Talk:Ernest Hemingway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Ernest Hemingway is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2010.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Core  This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject United States / Idaho (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.
WikiProject Chicago (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Illinois (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cuba (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Journalism (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Version 0.5      (Rated FA-Class)
Peer review This Arts article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Ernest Hemingway is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Ernest Hemingway at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

Missing Work[edit]

There is no mention of his memoir _A Moveable Feast_ published posthumously in 1964. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the works section is for selected works instead of complete list. It's written about in the article, it's in the Ernest Hemingway bibliography, it's on the navigation template at the bottom of the page - all those will link directly to A Moveable Feast. Victoria (tk) 12:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


I just found out that Ernesto, ol' boy, sent ultra hot, sexy, and somewhat obserd letters to a popular actress at the time. more deets, references, etc to follow. User: ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway templates[edit]

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

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

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

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


Oppose adding the templates for the following reasons:

  1. Confusing, misleading and inaccurate: this version shows the templates in place. I had to look three times to realize that "Novels by Ernest Hemingway" had to be clicked open to show the other templates and I wouldn't have known what to do if I hadn't read about it here. I would think "Novels by Ernest Hemingway" would give navigational aid to exactly that: novels by Ernest Hemingway. But instead there are templates about 5 novels, not presented at all by order of publication, and a single short story for some reason. When each of those templates is clicked open they lead to various subarticles - and I find those links problematic as well. Keep in mind that these are examples only because I've not had time to investigate fully. The template for "A Farewell to Arms" includes a link to Hemingway's Adventures of a Young Man - purportedly a movie about Nick Adams and A Farewell to Arms which is just odd because Nick Adams isn't in A Farewell to Arms. The same template in the "Inspirationd" (???) section points to Pauline Pfeiffer - sorta, kinda appropriate because she did undergo a difficult childbirth while he was writing the book, but that information definitely needs to be in the page (it's a page I've long meant to get to for a full expansion); but more likely EH's wartime relationship with Agnes von Kurowsky was the inspiration there. BUT - and this is important - it's better for information such as that to be reliably sourced and in the text.
  2. WP:TRIVIA says "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information". The problem with Hemingway is that according to Charles Oliver in Ernest Hemingway: A to Z, "the [Hemingway] mythology grows larger with every year" and he also says, "an aspect of the mythology is a deluge of allusions to Hemingway in the media" (pp. 142-144). At one point this information was in the article and if it's not, I'll replace it. Also I've mentioned this Time magazine piece at the end of True at First Light, [1] which questions the issues of the Hemingway name being given to brands of furniture and so on. There is so much trivia, (and we shouldn't be adding trivia anyway), that's it's impossible to add it all. A cursory glance of the templates shows me a Metallica song, a play apparently performed at a single venue on Long Island, and a relatively new opera (apparently also performed only once). Apologies if I'm wrong, but I've not taken the time to look at all the articles the templates link to. In my view, we can to without that trivia. The making of one of the movies is mentioned in the text of The Sun Also Rises, but that section has degraded and needs some work, which I'll do. All the movies that were made from the books should be mentioned in the body of that book's article - they were important. He really wanted to write work that would translate to film.
  3. Consensus: I've not counted how many people have posted here, but it looks to me that we've reached consensus. The discussion of the templates was raised at Wikiproject novels and it did not achieve consensus. Let me repeat: it did not achieve consensus. Nor has the inclusion of the templates achieved consensus on Charles Dickens and frankly I'm very opposed to seeing them on pages such as Cinderella where the template is so awash with trivia it violates the spirit of WP:Trivia. But that's off topic and brings me to WP:Otherstuffexists.
  4. WP:Otherstuffexists isn't an argument we should use here. For lots of reasons. This page and The Sun Also Rises are FA and so should present the best of Wikipedia (I know, the pages have degraded and this is a wake up call to spruce them up). Hemingway in every way is unique. And so on. I could write more, but this is enough. Victoria (tk) 21:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Your arguments confound me for the most part because you have made no attempt to clarify why you want to keep a film adaptation section in the template content, but not these individual by works templates which are an improvement on that content and could serve to upgrade that content. You also seem to have a misunderstanding of the difference between adaptations/inspired works and trivia. However, I will let the issue go in terms of including the template on this bio for now. However, I have never heard an argument against including a works template such as {{The Sun Also Rises}} on the page of that work such as The Sun Also Rises. No one here has ever stated that {{The Sun Also Rises}} does not belong on The Sun Also Rises. I don't think we should hold that discussion here anyways. Let's talk about the merits of adding {{The Sun Also Rises}} to The Sun Also Rises at Talk:The Sun Also Rises.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In that case writing the comment was a massive waste of time when I didn't have time to waste. Moving the discussion to another page doesn't achieve much imo - except dictating that the issue keeps going. You're pushing the issue relentlessly and quite honestly won't stop until you win. I lost the will to fight these kinds of things long ago and if articles are to be junked up with misleading templates, then whatever. I refuse to be involved with stupid fights like this. The templates are frankly crap. Victoria (tk) 14:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Tony stop this crap already and go push your BS somewhere else - WTF - it's not needed or wanted - and I'm getting sick of this tasteless look at me crap...Modernist (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm off then. Victoria (tk) 15:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring to Tony...Modernist (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    • And making a senseless statement at that. It has nothing to do with me. Even in places where the templates are contested on the bios, the have never been contested on the works themselves. You can surely pick a more intelligent fight than one based on your own inability to read (see below).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, very prickly these days! Victoria (tk) 15:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Tony, the main contributor to this article has made it perfectly clear that she does not want these templates here. Four further editors (myself included, now) have agreed with this position. Consensus is clearly against your addition of the templates. Please drop the stick, now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Modernist, Crisco 1492 can either of you read? What did I bold above? I am not talking about the template here. I am talking about the template where it belongs. I have posted at Talk:The Sun Also Rises regarding that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
      • You added the templates at the Ernest Hemingway page (diff). Victoria reverted (diff). Discussion here = discussion regarding this article (i.e. the templates used/not used in this article). Or has almost ten years on Wikipedia not been enough for you to understand that? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
        • The fact that I signed a comment saying I concede the issue here is what you seem to be unable to comprehend. I am not talking about those reversions, but you seem not to be able to read what I said. I am unwatching this page, because I don't think I can teach you how to read.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:DROPTHESTICK Tony - Can you read?..Modernist (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Templates redux[edit]

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

  • Makes me happy! Thanks for taking this up and for doing such a nice job. Victoria (tk) 15:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Victoria, a couple of options (with minor amendments): OPTION 1 OPTION 2 --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Prefer OPTION 1. Thanks again for doing this! Victoria (tk) 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
At Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Break Victoriaearle detailed her reasoning behind her Option 1 selection: "Because some are novels, some short stories, some very loosely based adaptations whereas EH was on set and heavily involved with others, it makes more sense to have the template as OPTION 1 with the works separated by novels, short stories, non-fiction, posthumous, then film adaptations, television adaptations, and perhaps stage adaptations." Given that we are now relegated to how we are going to spruce up the adaptations within {{Ernest Hemingway}} I am now a proponent of Option 3B, which is an identical, but more flexible reworking of Option 2. The reasoning is due to the broader issue on how to templating will be handled on the adaptation pages. I remain unconvinced that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL requires the entire unified template to be placed on the page of each adaptation. Thus, I think The Sun Also Rises (ballet) would be fine with just a {{The Sun Also Rises}} template. An adaptation of one work need not be linked to adaptations of all other works and all other Hemingway works to which it is unrelated. Option 1 and Option 2 would likely lead to the mass deletion of all the smaller by works templates. Option 3B retains the flexibility to nest the smaller templates within it and use just those smaller templates on the adaptations pages. While I understand Victoriaearle's reasoning, I think a template should assume that the reader knows what work he is looking for adaptations from. This follows from the page naming conventions in which we assume readers know how to spell the subject that they want to find. If we assume the reader who is looking for information about adaptations, knows which work he is looking for, it is more helpful for him to see the template presented with adaptations separated by works.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I prefer OPTION 1 because it shows the bibliography in a separate line. With OPTION 2 and Option 3B I see a problem with the other two short story film adaptatins, The Macomber Affair and The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film) as well Islands in the Stream (film), the adaptation of the posthumously published novel. If those were to be formatted like the others for the sake of consistency it gets to be quite vertical imo. Would like to get others to weigh in and like to get some version of {{Ernest Hemingway}} implemented and resolve the issue on The Sun Also Rises if possible. Victoria (tk) 15:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is an Option 3C that includes the bibliography where you want it and retains the nesting that I feel is needed so that by works templates can be used to properly template the adaptations. I am not proposing anything with more verticality than you see at 3C so opposing something that is not at issue and is not being proposed is sort of unusual. The other adaptations are presented as simply as possible. The 3C presentation should not be confusing for people seeking adaptation navigation assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
My question is this: why split out adaptations for only five of the novels and one short story and leave the other short story/novel adaptations in a section called "Other adaptations"? If the template is to split out adaptations by work, shouldn't all the adaptions be treated consistently? Victoria (tk) 11:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
To me that is like asking why the article has a "Selected works" section that only list 6 works rather than all of his works. It seems obvious. Organizationally, only 6 works are worth splitting out in this section because they are the only ones with a critical mass of adaptations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. In that case, how do feel about moving the Bukowski short story to the section devoted to the "The Killers" and the Metallica song to section devoted to For Whom the Bell Tolls? Victoria (tk) 00:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Here is Option 3D with those two changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The nesting is redundant. We don't need all the little navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Without them, all the adaptations have to have this huge template with irrelevant information. Why do you want all that content about Hemingway on a work that is not even by Hemingway. Previously, you have tried to claim that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL mandates that the entire template be included on the the adaptations, but it says no such thing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Having the one large template on each page is fine - it can be collapsed if necessary. And for WP:BIDIRECTIONALity, the articles are included in the large template, thus the large template should be transcluded. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The reason that BIDIRECTIONAL even seems to apply is because the large template is malformed. Having adaptations on the larger template is like having a Category:People from Illinois and Category:Children of People from Illinois grouped together. So now you put this massive template on the adaptation pages. Each adaptation is only related to other adaptations of the same work in a thematic sense. Also, Victoriaearle and I have been going back and forth for several days working toward a compromise on this template and you just jump in and make changes to your view of the world.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Ummm, if they're notable, then the children of people from Illinois are also people from Illinois. Anyway, I've included the changes suggested between yourself and Victoria in my new version. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
No people are from where they are from not where their parents are from.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Robsinden, Why are you making all these changes (redirecting the whole set of templates) without any consensus. We have been discussing {{Ernest Hemingway}} for days and reaching a compromise and then you come by and make changes to another way without really participating in the discussion. After we have worked toward a compromise, you come by and say. Hey I am going to do it this other way because I think that is what is right. There is a formal WP:TFD process for templates that are possibly redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is unanimous at Talk:The Sun Also Rises#Template removal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you talkong about the consensus regarding the main work at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Proposal. There was no consensus that {{Ernest Hemingway}} is necessary on the adaptations. Victoriaearle and I have been working back and forth to achieve consensus. Your recent heavyhandedness at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL for the sole purpose of supporting your edits here was uncalled for. Note that you said this in regards to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, which is that it really only works when the templates stay on point and smaller templates exist. Many would consider {{Ernest Hemingway}} a large template (you even say above that it may need to be collapsed) and there is no consensus here to force it onto every page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Are you talking about the discussions above "so that by works templates can be used to properly template the adaptations" or at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Proposal, which clearly defined the topic as the main article. Are you just helping Rob to get his foot out of his mouth, by doublespeaking and then running away to hide (no disrespect to the dead)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Tony, that last comment is utterly inappropriate; withdraw it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you talking about my apology to the dead or the foot in mouth?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The long and the short of this is that Robsinden has wiped out a lot of template content that was never discussed (neither at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Proposal nor in this thread). I will be reverting his edits to the consensuses that were reached. He can then pursue a WP:TFD if he likes by properly raising the discussion rather than changing guidelines to say whatever he wants as he did this morning. I am unsure why Victoriaearle had expected him to make edits that were never discussed and inconsistent with what was discussed. Whatever offline relationship they may have they need to be transparent here on WP so that we can all understand expectations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Tony, there is clear consensus to merge all the templates at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Proposal. And Victoria mentions above that she thought you were merging and not nesting. I really don't know what you are playing at. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Re-read the proposal and the responses. Not sure where Victoria said, this but I kept saying I was nesting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You must have missed the bit where Victoria mentioned "implement changes to {{Ernest Hemingway}}", which is a clear reference to the previous discussion, where my proto-merged templates were discussed. (See Talk:The Sun Also Rises#Break). --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
And hang on - I've just spotted something about an "offline relationship"!!! What the hell are you playing at Tony? WP:AGF FFS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This has gone way too far - yesterday when I was literally in tears at the death of a woman who I considered a wikifriend, and having been pinged four times prompting me to make a quick comment before I logged out, I got told I was "running away to hide", [2]. Earlier, I got told I was "leading the charge", I was condescending to ballet (a female dancer dances en pointe, a novel cannot (but the source uses it, so I see now where it comes from)), and I got told by Tony, "I have never heard of an editor with your level of experience misconcieving templates in the way that you have", [3]. I got told I don't "consider the opinion of a general reader (and informed Wikipedian) who appreciated the presence of an article and a navbox as helpful", [4]. I got told I was proposing the deletion of a template, [5], which had to be found by reading between the lines. Now I'm told I have an offline relationship with someone I've never interacted with on WP!, [6].
  • To be clear: 1., I am trying hard to disengage from Wikipedia (precisely because of these types of conversations), and 2., I firmly believed that Tony and I were discussing the design of the Ernest Hemingway template. Nothing more, nothing less. To personalize to this level is unacceptable and I wish someone would do something about it. This place being what it is, I know nothing will be done, but I have the choice to disengage, unwatch the page, turn off the notification system - all choices I intend to exercise. Victoria (tk) 17:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A Farewell to Arms[edit]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014[edit]

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

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

Resources can be found: Dree Hemingway IMDB, Profile [[7]], [[8]]

Thank you for your consideration.

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014[edit]

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2014[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Silver Medal of Military Valor[edit]

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

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

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

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