Jump to content

Talk:Ernest Hemingway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 97.85.168.22 (talk) at 09:15, 19 July 2013 (→‎American atheist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleErnest 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 trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 19, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
June 19, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
December 22, 2005Good article nomineeListed
September 15, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 6, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
April 1, 2010Good article nomineeListed
May 16, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
June 23, 2010Today's featured articleMain Page
Current status: Featured article

Template:WPCD-People

FBI

Inside this article is the fact that Hemingway thought he was being followed by the FBI, later facts show that he was in the mental hospital. This leads one to assume that Hemingway was delusional about the FBI following him, when in reality the FBI have provided his file that he was indeed being tracked by them, and that they had also tapped his phones. This is unintentional or deliberately misleading for the reader without proper context. Add the truth in context with Hemingway's beliefs about the FBI with the fact that FBI was following him. Instead of leaving it in obscurity in the note section. Anything else makes this article look incomplete, misleading, and unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.207.20 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EH had an FBI file since working closely with the FBI during WWII in Cuba (why the FBI was in Cuba I do not know-- I can only presume the FBI handled some foreign intelligence close to home in the days before the CIA, and while the OSS was occupied in Europe). Anyway, the FBI certainly was running US Cuban intelligence, not the OSS, and EH was a US resource, not a target. Much later the FBI file on EH shows they knew EH was in the Mayo Clinic in 1961, but there's nothing to show that this isn't because asked his doctors to CALL the FBI and TELL them where he was. He was paranoid, thought he might be prosecuted for some tax error, and was afraid the FBI would think he was giving them the slip. What specifically in the FBI file shows the FBIs were following EH, other than this lone fact, which has several possible explanations? And what is the evidence they were tapping his phones? What is your source? SBHarris 04:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement that this issue should be revisited. (Time-permitting, I'll see what I can unearth. Most, if not all, of the references pertaining to the FBI, as well as his alleged "paranoia" are quite dated. For reference, here's a link to a New York Times Op-Ed by A.E. Hotchner (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/opinion/02hotchner.html?pagewanted=1&src=recg&_r=0), in which he says: "Decades later, in response to a Freedom of Information petition, the F.B.I. released its Hemingway file. It revealed that beginning in the 1940s J. Edgar Hoover had placed Ernest under surveillance because he was suspicious of Ernest’s activities in Cuba. Over the following years, agents filed reports on him and tapped his phones. The surveillance continued all through his confinement at St. Mary’s Hospital. It is likely that the phone outside his room was tapped after all." (emphasis mine) I agree with the above party who wrote that we must accurately reflect the truth of the FBI's influence. To do otherwise, as this person noted, is to "make this article look incomplete, misleading, and unreliable. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey Meyers got the FBI files in the 80's under the FOIA, for his bio. I have Meyers' bio of EH and it doesn't say anything about the FBI either tailing EH at the Mayo, or tapping his phones there. They knew he was there, indeed, but that could (and I believe was) because EH was so paranoid that he asked his doctors to phone the FBI and TELL THEM he was at the Mayo (under an assumed name) so that they wouldn't think he was trying to do something criminal. They FBI reported in a rather hangdog way to EH's doctor that they "had no objection" to his getting medical treatment under an assumed name. That's sad, but does NOTHING to establish Hotchner's wild idea that the FBI was either tapping or following EH at the end of his days in 1960-61. Clearly, EH was in contact with the FBI at that time. They didn't need to tail him.[1] Prove me wrong. Meyers would have made this case from the files if it could be made, but it can't. SBHarris 03:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 20 April 2013

Remove the comma following "became paranoid" in the "Idaho and Suicide section" because it's not needed.

86.13.119.172 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be some mention of Hemingway shortly before his death saying that the electroshock treatments had destroyed his memory and therefore he was unable to write anymore? I've read this anecdote in several places but can't seem to find a quotable source. E. Francesca Allan (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems relevant: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Ernest_Hemingway_commit_suicide E. Francesca Allan (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hemingway's categories

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.

I've placed Hemingway in Category:20th-century American writers and Category:American men novelists, and before reverting I'd ask that you read, WP:Categorization, which states things should be placed in the most specific sub-cat (except for non-diffusing categories like those related to gender/ethnicity). Category:American men novelists is currently under discussion for deletion/merging, so further, no-one should be removed from this cat while the discussion is ongoing per policy, but you are welcome to add others to it. Because of Hemingway's status as a pre-eminent American novelist, he should also be categorized in a way in line with wikipedia policy, and if that means he's no longer in the much vaunted head-cat, that will hopefully dispel some of the drama that suggests you haven't made it until you're in that head cat (when in fact, the head cat is really just a holding ground for people still needing to be diffused to more specific cats). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he was just added to the men category on April 26 and was removed almost immediately - that was the bold edit that needs consensus first. Stating that no one can be removed from the category but that people can be added is, quite frankly, gaming. The 20th-century category is neither here nor there, and I'd love to hear further opinions from those who worked on the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting. It certainly doesn't need consensus - that category is valid, and currently under discussion, so should be populated. Are you disputing whether he belongs in that category? Same thing for 20th century - your opinion on whether you like it or not is irrelevant, if the cat is valid it must be kept. If you don't like the 20th century cat, nominate it for deletion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed BRD for your initial edit, but it was the addition of those categories that was bold - you've been reverted, you need consensus. That the category is currently under discussion is no reason to populate it, and there's no default-to-include rule for categories. As for the 20th-century cat, I have no desire to nominate it for deletion, I simply would like to hear some other opinions about its inclusion here. Please allow that discussion to happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Population of cats under discussion is exceedingly common, and very much the norm. I also look forward to the arguments as to whether he is indeed a 20th century novelist and a man. There's no such thing as "well, he qualifies for inclusion in the category, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per header on Category:American men novelists and guidance here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.", categories should not be removed which are currently under discussion. User:Nikkimaria has removed this category several times. Can anyone provide any reason why Hemingway is not a member of Category:American men novelists? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring for a moment the mess that's recently cropped up, the creation of Category:American women novelists last October (without consensus or notifying Wikiproject Novels) the subsequent depopulation of Category:American novelists and the newly created Category:American men novelists (again, against consensus and without notification to the relevant wikiproject. Hemingway was the following: from the beginning of his career to his death a journalist, hence Category:American journalists; a short story writer, hence Category:American short story writers. He wrote nonfiction, some of which was published during his life time (Death in the Afternoon) some after his death - True at First Light is an example of a book published posthumously and depending on which manuscript, which editor, which edition, has been variously described as fiction and non-fiction. He wrote a memoir published after his death, hence Category:American memoirists; he wrote extensively for magazines - fiction and non-fiction - and in fact right before his death was working on an a piece for Life magazine. And during his lifetime he had five novels published and two works that have variously been described as novels and novellas. He won the Nobel Prize in Literature for the second of those - The Old Man and the Sea. After his death he had a further two, possibly three, novels published (depending on whether True at First Light is truly a novel. His work does not fit into a genre and thus cannot be diffused to mystery, horror, fantasy, historical, etc. He simply wrote novels. In my view, he needs to be identified as an American novelist. If we look at the history of the article, here in 2004 he was simply identified as an American writer and a novelist and that's absolutely right. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but *if* the category American men novelists continues to exist, do you not accept that he belongs, in the same way that Maya Angelou is an American female novelist? If the cat fits, wear it. Don't you think it would be odd to have this world famous category called American men novelists (ack!) but Hemingway *isn't* in it? Could you imagine the NY times article about that one? We don't have male gendered categories for short story writers, journalists, etc, but we *do* have one for novelists, so we don't really have a choice whether to use it or not.
Now if the male novelists cat is deleted, then there's no use complaining - but if it is kept, he must be placed in it, otherwise the cat itself has no meaning. I don't know why people don't realize that being in a subcategory still implies membership in the parent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't compare Hemingway to Angelou; best to stay away from the OTHERSTUFF argument. In my view the men novelist category is an artificial category and artificially created. My comment at the CfD was called an "assertion" so I struck it. But, a number of good editors have made comments on various pages with which I agree, most notably Newyorkbrad and Jayen. I think we need to take a fresh look at the category situation rather than accusing me of complaining. I know what I'm trying to say but to be honest I'm in the middle on a very difficult two weeks at work, am tired, and won't be editing again until I crawl out from under work. Perhaps someone better than I am can articulate better and discuss better. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think some overlap should be permitted in these categories. Nobody would object to EH being called an American man novelist (though it sounds odd-- why not American male novelist?), if he can also be listed simply as an American novelist. He's a member of both categories. Is the 20th century non-diffusing? This "non diffusing" business is very dubious because the rules are not evenly applied. We do not have American man Nobel Prize winners, so why in the world are we stuck with American man novelists? It's not a category size issue as it only cuts the cat size in half.

Then there's the funny business of "ethnicity". Why is "American" accepted as Hemingway's ethnicity, and not English-American? Ralph Ellison (for example) is listed simply as an African-American novelist AND an American man novelist, so why can EH be listed simply also as an English-American novelist?

If EH were reading all this, he'd doubtless comment acidly that we should create a category soley for "one-eyed quarter-Portuguese-American bastard men novelists", in order to give Dos Passos one entirely to himself. SBHarris 02:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbharris. A few responses
  1. Category:American men novelists is currently under discussion for merging or keeping - it's not closed yet. I've voted myself to have it renamed as you suggest, but we have to wait till that discussion closes. In such cases as a CFD, categories are not supposed to be removed from articles until the discussion closes. You should weigh in on the discussion.
  2. Category:20th-century American novelists diffuses Category:American novelists - This is an unambiguous diffusion, a classic case, as you're taking the same exact concept, and just getting more specific in terms of time frame. It would be very odd for Category:20th-century American novelists to not diffuse - we have hundreds of categories like this all over the wiki, and these sort of by-century cats always diffuse the parent - see Category:Poets by century, Category:Writers by century, for example (notice: no articles in the parent). My argument is, since he's in Category:20th-century American novelists, he shouldn't be in the parent, per WP:Categorization. No-one has provided a policy- or guidance-based argument to counter this yet.
  3. As for ethnicity, we don't have Category:English-American novelist categories - per WP:EGRS, such ethnicity/job intersections are only created where one can justify that it is a subject of special study. african-American novelists apparently are, but English-American, less so. Note: I didn't write these rules (or even necessarily agree with them), nor create these categories, I'm just working with what I have in front of me and the guidance that the community has decided on for categorization.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I propose to add the following categories:

For that matter, you might as well put in Category:Writers from Illinois for exactly the same reason. This diffuses out American writers.
nb: He's already in Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois which is a sub-cat of Category:Writers from Illinois - Obi
Technically wrong. Illinois is as far as we want to go. Rather than ghettoizing him, the erroneous origin would suburbanize him. But Oak Park is a separate township municipality and not a suburb. It's next door but not part of Chicago; not when EH was born and not now.
Traditionally, the from doesn't mean where you were born, it just means a place where you spent some time - but in any case, I agree, this could be made more generic. I've modified the proposal accordingly. (FWIW, it wasn't me who put him in chicago, so don't shoot the messenger) -Obi
But aside from a few boyhood trips to the Fields Museum, EH spent only a little time in Chicago in 1920-21 (living for a while there after he married) and did no writing there. Of course he was born in Oak Park, went to Oak Park High, and then he left to go to Italy. He went to Chicago after returning from the war, but soon (1922) went to Paris and ignored Chicago ever after, including in his writing. The city seems to have made no impression on him. Actually, Category:Writers from Paris would be more appropriate for EH than Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois, and both of these are, of course, just wrong. Much as Chicago would like to claim him. SBHarris 04:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you hadn't noticed that I had already moved the Chicago cat to the "delete" column, and proposed placing him in writers from Illinois instead? Writers from Paris is also probably a fair one to consider - he certainly is associated with Paris in my mind. - Obi
No. He could be a hunter without being a fisher and many people are. EH himself was of course famous for both. One could argue that all fishers are hunters (the other way around) but this requires a somewhat nonstandard definition of hunter, where the connotation of the word almost always is hunter of mammals, not fish.
Sorry, what I meant to say is, if we put him in the hunters category, we should certainly put him in the fishers category. i think it's fair to say that both fishing and hunting are defining for this fellow. -Obi
Yes, but my only problem is the century thing isn't an ideal diffusive category due to being somewhat vague for some people (Kipling is both a 19th-century British writer and a 20th century British writer also, Joseph Conrad is both a Polish and a Bitish novelist and writer). Those things suggest to me that time of writing (vs. say year of birth) should probably be treated as a non-diffusive subcategory. It's not vague for Hemingway who worked exclusively in the 20th century, but it's the principle of the thing. It sets a bad precident by shoehorning in yet another subcategory which isn't always so clear and certainly requires duplication for some.
The definition used is clear and standardized - it's about when these people were active and publishing - and people could thus cross centuries. It's not a problem to be in multiple categories - Kipling being a great example. Writers-by-century categories are diffusing in every other part of the tree, I'm not sure why it would be different here. diffusing doesn't mean you only belong in one sub-category - it just means you belong to at least one.-Obi
  • Category:American men novelists - non-diffusing subcat of American novel[ist]s. Currently under discussion at CFD, and per CFD rules, categories under discussion are not to be removed from articles, no matter what one's personal opinion.
It's not my personal opinion. It's the guideline at WP:CAT that gender shouldn't be used a diffusive category. Thus you can use Category:American men novelists (though I would prefer male American novelists) so long as this doesn't take out American novelists.
nb: I agree with the rename, the cat is currently under discussion - if it survives, I also hope it's renamed. i fixed the above, I should have said it doesn't diffuse, which is according to guidelines. -Obi
For this one at least I have the same comment that it's not clear why somebody made that particular category, and not Category:Roman Catholic anti-fascists. Is anti-fascist a proper diffusing subset of Roman Catholics, or the reverse? Or either of them? Even in the Spanish Civil war? Why so? For example, Category:Toll bridges in New York City is a clear subset and subcategory of Category:Bridges in New York City but it's used in WP:DUPCAT as an example of an improper subcat to use as a diffuser. There are toll bridges and non-toll brdiges in NYC and there are have been pro- and anti- fascists among Roman Catholics. (See Spanish Civil War). But in both cases, so what?
This is an intersection cat - it intersects both anti-fascists and roman catholics. I didn't create the category, but he fits in it... If you think that particular category doesn't make sense, you should nominate it for deletion. -Obi
You miss the point. It's a valid subcategory, yes, but a proper diffusing subcategory is one that is clear and comprehensive and parses out all the parts of the parent category. Else what's the point of WP:DUPCAT? If you won't admit existence of any valid subcategories that are NOT diffusing except the ones clearly labeled here (gender, ethnicity, blah), then give me an example of one you wouldn't consider that is NOT one of those.

I'm simply saying that while it is not wrong (aside from the Catholic problem) to call Hemingway a Roman Catholic anti-fascist or American anti-fascist, or whatever, putting in these in place of the single categories adds nothing to calling him separately a 1) Roman Catholic 2) anti-fascist who 3) hails from Illinois and is called American is a half-dozen other categories. Number of categories are the same, but of course there exist 3 different combos of any 2 of these 3 characteristics (American, anti-fascist, Catholic), and you now want 2 of these 3, but not the third (American Roman Catholics) and you also don't want a category with all 3 (American Roman Catholic anti-fascists). None of this makes sense. He was Anti-fascist, American, and nominally Catholic. Do any combo you like, but none of them help. SBHarris 01:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I see your point - sorry I had just been using "diffuses" in a more generic sense to mean it sub-cats-off-of, but yes you're right, in this case, religion should not *actually* diffuse. There are other examples of non-diffusing cats - for example, under novelists, you have Nobel prize winners - but that should not diffuse, because you don't want people hived off *only* into that category.
In any case, we should respect the wisdom of the crowds here - if someone thinks the category is valid, then we should fill it up. If not, we should propose it for deletion. Just leaving it ignored is not a good idea IMHO. And perhaps it doesn't add additional information, for anyone browsing categories, it *does* add information. Your solution, of using more generic higher-level facets, requires category intersection - I've proposed a prototype of how this might work here - thoughts welcome Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today -obi
This one looks a bit more natural. But again, not really obvious. SBHarris 22:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which part is not obvious? diffusion by country is quite standard. Note that we need this cat - if we don't have it, otherwise poor Papa will be ghettoized by religion in the anti-fascists tree. -Obi
Well then, take out the religion and leave these single categories which logically have 4 separate possible combos, the existence of which all are obviously and speak for themselves. There was, BTW, nothing odd about being an anti-fascist American Catholic in the late 1930's when EH was covering the Spanish Civil War. It was being an anti-fascist Spanish Catholic that got you into trouble (Catholic Party had been absorbed by the Republicans).

Just to make things difficult for you (and why shouldn't I?), there's a technical and non-negotiable definition of who is, and who isn't, a Roman Catholic (you must be baptized one by a priest), and EH didn't fit it. So anything with that category is technically as untrue as him being from Chicago. Even more so. SBHarris 02:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could perhaps put forth a different proposal below to delete all of the catholic cats then. Again, i didn't put him into those cats, I was just taking the existing cats as consensus, and further refining them. If you want to ice the catholic ones, make your case. :) -obi
You missed the point of my statement. I don't care about the existence or non-existence of Catholic categories. I'm just saying that EH wasn't actually a member of the Roman Catholic Church, so he doesn't belong in any of them for that reason alone. Yes, he did succeed in fooling a few priests (including after being dead) but then he fooled a priest with his suicide, too, and got a Catholic service and burial. It's almost as though people think that faking your way into a Catholic cemetary guarantees you won't go to Hell or something. Anyway, biography catches up with these things. Nobody will disinter EH, but if he (or his last wife) planned to BS the Catholic god, I rather think they were being silly (I say this as a disinterested agnostic myself; I merely think people should fly the flag their registry would suggest, and vice versa). SBHarris 04:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the extent of his Catholicism is for the biographers, not for us, and it seems there is debate on the matter. In any case, I'm no longer Proposing to add any catholic cats, so if you want to either modify the language about Catholicism in the article or remove the Extant catholic cats feel free to propose below and make the case - if he is indeed just a fake catholic then be should be removed... -obi


I propose to delete the following categories - as they are diffusing parents of a fully diffusing category.

See comments above. SBHarris 22:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the top-level cats like Category:American journalists that he's in today are full up and in need of diffusion, so doing this right for Hemingway is important to set the standard for the rest of these tree.

Note that NikkiMaria has to date provided zero justification for removing some of these cats, in spite of a continued pattern of reverts, besides WP:BRD, which are vague assertions and give little insight to the question at hand - do these cats apply? So I ask her specifically to weigh in and provide reasons besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT for each of the categories above, pro or con.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest maintaining the status quo (the current state of categorization on this article) pending resolution of the broader categorization discussions, particularly the planned RfC. Having the same discussion across multiple individual articles would be a much less efficient approach; it would be preferable to solidify policies and practices first before applying them. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what would the (non-existent as yet) RFC have to do with bronze star, journalism or fascism categories? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just please wait. Is the world coming to an end that this needs to be addressed today, or can it wait for a day or so? Clearly you have very little knowledge about what categories Hemingway should or should not be in. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's not very civil at all. If you have a reasoned argument, please make it - we're here to discuss - but casting aspersion on other editors, like JPL, who is probably one of the most experienced categorizers here, doesn't help anyone. Also, what exactly should we be waiting for? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Did Hemingway argue his anti-fascism with Roman Catholic teachings?" - why can't you all wait for the person/s who know the answer this jawdropping question? Why does it have to be done now? And remember, I'm a woman, and you've obviously decided you won't get a reasoned argument from me. I'm sure SBHarris will do a much better job. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be done now, I'm happy to discuss this as long as you want, but we OTOH shouldn't spend 2 months debating Hemingway's categories - we should just decide and move on. Secondly, your last sentence is uncalled for and untrue and I've never said any such thing. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few days shouldn't have made a difference. I'm about to formulate a reasoned response. It will take a bit of time and be long, so please bear with me. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so, add? -obi
  • Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal - yep, should be added
  • Category:American fishers - sounds odd, but don't care. I suppose we call him a big game hunter, a deep sea fisher, a trout fisher(man), etc. I'd call him a sportsman, but probably that's too broad.
  • Category:20th-century American novelists - agree with SBHarris and would like to see consensus that we're dropping American novelist. So far I've seen a number of people edit up to American novelist and a number edit to diffuse. I've yet to be swayed by a compelling reason to diffuse and remain unconvinced.
How about a compromise: we agree to add this one for now, and keep Category:American novelists, pending what happens in the rest of the tree. -obi
While I see your point, and in a sense, agree with it, here is the problem. If this category is kept (based on votes, it's likely to) and someone famous like Hemingway isn't in it, that is another front page op-ed. Seriously. If the category is kept, he has to be in it - along with every single other male novelist - it's what we signed up for if the category is kept. Otherwise, we expose ourselves to critiques of gender segregation again, esp if we start making special exceptions for our favorite authors (e.g. "Wikipedia has a men novelists category, but there are only 3 people in it, so clearly the editors don't care" - or whatever) -obi
This is where we disagree. Who cares? I mean really? He's obviously a guy. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On April 20th, I would have agreed - who the f*** cares? But we're May 7, the world has changed, categorization at wikipedia has become politicized, esp categorization of novelist bios, and the very issue of the existence (or non-existence) of this specific male cat to mirror the female was a hot topic. Now that it exists, and *if* it remains, then we don't have a choice IMO - otherwise we're guaranteed to have egg on our face when NY Times columnists find out that old Papa got a free pass and wasn't ghettoized with the boys in the "men novelists" cat. How would it look if all sorts of lesser-novelists were there, but Papa wasn't? -Obi
  • Category:Anti-fascist Roman Catholics - agree with SBHarris. I'm not sure this is accurate. SBHarris is correct about EH's catholicism. That's one we could eliminate but it always creeps back. He wasn't really Roman Catholic - pretended to be in order to marry wife #2.
Again, I was just going by the cats already here. If you guys think we should eliminate all of the roman catholic cats, then propose it (or keep converts but remove the straight catholics one) I also think though that JPL has a point - in that "religion X" people are usually those whereby the religion is closely identified with the work. It's not just you do some work, and you happen to be some religion (this is how gender/ethnic/sexuality cats work, on the other hand) - so I now agree this one should be dropped. - obi
so, add? -obi
I cannot see a compelling reason to add to the many categories already there but not married to this either way. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:American novelists - until I see a strong consensus form that we should diffuse this category (I've not seen it yet and the Cfd for American women novelists suggested keeping it)
  • Category:American journalists - which categories diffuse this? Not saying it shouldn't be diffused, but I'm doing three things at once and don't have the actual article open
Category:Journalists from Illinois and Category:American war correspondents - I'm sure others could be added as well -obi
This is where I begin to have problems. A lot can be added: he was a sports journalist, a journalist who covered various various minor wars; a WWII journalist; and so on. At some point we have category overload. Best to just say journalist and let it be. If we just say journalist, then let's leave him also as a novelist and let it be. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but that's what diffusion means - being more specific. Category:Journalists from Illinois is a good diffuser, as it doesn't preclude any of those things he did - so we don't need Category:American journalists as a result (that should be diffused next, btw.) -obi
  • Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois - fine with me, but project Chicago likes having this, so guaranteed to be added back
  • Category:American war novelists - disagree with diffusion to this extent for the following reasons: it's difficult to place EH in a genre category, but I suppose if any would work, it'd be this. However, by adding this category it suggests that all his novels are in that category which is untrue. In my view it's best to define the actual novels on the novel pages; i.e. define For Whom the Bells Toll as a war novel there (although it's much more than simply a war novel)
In this new setup, if it ends up being accepted, every single novelist will be in Category:20th-century American novelists, and they will also be in any relevant genre categories. So this one doesn't really diffuse, it's more a facet that he fits into, but he could fit into others as well - but it shouldn't be seen as being exclusive. -obi
Nope, gotta diffuse them all or none. If we define as a war novelist some 15 year old kid will write that in a paper and the teacher will give him an F (I'm not totally overstating here). He wrote about war, about bullfighting, about the Lost Generation, about Africa, about love, about hunting/fishing and so on. Shoehorning into war novelist would be wrong; if we add all the genres, and some we'll be making up, then there's more category overload plus remnants that belong nowhere. Best to call him a novelist. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This gets to the heart of the genre discussion in general - at what point can you put a novelist in a genre - even if they did other things? For example, another editor was recently defending the sancitity of Philip K. Dick, saying "he was so much more than a sci-fi writer" - which I fully agree with - so it's really a philosophical question about what these genre categories *mean* when applied to a novelist - and to what extent do they extend (my view) or constrain (your view)... -obi
  • Category:Atheists - I think I noticed that there too. If so, it should be removed - probably not true and certainly not sourced in the article.

I have been thinking about this and have more to add, but here's part one. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More coming in regards to genres, 20th century writers, remnants, and the fact that this is a biography of a very complicated man. Basically the only issue is whether to keep American novelist or to diffuse to 20th century. Either way there will be remnants that can't diffuse more and that's what's causing the problem. The only solution, which libraries and bookstores know, is to keep the large novelist category. Sorry, out of time. More in a day or so. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - but the Category:20th-century novelists is exactly that - the large, undifferentiated novelists category. That is exactly it's purpose. It's just a bit smaller, grouped by time. But otherwise the scope is exactly the same. On genres in general, plz respond on the novelists project talk page, we started a discussion there as you suggested and your inputs would be welcome.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I really can't respond to all these today - I need to be out for another day or so. Quick responses: don't let the media lead us re the gender categories; the genre issue is the heart of the "novelist" category and it's much more important than gender. I'll write up information in regards to that when I'm back. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
farewell to arms, for whom the bell tolls, across the river and into the trees. At least the first two are regularly mentioned in lists of best/most famous "war" novels - and are referenced atWar_novel. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to proposal

Let's for a moment consider abiding strictly to WP's pillars:

  • Consensus - this CfD shows clear consensus (and I believe was closed correctly) to merge and keep the American women novelists category. In my view we might need an RfC, but as I read it, those !voting to merge were asking to put the American women novelists into the parent category of American novelist. If that's the case and all the men are diffused out of American novelists, either by gender/genre or both, then we end up with a parent cat that contains only women which is suboptimal. Thus - in my view, all American novelists must be left in the parent category (huge as it may be), diffused by gender if that's the consensus and leave it at that. Nowhere do I see consensus to diffuse by century or by genre; furthermore genre is best left to the specific page about a given work rather than a biography page. But, if there's doubt, as obviously there is, then the way to solve the confusion is with a well-worded and focused RfC.
  • Verifiability - To be certain, I looked at Charles Oliver's Ernest Hemingway:The Essential Reference, a credible and good overview of all his work, and Across the River and Into the Trees is not, according to him, about war. It is about death, but war is secondary in that the protagonist was in the military, but the overarching theme is how one faces death - in general. So, in my view, we can't simply place EH into the war novelist category based on two novels: A Farewell to Arms and For Whom the Bells Toll. What to do about The Torrents of Spring, set in Michigan; The Sun Also Rises, considered his best by many critics and set in post-WWI Paris, Pamplona, and Madrid; To Have and Have Not, set in Florida and Key West; his Pulitzer Prize-winning and Nobel prize-winning The Old Man and the Sea set in Cuba; and the posthumous novels set variously in Africa and the Caribbean? We could call him a war novelist but we'd have to shoehorn all the other novels into categories that too becomes difficult and frankly uses up too much real-estate in the categories. Best to call him a novelist and be done with it. This is an issue that too applies to Faulkener, Steinbeck, Sinclair, etc., etc., in American lit. Because it's impossible to shoehorn some novelists into genres, remnants will be left in the parent cat, whether American novelist or 20th century American novelist, and that too is suboptimal.
  • No original research - in regards to the issue of the Roman Catholic category, on giving this some thought, I've decided it really needs to stay. This suggestion to modify the text based on the cat isn't how we should be categorizing; instead we should be categorizing based on sourced information from the text. Though in essence EH's catholicism may or may not have been a sham, the biographers toe a line because no one really knows what happened before he married Pauline Pfeiffer (biographers have speculated, but basically EH said he converted and so that's really that). So we have to go with what he have and that's Roman Catholic. I really don't see the logic of concatenating Roman Catholic with anti-fascist - in my mind they are two distinct (defining) characteristics. I believe we need to follow the same rule in regards to all the categories: in other words labeling something he wasn't (i.e, a writer of a specific genre) because it seems to work can be seen as original research. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've already struck the rec for anti-fascist+roman catholic - we can drop that. The category is up for deletion at CFD now anyway.
  2. I don't think you need to bring forth a lot more proof that Hemingway didn't only write war novels - on that account I don't need convincing, nor probably does anyone else.
  3. I never suggested modifying the text based on the categories. Please don't misquote me.
  4. There's a problem with your conclusion in #1. Yes, consensus was to merge, but consensus was mum on whether further non-gendered diffusion could be performed *after* they were all bubbled up. Consensus certainly wasn't to overturn WP:Categorization. Secondly, I agree it would be absurd to only have women there, so then we need to bring all the men up - which now means, everyone - every single bio, all 6700 of them - including everyone in the genres (do you understand logically why this must be the case?). That to me is also an absurd result. But, ok, suppose you do that. Now you have 6700 bios in Category:American novelist, and then some of them are also women, also african american, also war novelists. Do you now see that putting Ernest as a war novelist is not eclipsing other facets of his work, but simply adding an additional characteristic? We could also put him in other genres. And the same rule applies to every single novelist. No matter what the result, I think either all novelists should be in Category:American novelists, or all novelists should be in the by-century sub-cats thereof, as well as any genres. I don't think there should be a special club of Category:American novelists that some people can be in but not others just because they always wrote in a genre. This unadulterated novelist tag has too much discursive power right now - the non-OR thing to do is to stick everyone in it, or no-one.
  5. Finally, as to the specifics of Hemingway as a war novelist, it seems someone wrote a whole thesis on the matter: "Hemingway as a War Novelist. William S. Ellis, Harvard University, 1946".
  6. FWIW, in any case I think we agree on one thing, that we should *not* diffuse by genre anymore. But I *do* think we can easily diffuse by century - literature and writers are often grouped this way, and you can diffuse unambiguously on that criteria.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to follow consensus. The question seems to be whether or not it's feasible to have a large category and it won't be answered here. That's why I think we need an RfC - will post in regards to that later. In the meantime, I'd like to suggest freezing the categorization here. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

FWIW - I've decided to unwatch here. Someone else can curate for a while. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Either there will be an RFC soon, and the community will decide, or there won't, and status quo of diffusing cats will continue. Either way, he will eventually be moved to the proper cat. Not worth worrying about! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cats to add

Ok, taking from the above discussion, it seems the following cats have rough consensus to add:

(sources for war novelist:)

  • "Back in harness as a journalist, "Papa" hemingway, America's premier war novelist, had ridden to the Norman shore in a LST on June 6." [2]
  • "In time American soldiers and their novelist-creators will walk away from the experience, like Tim O'Brien's Cacciato. And notice where Cacciato's pursuers walk: to the same safe haven American's prototypical war novelist, Ernest Hemingy, found just up the hill from Barthe's eventual professorship at the College de France"[3]
  • "There is a laconic stoicism and youthful integrity that make him a figure out of Hemingway - the writer who, along with Stephen Crane, lies across the path of every modern war novelist."[4]

Delete:

Please let me know your thoughts. For now we will keep Category:American novelists, pending RFC results (or if no RFC happens, we will follow the rest of the tree) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous posts seem fairly clear, but perhaps not. So again:
  • Category:Writers from Illinois - fine to add, but to me Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois is more clear given the wikiproject banner at the top of this page and that generally readers from outside the US don't know that Chicago is in Illinois. Also, he did live in Chicago, was a writer there, and met his first wife there, so seems relevant to me.
I personally dont' care either way - it was SBHarris who wanted to kill the Chicago category.
  • Category:Journalists from Illinois - wouldn't it be better to dump the writer category altogether? By definition a journalist, essayist, novelist, short story writer, etc,. is a writer.
True - but the way the tree is set up, it still makes sense (we don't have novelists from Illinois for example, so ppl end up in more generic cats)
It's not about whether it is more relevant, it's whether it is defining. I think being a hunter and a fisherman is defining for him - not more important (less, obviously), but still defining. If we don't put in fishers, we should remove hunters as well.
For now I'm not proposing removing American novelists, so he'd be in both.
I don't think we have genres for his other novels. So he's labelled many things - a novelist, a writer, a journalist, *and* a war novelist. I just think, given those quotes and others, if he's not in the category, we're doing something wrong.
  • Category:American journalists - would like to keep, because if we're to get picky, he in fact was an American journalist working in Canada, France, Spain, Africa, etc. Seems relevant.
Ok.
These responses after giving it some thought. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll make those changes. thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have genres for his other novels. So he's labelled many things - a novelist, a writer, a journalist, *and* a war novelist. I just think, given those quotes and others, if he's not in the category, we're doing something wrong. >> this is the big problem here and makes me want to blank my page again. You are not listening and creating categories for the sake of categories, regardless of countless of thousands of literary sources. Given these answers I really just have to throw up my hands, and again tell you that you've won. I'll unwatch again. And probably leave again. And then you can be a winner. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? (1) I didn't create that category and (2) I gave you 3 sources above that call him not only a war novelist, but the prototypical, premier American war novelist. His presence as a war novelist does not mean he's also not in other novelist cats - like Category:20th-century American novelists and Category:American novelists - it doesn't take anything away, it only adds. I'm trying hard to reach consensus here but I don't understand your logic - it's not that I don't listen, I literally don't understand. Why do you think him being a war novelist means he's ONLY a war novelist (the fact that he's a hunter doesn't mean he's ONLY a hunter, the fact that he is anti-fascist doesn't mean he's ONLY anti-fascist - these are all facets - this is completely standard, look at any other bio...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is my last response here in regards to this because we're talking past each other and what I'm saying isn't being heard. Some writers write novels that cannot be put into a genre. This is true of many American novelists - they write novels - plain and simple. So, to use an analogy - it's like inviting a bunch of kids to a birthday party and then saying, "well, you can't be here because I can't give you a label, but hey we can make up a label for you." That EH wrote 2 war novels is not disputed, nor have I disputed it. That he wrote much more is the heart of the problem, the reason I'm digging my heels in here and elsewhere, the reason I believe we need an RfC, and the reason I believe the press characterized the categorization on WP as they did. But, because we're talking past each other, I don't see any reason to continue this. Either it will be sorted or it won't. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TK, please don't go away. I am listening, and guess what, I AGREE WITH YOU 100%. "Some writers write novels that cannot be put into a genre." I completely, 100% agree. The question is, what is a reasonable way to use these genre categories, given that? You seem to be proposing that unless all of an author's works were in a genre, they can't be in the genre category. I am suggesting that if RELIABLE SOURCES call him a war novelist, even if other RELIABLE SOURCES call him a novelist, the answer is to do both - call him a novelist, and a war novelist. I still completely fail to see why this is so problematic for you. Take another example: Philip K. Dick. He was VERY well known as a science fiction novelist, but he did a lot else besides. So, does that mean we now CANT place him in Category:American science fiction writers - it makes zero sense to me - but that's effectively what you're saying about EH. He wrote two war novels, he's been called our "premier" war novelist, but because he wrote OTHER stuff, he can't possibly be categorized as a war novelist? It's not exclusive - it doesn't limit who he is, it just adds an additional facet - like every other category on every other bio (in the language of categories, we would say the genre categories are, themselves, non-diffusing).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're still talking past each other. I haven't ever disputed that he's a war novelist, but that's not all he is. I've now said this I don't know how many times, and the problem is, it doesn't only pertain to EH but to many novelists. So, let's put the genre issue to bed: a biography page is not the place for it; the place for that label is the specific article about the specific book where we have more flexibility. To use your own terminology: to label someone for lack of any other label is ghettoizing in a literary sense and that's what's happening to the American novelists. The solution in my view is simple, bold, and requires IAR: put all the novelists together! Don't try to label them! To use the birthday party analogy again - invite all the kids to the party! Don't invite all the kids, but then say the girls have to go to that room, the boys over there, the war novelist boys in that little room. That's what created this mess and the only way out is it think outside the box. This too, is in reply to JPL's post below - categorizing by century is a solution looking for a problem. Anyway, that's how I see it, how I believe the media views it, and frankly how I know from experience how our readers treat categories. So what if we have a big party? Will the world come to an end? Truthkeeper (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but what if we had a birthday party, and all the 12 year olds could be in the 12 year-old room, and the boys or girls room, and the science fiction or western room - the analogy fails because novelists can be in multiple cats. But I think you're saying "forget the genre cats all-together" - well, that is also possible, but the venue is not article by article disputing membership, it's nominating every genre cat for deletion. Feel free to do so, and then see if the community agrees - I can't control that. Until then, given that we have these cats, we should fill them up. My philosophy on cats is, fill them up, or delete - there shouldn't be in-between cats, where some war novelists are there but our most famous one isn't. You could try a test nomination of the war novelists category, and see how it goes...Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
Personally, I think some of the 12 year olds might want to hang with the 13 year olds and so on. Anyway, I can't do this. I've chosen to make a stand here because it's the most active on my watch and gets a lot of page views (which quite frankly is important). I'm not a categorizer or a nom to delete person. What I do here on WP is write and generally talking and trying to explain what to me makes perfect sense I find exhausting. So while y'all are moving the categories, I'll rewrite the articles as they pop up on my watch. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TK, you make your own decisions about how you engage with wikipedia. However, if you tell me that you are willing to be banned to prevent a certain category from being added to a certain bio, and then you also state that you want to IAR and blow up all of the genre categories because you think they are not workable... but THEN, are NOT willing to do the necessary to get those cats deleted, then I guess I don't know what to say to you, except, don't complain if the cats aren't the way you like them! I've created dozens of cats, maybe more, and I've also deleted dozens of cats at CFD or maybe more. I've had drag out terrible battles over cats that I hated, and yet, they were kept - and I've had cats deleted that people loved. Consensus can be brutal. But if you have a complaint about a cat, CFD is where it's at! Heck, if you write the justification, I will even bring Category:American war novelists to CFD on your behalf (but I will !vote to keep) - if you agree to add him to the cat and keep him there if the cat survives...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the beauty of putting everyone in by century cats, no one will be in the generic novelists cat, and so putting them in specific sub-cats by genre will in no way say the did not write in other generes, just affirm that they wrote that genere. We have people in romatic, horror, fantasy and mystery generes all at once, and that may not even be the record.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added all of the above noted cats, with the exception of Category:American war novelists - we will discuss this further. FWIW, I started a discussion, per TK's recommendation, about novelist genre-cats in general here - so please join that discussion if interested. I also added Hemingway to the Category:Modernist writers cat per multiple sources - this is an under-used category for the moment, and it has no national-level tree, but it's the best we have for now - that may be refined if we have a broader revision of the Category:Writers tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

What decorations?

On the 1918 photo, Hemingway wear medal bars that would be interesting to learn more about. From what I know, he received the Bronze Star Medal in 1947, the Italian Medal for Bravery in silver in 1918 and the slightly less ranking Italian War Cross in 1918. I have seen photos on a glass display showing Austrian (???) Medals and others in the Hemingway House. Are they his medals, when was he awarded them and why is the Italian bravery medal well mentioned but not the Austrian? The ribands for these medals do not match the ribbons on the photos. Here is work that need to be done... 85.230.202.224 (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the description of the photograph is here at the John F. Kennedy Library where it's held in the Hemingway archives. It's not much of a description and I image if the curators there knew more they might have added more. He's wearing his volunteer uniform - and I'd agree that perhaps the ribbon is for the Italian War Cross. When I get a chance, I'll look through his biographies to see what's said about the Austrian medal. Thanks for posting. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THE CROOK FACTORY

There should be some mention of Dan Simmon's "THE CROOK FACTORY" in this article. This book has it's own Wikipedia entry and there should be a link between the two. Simmons claims Hemminway ran an espionage operation he called "The Crook Factory" from Cuba during 1942-1943, with the knowledge and approval of US and other spy agencies. He says Hemmingway was being followed by the FBI, so as others have mentioned, this particular claim by the writer was not paranoia. He also speculates Hemmingway may have committed suicide due to forced electroshock treatments which burned out his creative abilities and left him unable to write. Simmons, Dan.(1999)(2013). "THE CROOK FACTORY." New York, Boston, London. Little Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0-316-21345-5 Renobanker1 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hemingway, wanna-be spy?

Recent book: [5] how should we treat in the article? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already mentioned here in archives. It went in but seems to have been taken out. Maybe at FAC, can't remember, will search, but almost certainly because the Guardian article is a review and the book needs to be found, read, synthesized, and then decide how much weight to give it. Also, just to say, if this comment is in response the new article I created last night - "The Revolutionist" - that was a random choice to fill in a red link for DYK because it's a good example of flash fiction. Had zero to do with making a point. Until yesterday I'd never read the story. Victoria (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
has nothing to do with article u created... Ok but it seems this is worth adding back, I will see if I can find the book. Also just noticed date on my link. Strange, as I got to it through guardian web, why would they promote a link that is now 4 years old? Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't a clue. Try to find in history first why it was removed, there may have been a good reason. Much (understatement!) has been written about Hemingway, many theories, many conspiracies, and in a summary article not all can be added so they have to judged on individual merit. Victoria (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this was added, [6], and quick to be reverted, [7], as I was trying to tease apart which material belonged to which citations. Personally I'm not crazy having the Wikipedia article about Hemingway that gets quite a lot of views per day declare with little qualification that he was a KGB agent without anyone examining the source. I'll not revert, but would like to see consensus on this. It will be in many many mirror sites within a short period. Victoria (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear to me that, IMO, if it's mentioned in sources like the Guardian and whatnot that we've gotta say at least something about it. Inanygivenhole (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read this carefully, but it seemed to suggest he was a wanna-be, not an actual, spy. I agree with VE, we need to read the actual book and understand the context - I would support reverting for now, until someone secures the books and provides better quotes and references than a short guardian article. Did anyone else cover this (e.g. other media sources, scholars, etc)? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what we can take from the indirect source, The Guardian, the book's claim is taken from notes Alexander Vassiliev took while he had access to KGB files. Vassiliev has not, at least as far as we can tell, produced the documents, only that he claims to have seen them. I think perhaps there should be an in-text attribution to Vassiliev until more information comes to light. To simply attribute it to a book says nothing of the merit of the statement (which I would current rank as "dubious"). Scoundr3l (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with this. I'll wait for another day or so and then probably take it out. Thanks for posting. Victoria (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add to infobox?

I'm not sure why this entry is protected (aside for the extended conversation above) but I just wanted to add the ages of his children to the infobox (which, if known, usually appears). Here's the info, according to his family tree that's linked to:

John "Jack" (1923-2000)
Patrick (1928- )
Gregory (1931-2001)

I hope someone with editing privileges that can add this in. Thanks. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American atheist

According to biographer Paul Johnson in his book 'Intellectuals' "He not only did not believe in God but regarded organized religion as a menace to human happiness and that when he told his mother he still prayed every night that it was a lie to keep the peace with her. His mother had sent him a letter telling that he had bankrupted his account with her and among the reasons was his neglect his duties to his God and Savior. [8]

Unless someone objects to Paul Johnson's ability to be a reliable source on Hemingway, this appears to be enough evidence to place Hemingway in the American atheists category and to have a small passage on his view about religion. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ernest_Hemingway&oldid=564899183"