Jump to content

Talk:John Cheever

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

Gay/bisexual and Seinfeld

[edit]

Why was it inferred that he was gay/bisexual in that episode of Seinfeld that mentions him (the cabin). And if he was, perhaps it's is an interesting fact to add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.18.189 (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Cheever was gay/bisexual in real life, but since George Costanza's girlfriend's father is a fictional character, the real-life Cheever did not actually have an affair with him. The article needs to check its fiction. --06:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.238.62 (talk)
Not to dredge this up, but if Cheever was gay/bisexual, there is no mention of this fact in the article. I believe that was the main point of unsigned's commentary; Cheever was inferred as being homosexual on an episode of Seinfeld (actually called "The Cheever Letters," not "The Cabin") but his sexual orientation isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. It states here he had a spouse, Mary Cheever. Seems to me there could be some intriguing stories about this and perhaps they deserve a place here. 206.53.75.234 (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Regarding the link "Review of the Stories of John Cheever" at the bottom of the page: Could we do better than a no-name review (full of typos) on a less than well-known site regarding one of the best known short story collections of the twentieth century? Say, maybe, the New Yorker? Or Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,916455,00.html) 68.100.49.203 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I've deleted it. Even if it were appropriate, it belongs on the page for the collection, not here. Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing dispute

[edit]

Regarding the following claim: "The following information on Cheever's life and career is taken directly from Blake Bailey's chronology in Cheever: Collected Stories and Other Writings (Library of America 2009: pp.1007-1024)." My reverts of this edit has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of this claim. My reverts derive from (1) the fact that you have not proved that there is any "plagiarism" in this article because (2) more importantly, you have failed to provide proper citations. I have no problem with you inserting citations throughout the article for claims that come from the Library of America edition. In fact, that's what you should be doing. But (1) do so in accordance with proper citation templates, and (2) aggressively reverting my good-faith edits will get you nowhere. Grunge6910 (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like so many in this alternative reality known as Wikipedia you seem to believe that an on-line citation to any internet source - no matter how dubious - is the only way to establish "truth". Indeed you are so intent on patrolling the borders of the Wikipedia world and enforcing its self-justifying rules, you appear to have no interest in knowing that the very core of what you protect (i.e. the supposed encyclopedic information) is quite rotten. Short of my flying over to America or wherever and handing you a copy of Blake Bailey's book, I suspect the only way you will be able to "prove" this plagiarism is to find your way to a library with real shelves and real books and check it out for yourself ... otherwise what you have charged me to "prove" online is, like every single word in every single entry in Wikipedia, essentially not able to be proven. & I have no intention of inserting citations - what I "should be doing" - on behalf on anyone who has merely stolen paragraphs in their entirety from a book with no attempt at acknowledgement. What the venerable gatekeepers at Wikipedia should be doing is ensuring that their article on John Cheever is originally conceived from a close reading of several sources, not unlawfully stolen from one. Ashtonstreet01 (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, all you need to do is insert references (example: < ref >Blake Bailey, Cheever Collected stories and Other Writings (2009), Library of America, pp. X</ref>) where you think a certain claim comes from Bailey's text. That way whatever alleged plagiarism has been committed will be rectified. In other words, do what everybody else who edits Wikipedia responsibly does. I'm not the one who knows where Bailey's text has been allegedly plagiarized; you are. Therefore if you want to edit this page it's incumbent upon you to fix it, not lowly "gatekeepers" like myself. Grunge6910 (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to do a bit of study on the definition of plagiarism: you are not advocating the fixing of plagiarism here; you are advocating the condoning of plagiarism. Ashtonstreet01 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again. I know the definition of plagiarism, sir, but it is you who are making the accusations and it is you who has failed to provide the adequate evidence and substantiation for that accusation. Do so, or cease criticizing the article. Grunge6910 (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all getting rather repetitive now ... if you know what plagiarism is then oughtn't you to know that providing citations does not abrogate responsibility when more or less the entire article is a copy of someone else's work? There are copyright laws, sir, in all countries, & Wikipedia's own definition of plagiarism seems able to cope with this. If putting a few references up justifies copying another's work then Wikipedia should cease to exist. & you keep banging on about "evidence" and "substantiation" without seeming to realise that because I or anyone else in the world edits a page that does not make it "evidence" at all, citations or no. Unless someone rewrites the entire article or a rider such as I put stays there, then any act of editing you are encouraging me to undertake constitutes a continuation of the original plagiarism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtonstreet01 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. If there are direct quotations from the text in this article or information in this article that could have only come from a particular text, insert a reference and it isn't plagiarism anymore. If a claim is attributed to a source it can't be plagiarism. Sounds easy to me. And again, I don't know what parts of the article are allegedly plagiarized; apparently you do. Fix it if it means that much to you. Grunge6910 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Grunge6910 (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"if you know what plagiarism is then oughtn't you to know that providing citations does not abrogate responsibility when more or less the entire article is a copy of someone else's work?" ... just repeating that one again, in the by now rather forlorn hope that it might help you to reform your completely eroneous understanding of plagiarism ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtonstreet01 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Obviously you'd rather be rude than actually help edit this article. if the whole article is plagiarized and that bothers you, then fix it in an appropriate manner (see above), don't complain to me about it. Grunge6910 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So uncovering plagiarism on Wikipedia requires someone to alter their lives and become a Wikipedia article writer in order to fix it themselves? Sorry, I have other things to do. I put the appropriate information into this article to flag what was going on, but apparently that was "vandalism." And you ask me not to complain to you! Well, I didn't ask you to come along and start deleting what I did in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtonstreet01 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be that difficult. In the time you've spent contributing to this talk page, you could have at least constructively pointed out what you think has been plagiarized. Inserting reference tags can be tedious but if everything is coming from one source, according to you, all you'd need to do would be to copy and paste the source in reference tags. But again you don't seem willing to do that. Grunge6910 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeframe of "Goodbye, My Brother"

[edit]

The article says "Goodbye, My Brother" was written and published in 1951. Though it was indeed published in 1951, it may have been written much earlier. Cheever himself writes the preface to his collection, and in it, he says the stories are arranged chronologically. "Goodbye, My Brother" is the first story in the collection, so, logically, he is then saying he wrote this story in or around the latter part of the 1930s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.203.201.46 (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

101st?

[edit]

Which army unit was he in?--Radh (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Cheever. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2019 and 7 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: MarinChristina.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

two things

[edit]

Later life and career: Can drinking become suicidal?

Personal life: What's the difference between gay and homosexual? 162.251.16.246 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Cheever&oldid=1252198397"