Talk:Moby-Dick

The Rachel

The names of the characters are given extensive discussion in this article, as Melville clearly chose them for their associations. The name of the ship, Rachel, is also an allusion, and the image of Rachel crying for her children is taken from Jeremiah 31, along with the prophet's message of comfort. Shouldn't this allusion be included in the discussion as well?

On the new Characters Section

This article is presently transforming from containing mostly unsourced material to featuring sourced material exclusively, which inevitably means that in that course it is going through a mixed state, with sourced and unsourced sections simultaneously. Today I have begun adding sourced information on the allegorical roles of the characters, while discussions of the characters are already provided for. Wikipedia policy holds that new additions preferably be merged with the present material, but the unsourced nature of that material makes me reluctant to do that: before you know it, footnotes may be taken to include sentences that are actually not covered by them. So as to avoid confusion, I think it's best to have this material separated and wipe out the unsourced information on a character as soon as the sourced information on him is substantial enough to make this a reasonable step.MackyBeth (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Several thousand readers a day come to MD (click on "Page View Statistics" at the head of the "View History"/"Revision History" page), so in order not to confuse them, rather than making edits which we don't intend to last, let's first make a draft page in WP:USERSPACE of "New Characters" or other extensive new material for the editors to see and discuss, and then we can incorporate the parts on which we can reach consensus.

This would also give us a chance to point out signs of haste, such as not identifying "Bezanson" on first mention ("The theory has been harpooned in two ways by Bezanson...") or not giving a full citation ("Wright, 71"). Also, the word "harpooned" is POV. ch (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The full citation is restored, but its absence was no sign of haste on my part but the result of your reorganization of the page.MackyBeth (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for the "Did you know" section on the Main Page

The page has recently evolved so much that it is time to let readers know that Moby-Dick is alive, at least here on Wikipedia..

On the Lead once more

One user just annotated the Lead with three "citation needed" marks. No citation is needed in any Lead, as the Lead should provide a short summary or abstract of the article itself and therefore everything will be sourced there. The Lead should start with a statement of the impact the subject of the article has had. See for example the Lead on Elvis Presley, which is a Featured Article and also begins with a statement of his impact that is not and need not be sourced at that point. The Lead on MD should indicate that this work is regarded not as a highlight in the literature of the USA, for it ranks a category higher than that: this belongs to world literature, the highest category. That is the reason it has Top-importance rank on Wikipedia. Discussion of its reputation in this article may need improvement, but the Lead should stand as it is. I am now going to undo these edits.MackyBeth (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

MackyBeth, I have the highest possible respect for your energy and ideals, but the comparison with Mozart is ... well, let's just say "unencyclopedic." See WP:PEACOCK. MD can speak for itself. ch (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the precise words of the opening of the lead will eventually be settled on, it must indicate that this book is ranked in the category World Literature, as the enormous amount of translations in many languages proves. As long as it only states that it is a classic of American literature, the opening is not an accurate description.MackyBeth (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've been watching the expansions here (and the reorg). Regarding the lead, whatever is written there in terms of comparative or superlative definition - it's really best to find a source (plenty exist) to attribute it to, and I would then cite it. I've done this for articles about books and short stories that are FA, such as Sun Also Rises. Victoria (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just checked some of your contributions and your suggestion is probably the wisest thing to do after all, since any objective description of the stature of the book is likely to be mistaken for the Wiki-editors's own praise.MackyBeth (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. It's best to pin it on a scholar and if possible on a very prominent Am. Lit scholar. I almost certainly have some information floating around about Moby Dick that we can use, but it's not something I'd worry about right now. Also, I should add this to the other thread, but I'd suggest not deleting Ishmael - or maybe wait. He is notable, and it's doubtful that consensus will be to delete (though one never knows!) That page simply needs to be developed imo. Victoria (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of pursuing the deletion of the Ishmael page any further, but the nomination has already been made. Your previous message reminded me that I have book by Somerset Maugham, ten essays on what he finds the 10 best books ever written. Moby-Dick is there, along with Bovary, Dostoyevsky, Wuthering Heigths. For a more recent attribution we might keep track of the current series that London newspaper The Guardian runs of 100 Best Books, though that list is limited to English. But as you said, there are more pressing improvements to be thought of just now.MackyBeth (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Accomodation of daughter pages on Pequod and Cetology; proposed deletion of Ishmael page

My limited internet access forces me to make some additions to the "to do"-list for this article, instead of immediately carrying them out myself: I read somewhere, don't remeber where, that Wkipedia guidelines for daughter pages state that the main page should cover the content of daughter pages by supplying a summarizing paragraph. Between the Heading and the paragraph itself should be inserted the link to the main page of the subject. See, for instance, the sections here on Ishmael and Queeqeg. I created the section on ships and linked to the main page of Pequod. To do:

• The paragraph covering the content of the Pequod-page on the MD main page has yet to be written.
• The Section "See also" has a link to the Cetology-page, probably the best of the MD daughter pages as they now stand. This link has yet be placed and covered in the text.
• Before my discussion of Ishmael was removed from the MD page, I proposed the deletion of the Ishmael-page, which is not much more than one paragraph. That page has two banners on it marking it as unreferenced (since May 2011) and original research (since June 2012). The long-standing banners may indicate that it is not realistic to have a special page for the narrator. Since my information on Ishmael has now been removed, it may be wise to check if really everything important about Ishmael in his page is still available on the MD page.MackyBeth (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Epilogue and Reception

Just changed the name of the section Composition back to Background, which term MOS Novels prescribes. I added some material there about Melville's reading of Shakespeare, a key element in his development toward MD. Whatever revisions others may carry out next, consider the reasons for citing some reviews in the section "American vs. English edition" instead of delegating that material to the "Reception" section: these citations illustrate--and even prove--the sourced claim in that section that the missing Epilogue in the English edition had led reviewers to critize the work's credibility, since Ishmael apparently does not survive to tell the tale.MackyBeth (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We have this article too: Herman Melville bibliography where the deletions are noted in the Moby Dick section. Not sure why that material isn't cited, but some good sources there. It is an important point. I typically place "Background" in front of the plot summary. I'd only say to keep an encyclopedic voice in mind and try to adhere to Wikipedia:Summary style so as to keep the article from growing too huge. Victoria (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

They have guidelines for everything here, don't they? I printed it and will read this. The thing with MD is that Melville was still finishing it while the publication was already underway, so that one phse seamlessly goes into the other. Separating the two sections would therefore need some extra careful consideration to decide where the cutting line should be, than it would for articles on most other works of literature.MackyBeth (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The order of the article

CH reorganized the page and moved the Background and Publication history to the place where it should be according to the MOS/Novels. However, Victoria suggests that articles on novels better begin with the Background and Publication history. Indeed, all the Featured-articles on novels, such as The Sun Also Rises, The Red Badge of Courage and I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings have this arrangement, so it looks like the Manual is out of date on this point. In any case, The actual application of the MOS in Featured articles should I believe have precedence over the MOS itself. So I propose to move these two sections back up front, but I am reluctant to carry that out right away without having reached consensus on this on the Talk page, lest repeated moving back and forth of sections might give followers of this page the impression of an ongoing edit war.MackyBeth (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a long way from being featured and it appears that you're only beginning to build up the page. It's a huge topic and a huge page, needs tons of research to be comprehensive, and usually the structure doesn't fall into place (in my experience) until later. I'd leave it for now and continue on slowly, as you have been. At some point, I'll probably sweep through myself and make some changes but I can't get to it in the immediate future. Victoria (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll go by your experience and start building on the next section then. My referring to featured content is just to say that I look at those pages as an example: there is no point in taking third-rate articles for a model, right? I am well aware that there is a whole lot of work to be done and that it will take a long time before the quality of this page as a whole is elevated.MackyBeth (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've shuffled things around a little but anything can be changed. Yes, I agree about looking at featured articles as examples but in my experience I've done an awful lot of rearranging in terms of structure until the ones I've brought to that level were satisfactory and in terms of MoS/Novels I believe they are the exception rather than the rule. It really does depend on the level of importance of the publication history - which in most cases is negligible. Here there's a good case for placing it earlier because the background and publication history are extremely important, but as you said above, because the page has been recently reorganized it's best to leave as is for the moment. Victoria (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the MOS order is not sacrosanct, as Victoria and MackyBeth clearly show. This can be covered by WP:COMMONSENSE etc.

But the MD 10 paragraph Background and 10 paragraph Publication History are much longer than in the comparable articles. Based on my experience as a college teacher, I worry that undergraduates (our typical audience) would find 20+ detailed and abstruse paragraphs a roadblock rather than an "on ramp." The article is now 79,000 bytes, which is already large, but some sections need to be reworked and augmented, especially Critical Response & Adaptations. So maybe move a boiled down and more pointed version of Background and leave Publication History where it is?

BTW, I also like the idea of spinning off or augmenting sister articles, such as Ishmael. This is standard practice for important articles and gives readers the choice of how much detail they want.

Cheers! ch (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right that the Background section (the part I just renamed Composition) is far from the shape that it needs to be in to open the article with. My summarizing skills are underdeveloped; improving them was one reason to join Wikipedia. Yet before it can be brought down, it will expand even more, because at the moment it depends largely on a single source (Bezanson), however well-argued that source may be. The 1988 NN edition of the book also has a section on the writing of the book, which should be taken aboard as well. And then the thing clearly needs to be cut down to size, so that the result is a concise section firmly rooted in enough sources so as to be an objective description of the subject. And especially the language is still too close to the sources at points. Specifically the style of the Publication history is clearly derivative of G. Thomas Tanselle for a reader who is familiar with his writings. That's what you get from writing with your sources open before you. In short, it has just started to develop rather than being almost finished. Cheers!MackyBeth (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mackybeth - one suggestion would be to create a sandbox (I believe that's now easily done by clicking the sandbox tab?) where you can keep notes which can then be summarized more easily and move the text over when it's closer to being formalized. I have many sandboxes - couldn't really function without them! Victoria (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion.MackyBeth (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a steep learning curve here and this isn't the easiest article to start with but don't worry too much. There's no hurry at all! This article has been in not-great shape for a long time so any attention it receives is nice to see. I've trimmed down and consolidated a few sections so you get a sense of how it's best done. I'll have to find sources about the characters because we don't use WP:Primary sources to cite claims; rather we look to what the scholars say. That's why I prefer to keep the character sections as short as possible or to do away with them altogether. As for the length, I've found that the most important sections are style and theme and since this is well, Moby Dick, I expect those will eat a lot of space. Another really well done FA about a book is To Kill a Mockingbird - worth a look in terms of structure. Victoria (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The (Dutch) Wikipedia once deleted an article of mine for using primary sources, so I was well aware of that, it being the reason I used all that interpretative material to describe Ahab with, and some other characters. Study guides usually provide descriptions that may be quoted. But as CWH|ch said, character descriptions may be items many readers find useful. The MOS also says that in many cases Characters need not be described, but for Moby-Dick the plot means absolutely nothing: ship goes on whale hunt, meets other ships, kills some whales, is sunk by a white one, one person survives. End of plot.MackyBeth (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking at some other language versions of this and the French Wikipedia puts the characters under themes, [1], which is interesting and might work. As you say, not much of a plot for such a big book. And the form has to be worked in as well given that half of the book is the cetology sections. Victoria (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Starbuck est très courageux!MackyBeth (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Spin-off page: Crewmembers of the Pequod

Many first-time readers of the book will probably find it a valuable service if the MD page would provide a list of crewmembers, so that readers have something of a factsheet at hand while reading. Some characters disappear for many chapters and when they reappear, readers might not remember exactly who they were and what their rank aboard the ship is. Provided in the shape of a daughter page, readers can easily print that list without having to print the rest of the article as well.MackyBeth (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see Veronica is doing quite a bit of tightening up the Characters section, which has drawn my attention to the contents. I will check the factual accuracy of the descriptions, which seems necessary: for instance near the end of the section "Other notable characters," the Cook Fleece is among the group being highlighted "near the end of the book." Fleece's moment indeed occurs in "Stubb's Supper" as the description says, but it is chapter 64, not even halfway a book of 135 chapters. His funny "Sermon to the sharks" is also worth mentioning on the page.MackyBeth (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Developing the Ishmael page

Over the weekend I have read the various guidelines, and now have a better understanding of how to develop articles, especially the "Summary style" MOS was helpful. To verify with you that my comprehension is not flawed, it would be in accordance with Wiki policy to put the information by mistake added to the mainpage last week in a subpage called something like "Anhab's allegorical roles", right?

The first priority, however, is to develop the existing Ishmael-page, no longer proposed for deletion. My rationale is that Wikipedia readers should preferably not stumble upon any underdeveloped pages. Whether page visitors actually read a page or not, ideally they should always leave any page with at least the impression that the content is worth reading. And since I have the sources to develop the Ishmael page, that should take precedence over starting any new pages. Any messages on the progress will be posted on the Talk page over there.MackyBeth (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Melville's seafaring career/whaling years

I edited out some material about Melville's seafaring career, because background material should discuss the background of Moby-Dick exclusively, and not the background of Typee etc. Melville's whaling background is well-documented in Wilson Heflin's book Herman Melville's Whaling Years, and in the future I plan to use that book to give some account of Melville as a whaler. In the meantime, it is not correct to say that Moby-Dick is "wholly fictional" because it is only mostly fictional.MackyBeth (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

That's reductionist and, frankly, simplistic. The whole of Melvilles seafaring career, less than five years, is what he drew upon... that is to say, all of it... whaling, bailing and all, for all of his books and the clearly semi-autobiographical nature of his earlier books provide a clear progression and obvious background for Moby Dick. Background is background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreebeardTheEnt (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Background to Typee should be discussed in the page for Typee and not here. The background section is quite long already, no need to include information not relevant to Moby-Dick.MackyBeth (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The genesis of Moby Dick, as well as the character of Queequeg, his knowledge of whales and sailors, all derive from direct experience in the south seas, either aboard whaling vessels or among the Typee and others. Melville spent Five years asea and then five years on shore writing about it. I see absolutely no issue with a short paragraph (and I tried to keep it a short as possible) that describes Melvilles seafaring career and how that bears upon Moby Dick. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's best if the background section to MD or any other book is as specific as possible to the book in question. If you look at the pages for Melville's other books, you will notice that almost every one of them has a section on the rediscovery of Melville, the so-called Melville revival. So the same information is included time and again. If any of Melville's non-whaling sea voyages has a specific bearing on Moby-Dick, then that is certainly worth adding to the MD page. But in case of general information on his voyages, the place for that would be the page for Melville's biography.MackyBeth (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. I don't even know what "It's best if the background section to MD [...] is as specific as possible to the book " even means. If the background is germane, it is specific and it is pertinent to the book in question. Otherwise, it wouldn't be background. You really can't have background that isn't specific to the book... as that's not background. Melville went whaling. He lived among natives. He shipped aboard several different vessels. He came home. He wrote about it. The culmination of his writing, which derived from his seafaring, was Moby Dick. I am absolutely mystified that there would be any objection to this at all.. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ships

The Ships section appears to have an error in the italicizing. Also, it seems like it might be a quote, in which case that should be made clear.192.249.47.181 (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)