in the bank across the street because he was under FBI investigation. It's an anecdote that been around since not long after his death and is documented in various biographies. At one point I had it in the article then removed it, but will trawl through the history. The issue is this: yes, we know he was under FBI surveillance and that information is in the article. But, he also suffered from paranoia to the point that his neighbors gave their young children very strict instructions to stay away from his house (that's not in a biography, but is true). Young children aren't FBI agents, but he'd pull a shotgun on just about anything that moved. The biographers, Baker, Meyers, Mellow and most recently Reynolds, interviewed everyone who knew him, make their life's work of writing scholarly biographies, and so are the best sources to use. Hotchner, being a long time good friend is iffy because like Hemingway's own words his words have to be taken with a grain of salt. That's not the job of Wikipedia editors; for an article like this ours is to choose the very best sources and stick to them like velcro. As far as I can tell Nicholas Reynolds is not a Hemingway scholar yet most of the information already exists in the scholarly biographies and it's in the article. We can add more material about the Crook Factory if everyone's in agreement - cited to the scholarly biographies. I'm busy in real life at the moment and can't get to the books immediately, but am happy to spin some of it out somewhat. That said, I don't think we should be citing a book by a non-Hemingway scholar published in 2017 and getting media attention. Happy to get thoughts from others. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe that most of the primary research material was donated to the Library of Congress and made available to other researchers, historians and biographers within the last five to eight or so years. Newer interpretations of the correspondence letters or files, may no longer simply be the opinion of the original interpreter - in this case Hotchner or Vassiliev et al. (these may be appropriate external links to add to that section)
To simplify the addition of material, shall we focus on his wartime service(s) and hiatus from professional writing and why the FBI was following him and skip the suspected contributing causes (guilt, alcoholism, physical and mental illness) other than a quick mention of the surveillance relationship with foreign spying? Nicolas Reynolds (from 2009-present) very much seems to be a Hemingway biographer and appears to be citing letters from Hemingway (or perhaps others) for his conclusion(s) on the guilty feelings. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Espionage

I've boldly added and expanded this section diff. Please review my changes. Thank you. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted it. It's in the previous section, where it states, "A 2009 book suggests during that period he may have been recruited to work for Soviet intelligence agents under the name "Agent Argo".". Looks like this material has been in the article since 2009 and that's really all we need to say in this article. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. That source, mentions new sources such as an upcoming new (in 2009), improved version of his memoir, A Moveable Feast; and the opening of a digital archive of papers found in his Cuban home and Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America that based on notes that Vassiliev made in the 90s from Stalin-era intelligence archives in Moscow (in the Library of Congress since 2009[5] see also:this author interview @00:30:00). The sources do not suggest he may have been recruited. They say he "he was recruited in 1941 before making a trip to China." It states he was "given the cover name 'Argo'" (not "Agent Argo"). It mentions he met Soviet agents in Havana and London in the 40s and this continued through the decade (last meeting 1945??). That restored passage seems inaccurate given the source that supports it and highly insufficient given there are two at least books and numerous reliable articles on the subject. The current passage lacks quality and six years is too long for that particular passage to be left in a featured article.
Commenting on your prior edit explaining the revert diff:
The word "scholarly" does not appear at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It says, "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;"
You actually unknowingly deleted two edits as I was clarifying the first with another when it was reverted-no biggie but the Crook Factory also needs mention
The current featured article skips his life from 1940 to 1945. Are all of the so-called scholarly sources deficient of relevance to this article during this period of his life (during the alleged espionage for four separate spy agencies that are mentioned in numerous sources and books or during his war-related service)?
Is the entire featured article outdated and inconsistent with currently available reliable sources? I think you are wanting to keep stability for a FA but there are already by your own admission in the previous section edits wars for the well-needed inclusion of this material that are also going to be problematic. Perhaps you'll need newer sources on your bookshelf!
In your next diff you added the blurb for the source being used for those edits-Which sounds pretty darn scholarly!:

"About the author: Nicholas Reynolds has worked in the fields of modern military history and intelligence off and on for forty years, with some unusual detours. Freshly minted PhD from Oxford University in hand, he joined the United States Marine Corps in the 1970s, serving as an infantry officer and then as a historian. As a colonel in the reserves, he eventually became officer in charge of field history, deploying historians around the world to capture history as it was being made. When not on duty with the USMC, he served as a CIA officer at home and abroad, immersing himself in the very human business of espionage. Most recently, he was the historian for the CIA Museum, responsible for developing its strategic plan and helping to turn remarkable artifacts into compelling stories. He currently teaches as an adjunct professor for Johns Hopkins University..."

Is this not a high quality source? https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol.-56-no.-2/pdfs/Reynolds-Hemingway%20A%20Dubious%20Spy.pdf
Is this book problematic as a high quality source? https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062440136/writer-sailor-soldier-spy
Your last diff deleted all of your previous concerns and now it does not make any sense given the concerns I've raised above about the current deficiencies in the article. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe it's a good quality source, no, and the other is a primary source. The article says that during the years 1940 to '45 Hemingway thought he was out of work as a writer and we need to follow the scholarly sources. As I mentioned above, as soon as I get a moment, I'm happy to haul out the biographies and bulk up that section. I was reading earlier about the Crook Factory in Mellow, and yes, that's something that can added in. The reason I deleted most of my post is that the info about Agent Argo is already in the article. I don't think we need an entire section about espionage activity cited to a television station. Again, I welcome comments from others. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up. I certainly did not intend to argue. I did add another thought that I tried to sneak in before your last edit but failed. I'm sorry about that. I did breeze through the archives and should have probably made a formal proposal for my changes. Johnvr4 (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I shouldn't commented and then changed the comment, but I didn't expect a reply to the deleted comment. Anyway, I've looked through the history and see that this sentence, "The FBI had, in fact, opened a file on him during World War II, when he used the Pilar to patrol the waters off Cuba, and J. Edgar Hoover had an agent in Havana watch Hemingway during the 1950s.[147]" has been there since 2009. I thought I'd added the bit about that conversation at the Christiania but it's really anecdotal and in the end might not have hit save; if I did, I deleted it soon after. Don't have time this moment to look through all the edits. But essentially I believe the material regarding the FBI file is covered adequately. Again, we should get a consensus. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It was not an issue as I make mistakes or change my mind all the time. We understood each other in the end.
I forgot to mention that the Guardian source refers to the El Pilar for his boat.
There is also a C-SPAN presentation Ernest Hemingway as a World War II Spy (February 22, 2012) Smithsonian Resident Associate Program was part of the series “Great Spies of World War II: Garbo, Baker, de Clarens...and Hemingway?” held in collaboration with the International Spy Museum. with Nick Reynolds on the espionage subject but it's 1.5 hours long. Johnvr4 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
very rough index (there is a transcript and clips at the link):
00:05:00 Hemingway family involved in intelligence more than known. Ernest, Lester, Bumby, growing up, influences
00:16:00 The Blue Stream looks for Nazi subs depots with Lester. ONI
00:20:00 Ernest in US intelligence in Cuba, Crook Factory
00:35:00 ONI outfitted El Pilar, hunts subs cover under oceanographic research for US museum natural history, hooligans navy
00:40:00 OSS rejection, war reporting in France, patrol missions
01:00:00 KGB secret files, motivations, Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America
01:18:00 Q&A including, Why did he kill himself?, July 1944 missions in Europe Johnvr4 (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Their Man in Havana?, an article announcing the 2009 release of Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, has excerpts from the KGB file. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality sources

Wikipedia policies

(underlined phrases indicate emphasis added)

1. Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available helps prevent NPOV disagreements. The CBS Sunday Morning interview with Nicholas Renyolds, author of Writer, Sailor, Soldier, Spy does not meet the requirements of this policy.This segment, by Anthony Mason, is a cultural item—and part of a new book publicity tour by Renyolds. As such, it is at the entertainment—or soft news—end of the spectrum. This CBS Sunday Morning segment isn't suitable as a reference for this Wikipedia article (or a similar article in any encyclopedia) on a subject for which a large body of scholarship exists. The segment is primarily entertainment—it makes no attempt at balance and broad sourcing, nor are these necessary. The phrase "a file smuggled out of Russia" has no provenance, and no follow-up question from Mason. Regardless of the quality of W,S,S,S., the Sunday Morning segment fails #this Wikipedia policy.

(I placed this in another subsection to avoid falling into TLDNR. I intend to add more to this section, but since I'm using an iPad at the moment, I'll add more later.) — Neonorange (Phil) 08:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Further—what makes a high quality, reliable source?

In this case, perhaps I can't do better than quote from Mellow in his NYT obituary:
For Mr. Mellow, accuracy and atmosphere were paramount. He once wrote that the biographer "wants the life, against all the reasonable odds, to have the verisimilitude of a period photograph: the exact hour of a certain afternoon, the forgotten details in place, the casual smile or anxious look fixed forever in its particular time." He added, "In other words, everything."

3. Judgement is required to identify high quality, reliable sources. Not only the publisher, but the expertise and analysis of the author. For simple matters of fact, without analysis, the bar is lower. Very recent primary sources can be usable, but for Wikipedia, primary sources from events long past (a generation or more), not so much. See WP:No original research, in particular, which includes

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:[2] Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.

— Neonorange (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


Continue

Keep in mind that the current citation for the statement in the entry is a news article from the Guardian- which we could further support or replace entirely with better sources.
The high quality source question(s) in the above section relates to these high quality sources:
The issue being brought forth is that a large body of scholarship does exist on the espionage aspect of his life which is now available to all researchers (see my 3/14/17 edit in the above section).
The featured article is not comprehensive without the material and comprehensiveness is a primary requirement of all featured articles.
The "file smuggled out of Russia" is a fact of history and its legitimacy and accuracy has been established and it is not really something that is eligible for debate (see my recent edit in section above). The author, is an apparent authority given his C-Span interview. CBS News is pretty much always viewed a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, but the actual book, which I do not have, is obviously preferred. That source reviews all available information on the subject and is likely the very definition of "the best and most reputable authoritative sources available" on the subject of his covert work or espionage activity. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
See above. If you feel the need to use these online resources, consider a new article focusing on this aspect of Hemingway's life. And find additional material for balance, since there is a strong point of view expressed in the sources you have found, and it needs to be balanced. There is more than a whiff of conspiracy theory here. — Neonorange (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Now let me ask some questions. What, exactly, does the CBS Sunday Morning segment offer as a usable source? Do you intend to read the Reynolds book? What exactly do the 65 year-old primary sources you list offer in the way of WP:RS? Do you intend to read the Reynolds book? It is mechanical to say that this or that source is "pretty much always viewed a reliable source". No, judgement is required. The Wikipedia policies I mention above could be a bit more clear and less ambiguous. No source is pretty much always considered reliable. Not CBS News, not the NYT. Why? Because there are different levels of investigation, cross-checking, and editorial control for different segments and stories. I'm not going to beat my head against a wall—I hope you will understand what I'm trying to convey—if not, well, I think any kind of agreement will be unlikely. Continuing to throw a mixture of dubious to middling sources against the wall, hoping something will stick is unlikely to even lead to a fruitful discussion. — Neonorange (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Do you have input on whether his wartime 'work' for various agencies (ONI, KGB etc.), some of which was covert and only recently uncovered, notable enough to be included in a comprehensive featured-article biography and are these activities supported high-quality sources (the 2017 book text is not available online)?
Are Nicholas Reynolds or Alexander Vassiliev et al. respectable rock-solid sources for such material? Is there any hint of 'conspiracy theory'- especially in the context of the very highly researched Venona project? Do such 'facts' need balance or must they be give due weight in this article? Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

In the car today I heard this guy being interviewed, gasped at what he said, my eyebrows lifted so high they almost flew off my head, and I turned the radio off. Right now, as Papa rolls in his grave, Ezra is looking down, smiling his sly smile, and sez: "Ernie, you honest bastard, they finally nabbed you. The game'z up. You went to war for them as a 19 yr old kid, & had a mortar shell blow btwn yr legs, 200 pieces of shrapnel were yanked from your flesh, and yet you stayed true and good throughout it all, and for all the yrs after. But you can't trust the bastards because in the end they'll get you." Ezra knew this; Ernest was a little too honest for his own good.

So ... there's a media blitz on, this article pretty much sums up my reaction when I heard that the get-together at the Ritz bar after Paris was liberated was a carefully staged bit of theatre so Ernest could meet with and pass on information to an OSS agent. The only problem is that story has been debunked, but idiot that I am, I put it in Wikipedia. That Ernest knew an American in Paris, who worked for intelligence, when these guys and gals had known each other for two decades, drank together, went to the bullfights together, tried each and every one of them to keep their sanity in an insane world, became artists or artistes, some worked for the military, and here we are in 2017 and it turns out what's been debunked is resurrected and given a new life, a new story? But that's not really a surprise, because more than all of the rest of them, Ernest wrote his own story, then embellished, and embellished, and embellished, and started embellishing the embellishments to the point that who the hell knows what's true and what's not true and it's easy as hell to hang a story on every little event.

In terms of Wikipedia policy etc: it's best not to canvass; if there is question whether the assertions from a recently written book (that no one's yet read) has to be added for comprehensiveness, then by all means let's send this to FAR to be delisted; we don't rely on primary sources; we don't follow the most recent news and so forth. Onwards Victoriaearle (tk) 21:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

We are talking about whether we must put facts for NKVD recruitment, OSS rejection, and Office of Naval Intell work in Cuba and that he went on "missions" in France. These are facts and are necessary for a comprehensive bio. We can get into the verifiable missions later.
There is no media blitz against Hemingway lasting from 2009-2017 nor is this is "Media Blitz" II... Wikipedia editors need not be concerned with a subject rolling over in his grave.
This article calls each topic of covert work of this subject an "allegation" which they clearly are not and the word 'alleged' appears four times in it. For example (note the question mark), "Other evidence? That during the Second World War he set up a counterintelligence bureau in Havana. The American diplomat Robert Joyce told Hemingway’s biographer Carlos Baker that Hemingway was willing to pay for it himself. It is further alleged that he set up the Crook Factory, to keep an eye on enemy aliens in Cuba, and put his beloved, 38-foot fishing vessel Pilar out to sea as a scout for German U-boats." Then this critic claims the book "unearths a wealth of amiable nonsense about Hemingway’s life as a double agent, and the only surprise may be that Papa stopped at doubles when quadruples were on the horizon.​＊"
I have not read the book but after seeing the conclusions of the books authors in previous interviews and work as well as the clearly evident lack of any results by Hemingway from all other researchers, I seriously question whether there is any legitimate allegation concerning "the life of a double agent" in that book other than the possible application as a technicality when defining the term. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Also note that the criticisms and weasel words in that review (the only negative review of the book) is by the author pushing his own book: "Andrew O’Hagan’s The Secret Life: Three True Stories is due in the summer." Johnvr4 (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency/error?

The lead states that three H novels were published posthumously. I've just edited and rationalised the Bibliography (see link in page) and can find only two. I assume the seven novels published in H's lifetime include the satirical novella listed as his first Chrismorey (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The third posthumous novel from Ernest Hemingway would be True at First Light, by way of Patrick Hemingway's editing, and described by Ralph Blumenthal in The New York Times with "...Ernest Hemingway returned home to Cuba and began work on a long biographical novel."
"A New Book By Hemingway; Blend of Life and Fiction Tells of African Bride" August 24, 1998 [6] I can find additional sources for True at First Light if you think it's necessary.. Victoriaearle, the major writer for this Wikipedia Hemngway bio, would have more references to hand (or at least point to the best sources), but Victoriaearle is retired from Wikipedia at this time.
— Neonorange (Phil) 18:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernest Hemingway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Family list

What sense to remove the list of family members?[7] It is comfortable to have it in one place. "Already covered in prose above" - so what? the article is big, the reader should specially search the names, dates, the order of wives, children and grandchildren? It is normal to have such list in the articles, see: Leo Tolstoy#Personal life, Alexandre Dumas#Personal life. --Shakko (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

For reference, the OP refers to this set of changes, which I reverted. I noted several issues with this addition. First, much of it repeats earlier prose without adding the analysis that the examples provided do. Second, the details not provided earlier are not sourced. They're also inconsistent with the family tree image included in that section. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
so, what the problem with removing the info "not sourced" (what, by the way? dates?) and keep the order of wives and children? you want the sources that Hadley was the 1st and Pauline - 2nd? like this will be ok? Please add {{fact}} to the info you feel not sourced, but don't remove. Or you didn't like the jpg file (not mine; why keep the tree as link and not to add in the article)? His family life was enough composite, his legacy and descendants in many generation are important and 21st century - why this "featured article" didn't include the paragraph "personal life and issue" by the way, at all? --Shakko (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
As I've said, I think the sourced information is adequately covered in the article text already. The burden is on you to provide sources for material you want to add, and to demonstrate consensus to add it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Open letter re Spanish Civil War (400 U.S. intellectual)

My initial intention was to move the graf from #Cuba to #Spanish Civil War, it's logical home, right after discussion of Dos Passos and Hemingway's play. But after making the first edit, removing the graf, I decided not to place the graf, as is, in the new location. There is a plethora of Hemingway scholarship—I think the best way to improve this FA is to make use of the scholarship by drawing from commentary on the open letter and Hemingway's views rather than Wikipedia editors making the decision on what fragments of the document to use.

For FAs we depend on the best available scholarly sources, not primary sources (which the bare—or excerpted—document is). I have four Hemingway bios in hand as well as other material, so I hope to have a new graf ready this weekend. I've made a decision not to restore the original graf because I don't think it meets FA requirements as is (or was). Neonorange (Phil) 10:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This article as an example for others

I've just referred to this illustrious article over at Ryszard Kapuściński. He was once described as 'the best journalist ever', also subject of controversy for blurring allegory with reportage. Window of opportunity this week to massively improve the article, but not too many editors involved. Please chime in at the Talk page there with suggestions for improvement. It would be much appreciaated. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"Commit suicide" vs. "Died from suicide"

In this article, I changed "committed suicide" to "died from suicide." I thought that this was only a minor edit. However, an editor claims that the term "committed suicide" is a "simple, direct expression," and my edit, "died from suicide," is "convoluted phrasing."

Much of the global mental health community in 2018 agrees that the continued use of "committed suicide" is harmful; it surmises that ending one's own life is a punishable crime. Although the idea of ending one's own life may be abhorrent to some, there is overwhelming consensus today that suicide is NOT a criminal act, as the term "commit" implies.

People "commit murder," "commit rape," "commit assault." We do NOT accept the phrases "committed cancer," "committed heart disease," "committed drug overdose," or "committed a car accident"....even if the deceased had made lifestyle choices which led to their death. We say, "He died from cancer"...even if "he" smoked 3 packs a day for 50 years. We say, "Died from a drug overdose," even if the deceased had battled heroin addiction for 20 years. Or "She died in a car accident"...even if "she" was drunk and driving recklessly.

The term "committed suicide" originates from times when religious doctrine largely dictated laws...times during which mental illness was viewed as demonic possession.

In 2018, saying that someone "committed" an act infers criminal wrongdoing. "Died from" is a direct, nonjudgemental statement. Kristijrn (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Has been discussed extensively elsewhere, I think. What was the legal situation in 1961? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this issue has been discussed extensively on Wikipedia. Yet, the editor in question continues to undo my edits on this subject: and demands that the phrase "commit suicide" is preferable to "died from suicide," despite modern consensus to the contrary. The editor's reasoning? "Committed suicide" is an "objective," "simple, direct expression," and "died from suicide," is "convoluted phrasing," that I have used in order to be "socially acceptable." The editor also cited religious text to explain his reasoning. I must say....I am confused by the editors reasoning. A quick look at Webster's Dictionary demonstrates the many definitions of "commit/committed/commits"...while "died from" is pretty cut and dry. In 1961, England and Wales decriminalized suicide. Today, suicide is not considered a criminal act in most countries. Kristijrn (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
And in Idaho? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 Are you asking if suicide was explicitly illegal in Idaho in 1961? If so, I cannot locate any sources which state that, at the time of Hemingway's death, suicide was a crime in Idaho. However, I'm unsure how this is pertinent, considering that use of the phrase in question is NOT a direct quote...in fact, it's not even referenced . There were many descriptive terms commonly used in 1961 that we would not use today in this context Kristijrn (talk) 7:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes I was. I accept your argument, except that this article is being written, and read, in 2018, not 1961. There's been extensive discussion of this term at Wikipedia I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I've read your comments on this topic, Martinevans123. It appears that we mostly agree. Considering that this article is being read in 2018 (not 1961), terminology that is not a direct quote (or even sourced) should reflect current professional consensus? Kristijrn (talk) 8:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Kristijrn (talk) 9:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kristijrn! thank you for opening a discussion here. But please don't project on me things like "used a religious text"—it's just a use of language. Many other phrases come to mind: 'commits an act of bravery', 'commits to keeping a promise', 'making a commitment'... Ernest Hemingway is a WP:Featured article built by encyclopedic, expressive writing, extenstensive research, and sticking closely to the sources. The question of suicide runs through this article—H's father, his writing, and his family. This article is based on what the scholarly sources say on H. These sources don't say "died by suicide". The word suicide has a meaning: killing oneself. That's a horror and a tragedy and a loss. In my view, "died by suicide" makes little sense and is a gentileism, one that hides the act (and its causes) away. That's not the business of an encyclopedia. I can think of alternative phrases, but they don't appear in the literature: 'died by his own hand', for example—that lacks concision and is gendered. Worse than the criminalization, secular and religious, of suicide, mainly on the past, was hiding it away, ignoring the causes. This article is about a writer. Not about suicide. It is from sources that exist about that writer.  It is written to convey H's life and work to the reader based on the best available sources—not to insert our own concepts—not to do our own research or right great wrongs — Neonorange (Phil) 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
"But please don't project on me things like 'used a religious text'" Allow me to quote your reasoning for reverting "died from" to "committed": "'revert unhelpful circumlocution; see synonyms for commit; Latin root; example, ' commit one's soul to God')" Currently, the article only uses the disputed phrase, "committed suicide" twice: first, in the 4th paragraph...it is NOT a direct quote; nor is it referenced. The second time, "commit suicide" is used as a direct quote from a 1996 news article, describing the death of Hemingway's granddaughter. This usage is appropriate because it is a direct quote from a news article. If your argument for keeping the wording of the currently un-sourced phrase is that it reflects source material, please site the source in the article. Kristijrn (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
"Killed himself" is pretty plain isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, "killed himself" is plain, concise, and does not suggest that suicide is a criminal act Kristijrn (talk) 7:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Martinevans123 (and Kristijrn) concise, yes. Wish I'd thought of that. However: suicide occurs 13 times on this article page, including this Category:Journalists who committed suicide and this Category:Writers who committed suicide. I have all the major Hemingway bios this article uses extensively, and will check the usage there. But my thinking remains the same. This is not the place to right great wrongs, nor to develop new language. Stick to the sources. The death of featured articles comes from a thousand small cuts made without reading the whole article, much less takng the sources into account. The proposed change, just like the one dif three and a half years ago weaked the article. — Neonorange (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem is not with "suicide", but just with "committed". Maybe the Category name should be adjusted to match modern usage? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Just can't do it piecemeal. Is it really modern usage? Anything as sweeping as changing every occurance in Wikipedia of the phrase 'committed suicide' calls for a much wider venue than this talk page. And real evidence.
Yes, avoiding the use of "committed" when talking about suicide is modern usage, according to many professional sources, including the National Institute on Mental Health Kristijrn (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The Associated Press Kristijrn (talk) 7:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: I am using an iPad and trying out some gadgets—it's not going well. Gotta take a break. — Neonorange (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Martin, Neonorange and Kristijrn. Ernest Hemingway blew his brains out. That much is indisputable. And yet, his wife requested it be documented as accidental death, which I believe it was at the time. He was Catholic and was buried at the Catholic cemetery in Ketchum, which at the time wouldn't have been allowed had his death been deemed suicide. Give me a chance to review the literature and I'll post back again later - all of what I've just written is off the top of my head. I'm ok with "committed suicide" (in fact I wrote it), but I'm also ok with simply saying he killed himself. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the fact that Hemingway ended his own life. The issue is using the phrase "committed suicide" in the 4th paragraph of the article. In accordance with multiple professional, academic sources, I changed "committed suicide" to "died from suicide." The word "committed" implies that ending one's own life is a criminal act. Its use is harmful because it adds to the stigma that people with suicidal ideation face. My edit reflects academic consensus from MULTIPLE sources that agree: the phrase "committed suicide" is outdated, inaccurate, and harmful...and should NOT be used. The phrase within the article is NOT a direct quote....it's not even sourced. Neonorange reversed this minor edit, insisting that the phrase "died from suicide" is misleading and "committed suicide" is appropriate terminology. The Associated Press, National Institutes for Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention are just 4 organizations that disagree with Neonorange's assessment. Kristijrn (talk) 8:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, ironically Mary's efforts to secure a good Catholic burial for Ernest, would seem to reinforce the suggestion that the word "committed" was perfectly appropriate for Idaho in 1961. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This by Torie Bosch, writing for Slate more or less expresses my view of "committed suicide" (though I have never had to deal with the aftermath of a suicide of a friend or family member.) Now that Victoriaearle's most welcome return to editing Wikipedia, and at this article, is underway, we can depend upon her to relocate the sources in the books she has actually read, books I have only skimmed. Neonorange (Phil) 17:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The Slate article by Torie Bosch that you cited as your basis for disputing multiple academic sources is an OPINION piece, based on emotion. You are entitled to your feelings. However, on a platform like Wikipedia, one's personal opinions should not override the current best practices outlined by professional organizations. Kristijrn (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Saying that "modern consensus" is contrary to using the word "commit" has not been demonstrated and sounds a bit more like personal opinion.--Tkbrett (talk) 12:10 pm, Today (UTC−5)
There are many academic resources that discourage the use of "commit/committed" when discussing suicide. This is not simply my personal "opinion." Here are just a few sources: The National Institute on Mental Health The Associated PressCornell University, Suicide Prevention Resource Center Kristijrn (talk) 9:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok - reporting back after having taken a look at the sources. Essentially, I'm happy with the article as it is. The lead says he killed himself, which is consistent with the scholarly secondary sources. All of the biographers end with the scene, Hemingway, shotgun, foyer, death. When I wrote this, I decided to choose one (they're all essentially the same), and quote from the final passage for our section about his death. That the death was deemed accidental is also explained and cited to a scholarly secondary source. I did locate a NYT article, dated July 3, which tells us: "The author was found dead yesterday morning at his home [in Ketchum]. His fourth wife, Mary, said that his death had been accidental...[snip para]... The coroner said: "We do not know whether it was an accident or a suicide. Mrs. Hemingway thought it was an accident"." In 1966 Mary admitted to the NYT the death had been suicide and uses the words "committed suicide". We cite that article in here.

Re this edit, it's best to use the term "committed suicide" because that's how the secondary sources treat EH's father's death and EH's themes and EH's short story Indian Camp.

Re funeral: from the articles in the NYT archives, the funeral was not a full mass because the priest said EH's divorce/s precluded him from a full Roman Catholic service. I'm not sure whether there is an area devoted to specific religious denominations in the Ketchum cemetery (there was only one in 1961; might still be only one there), so I might strike that part of my earlier comment.

Re images - it's getting a little crowded and the images are squashing the text so I've removed a few and repositioned others. We don't need two of the memorial on Trail Creek and I left in the one that's been there for almost 8 years. If anyone disagrees, please bring it to the talk page. Or disagreements about any of the other points. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Kristijrn, the issue you're complaining about is now resolved and there's not really a lot more to be gained from answering every single post in a three-month old thread. I've posted here, so can't put an archive box around the thread, but an uninvolved admin were to choose to do so, I wouldn't complain about it. Might not be a bad idea. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Adding for Kristijrn, please see WP:LEADCITE - we don't need citations in the lead because the information should, and in this article is, cited in the relevant passages. I wrote most of this article, with lots of help from others, and have been tending for years, again with lots of help. My sense is that you're on a crusade here. One more time: the issue is now resolved. He shot himself in the head. The lead says that, the section about his death says that, every single Hemingway biographer says that. End of story. Someone needs to close this down. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
And we're all agreed it should not appear in the infobox, in whatever form? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've read the above discussion and, while I think much of it is wrong-headed, I will respect the consensus. But for all that, we still have the following in the article:
  • The theme of death permeates Hemingway's work. Young believes the emphasis in "Indian Camp" was not so much on the woman who gives birth or the father who commits suicide, but on Nick Adams who witnesses these events as a child, ...
  • Her death was later ruled a suicide, making her "the fifth person in four generations of her family to commit suicide
  • Category:Writers who committed suicide
  • Category:Journalists who committed suicide.
  • So, are we saying that it's insensitive to say Hemingway "committed suicide", but it's somehow ok to say one of the characters in "Indian Camp" "commits suicide"?
  • We quote the words published about Margaux's suicide, but if this issue of wording is so damn important, why couldn't we have rephrased it using our own words and avoided the supposedly offensive verb?
  • And why hasn't anything been done about the wording of the suicide categories? A minor skirmish may have been conducted here, but the participants seem to be oblivious to the war raging all around them. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I searched and saw those and I thought (1) characters in a story don't matter; (2) not directly about Hemingway himself so marginal - but I'm now not so sure; (3) this is not the place to fix the Cats. But I agree with your concerns. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi JackofOz, yes of course, you're absolutely right. Disclaimer: I am quite cranky at the moment, and today was sick of seeing every single post in this thread (except those the primary editor added (yeah, yeah, I know, "own" and all that, but at the end of the day, the books are in the shelves next to me)) so I changed it. The issue is this: Hemingway's father shot himself, Hemingway and however many siblings took their lives and it continued through to other generations. It's a pervasive theme through all of his literature - he wrote "Indian Camp" at age 25 or so. I've brought five or six of these articles to FA status and written lots of others (dunno how many, would have to look) and will have to change throughout. That will take time and first I'd like to look at the sources. Off the top of my head, I'm certain all the sources, the many thousands of critical papers written about his literature uses the word "suicide". Yet, if this is a term to be avoided and will become subject to crusading, my feeling is that it's worth changing. As far as I know none of the other participants here with the exception of Neonorange have contributed to these articles. That doesn't preclude anyone from chiming in of course, but when one thinks it's ok to use the term for a character (when Hemingway was clearly making a point, knew exactly what he was doing, and at 25 wrote an extremely bold story to make that point), then it's a little more nuanced. At least in my opinion. My feeling is that it has to be consistent throughout. If it's not done in a month or so (I edit infrequently these days and have little patience for these issues), will someone remind me on my talk? There's a better chance I'll see it there. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Very sorry for your feeling sick because of any edits I may have made here. It's not the word "suicide" as such, is it? It's the "commit" word? I'm sure that the instances cited by JackofOz could be changed a lot quicker than in a month, if everyone agreed. As for the other Hemingway articles that you've brought to FA, perhaps you should await a more global and formal decision (somewhere)? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes it's best not to engage and this seemed like one of those times. It is a meta decision and I'm not convinced the lot of you are steeped in Hemingway scholarship, fwiw. I'll repeat the issue: Hemingway's father took his own life and the theme of death and taking one's life is pervasive throughout his entire canon of work. I would like to spend some time with the sources, spend some time accessing the most recent copies of the Hemingway Review to see how the scholarship treats this issue. Then I want some time to mull it over. Then I'll need to find all the work I've done. Then I'll need to decide on a case-by-case basis how to reword. My contribs will show that I've not been very active and there's a reason for that. I'll get to it when I can. If I have to disappear again, if you or someone else posting in this thread can stop by my page to remind me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Also sorry that I seem to be a part of "the lot of us". I don't think the issue is a matter of scholarship. That several members of the same notable family killed themselves is not in dispute. All that's being discussed is the use of the phrase "committed suicide"? It's use in relation to "Indian Camp" seems (to me personally) more justified. But unless it's in a quote, I think it's going to be best to avoid it. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, apologies for saying "sick of" and "lot of you", exactly why it's best that I not edit or engage in talk page discussions. Re "Indian Camp", just a quick comment (and I've done more than I can today, am tired, so apologize in advance if this comes out wrong) - Hemingway never uses the word suicide in the story. It's a very short story, if you would want to read it, and its article has a plot synopsis. One of the characters slits his throat. The critics, though, do discuss the throat slitting as suicide, committing suicide, etc. What I want to determine is whether that terminology has changed in recent years, which requires some digging. If this makes sense? Also apologies in advance if I don't reply for a few days; am about to go offline. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:34, 22 April 2018 (UTCd his
No worries. Thanks for the clarification on "Indian Camp". I think your general point is that if recent commentators used the term "committed suicide" in their appraisal of Hemingway and/ or his work, then that should also be permitted here (have I got that anywhere near?) In my experience matters of style at Wikipedia are rarely so accommodating. But I'm not sure if there is a firm style policy on this yet. Personally, I have no desire to remove anything rapidly. But others' views may differ. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why commentators should have the final say on this. If the objection to using the word "commit" in relation to suicide is that "commit" is used in relation to crimes and suicide is not, or should not be, a crime - then it shouldn't matter a tinker's cuss what wording commentators choose to use.
Either
  • we choose to use "commit" on the basis that "commit suicide" is a long-established expression and "commit" has much wider application than merely to crimes (that's the wrong-headedness I was referring to), or
  • we find another form of words:
  • "died from suicide" makes suicide seem like a disease, but it's no more a disease than it is a crime
  • "died by suicide" would be far better
But either way, it's what WE choose to do, not what external writers/commentators choose for us. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Or, of course, just describe, as in "shot himself in the head", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course. Or "took his own life", "died by self-inflicted gunshot", "ended his own life" .... so many options. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree with User:Victoriaearle's edit to the lead section, which looks fine to me. I think the article main body should follow suit. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

1., I like to follow sources; in fact, in my view, for FAs it's sort of mandatory. 2., WP:Deadline. Will get to this when able; not able right now. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Follow sources, sure, of course. But down to the exact wording they use? That's potentially in violation of our policies on not quoting sources word-for-word. Sources tell us that EH chose to end his own life in a certain way, and we absolutely need sources for such a claim. But how we choose to express the fact of that event is surely up to us. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
This absurd. If someone says they can't do something right. now. they have a pretty damn good reason for it. I have made the requested changes and find that the word "commit" or "committed" in fact is rarely used in the other articles. Hopefully this will satisfy all of you. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Committed" has never, and still does not, ever imply a criminal act. I am committed to my wife, for example. That doesn't mean I have done anything criminal to her. There's no need to change what is a natural, idiomatic phrasing merely because a small number of individuals have a bee in their bonnet about it. The rest of the English speaking world still uses the verb "to commit" for a thousand different uses, none of which have any pejorative sense at all. I have no idea where this silly notion came from, but it's pointless. --Jayron32 01:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Should it perhaps be changed to "died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound" or something similar, as one previous poster suggested? It seems that not all sources agree that it was indeed suicide. After all, the wife said it was accidental and the coroner said that they could not determine whether it was an accident or suicide. Also, I note the lack of references to support what seems like an assumption to me. I've read a few of his books, and the copies I have describe his death as a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, not a suicide. Is it a consensus here that it was intentional, or is it worth discussing? Sailor7sakura (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

New article suggestion

I suggest an article called Suicide of Ernest Hemingway. It would encompass the years and months before he killed himself, and provide a narrative to his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor890 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

earnest

was an American journalist, novelist, short-story writer, and sportsman. His economical and understated style—which he termed the iceberg theory—had a strong influence on 20th-century fiction, while his adventurous lifestyle and his public image brought him admiration from later generations. Hemingway produced most of his work between the mid-1920s and the mid-1950s, and he won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1954. He published seven novels, six short-story collections, and two nonfiction works. Three of his novels, four short-story collections, and three nonfiction works were published posthumously. Many of his works are considered classics of American literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.254.44.64 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As a featured article, "some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer", the standards are higher. Sometimes things just creep in and "sometimes" an article ends up demoted.
I haven't looked at the history but the "External links" has three sections "Biographical", "Electronic editions", and "Other" with fourteen links. :Without clear reasoning and rationale this raises link farming up to a "cultivated with Miracle Grow" plantation.
The "External links" have become a dumping grown for favorite links that are oftentimes redundant. I looked at "Works by Ernest Hemingway" at Open Library and "Works by Ernest Hemingway" at Faded Page (Canada). I do not see the uniqueness that should offer grounds for inclusion.
We are promoting Internet Archive and right on the page it states "From Wikipedia:", which is WP:CIRCULAR.
An article can make featured status without any "External links" but there is a high probability that the vast majority of these fourteen links can be trimmed or incorporated into the article. I am fairly convinced that we can stop advertising editor favorites that doesn't actually add anything helpful to the article. With the addition of LibriVox (public domain audiobooks) there are four "Works by" links that offers what extra? How many ways do we need to list the works or which links provide some we didn't know existed? I will offer, none and none, yet here were are.
In my opinion the "External links" section needs trimming purging or the article demoted to be inline with "things that creeps in". Otr500 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not an issue of "editor favorites" but rather that over time links make their way in and the article needs a lot of clean up. For now I've trimmed out some; we'll see how long they stay out. Thanks for posting; generally I agree. Victoria (tk) 20:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

The second-to-last sentence in the intro section currently reads: "He almost died in 1952 after plane crashes in two days, that left him in pain and ill health for much of the rest of his life."

Suggest changing that sentence to: "He almost died in 1952 after two plane crashes in as many days; these back-to-back accidents left him in pain and ill health for much of the rest of his life."

The way that it is currently written does not clearly illuminate the odd events that took place on back-to-back days, plus the strange sentence structure and odd comma placement in the current sentence would be improved by restating the two clauses separately. The Monte Carlo Maneuver (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, except I changed the year to 1954 to be consistent with the body of the article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding bit from A Moveable Feast

Hi @Victoriaearle:, you recently removed this. What improvements would you recommend so that it is fit for inclusion? I personally quite fond the anecdote is worthy of inclusion as it gives the reader a better idea of his sexuality, and it comes first-hand from Hemingway. Thanks! ~ HAL333 03:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi HAL333 one of the issues is that we really need to stick to Wikipedia:Summary style for this article for lots of reasons. The other issue is that there was consensus to minimize EH's own words and to adhere to scholarly biographies & criticism, again for lots of reasons. Because this is a Featured article, care has to be taken to adhere to all the many Wikipedia policies and I've started a very long overdue slog through to weed out sources/claims, and various problems that have snuck in over time. Generally, though it's best to avoid Hemingway anecdotes. I do understand what you're trying to get at there; but Eh's attitudes towards women, homosexuality, his bigotry, all these issues might need a separate para in the themes section, because they're all relevant in his writing, though it would need to be sourced to a Hemingway scholar. I need to review some of the sources I have & happy to consider any that aren't his own writing or web sources. Victoria (tk) 03:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
P.s are you suggesting that quote was added as "proof" that Hemingway was gay? Victoria (tk) 03:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. And I don't personally think Hemingway was gay, when I said sexuality, I meant his macho hetero persona. Thanks! ~ HAL333 03:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hidden category to re-do citations

Hi Peaceray, I've removed the Category:Wikipedia articles containing unlinked shortened footnotes in this edit. I'd removed it a few days ago & Nikkimaria removed earlier today, which you reverted stating

Collecting this information for being able to go through articles to link shortened footnotes to full citations. Please review the information at the category if you do not know what this is. Probably will recruit others through training to improve articles this way.

This article is a Featured article, so it's best not to add a maintenance category to attract editors to "improve" the article until consensus has been gained. Please see WP:CITEVAR in terms of changing citations styles. This article does need some tidying, but the citation style was intentionally chosen to be the way it is and as the main contributor (who is very very slowly going through tidying) I'm opposed to changing citation styles. If it's something you intend to do and the hidden maintenance category is being placed here as if there's something inherently wrong with the citation style as it is (yes, I know they don't link, at one time they did, there's quite a bit of history re citations on this page) then I'd have to disagree and ask that you open a discussion to gain consensus. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 00:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle and Nikkimaria:
First, an apology to Victoriaearle. I was away for 1½ days, & since I have 5,000+ pages on my watchlist, it was so far down that I did not realize that you removed it. Nor had I remembered that I had previously made a similar edit when I revisited 3 days later.
Okay, I get it. This is an FA & you want competent edits in line with policy & within consensus. Obviously not a good candidate for training purposes, although I was also amassing a catalog of what I consider shortened footnotes to be improved. I can understand your concern about the possibility of the incompetent mucking up an FA. I will not attempt to put FAs into this category again.
You both cite WP:CITVAR. Let’s look at some of that:
  • ”If all or most of the citations in an article … fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data.”
Let’s consider that from the user experience. The vast majority of the Citation listings consist of last name, a date in parentheses, & a page #, but no title. Now as a former university reference librarian, I know that that is parenthetical referencing, or Harvard referencing, & that I should look elsewhere on the page. However, the vast majority of our readers are neither academics nor librarians.
  • ”The data provided should be sufficient to uniquely identify the source, allow readers to find it, and allow readers to initially evaluate it without retrieving it.
Bear with me, because I want to parse that.
  • ”to uniquely identify the source”
The typical reader cannot identify the title from a shortened footnote.
  • ”allow readers to find it”
Without a title, most users would be lost at this step, particularly with more than one work from the same author in a given year. However, using a shortened footnote template line {{harv}} & citation templates (see Wikipedia:Citation templates and reference anchors in particular), it is easy to link from the shortened footnote to the full citation.
  • ”and allow readers to initially evaluate it without retrieving it.”
My belief is that, as an example, Meyers (1985), 292 is inadequate to this purpose, unless it can direct the reader to the full citation.
As to this article, there are two things that would need to be done to implement {{harv}} & citation templates, in order:
  1. Convert the References cited section to citation templates
  2. Convert the shortened footnote to the harv template.
This can be done without changing the appearance, except for the new link that would within the short footnote.
Implementing this could be done in of two ways.
  • One at a time, by first doing the citation template, than each combination of Name (year), page # in the harv template.
  • The whole of the References cited could be converted in a sandbox, as a proof of concept, so that the adherence to format could be judged for conformance with the present appearance. If consensus was reached, it would be then transferred into the article.
Note that the citation templates can be created without creating the harv templates, but a harv template requires the citation anchor of a citation template.
What are your thoughts? Are you on board with making this article more user friendly without changing the appearance except for what would be the new links within the shortened footnotes?
Peaceray (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Peaceray, the two changes you're proposing are absolutely changes that fall under CITEVAR. While I respect Victoria's suggestion to discuss it here, I think that if your initiative proposes to make changes across multiple articles that use a consistent style that is not the one you propose, you will need to discuss and seek consensus for this centrally. While harv and citation templates have advantages they also have disadvantages, and at the moment neither is compulsory. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
For the harv template, I can postulate that people might object the the visual change of a blue link & the difference in what goes between the ref tags. The latter might be novel to those who first encounter them, but the harv templates are easily mastered.
For the citation templates, I can postulate that someone may want to employ a different style of formatting, just like in print different people might choose one of APA, MLA, or Chicago style citations. To me, citation templates are efficient & desirable in employing a consistent style across the project. Visual Editor, refill, & citer all create citation templates, so citation templates seem to be a pretty standard & uncontroversial means of citation.
What other advantages & disadvantages do you see, Nikkimaria?
Peaceray (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Peaceray, speaking for myself, I'm well aware of how to use Harv references, see eg, this version of this very page, and anything that I know Nikkimaria knows much much better than I. She's right, this is not the place to have a meta discussion re CITEVAR. As far as this page goes, there are lots of reasons for the current citation style; more, frankly, than I feel like typing out at the moment. If we ever get to the point of trying to gain consensus to change, all those reasons can be brought forward at that time.
At this moment, it's much more important to check errors that have snuck in over the years - my recent foray uncovered more errors than I'd like - and bringing everything back to the way it should be requires access to books (which are in libraries, currently closed where I live), lots of reading, lots of work, etc.
Basically converting citations is the least of the problems here, is a lot of unnecessary make-work, does very much go against CITEVAR, and could make some of the text-source issues worse. My suggestion would be to take the discussion to a central place, and if your initiative is successful we can revisit at a later date as to what to do on this page. Thanks and be safe. Victoria (tk) 18:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Victoria: Aha, I see the that there were a lot of problems with the oldid=369819235 version of the article. I see over 20 instances of "Harv error: link from CITEREFxxxx#### doesn't point to any citation." errors from poorly done shortened footnote templates that are flagged by the User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.js script that I use (see User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck). I see that this page got bitten badly by an incompetent implementation. Sorry that I was not around at that time to make it right. You will see those types of mistakes rarely see on pages that I curate, since I use preview more often than publish when not using semi-automated edits.
I will note that shortened footnotes have been done well with Franz Kafka, Charles Darwin, The Beatles, William Shakespeare, W. B. Yeats, & Edgar Allan Poe while also acknowledging that there are others in the same Category:FA-Class biography (core) articles that do not use shortened footnote templates.
I will leave off here. I will not be pursuing central consensus at this time. I will post on article talk pages well in advance of any training opportunities for parenthetical referencing or any major revisions.
Peaceray (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, well the incompetence is mine. At any rate not in a good headspace at the moment & not interested in discussions re re-doing citations on Wikipedia. Have at it if you can get consensus without using otherstuffexists as an argument. Victoria (tk) 19:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry that was your experience & I can understand the frustration. Thank you for all the work that you have done. (Thanks to you, too, Nikkimaria!)
My main aim to improve the experience for a reader in using citations. While I understand the argument behind WP:OTHER & individual merit, neither am I shy about pointing out examples that illustrate a good implementation.
Peaceray (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway's World War I wounds: Primary source?

Davetheirishguy has found in Smithsonian Magazine, a letter to home, sent by Lt. Walter Broadway during World War I, that describes the wounds Hemingway received while serving as an ambulance driver. Though it is interesting to find a more specific description, the details somewhat contradict the information found in the biographies used to build this Wikipedia article. After reading the quote from the letter, I am assuming that, though the letter has been archived in the course of the collecting project, the Smithsonian Magazine article contains no comments from a Hemingway scholar. I think we should discuss this new source and decide whether to treat the letter as a primary source and perhaps not use it until we have some comments from a Hemingway scholar. I have removed the details from the Smithsonian Magazine article pending a discussion.

Smithsonian Magazine
The Unprecedented Effort to Preserve a Million Letters Written by U.S. Soldiers Soldiers During Wartime
November 2019
By April White
URL

Quote from Lt. Walter Broadway's 1918 letter:

I went out with a Red Cross lieut. named Hemingway, who comes from Oak Park,” Army Lt. Walter Boadway wrote in 1918 of a 19-year-old, first name Ernest. “He has been here in the hospital 4 months and has some time to go yet. He was out in the trenches one night when a trench mortar shell blew their cover away and left them exposed to machine gun fire. He got 247 wounds from the mortar shell and machine guns. He has a couple of pounds of metal they have carved out of him. Luckily he got most of it in his legs and not in a vital spot.” Carroll believes it to be among the first references to Hemingway’s World War I service.

Neonorange (Phil) 09:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Neonorange, I support the removal. James Mellow writes of the incident (p. 61), that "The story [of Hemingway's wounding] would be subject to many variations." Mellow mentions 28 pieces of shrapnel. I suppose we could look through the other main biographers to see what they say, but it's definitely best not to use a letter H wrote. Certainly is was a grave wound, which really all we need to mention, imo. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Adding to previous post: I've looked at a couple of other biographies. Carlos Baker doesn't mention the number of shrapnel pieces; Michael Reynolds explains that the 227 number came from Hemingway - in the form of a letter to his parents, an interview upon his arrival home, and through a letter from a fellow patient in Milan, see Reynolds, Michael, "The Young Hemingway" pages 18-19 (link); Jeffrey Meyers doesn't mention a specific number but does the mention how the story of his wounding changed. So we cannot rely on a primary source that has EH as its source. Victoria (tk) 20:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I apologize, Victoria. I am lazy. I have all the bios you mention—I should have done more work (I found them through Amazon, less than $50 for the lot. I have a new bio published in the last few years, but it seems to be at the bottom of a stack I've yet to examine. By the way, Apple Books (yes, that Apple) has a number of Hemingway novels and short works that are free as ebooks—as well a, searchable. I hope you are felling well. I was lucky enough to leave New York City on New Year's Eve and have been sheltering in place since here, near Atlanta. — Neonorange (Phil) 05:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
hi, I don't think that the number of pieces of shrapnel is relevant to the point of the entry, which is that Army Lt. Walter Boadway wrote about Hemingway in a personal letter to his wife. We can't have any way of knowing how accurate Lt. Broadway's information was at the time he conveyed it to his wife and we don't know even if Lt. Broadway got this information directly from EH. All we know is that Broadway served with EH and that EH made enough of an impression on him that he wrote about him to his wife. The only criteria, I feel, that would warrant removal would be if the veracity of the letter were in question, i.e. did Lt. Broadway really write it (it isn't) or there was a way to disprove that Broadway served with EH, an easy task for any historian or journalist, one can assume fact-checkers at Smithsonian Magazine, a magazine with a solid repuation, considered this and underwent that task before publishing.

Davetheirishguy (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the Lt. Broadway quote—I thought I had done that a week ago, but evidently never clicked the 'Publish' button. I agree with Victoria above. Hemingway constantly used his life experiences as sources in his fiction, to great effect. His skill in bringing life to his writing sometimes flowed in the other direction. Wikipedia articles must rely on reliable sources. Hemingway on Hemingway requires expert evaluation by scholars. I agree the Smithsonian Magazine is very likely a WP:RS, however the article "The Unprecedented Effort to Preserve a Million Letters Written by U.S. Soldiers Soldiers During Wartime" was most likely checked no further than primary source document, the Broadway letter. The number of fragments is not necessary for the Wikipedia article, and is best to leave out. Though I have contributed little to this article, I have become very interested in Hemingway, and have the biographies Victoria mentioned.
ps: If you wonder why your signature above did not indent to match your post—Wikipedia software forgets the indentation level whenever a line is left blank. The workaround I use is to enter the correct number of ':' at the beginning of each blank line and at the start of the next line to preserve the correct indentation level — Neonorange (Phil) 05:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi El cid, el campeador, thanks for all your hard work here. I tried to post earlier re the citations but slow wi-fi ate my comment & I didn't bother to try to recreate it. Re this edit, very interesting. A couple of issues though: 1., although there's been degradation here, this article really must rely on scholarly sources for lots of reasons; 2., I'm wondering if that explains all the many other suicides (his father, brother, granddaughter, (I might be missing some)). I guess what I'm trying to say is that in order to keep the article from bloating, which is happening, let's stick to what the scholars say. Victoria (tk) 20:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I totally understand the issue with the citations - I was just moving them to the end of the sentence assuming that they would verify the entire sentence, but I see why that can be problematic. As for the CTE argument, I understand that as well. I always believed the cause of the suicide to be something genetic/hereditary, but the CTE theory seems to at least be plausible. Would the book cited, Hemingway's Brain be sufficient as a scholarly source? And do you support removal altogether, or just a re-framing of the information? I think it's -probably' a notable alternate theory, but I'm not the authority on that. I appreciate you opening a dialogue! ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 21:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Amazon let me read a few pages of Andrew Farah's Hemingway's Brain. I'd feel better if I could take a look at the notes to see who he conferred with, i.e did he confer w/ the Ketchum/Sun Valley docs (neither is alive) or secure papers etc?? So seeing the notes would be helpful.
I need to think this through a bit and my internet totally sucks today so it's hard to reply. We did have this discussion a decade ago, re posthumous medical diagnoses. If I remember correctly we had a much longer discussion on Van Gogh's article, which I want to review to refresh my memory vis-a-vis WP:MEDRS.
I haven't looked at the other sources yet except to note that one is from the WaPo; that's the kind of source to be avoided for this article. Any 20th American journal, magazine, newspaper, etc. was or still is happy to publish many articles about him & not all are reliable. It's best to stick with scholars of whom there are many. Victoria (tk) 22:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Adding, I've found a nice review of Farah's book by Susan Beegel, a well-known Hemingway scholar, link. I've downloaded it and will try to read it tomorrow. If anything, that's probably the better source to use. Victoria (tk) 23:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
That is fair. I did not intend to interrupt the article or include a fringe theory. If you feel more comfortable removing that notation re CTE, I will not object. Thank you for your thoroughness. Let me know if I can assist in your research or otherwise. Best ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@VictoriaI read a fairly new (within last decade) H. biography last winter and took of more emphasis on the multiple head injuries. I don't recall the title or author (a woman) at the moment, but Ernest Hemingway: A Biography — Mary V. Dearborn — Knopf 2017 — (New York Times May 25 2017 review titled "A Hemingway Tell-All Bares His Tall Tales". I have the book and can find it tomorrow and check sources and details. — Neonorange (Phil) 02:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for delayed replies. I think the Beegle review I found here is good. I keep getting side-tracked but have scanned it and need to take some time to read it thoroughly. Apparently Farrah's argument in Hemingway's Brain is that there were genetic predispositions towards suicide, depression, etc. Add to that the drinking & things get worse. Add to that the many head injuries, ... & well. The last two head injuries are covered in True at First Light (I'm always trying to shove details out of this article into sub-articles & stick to summary style here), but I think what El cid added is fine for now, until I get the chance to put the Beegle material. More than ever I feel this place has no deadlines. Hope everyone is ok, by the way. Victoria (tk) 19:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Electroconvulsive_and_Neuromodulation_Th/SJJjgy0GCywC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hemingway%20electroconvulsive&pg=PA185&printsec=frontcover&bsq=hemingway%20electroconvulsive==Significance of ECT== The significance of being hospitalized due to paranoia, given ECT, and then describing it as having destroyed you just before your suicide due to actions of a US president... umm I would hope that was self-evident. Hemingway is notable so the manner of his death is notable, the president of the US is notable. ECT is quite notable. It seems difficult to argue that this isn't an important fact... particularly if we are going to include theories about how drinking alcohol contributed to depression in the previous paragraph. Talpedia (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I might have reverted it if Nikkimaria hadn't because the previous section says this, so it's redundant:

The FBI had, in fact, opened a file on him during World War II, when he used the Pilar to patrol the waters off Cuba, and J. Edgar Hoover had an agent in Havana watch him during the 1950s.[1] By the end of November, Mary was at her wits' end, and Saviers suggested that Hemingway go to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota; Hemingway might have believed that he was to be treated there for hypertension.[2] The FBI knew that Hemingway was at the Mayo Clinic, as an agent later documented in a letter written in January 1961.[3] He was checked in at the Mayo Clinic under Saviers's name in order to maintain anonymity.[4] Meyers writes that "an aura of secrecy surrounds Hemingway's treatment at the Mayo" but confirms that he was treated with electroconvulsive therapy as many as 15 times in December 1960 and was "released in ruins" in January 1961.[5]

I'll take a look at the Guardian articles later but it's best to stick with scholarly sources here. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 17:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Aha - yep looks redundant. Talpedia (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
"As many as 15 times" is not the same as "more than 15 times". It's just 15 times? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The economist says 20 Talpedia (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It's nitpicky and we don't know where the Guardian sources it's information. That said, some biographers gained access to the medical records. I'm busy for the afternoon but will have a look at the Meyers & Reynolds this evening. My sense is that it was the 1960s and we can't know exactly what happened at that clinic. But I could be wrong. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it's probably best to go with a biographer - mostly just reporting details! Talpedia (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Did you mean an issue of The Economist? Do you have any source details for that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2005/09/15/shocking-treatment . Kind of old source, about ECT rather than Hemingway, but it is the first sentence, no details about where this figure comes from. Talpedia (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that looks very clear. Does that piece have a named author? I see it also requires a subscription. But it's the only source that makes that claim of 20? I'd also stick with Meyers. It might be useful to clarify depression/ fear/ paranoia? And possibly also clarify the FBI/ Hoover background. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
You can get at the full article by googling the URL and using the cached version. The economist has a policy of never listing its authors, maybe to pay them less money! Talpedia (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd certainly prefer to use an official Hemmingway biography source over an unnamed 2005 piece in The Economist that claims to explain "How ECT works". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Doing a google book search it looks like he had two sets of treatments, and may have had as many as 25 rounds of ECT.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Electroconvulsive_and_Neuromodulation_Th/SJJjgy0GCywC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hemingway%20electroconvulsive&pg=PA185&printsec=frontcover&bsq=hemingway%20electroconvulsive p185 22-25 sessions administered in an initial batch of 12-15 then 10 (he was admitted a second time apparently).
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Shock_Therapy/RvXzXnskJB4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hemingway+electroconvulsive&pg=PA335&printsec=frontcover this source confirms the two treatments (it cites the biographiesof Myers and Hotchner. Interestingly, it also suggests that Hemingway was being given antipsychotics from the side effects.
Hotchner confirms two sets of treatment, but doesn't seem to discuss the number. Talpedia (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hotchner's not reliable, EH's long term on-and-off-again friend, tendency to exaggerate. I've rewritten using Reynolds whose 4 volume biography is the best of the more recent ones. He confirms ten sessions during the fall visit, an additional 3 during the spring visit. The article needs work, has deteriorated badly, so thanks for bringing this up. Victoria (tk) 20:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Mellow (1992), 597–598
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference R548 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Meyers (1985), 543–544
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mellow pp598-601 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Meyers (1985), 547–550

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

In one case the name Gellhorn is misspelled Gelhorn. 143.59.51.247 (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks for your help. Arjuno (talk 22:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A touch hagiographic

I removed one quotation of Susan Beegel today, since the citation was dead & all that I could get from the Wayback machine was the single de-contextualised sentence. There is surprisingly little substantive criticism in this article and it’s hard to see what any of the quotations from Beegel contribute. They are all bland and fairly meaningless, which is odd since she is a Hemingway expert, and yet her comments are given a fairly prominent place, concluding the Themes section.

Why is this (critical? it’s hard to tell really) comment by Beegel merit inclusion, while the original piece of criticism (& it’s author) isn’t even mentioned?

Typical, according to Beegel, is an analysis of Hemingway's 1926 novel, The Sun Also Rises, in which a critic contended: "Hemingway never lets the reader forget that Cohn is a Jew, not an unattractive character who happens to be a Jew but a character who is unattractive because he is a Jew."

More confusingly, The Sun Also Rises article suggests these are the words of Beegel herself, when she is actually quoting Barry Gross. Maybe the problem is that the quotes are pared down too much, so that they lose meaning & context, but either way, it’s pretty sloppy.

I’ll fix the Gross quotes anyway. ⚜ Moilleadóir ✍ 04:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

An example of an unhelpful OR edit that muddied the waters. ⚜ Moilleadóir ✍ 06:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

Reference 157 or 158 is Abercrombie & Fitch (the clothing company). While I do not know the correct answer and it could be A&F I find this to be hard to believe or find any evidence of. 152.117.93.237 (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: see Abercrombie & Fitch#History, it wasn't always just a clothing company. I don't have access to the cited source so can't verify it myself but seems plausible. If you get access to the source and see that it shows otherwise reopen the request then. Cannolis (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


Grace Hall Hemingway's ancestry

Information regarding EH's mother Grace was added mid-sentence here. It's a good faith edit, but because the cited source for the sentence doesn't support the new addition I removed it here. It's been re-added here. Per Wikipedia:FAOWN and also because the book isn't scholarly, I've removed again. I have biographies on my shelf - interestingly the main EH bio only discusses Hall's father (who came from England and fought in the Civil War) but not her mother. If this material is important here - I'm not convinced it is, because Hall has her own page where it can be spun out - then I'm happy to search through some of the scholarly bios and see what I can find. Victoria (tk) 23:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible Punctuation Edit Needed

The first paragraph under the “World War I” header seems to be containing a punctuation error. Within the following quotation from the article, the comma after “Italy” should be a period instead: “ambulance driver in Italy, In May…”

Am I wrong? Kuggerands (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Peaceray (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Kuggerands (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi Keystone18 for the same reasons we discussed over at H.D. in this thread, I've put the heading back as they were except I kept "career" with life. This article was written as a biography without an attempt to separate out creativity/art from life. In my view art doesn't work that way and especially the modernists, who were traumatized by WWI, lived/loved/worked/and made art not on a separate schedule. The high quality sources used to write the article, mostly biographies, reflect both life and career, reflecting a structure the presents what EH was doing when, who he was wooing, where he was traveling, and what he was writing. The headers have stayed the same for about 14 years or so and reflect a long standing consensus but am happy to discuss.

Also, in this edit I changed the Red Cross link you introduced, because is wasn't the American Red Cross. I'll have to look that up to be certain that links conforms to the sources; I have a vague memory of checking this when the article was written and for some reason deciding not to use International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Generally we don't link common terms like World War II, though I believe there are some battles linked in this article.

I also put back the SV Lodge in the infobox b/c it's an important publicity photo used on the dj of For Whom the Bell Tolls, and circumstances of his being in the lodge at that time was important to life and making art (he was separating from a wife but don't remember off the top of head which one - possibly Martha). We did at one point have an article about the Lodge, but I can't find it now. Perhaps it's been deleted. Anyway, sorry, and happy to discuss. Victoria (tk) 23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Translation

Ahmed were glass 185.80.143.149 (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Addition to the section on Hemingway and Castro

I propose adding the following sentence: Hemingway and Fidel Castro met only once, on 15th of May 1960. On that occassion, Hemingway called Fidel Castro a friend in a dedication ("To Dr. Fidel Castro as a remembrance of this wonderful day in 'Barlovento' Marina with my best wishes always of his friend Ernest Hemingway, Barlovento Marina, May 15-1960"). Source: https://www.catawiki.com/en/l/74828767-ernest-hemingway-two-famous-friends-writ-from-ernest-hemingway-to-fidel-castro-1960

That would not be a sufficient source for that claim - it's of questionable reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The dedication is sold together with letters from Castro, Che Guevara, Cienfuegos and a photo of Castro and Hemingway taken the same day dedicated by Hemingway to Alberto Korda (the photographer). Is your claim that the source is less reliable than autographs used by Mellow and others for their biographies based on specific graphological peculiarities/abnormalities of that autograph? I personally (but I am not an expert) could not find any deviations from Hemingway's handwriting. https://www.catawiki.com/en/u/21179193-user-db5ad4e9974d 2A02:8071:B8A:FDA0:B853:6AA1:3869:1CEF (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
However, the sentence would correctly read as follows: On that occassion, Hemingway called himself a friend of Fidel Castro in a dedication ("To Dr. Fidel Castro as a remembrance of this wonderful day in 'Barlovento' Marina with my best wishes always of his friend Ernest Hemingway, Barlovento Marina, May 15-1960") 2A02:8071:B8A:FDA0:B853:6AA1:3869:1CEF (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
My claim is that we shouldn't be doing our own interpretation of whether that is or isn't his handwriting, we should leave that up to the secondary sources to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Just an update: The dedication to Castro has just been sold for 8500 USD in that auction. Someone spending such high amount of money usually consults an expert before doing so. No proof of course.
Btw: I took the effort to even more carefully compare the handwriting (each letter) to other specimens from that time and could not find any discreprancies.
I can also see no reason why Hemingway should not have written such dedication at that time (he was for sure not a friend of Batista, welcomed the overthrow of Batista in the New York Times - and was afraid of his Finca).
One could choose the following wording:
Hemingway and Fidel Castro met only once, on 15th of May 1960, on the occasion of a fishing contest in Barlovento Marina, Cuba. In 2023 a Cuban flag was sold at an auction (alongside autograph letters from Castro, Che Guevara and Cienfuegos) with a handwritten dedication to Castro. In this dedication, Hemingway - provided he was really the author - called himself a friend of Castro. The dedication reads as follows: "To Dr. Fidel Castro as a remembrance of this wonderful day in 'Barlovento' Marina with my best wishes always of his friend Ernest Hemingway, Barlovento Marina, May 15-1960". 2A02:8071:B8A:FDA0:0:0:0:FD92 (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, we can't put this in for various reasons. First, Hemingway wrote thousands of letters, some of which Carlos Baker collected and had published in Ernest Hemingway: Selected Letters, 1917–1961; some bits and pieces from those letters are already being used in this article, but only judiciously. Generally the article uses summary style and the dedication in one letter is too specific. Also, we'd need a secondary source about the letter explaining why the dedication is important - that's not something we do without another scholar first pointing it out. That there's currently an auction of Hemingway's letters has been in the news for some time (some have been sold for very high prices), but it's too early for that information to make its way to secondary sources and then for us to decided whether to use such a tidbit or not. Hope this helps. Victoria (tk) 21:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Photo Caption

Under the section ‘Idaho and Suicide’ there is a photo of Hemingway with Gary Cooper and a woman identified as Bobbie Peterson. The woman’s name is Bobbie Powell. I can provide evidence, if necessary, as she is my grandmother. TalostheTitan (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

ω Awaiting @TalostheTitan: yes, please provide verification from a reliable source. We need a citation to make the change. Peaceray (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 Done I changed Bobbie Peterson to Bobbie Powell. The Commons page File:Hemingway SunValley.jpg identifies this woman as Bobbie Powell, as does the source of the photograph, www.jfklibrary.org/archives/ernest-hemingway-collection/hemingway-media-galleries/idaho-1939-1960. Peaceray (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ernest_Hemingway/Archive_5&oldid=1225628230"