Talk:Rose Wilder Lane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Parts of this article read a bit like a love letter. My opinion is that it should be edited to fall more within the standards of Neutral point of view. It seems like a bit of editorializing to say:

Her intellect and ambition were demonstrated by her ability to compress three years of Latin into one, and by graduating at the top of her high school class in Crowley. Source: Early Life section.


... Lane described herself as depressed and disillusioned with her marriage, caught in the tension arising from the recognition that her intelligence and interests did not mesh with the life she was living with her husband...


[And later in the same section:] She immediately caught the attention of her editors not only through her talents as a writer in her own right, but also as a highly skilled editor for other writers. Source: Early career, marriage and divorce.

Lane's compulsive generosity with her family and friends often found her strapped for cash and forced to work on material that paid well, but did not engage her growing interests in political theory and world history. She suffered from periodic bouts of self-doubt and depression in mid-life, diagnosing herself as manic-depressive (now more commonly known as bipolar disorder). During these times of depression, when she was unable to move ahead with her own writing, Lane would easily find work as a ghostwriter or "silent" editor for other well-known writers. Source: Freelance writing career.

This is just from the first three sections. There are a lot of these kinds of sentences, as well as many that fall within a grey area (meaning they could be true, or they could be included in an effort to aggrandize the subject... here I'm thinking specifically of her being lifelong friends with Herbert Hoover, her ghostwriting stories for other well-known writers, and her apparent credit for writing much of Little House on the Prairie in her mother's name). The template requesting better in-line citations has been up for four years now, so I would recommend that anything of a questionable nature that can't be cited should be removed.

The editing of these kinds of articles have a tendency to be controversial, so I am placing my concerns here before I begin actively editing. Does anyone who follows this page have any input? Ljpernic (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Answer to bias[edit]

Thanks for the insightful comments. Several biographers have delved extensively into RWLs diaries, correspondence and life and the comments that are questioned draw 100 percent from published books by William Anderson, William Holtz, John Miller, all are noted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

COMPLETELY AGREE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:1201:2EE2:917E:FE80:2D70:2FAA (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

LC Catalog[edit]

I added the External link

Those 41 are the online catalog hits for 'Lane, Rose Wilder, 1886-1968' and they do not include her first book Art Smith's story (1915), which is the one catalog hit for 'Lane, Rose Wilder' without the dates.

Note, that record calls her editor of autobiography rather than writer of biography as we say. --P64 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Currently the article says, "Lane was portrayed in the television adaptations of Little House on the Prairie by :

   Shannon Dougherty"

However, wikipedia for [Shannon Doherty] indicates Doherty played Jenny Wilder a (fictional?) niece in Laura & Almanzo's household, while Jennifer and Michele Steffin played Rose. See also I'm going to make the change based on this, but I don't have any other knowledge or documentation.