Talk:Stephen Crane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stephen Crane article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

While it seems like a good article, maybe someone should translate it into English

This article's length as it stands right now is an insult to the English wikipedia. Somebody write something, dammit. Have we already forgotten him?

It should be moved to the Spanish wikipedia.

But first, what's the copyright situation? The same poster's similar contribution to Babrak Karmal implies that he's the webmaster of the site the articles were taken from (Stephen Crane, Babrak Karmal). However, the Stephen Crane article there lists as its source an encyclopedia (Enciclopedia Universal Sopena). It's not clear whether this means the article was taken directly from that encyclopedia (under copyright?), or simply whether facts form that encyclopedia were being used... ---Brion VIBBER

Well, I translated it as best I could, considering that I do not speak Spanish. Thank goodness for Internet translating programs, dictionaries, and a little common sense. As for the copyright issues, I do not know. I would like to assume that it was not plagiiarized, and hope that the translation is sufficiently different so as not to be considered plagiarism. If it is not, I will continue changing the article so it is. He was an important writer and deserves something to be said about him. Danny

Wow- this page needs major cleanup. --Uggh1134 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to add an introduction and try to divide this into sections. ---Abigali 12 August 2006

The following 2 sentences need work. I can't work out what they're trying to say:

  • While supporting himself through his Flagrant flying skills, he observed the poor in the Bowery slums
  • Crane had to print the book at his own expense with money derived from the sale of his mother's house and of inherited mine stock to his brother William

JackofOz 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue what "Flagrant flying skills" are, either an egregious typo or a bit of drive-by vandalism, but the second sentence is fairly obvious, if not well-written: in addition to selling his mother's home to finance the book, Crane also sold some stock (in a mining company) he had inherited... --Haruo 19:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Please remove...

Please remove the comments under "See Also".

[edit] Stolen Stuff?

The bio seems to be C+P'ed in from here: http://www.online-literature.com/crane/ --PokeOnic 22:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Open Boat

I redirected "The Open Boat and Other Tales" here as that page was a book-report style description of the plot of The Open Boat. As a short story I'm not sure it even justifies an article of its own. Tocharianne 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is on separate articles, but 'The Open Boat' and 'The Red Badge of Courage' deserve separate sections in a Stephen Crane wikipedia biography.

[edit] Wow

I don't usually edit Wikipedia but this article is basically the worst one I've ever read. I don't know if it's being vandalized or what, but something weird is going on. I'm going to fix what I can, but the article needs some serious work.

[edit] Major revision

I made a major revision. My apologies over its inadequacies. There should be another sentence on the literary influence of Crane's poetry, for example. Haberstr 19:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Information about the White novel should be limited as I have tried to limit it, in this _Crane_ entry. The name of the bordello is already mentioned earlier in the bio. Haberstr 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert for following reasons, in brief: 1., opening paragraph should not refer to a relatively minor detail (that Crane was a foreign correspondent) that rightfully is in the text main body. 2., publish date of Maggie is all that's needed, not the excess words. 3., "_Now_ a well-paid..." time transitions from previous paragraph, enhancing coherence and efficiently adding useful information for the reader; "While ..." doesn't do that. 4., people enjoy the "In popular culture" section and it defies common sense to eliminate it; Why? 5., John Berryman is an important reference. In conclusion and anyway... the poetry section still needs a sentence. Haberstr 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, I forgot: the fraternities Crane belonged to for a few months is of abismally minor importance, so eliminated. Haberstr 21:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with several of your points, your revert largely goes against style guidelines. As per WP:LEAD, the lead section is meant to be a summary of the entire article, which is why I had added the information about Crane's war correspondence -- more information is necessary to flesh out the section, but it was intended as an initial step. Second, as WP:DATE states, individual years are not to be linked, only full dates; that is why I had removed the interwiki links. Third, WP:TRIVIA states that trivia sections, like the Popular culture section, should be integrated into the rest of the article if the information is pertinent; this information is not. Whether or not people "enjoy" the information it is unencyclopedic and trivial and therefore does not belong in the article. Lastly, the John Berryman reference, if important, should be correctly cited as per WP:CITE and perhaps integrated into an inline citation. I will not make any changes (aside from restoring the {{reflist}} that was omitted by your edits) until I hear further. Thoughts? María (críticame) 21:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think all introductory summaries should be equal, especially when the body of an entry is relatively small. So perhaps we can interpret 'summaries' flexibly. Here are wiki introductions of two U.S. literary figures roughly comparable to Crane: "William Dean Howells (March 1, 1837 – May 11, 1920) was an American realist author and literary critic." "Theodore Herman Albert Dreiser (August 27, 1871 – December 28, 1945) was an American author of the naturalist school, known for dealing with the gritty reality of life." Mine of Crane was similar. If it were expanded it should, I think, reference the spectacular stylistic 'newness' that Wells noted, his naturalism, and perhaps his 'scandal' ridden life. I don't think you disagreed with my "2." or "3." except perhaps I did some improper linking? "4." just makes me sad, it misunderstands how such "in popular culture" sections can draw 'regular people' in and start to generate interest in these dead writer guys. 71.201.189.93 17:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Haberstr 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're the same user that commented above? Either way, lead sections are clearly explained to be used as a summation of the article as a whole; that some similarly classed articles do not utilize this feature does not mean that we should fall into step with others. However, because this article in particular is skimpy on detail at the moment, it could stay as it is now (with a little copy-editing; novels should *always* be in italics). As I explained before, trivia is discouraged and should either be integrated or culled. When I work at length on this article in the near future, hopefully bringing it to GA status, I plan to take care of a lot of these issues. I'm just waiting for some books to come in and begin research. María (críticame) 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was. Haberstr 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiresome Vandalism

There's a great deal of obvious and lame vandalism going on to this one little article. Is this what happens to all wikipedia stuff? Thanks to all of you good editors for corrections, but this is getting real tiresome and I'm sure you have better things to do with your time. Can't something be done to ban the turkeys who come here to change 'black' to 'hunky' and similar? Haberstr (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Research and under construction

Over the holiday break I will begin a major revision of this article, so I've placed an {{underconstruction}} template on the page for now -- I'll probably be switching between that and {{inuse}} while editing. I will be completely rewriting the article using a few definitive biographies, and other books devoted to Crane, so that hopefully it will can taken to GA and maybe even FA in the near future. If there are any concerns, I would appreciate it if they were discussed here first so that there are no mix-ups in edit conflicts. There should not be many major concerns, however, because I plan to closely follow the MOS. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 13:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everything you are doing to expand the Crane article, and I'm writing just to clarify that my 'picky' edits/reversions are [NOT (added later)] a criticism of your big and worthy project. However, for example and in reference to the intro paragraph, I think Crane's prose is famous more for its striking originality than for its 'vividness' (that word leans strongly toward classifying him simply under literary naturalism, whereas I think people like Wells and modern critics consider him so much more than that). Also, calling him 'one of the most innovative writers to emerge in 1890s U.S.' is too much like calling Shakespeare one of the best playwrights to emerge in 1590s England. Haberstr (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not a matter of what you or I think, but of what the references say. A reference is a reliable source. Without that, your added sentence may be construed as WP:POV or WP:OR. I have no wish to edit war, but the addition does not belong. The word "vivid" was used in the reference that is cited, but I won't push that point. There will be a third paragraph in the lead that discusses Crane's literary technique/style/importance, but I haven't gotten that far in the body of the article yet. For now let's not introduce uncited/contested information. María (habla conmigo) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I re-added the sentence modified and with an established source. Still am uncomfortable with describing him damning-with-faint-praise style as 'one of the most innovative writers to emerge in 1890s U.S.' but will leave that as you have it for now. Haberstr (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
For now? There is a source provided for that statement, and I can provide several others, so it is more than verified. You did not format the reference correctly nor is the source as scholarly as I would like; it's a textbook, after all. The statement will likely be altered or completely removed once I expand the lead, as I stated above. I know what I'm doing. ;) María (habla conmigo) 13:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not a summative description that should begin the Stephen Crane entry. As I indicated, I'm sure it's true just as describing Shakespeare as one of England's most innovative playwrights of the 1590s is true. Crane is a major figure because of his 'first of a new age' (see Wells' description) innovative style. The 'why is this guy a big deal' summation of him in the entry's second sentence should reflect that. The Heath Anthology is authoritative on such a general and obvious matter, but go ahead and find something better.Haberstr (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(out dent) As per WP:LEAD, which I believe I explained to you above, the lead section should be a summation of the entire article. Because the article will eventually explain Crane's legacy and importance in American literature, it is proper that this statement remain in the lead. The third paragraph in the lead will properly explore his literary technique and style, but again, that part of the article has not been written yet, which is why I had left it out. There's still a lot for me to write from scratch.

On a side note, it would be helpful if you indented your replies properly on the talk page for easier reading. María (habla conmigo) 16:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tuberculosis

Yellowsubmarine, the only weakness I see in your Crane life story is the missing subtext of tuberculosis, which Crane appears to have contracted in his early or mid-teens. This lends motivation to why his parents discouraged him from a military career, to descriptions of unconventional 'handsomeness' and deep set eyes, and most importantly to his 'man in a great big hurry to experience everything' approach to life.Haberstr (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't come across a definitive time of when Crane contracted TB which is why I haven't added it. He was ill from a very young age, after all, and there can be other explanations for the reasons you list; for example, his parents did not discourage him from a military career because of his health; it's explained in the article, I believe. If you have a reliable source to back up your hypothesis I'd love to know of it. María (habla conmigo) 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I remember several pages in Davis's biography discuss a doctor's examination of Crane in his early 20s (when Crane was staying with his brother), and how the doctor's diagnosis indicated the longstanding nature of Crane's tuberculosis. On that basis I think she surmises he contracted the disease sometime in his early or mid-teens. I think most biographies note the furious pace at which Crane lived, and at least in Davis the 'looming death sentence of tuberculosis' is not an unstated motive.Haberstr (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look, thanks. María (habla conmigo) 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete list of works?

Should there be a more complete list of his works on here somewhere? I don't see any mention of The Whilomville stories, "The Open Boat," or some others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.71.162 (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping that I could get some feedback on this particular issue. There was previously a "Works" section, which I intended to list the most notable collections and, of course, the novels. Other users began adding titles of individual short stories and poems, however, so I removed it as I thought it would become trivial and bloated. Is this kind of section truly needed in the long run? Most of them are mentioned in the body of the paragraph, or will be, after all, and there's a link to his complete works at Gutenberg in the external links section. Thoughts? María (habla conmigo) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)