Talk:Mark Twain

Mark Twain on India quote not here then?

Hello, as I recall Mark Twain once said a pretty detailed and pretty nice quote on India. I understand that maybe not everything is going to be an article but if anyone is famiilar wwith what he said on India, i think it belongs in this article, maybe in the section of his views then. Because the aritcle wasd pretty detailed. And was a pretty nice opinion. I think it should be in the article. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone know how to use commas anymore...

This sentence:

"On a voyage to New Orleans down the Mississippi, the steamboat pilot, Horace E. Bixby, inspired Twain to be a steamboat pilot."

should read something like this:

"On a voyage to New Orleans down the Mississippi, steamboat pilot Horace E. Bixby inspired Twain to be a steamboat pilot."

This seems to be a case in which someone has jumped on the bandwagon of putting the word "the" in front of a title, such as 'the economist John Doe disagrees', whereas historically (up until a few years ago) it would have been simply 'economist John Doe disagrees'. In this case inserting "the" is ridiculous, makes no grammatical sense, and makes the sentence cumbersome with its need for extra commas.

Can someone fix it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.105.11 (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok done. Thanks. Why not make a user account so you can edit yourself? Zachlipton (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Both options are grammatically correct, changing it is like changing the title of the article Orange (Colour) to Orange (Color), it doesn't really matter as they are both correct

——67.180.86.254 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Twain and Joan of Arc

I don't see a whole lot about Mark Twain and Joan of Arc. Please consider adding a link to this page http://www.maidofheaven.com/joanofarc_mark_twain.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicalpoet (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Religion

The religion section is a bit clumsy in its attempt to discuss the complexity of Twain's (no doubt evolving) religious ideals (or the lack thereof). It begins with a sentence stating that Twain was a Presbyterian and implying that this is his basic religious beliefs; that is, it acknowledges his critique of religion, but does so in a way that renders those critiques secondary to his Christian foundations. Likewise, further in the section it claims that "despite" his criticisms he raised money to build a church. I am sure this is true but the phrasing is odd in that it once again presupposes that his criticisms are of lesser concern than his money raising. This is particularly troubling as he raises this money in the 1860's, prior to his gaining fame and much prior to his increasing criticism of Christianity and religion in general. Thus, his building the church says little about his religious ideals later in life. Once again, I do not doubt the factual nature of these claims, but they as stated do come across as a POV attempt to cast Twain as a fundamentally Christian man. Instead, I think this would be better if it more clearly delineated a timeline of Twain's changing thoughts on religion, showing that there is evidence of some religious conviction by him early in his life, but that as he aged this lessened to the point where his writings suggest he alternated between some form of vague deism and outright atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Clemens attended church on a regular basis in Hartford and his funeral was at Brick Presbyterian in New York City. He was primarily opposed to "organized religion" but certainly was not an atheist. In fact, I doubt an atheist could have viewed religion with as much humor as Twain did. It is certainly documented that he loved singing spirituals. Collect (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Singing spirituals tells us more about his taste in music than religion.

The article itself needs to leave it at what he said and did and what events happened that could have affected him.
</nowiki><opinion>His religious convictions were tested by the death of his wife and all but one of his children, old age, and turn-of-the-century Christian imperialism. He at least despised organized religion. Losing so many loved ones made it hard to believe in a benevolent and personal God. He never mentions an afterlife. </opinion> --Javaweb (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

The idea that atheists can't view religion with humor is patently absurd and demonstrably false. However, I can agree that I was going too far in specifically labeling him "atheist" and/or "deist" without documentation. Javaweb is correct that we need to limit our treatment of Twain to the facts of his life and writings. My main complaint, and I admit it didn't come across well in my original post, is that the overall rhetorical flow and organization of the Religion section (in particular, the few interjections noted above) comes across as a POV attempt to assert that despite his often radically anti-religious statements, Twain was really, fundamentally Christian. I believe the section could be better organized and phrased to better demonstrate the evolution and complexity of Twain's religious beliefs (or the lack thereof). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

WP works by using what reliable secondary sources have written, and not what any editor "knows" to be correct. Find strong reliable sources for claims (as all the current claims have been sourced) before complaining. He does, moreover, mention an afterlife in his autobiography. An amusing essay is "Etiquette for the Afterlife." Clara, the surviving daughter, was quoted as saying he "most of the time he felt sure" of an afterlife. Likely as close as anyone would have been to knowing what he thought. [1] Collect (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The scholarly Shelley Fisher Fishkin book in particular weighs Twain's writings carefully against his activities to conclude that Twain was, at root, a religious man. Nobody can know his true heart, of course, but the deeply religious conversations he had with his pastor Dr. Twichell included some of Twain's most prolific years, 1871 to 1889. For decades he collected funds for missionary work despite his damning of the greed and hypocrisy he discovered in William Scott Ament's Chinese mission. Fishkin points out that Twain's appreciation of gospel music (he occasionally broke out singing negro spirituals) includes the aesthetic element of the music but "the religious content cannot be entirely ignored." Twain's "sustained and intense critique of religion, Christianity, and idealism, in general" does not stop him from being religious. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The sub-topic cannot be discussed without referring to William E. Phipps' book Mark Twain's religion in which he lists the biographers and Twain scholars who said Twain was atheist or irreligious, and the ones who noted his religious beliefs. Phipps devotes the whole of the book to show Twain a very complex person who wrote against religion from the inside, as a person who was religious. Both the Phipps and the Fishkin books are used in this article as references. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Though I disagree with you and Fishkin (in a number of ways), I can respect your positions and that they are not unfounded. However, as I tried to state in my last post, my real concern here isn't to argue whether or not Twain was religious. Such an argument is largely irrelevant to Wikipedia. I take responsibility for the confusion as my opening post in this discussion was brief, argumentative, undocumented and to some extent beyond the scope of what Wikipedia is about. I apologize. That being said, the real problem I've been trying to point out is the phrasing and organization of the "Religion section." This is not simply a matter of information being sourced, as Collect maintains. He/she is correct in pointing out that the information about Twain and religion is from reputable secondary sources, but I have never disputed that, and I think we can all agree that material can be both factual/sourced and presented in a POV manner. Binksternet, in your own post you admit that many sources argue for Twain's being fundamentally irreligious. This is a real controversy in Twain scholarship, but rather than an NPOV presentation of this controversy, the religion section at multiple points presents Twain as being--despite what other scholars might think--fundamentally religious, and specifically Christian, and more specifically Presbyterian (at all points in his life). For instance, the opening sentence of the section says, "Although Twain was a Presbyterian, he was sometimes critical of organized religion and certain elements of Christianity through his later life." This sentence clearly and unequivocally establishes that Twain was Presbyterian, and dismisses his criticisms of religion as secondary and ancillary to his "true" beliefs, as if these criticisms were merely whims. And, this sentence is just one example. A further critique of this sentence and others in the section is that they contribute to an awkwardness in the prose. That is, this section comes across as having been composed by multiple authors with differing views on the matter, and as a result the section comes across as disjointed,clumsy. Binksternet, this section might be better if rewritten such that it a) recounts the facts of Twain's religious life (ie. the churches he attended--and importantly, when; what his contemporaries said of his religious beliefs, and -of course--what he said of his beliefs) and b) more clearly articulates the scholarly divide on the issue of Twain's religiousity. In doing so, it would come across less as an awkwardly phrase apology for Twain's being religious and more as a serious attempt to document to complexity of Twain's beliefs (as you have noted) and of our scholarly attempt to understand those beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, though, all debates about how religious Twain was aside, the religion section is terribly written, and needs to be thoroughly revised. As is, each paragraph is unfocused and reads like multiple authors trying to one up each other with divergent opinions on his religiosity. As a result it is a confusing read wherein we are repeatedly told "Twain is really religious, but really he's not, but really he is." Moreover, parts of the section are just absurd; for instance, in response to some of his more heretical statements later in life we are given the fact that 50 years prior he donated money to a church. I'm not saying that such a donation is necessarily un-noteworthy (though in this case it probably is), but as stated within the overall structure of the article it comes across as his "real" position, undermining his later skepticism, despite the fact that the two are separated by decades. The timeline of his religious evolution could be more clearly stated, and the very real scholarly debate over the nature and significance of Twain's changing religious views could be more neutrally displayed, rather than coming across as a simple "he said, she said" debate within the article that only makes it more confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia, in fact, is a bunch of people trying to balance all the available reliable sources. He, by the way, attended church more in later life than in his early life, and his funeral was at a church (Brick Presbyterian). Sources appear to agree that he was mainly against "organized religion" which does not make him much different from a great many religious people. Collect (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I understand that Wikipedia is in fact written by multiple authors. That is irrelevant. Just because it is written by multiple people does not justify awkwardly flowing prose, a lack of focus, and at times incoherent argumentation. It's one thing to explain that there is some debate about the degree to which Twain was religious, the nature of his religious beliefs, and how they changed over time. That can be done with a NPOV and with a consistent, easily readable voice. But this section is not consistent in voice or tone. It shifts rapidly between assertions that he really was religious and other statements indicating that he was highly skeptical, and does so without clearly explaining the divergent claims. To someone who comes to Wikipedia to learn about this subject, this section would be unhelpful. Once again, ultimately--though I find the assertion that Twain was a fundamentally religious person highly problematic--I don't really have anything at stake in the argument other than making the article more accurate and more clearly written. The problem here is that the section is poorly written and organized. I am fine with including the facts (and they are facts) that Twain donated money to build a church, that he attended church regularly even later in life, that there are relevant quotes from friends and family concerning his beliefs, etc. Those things all have there place in the article (except the donating money to a church early in life; that really does seem to be trivial matter. As I pointed out beforeit's only purpose in the article is as a rather incoherent response to the question of his later belief... even if we take the view that he was religious, that is simply a trivial fact and there are better arguments for the matter). At base, all I am saying is that the section could be reorganized to do 2 things. The most important of these is that it could be better organized such that it more clearly explains the subject matter. The second and less important is that the revision could solve the POV problem I have previously pointed out. That is, the article promotes the POV position that Twain is at base religious, and does so in problematic ways. Ultimately, this problem is slighter than the issue of readability, but it has been too often the focus of this discussion, obscuring the more pressing issue of the sections focus, flow and readability. I'll admit, this distraction is at least partially my fault. Even with this matter, however, my problem is not necessarily with the idea that Twain was "religious," but more with lack of clarity with which that position is made and how it is promoted in contrast to other views of Twain's religious beliefs. At any rate, it's late, and I apologize if this post has itself reads as a rambling mess. I'll happily clarify or expand on any of these points.

Grand Central

Grand Central Terminal VS Grand Central Station — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsky (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This page makes reference to 'Grand Central Station'

Under 'Friendship with Henry H. Rogers' it says:

"A month later, Twain was en route from Connecticut to visit his friend in New York City when Rogers died suddenly on May 20, 1909. Twain arrived at Grand Central Station to be met by his daughter with the news."

The words 'Grand Central Station' are a link that takes you to the Wiki page for Grand Central Terminal

That link tells us that:

Grand Central Terminal (GCT) — often incorrectly called Grand Central Station

Although the terminal has been properly called "Grand Central Terminal" since 1913, many people continue to refer to it as "Grand Central Station." "Grand Central Station" is the name of the nearby post office,...

I assume that they met at the train station, Grand Central Terminal and not the post office, Grand Central Station considering the sentence says he was 'en route'. Mattsky (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Note the year. The "terminal" was opened in 1913, and the article states that "Grand Central Station" was "the name of a previous rail station on the site" meaning that when Twain was there it was, indeed, "Grand Central Station." Collect (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Picture

Mark Twain, you and your tie are beast. Just saying.

——67.180.86.254 (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)