Talk:The Sun Also Rises

Duff Twysden and Harold Loeb

"The character of Robert Cohn is a savage portrait of novelist Harold Loeb, who had aroused the anger of Hemingway by indulging in an amorous sojourn with Lady Duff Twysden in Normandy before bringing her to Spain." Can anyone come up with a source that says they were in Normandy together? I can't find anything. Nadavspi | talk 01:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Symbolism not Mentioned

This entry seems to ignore the simple fact that Hemingway was a Modernist, and that Modernists used to hide the myth behind their plots and words--cf. Joyce. The entry doesn't say anything about the connections of the novel to the King Fisher myth, and the theme of sterility which Hemingway probably derived from Eliot. Behind or below the only apparently realistic surface there is a network of symbols, last but not least the bullfight which is evidently a pagan sacrifice in disguise. No mention of it. It's a rather shallow entry for a masterpiece of Twentieth Century Fiction! --93.40.118.37 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking?75.49.224.163 (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think not. I agree. The themes involving ethnic identity are well-developed, feminist approaches are touched on. But the book' s stature as an entry in the world of Modernist literature is barely touched upon. Signs of our own times. 69.235.7.170 (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Characters

I have read this book many times and always thought that Ethyl Alcohol was one of the most important background characters.

Some POV issues

Also, Hemingway, whose vocabulary was never large, was fluent in three romance languages: French, Spanish, and Italian. Each of these has a much smaller vocabulary than English, and yet each manages to be richly expressive. Talking about Brett and Mike’s speech, Jake Barnes tells us that "The English spoken language—the upper classes, anyway—must have fewer words than the Eskimos. . . . The English talked with inflected phrases. One phrase to mean everything. . . . I liked the way they talked." Hemingway may have been inspired by the ways in which these European cultures, all of which he admired, managed to communicate effectively, even poetically, using so few words.

The article works well (more or less) up to this paragraph, wherein we have some strong POV statements. First, the phrase "whose vocabulary was never large" is ambiguous. While one could read it charitably to mean that Hemingway avoided florid prose, another reading would be that Hemingway lacked facility with the English language. Whatever one's opinion of Hemingway's writing, a thorough survey of his works and correspondence shows that Hemingway was a sophisticated individual who consciously economized his words. Second, while Hemingway's interest in the aesthetics of expression might have driven his fascination with the romance languages, that is a matter of speculation unsuitable for a neutral encyclopedia article.

The 'Major Themes' section is a useful addition, but as it stands it requires some serious revision. To begin with the second section makes some vaguely interesting points about the possibility of reverse initiation, but goes on to exhibit some obviously personal conjecture. I also think comparing characters to the sun of the title is pretty fallacious and unhelpful, not to mention unsubstantiated. The 'Major Characters' section also suffers from similar issues: the mention of Robert Cohn being Hemingway's 'hero' is pure conjecture and not referenced, and i think unlikely. Where in the novel does it state that Romero left Brett because she couldn't sustain a commited relationship? Pure assumption. All we can know is that she finds herself in need of Jake's rescue, feeling chastened and silly.

I will edit this heavily in due course, making use of a university library to provide some balanced view points on some of the critical responses to this book, and its perceived major themes. Particularly with reference to nature and natural process being the hero of the book (embodied to some extend by Romero), which Hemingway made explicit reference to in his correspondence (and for which i have proper references for).Turkeyplucker 11:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Injury

Not to dwell on the old penis issue again, but I'd like to get an opinion on the wording used to describe Jake's injury in the Plot Summary. While I'll admit that by definition "mutilated" is an accurate choice, by connotation doesn't it seem out of line with how Jake injury is described in the book? This could just be my bias at work, but when I hear mutilated I think of...you know...bloody disfigurement. The issue is handled far more delicately in the book, only ever being termed an "impotency" issue. Do you think a slight rewording is in order? [by the way, I have no idea why, but this would only appear when I placed it at the top of the section, not the bottom. anyone know more about wiki formatting than I do?] Clemenjo (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: The nature of his injury is unclear but that he is not a eunuch in any sense since he loves and clearly desires Brett -- and apparently she him in some bizarre sense, is not at all ambiguous.

Re: Jake's penis—the book was only clear that he was impotent due to an injury somewhere down there. What reason is there to conclude that his penis was "shot off"? Postdlf 13:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In re the injury, there is no evidence in the book that Jake's penis was "shot off", and Hemingway's take on it was:

“…It came from a personal experience in that when I had been wounded at one time there had been an infection from pieces of wool cloth being driven into the scrotum. Because of this I got to know other kids who had genito urinary wounds and I wondered what a man’s life would have been like after that if his penis had been lost and his testicles and spermatic cord remained intact. I had known a boy that had happened to. So I took him and made him into a foreign correspondent…” Letter to Thomas Bledsoe, 1951 Selected Letters, Page 745

It is also worth noting that Hemingway also said: "Actually he [Jake] had been wounded in quite a difeent way and his testicles were intact and not damaged. Thus he was capable of normal feelings as a man but incapable of consummating them. The important distinction is that his wound was physical and not psychological and that he was not emasculated." Interview with George Plimpton 1958. The Paris Review Interviews I p50 Issue 18 1958.

The novel does not ever make this explicit, as pointed out above. But it does render ideas of emasculation a little redundant, and it shouldn't be given as Jake's reason for fighting over Brett if his wound is so implicit. It would be better to suggest that he allows, and aids, Brett to drift off for other reasons: her personification of the 'lost generation', and Jake's lack of respect for it, for instance.Turkeyplucker 14:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

it's certainly explicit, because the italian tells Jake he has given more than his life for his country, understood that the only thing worth more to men than their life is their penis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.78 (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My point relating to such phrases as 'most critics think this or that', is not that you should find a citation for it, but that it should be ommited. If you have read and understood a wide range or criticism then it will be evident in the quality of what you write. It is too colloquial and unscholarly to use such phrases.--Turkeyplucker (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hemingwaysun1.jpg

Image:Hemingwaysun1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

I used to come to this article to see which characters were based on which real people, and the events Hemingway turned into the novel. Now all that is gone. Why on earth would that information be removed? Even the fact that this is a roman is clef is omitted, while a lot of speculation (much of which becomes pointless once you grasp that Hemingway was drawing on real events) is allowed in the criticism section.76.216.91.243 (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The last sentence in the criticism section is pure personal speculation. It should be cited for references/sources and if they aren't up to snuff, delete it. 2/3's of that entire section sounds like a personal opinion. i wonder if the person who wrote it ( because it reads like one person wrote all of it) also deleted the character list, maybe because it conflicted with what he wanted to say? S.J., 10:15 pm EST, Friday, January 6, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.12.235 (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

can we put this back? http://www.barbarascyberplace.com/Essays/essay-sun_also_rises.html with a little research its easy to find and very, very relevant to hemingway's portrayal of the story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.31.242 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it, but if it's an unpublished source, I'd prefer we use a good scholarly secondary source for this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

'Reception' area

That place in the article reads like a kid's book report. All is speculative and runs counter to Wikipedia's general tone. If anything, the title of that section ought to be renamed 'Analysis', but I personally don't think it belongs on Wikipedia at all. I would delete it, but I'd like some consensus on the matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.131.20 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything in the section is easily cited (which is why I haven't deleted it). Please feel free to search for reliable, scholarly sources to add as references, and rewrite as necessary. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I read through that entire section (something I failed to do the first time--read a couple lines and jumped to conclusions, etc) and I've found that my concern comes from the first few sentences: "The Sun Also Rises epitomized the post-war expatriate generation for future generations.[13] In The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway melds Paris to Spain; vividly depicts the running of the bulls in Pamplona; presents the symmetry of bullfighting as a place to face death; and blends the frenzy of the fiesta with the tranquility of the Spanish landscape." This doesn't represent "Reception", which in this context is defined as "the way in which a person or people react to something." The first sentence might meet that definition (a bit of a stretch), but the second sentence definitely does not. But anyway, sorry for the rash initial comment, wikipedia universe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.131.20 (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You're correct that the those statements should be moved to a themes sections. This article is on my list of articles to work on, but I haven't had the time. Thanks for pointing out the problems. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Title

It says here(Svoboda 106) that the title was chosen to "emphasize the optimistic idea of progress of life's cycle." Should this be included?Smallman12q (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I might try to work that in. What I'd like to know is whether he chose the title or whether the publisher's chose it. Would be nice to read Svoboda but it's in snippet view. I might have to order it from the library. Thanks anyway, it's another little piece of the puzzle. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

There is an excellent bibliography at http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/hemingwaytsarbib.htm Smallman12q (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Amazon shows, with covers, Michael Reynolds, Hemingway: the Final Years and Hemingway: the Paris Years. Change to these as full titles? --Wikiain (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - of course they should have the full titles. Will fix. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In the fixes, shouldn't both have colons? And maybe order those items 1989 and then 1999. Also, for Svoboda, "Crafting"? --Wikiain (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

comments

Had some trouble with certain descriptions or sentences in the "writing style" section.

• "Berman writes that Hemingway emphasizes landscape in The Sun Also Rises because it "meant a search for a solid form" not present in Jake's life with the "need to be perceived for the assurance that they exist"." // Is the part beginning with "with" a leftover from a previous draft? It doesn't make sense. Note that I have edited the sentence since and just commented out the last portion for now. Hope that's ok. Everything below is after my edit.
• "As a roman à clef, the novel bases its characters on real people, which caused an uproar in the expatriate community. The early draft included the real names of the group; Hadley's character was cut early to allow room for the Brett/Jake love story." After editing this to avoid the dangling modifier at the start, I felt like the "caused an uproar" bit fell flat in that sentence. In the second sentence, I am not clear of the connection between the parts before and after the semicolon. I feel that this explanation of the roman a clef as it relates to this novel can be tightened.
• "He added metaphors for each character: Mike's money problems, Brett's association with the Circe myth, Cohn's association with the segregated steer." This is the type of sentence with which it is is easy to end up when summarizing lit crit in a Wikipedia article: it doesn't give quite enough information to jive with the reader. I don't understand how these are metaphors, and if nothing else I don't know what "segregated steer" means. I haven't read "themes" yet but possibly it fits or would be better off there (especially if expanded)?
• "Multiple strands exist in a story with subtexts leading to a variety of angles." I don't follow that one, and as it stands I think it could be removed without adverse effect. I think what it is saying has been said elsewhere?

Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I forgot one. "From the style of the biblical prose he learned to increment his prose". Could "increment" be clarified--I would be happy with something like "From the style of the biblical text he learned to build up his prose narrative? incrementally, at multiple levels: sentence by sentence, scene by scene and chapter by chapter." (Combining it with the following sentence.) That's assuming I do follow the underlying idea.

Riggr Mortis (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's fine. I'm trimming down a bit too - I know that it's overwritten. Anyway, will leave you to it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've fixed most the comments above - by deleting. I'll wait until you get through the themes section for the bit about the metaphors, but honestly it can go too. I don't think it adds that much. A segregated steer is separated from the bulls.
• I'll wait until you get through the rest of the sections, but I'm thinking it would be better to flip the writing style and themes sections. I built it with writing style first, but now that I think about it, there is background in the themes that helps understand the style section. Anyway, I'll mull it over a bit and maybe play with the organization tonight. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more (random) comments of varying importance. Unfortunately I don't take notes as I go so I really on feeble memory...

• I don't know enough about publishing to know why this isn't redundant: "a first edition of the novel's first printing". Probably it's just me.
• The corrida theme is not really defined. I take it from that link that it conjures up certain imagery wrt bullfighting. Could it be glossed in the article?
• The first paragraph of "anti-semitism" bumps along from specific to general (italicized) to specific to general sentences, and I didn't want to mess with it. Also, the last two sentences could be merged as partially redundant. Backing up even more, both of the paragraphs in this section talk about Cohn, so perhaps it could all use a reorganization? "Hemingway used his friend Harold Loeb as the inspiration for Cohn's character, immortalizing him in the story as the unlikable and shunned Jew. The Sun Also Rises has been called anti-semitic. Susan Beegel writes about Cohn: "Hemingway never lets the reader forget that Cohn is a Jew, not an unattractive character who happens to be a Jew but a character who is unattractive because he is a Jew."[67] Hemingway used anti-semitic language in the novel. Cohn is shunned by the other members of the group, and is characterized as different, unable or unwilling to understand and participate in the fiesta.[68] Cohn is never really part of the group—separated by his difference or his Jewishness.[27]"
• "...immortalized a group of characters within a narrow context". I follow but I think the last part is rather generic phrasing.
• Finally, I found the footnote about the epigraph interesting and think it is worth having in the main text, especially as it indicates (apparently) where the novel's title came from: a passage in the bible. It also indicates where the main-text bit about "the earth abideth forever" came from.

Thanks for the opportunity to tweak the article. It is very good. Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed everything except the roman-a-clef bit which will require digging back into the sources. Thanks very much for the copyedits and the fine feedback. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(You asked for it.) I am curious about the order of events in the final paragraph of 'Background'.It seems to weave a general picture and then go back and fill in the blanks--update: never mind, I was including the detailed Note in my perception of the paragraph. I actually think the note, some of it, could be brought into the text without adding much length. I was doing a reorganization of that para but gave up. Here is what I had (not knowing I was incorporating a footnote; and realizing I was messing with citations, so I cancelled):

In December the Hemingways went to Schruns, Austria for the winter, and Pauline Pfeiffer joined them. During the next three months, Hemingway worked on revisions, made a quick trip to New York to sign a contract with Scribner's, and returned to Schruns to finish the second draft. After the couple had returned to Paris from their fourth visit to Pamplona, they returned to Paris in July. Hadley visited friends in the south of France, leaving Hemingway alone. During this period he had an affair with Pfeiffer and his marriage to Hadley disintegrated. He completed the proofs by August, dedicating the novel to his wife and son. By November the couple formally separated, and Hemingway offered Hadley the royalties from The Sun Also Rises.

Of course his marriage couldn't disintegrate "during the period" that she was still away, so again, cancelled. Do I have any point? Up to you. Riggr Mortis (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, never mind. The only question I had, which started it all, relates to: "Alone in Paris, he completed the proofs, dedicating the novel to his wife and son". Was this after the separation? Or did he, alone in Paris, have an affair and complete the proofs? The text presently implies that it was after the separation. That's the mess I got into when I unintentionally brought the note in. Riggr Mortis (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that I separated paragraphs here and shoved some into the "Publication history" because he wrote The Torrents of Spring and switched publishers at this time too. And then someone, during the PR, said there was too much biographical detail so I shoved some into a note. I'll take another crack at it. The bottom line is that he completed the proofs, alone in Paris, after the separation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Dunno - feels choppy to me. But it's all there now in chronological order. Anyway, the affair happened during the winter, Hadley left him in the summer right after Pamplona, and she asked for a divorce after the book was published. Then he married Pauline. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Lead

"A year later, in 1927, the British publishing house Jonathan Cape published the novel in England with the title of Fiesta." Maybe "in the United Kingdom"? TGilmour (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks ok to me: Cape was based in London. But, if "in England" confuses the transatlantic, maybe just take it out.--Wikiain (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

We decided to keep it in because it needs to be clear that Cape is in London/England. I think TGilmour is asking if it should be United Kingdom. England is prob fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

How about "London publisher" and then remove "in England"? --Wikiain (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello all

I have removed the following sentences: "The basis for the novel was Hemingway's trip to Spain in 1925. The setting was unique and memorable, depicting sordid café life in Paris and the excitement of the Pamplona festival, with a middle section devoted to descriptions of a fishing trip in the Pyrenees." It isn't clear whether it's supposed to be the novel or Hemingway's 1925 trip to Spain which was unique and memorable. (Critiques of novels are usually written in the present tense because novels exist here and now.) In any event, this is just an editor's POV, as is the idea that Paris café life in the 1920s was sordid. (Unless it means that Hemingway depicted expatriates acting in a sordid way in Parisian cafés.) The information about the basis of the book fits better in the sentence about the novel being a roman à clef. The sentence about the writing style fits better after the sentence about the themes of the novel. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it's changed since it was first written. That said, as you've written it is nice. Thanks for posting about it. Victoria (tk) 22:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Infoboxes are not required or mandatory. Telling us that the book was published in 1926 by Scribner's isn't giving any information not easily found in the lead. It's been boldly added, I've reverted, now per WP:BRD, it's time to discuss. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I support having it. TGilmour (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Superfluous for this artice, imo. I realsise this this is largely a matter of preference, but I'd be inclined to give say to the primary authors. As I would if there was disagreement on citation style etc. Ceoil 21:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose No requirement for infoboxes and the lead already gives all that information. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The metalinguistic construction of the infobox is often found in juxtaposition with, if not in direct opposition to, the reintegration of materiality. The localized infobox culture generates the discourse of dissimulation. In summary, the systemization of infoboxen does not foster the reinscription of praxis. (Writing help courtesy The Virtual Academic.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Riggr Mortis. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per above...Modernist (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I just pondered on it and concluded that infobox is really excessive for this article. TGilmour (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose this cancer that seems to be metastasising throughout WP. Tony (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support having an infobox. I guess this is actually a settled issue for this article, but I don't understand the rationale for not having it for this article when it is so nearly universal for the novel category. One advantage is that it is much easier to scrape the data, and I think there is value in that. Mark Foskey (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Auction value

The article reads that "In 2004 a first edition of the novel, with dust jacket and an inscription by Hemingway, was expected to sell at auction for between $80,000 and $120,000" and points to http://www.sothebys.com/liveauctions/sneak/archive/la_lost_0404.html which is a 404.

A google cache of the page is still available (screenshot of cache). There's an article here which says it sold for over 360k USD. There's also an auction here for the book. The auction value should be corrected...and the source fixed.Smallman12q (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Smallman. Too bad that link went dead - it had a nice article. The "Live Auction Talk" looks like a blog, so until I can find something more reliable, I've commented out that section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Title (again)

The title is obviously a reworking into Modern English of the biblical quotation used as the epigraph, but the epigraph is only mentioned once in the article and I had to look closely to find it. I feel this should be drawn out in more detail -- I'm curious now as to when and why this was chosen as the book's title but I don't know the answer to either question. 2.25.131.173 (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not in the article because I couldn't find a reliable source that actually delineated when and why the title was chosen. I agree this does need more work and needs more digging. Will read some more and see what can be found. Thanks for the reminder. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Publication history

"Hemingway likely broke the contract with his publisher ...". That seems to be exactly what he did not do. It seems, rather, that he - how should one say? - "engineered an exit from" the contract? --Wikiain (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

See the newly written text - which is well done. He knew what he was doing, but he broke the contract. The thing is, the sources all say, "he may have done", or some variation of that, because of course he didn't indicate publicly what he was doing. So we have to follow the wording of the sources. We don't know for certain that writing The Torrents of Spring was to break the contract, but it seems to have been what he intended. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, Truthkeeper88. Maybe it's my legal background, but from the text - which is all I'm going on - "likely broke" is problematical. It suggests that Hemingway was in breach of the contract - that is, that he failed (deliberately or not) to comply with one of its terms. That is very different in law from ending or terminating (outside law, one could say "breaking off") a contract, which is done within the terms of the contract. In the first case, one can get sued; in the second case, it's just all over.

From what follows in the text, it looks like Hemingway engineered a termination of the contract, within the terms of the contract, by the publisher - neither party being (or, in his case, appearing to be) in breach of the contract. If Hemingway deliberately supplied work that he hoped would be rejected because the publisher didn't like what he had said about another of its authors, I think it would be difficult to say that he was in breach of the contract, because what might be said about another author (short of defamation) is unlikely to have been a term of the contract. There could have been a breach if Hemingway had supplied work of unacceptable quality - whatever his intentions might have been. But I wonder whether that would have been an actual breach, since the possibility seems to have been catered for by the termination clause. However, breach would have been more likely, if he had supplied substandard work deliberately. Yet, as you note, short of an admission that would have been hard to prove. I'm generalising: it depends, in the end, on the express terms of the contract and on implications that could have been made according to New York contract law - presumably stated by the contract to be the governing law.

In sum: "likely broke" seems both ambiguous and, taken in a legal meaning, too definite. But, as you say, we must stick to the sources. If none of them so far picks up these issues, hopefully one day somebody will. --Wikiain (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting and thank you for pointing out the nuances. James Mellow's biography seems to give the most in-depth account of this episode; I'll retrieve it from the library after the holiday to re-read and see if I can pin down the wording a bit better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation tweaks

There are a few inconsistencies which need to be sorted out. In some cases I could try to guess what the correction should be, but I think it is better to list them here:

• No citation for Oliver (1990).
• No citation for Elliot (1996).
• No citation for Mellow (1986).

Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is for Oliver 1990 (fn 25), Elliot 1996 (fn 77), and Mellow at bottom is listed as 1992 (and is in several footnotes). Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Sun Also Rises

Dear Wikipedians,

What has the Vietnam era to do with the theme of the sun also rises? Can someone please tell me? Quote: "The Sun Also Rises appealed to what Beegel calls the lost generation of the Vietnam era.[111]"

Yours faithfully,

Lierob 83.82.221.119 (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's in the Legacy and reception section - not the themes. According to the scholar the book regained a measure of popularity in the 1960s & 70s. I'd have to look to see whether that's a book I own or borrowed, but if you think necessary, the point can be clarified. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Truthkeeper,

Can you please clarify the point to me?

With kind regards,

Lierob 83.82.221.119 (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll need to borrow the book from the library to re-read to clarify for you. Will do as soon as I have time. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be very helpful.

With kind regards,

Lierob 83.82.221.119 (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Direct quote from the source: "Not surprisingly The Sun Also Rises was the favorite Hemingway novel in the 1970s. Its lost-generation characters, alienated, by World War I and self-anthesitized with alcohol, were familiar and appealing to an equally lost generation alienated by Vietnam and experimenting with drugs."

Source: Beegel, Susan (1996). "Conclusion: The Critical Reputation". in Donaldson, Scott (ed). The Cambridge Companion to Ernest Hemingway. New York: Cambridge UP. ISBN 0-521-45574-X

I hope this is helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Truthkeeper,

That is very helpful, thank you. Maybe we can put it on the Wikipedia page of the The Sun Also Rises?

With kind regards,

Lierob -- 83.82.221.119 (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As you see at the top of this section, it's been summarized and attributed. I don't think it's necessary to add the entire quote as there are already quite a few quotes here and per WP:QUOTEFARM we try to avoid stuffing articles with quotes, if that makes any sense. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

• Regarding recent edits by IP 108.45.72.196, mentioned on my talk, the aim is to summarize the source and present in an encyclopedic manner as it was here. The source doesn't specifically tell us what Max Perkins intended; the source tells us what the policy was at Scribners during that year. Moreover the "respectably sexy" is much too close to the source and a close paraphrase. To keep that phrase would require a full quote and attribution to the source - which really then gets into much more detail than is necessary for the dust-jacket image. Please discuss. I've already reverted once; IP 108 reverted back. Now it's time to talk. Will keep an eye out here. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

[1]. Agree. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Also please see thread "Publication history" thread above [2] re the contract and this edit. Back later. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Last things first. For all the reasons given in the above referenced thread by Wikiain, who knows something about the law, we should avoid repeating Mellow's unfortunate use of the phrase "breaking his contract" (p317). Hemingway was not in breach of contract. If he had been, Boni & Liveright would have sued him and Scribner's for the royalties/income from TSAR at least. As we all know, they didn't sue, because B&L "broke the contract" by terminating it, not EH (the royalties went to Hadley R). Instead of repeating the misleading/ambiguous/erroneous phrases of our sources, we should avoid them if possible. My edit does this, by stating what Mellow otherwise says: that Hemingway maneuvered Boni & Liveright into terminating the contract. Perfectly legally. And just for wiggle room, the word "apparently" is in there. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dust jacket, recent edits by IP

see "objections" in previous section.

before: Cleonike Damianakes illustrated the dust jacket with a Hellenistic design of a scantily robed woman, head bent, one hand holding an apple, thighs exposed. The title was decorated with apples—the intent was to present a quasi-sexual image tastefully.

after: Cleonike Damianakes illustrated the dust jacket with a Hellenistic design of a seated, robed woman, head bent, one hand holding an apple, shoulders and one thigh exposed. Editor Maxwell Perkins intended "Cleon"'s respectably sexy design to attract "the feminine readers who control the destinies of so many novels".

source: Leff, p51, from GoogleBooks here. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Requesting comments on addition of FIESTA West End production, February 2013

Someone has adapted the novel into a play with music that starts its run in London's West End in about a week. I could only find one news story about it via Google, News. The mention has been removed twice from the "Legacy and adaptations" section of the article, cited to the play's website. Another issue is that it appears to have been added by someone associated with the production (Oiffy). Opinions are requested. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

June 24, 2013 Revert

User:Victoriaearle has reverted 6 changes for "various reasons", none of which were explained. The changes reverted included the addition of a primary citation and removal of the following sentence, "Among Hemingway's friends, it was perhaps Harold Loeb, on whom Cohn's character is based, who lost the most in being immortalized in his friend's novel, as he was portrayed as the unlikeable Jew." The sentence is clearly stating a POV and is not attributed to the person making the claim. Since the edits were not contentious and included a reliable source, I'll have to re-introduce them unless an explanation can be given for the reversion.68.96.52.9 (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I did revert. First the little bronze star on right hand corner of the article designates it as a Featured article and as such it adheres to a quality control of sorts, the criteria of which are found at WP:Featured article criteria, and it then goes through a review process. We have to use the best scholarly sources, and as editor of The Hemingway Review and various books about Hemingway, Beegel is a very good source. That statement can be backed up by a myriad of other scholarly sources, but because it's not really contentious, it's not necessary. I understand what you were trying to do, adding "proof" from the text, but it's not necessary. Furthermore, per WP:Primary, it's best not to use primary sources - which the book is. And finally, per WP:CITEVAR, the citation style has to be consistent. Sorry to throw so many blue links your way, but it's the best way to explain my reasons for reverting. If this is something that you feel extremely strongly about, then let's wait to see who else comes along to chime in, and we could consider, if there's room, adding that quote in a text box. Thanks, though. I did understand what you were trying to do, and got interrupted before posting here. Victoria (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation, but the bronze star means the article was found to be of a certain quality. It does not change the way in which editing policy applies to the article, so it's irrelevant in any discussion regarding policy. But we can chalk that up to differences of opinion. To the issue at hand, aside from the poor style of my citation, you haven't really explained what policy my edits violated. The sentence I edited (which I see you've since edited yourself) was a poor sentence, not attributed to anyone. To be honest, I thought it was supposed to be attributed to Oliver, but it's not my place to fix the sentence as I wasn't the one who added it. I was rightfully trying to clean up the POV.

There is also nothing in policy which prevents the inclusion of primary sources, especially in an article about a novel when making references to the contents of that novel. As per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."

While I agree, stylistically, they should be avoided. The citation is doing exactly what it's meant to do, "allowing an educated person to compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does." Now you may think it's unnecessary, but it's certainly not redundant. I think you and I can find some civil common ground here, so rather than waiting for this to become a vote, I'm going to continue improving the article unless you find a policy you feel I've violated. 68.96.52.9 (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it wasn't clear the two sentences were both cited to Beegel, but to be honest it's not great prose and repetitive to write over and over, "Beegel says", "Beegel writes", and so on, and it's not necessary to cite every sentence. Regardless that issue is now resolved. There is a quote box in that section: like you, I felt the issue needed an example from the text. I take it you don't like that particular example, and would prefer the one you've provided? Re vote, as clumsy as it is, consensus is the only mechanism we have here, so there's really nothing wrong with it. I see that I don't need to link to policy pages, and as far as I know I haven't done or said anything that's not civil. Victoria (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you had. I simply meant that we can probably find common ground on our own. Take a look at the latest and let me know what you think. 68.96.52.9 (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, you've uncovered that the page number is missing, which absolutely needs to be added. The book isn't on the bookshelf where it's supposed to be, so that's an issue I need to address. For now, I'm happy to leave it as it is, and when I uncover the book would like to re-read it. It might be possible to add a direct quote and attribute. Victoria (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding: I remember now that I'd chosen that bit to use, but the dialogue, being Hemingway, is hard to convey in a snippet, so I chose the other bit. Anyway, I've added it for now, will leave for a little while, but will revert until I get my hands on the 2006 ed. of the book (have a much older one at hand). At that point I'll re-add and play around with the formatting. I'm okay with using this piece, but want to get it right, if you can wait a day or so. Victoria (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Template removal

I have never heard an argument against including a works template such as {{The Sun Also Rises}} on the page of that work such as The Sun Also Rises. At Talk:Ernest Hemingway, you described the content of {{The Sun Also Rises}} as if it was trivia. All four of the current links on the template (The Sun Also Rises (1957 film), The Sun Also Rises (1984 film), The Sun Also Rises (opera), and The Sun Also Rises (ballet)) are considered notable works. They are a major motion picture and three other fairly faithful adaptations that were reviewed in The New York Times. Hemingway trivia would something like a link where a class of students was assigned The Sun Also Rises as homework. Can you explain your contrary position in terms of including {{The Sun Also Rises}} in The Sun Also Rises.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Adaptations are already included with appropriate context in the article; this makes the template redundant. Furthermore, including such a navbox puts undue emphasis on adaptations, which are a minimally important part of the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That is an argument against every properly constructed navbox. According to WP:NAVBOX articles in navboxes are suppose to refer to each other. If it were true, saying that the articles in the navbox are referred to in the article means the navbox is properly constructed. However, the article does not metion most of the adaptations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There are four links in the navbox; three are mentioned and linked in the article. Leaving aside the pointlessness of a navbox with only four links in it, 75% is "most". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat that navboxes are suppose to include articles that refer to each other. Obviously, the central article should refer to more than the variations. The purpose of a navbox is to present related subject matter in a manner that eases navigation. It is not suppose to present new material unseen in the prose above it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. note that there are now 5 versions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: There is nothing pointless about a navbox that ties together and links articles that have an obvious relationship to each other -- that is a standard part of wikification and interlocking the encyclopedia, and obviates the necessity for including endless "See Also" lists. It is the standard and most elegant and unobtrusive way of interlinking the encyclopedia and alerting readers to other closely related articles. I recently read the new and informative Wikipedia article on the 1984 The Sun Also Rises film adaptation, and commented on its Talk page how helpful it was to me. While reading the article I had also immediately viewed and benefited from the navbox at the bottom of the article, because it alerted me to interesting adaptations I was not yet aware of, and it also let me recall another film adaptation I had been interested about and would like to view. As long as a navbox has at least three items, there is no minimum number of items for a navbox. The navbox must always appear on the main article they represent -- to not place the navbox there would be a bizarre omission. This is not a redundancy, it is a necessity. Media representations and adaptations are vitally important to the continued popularity and promulgation of a book, plus they also illustrate the work's importance and enduring relevance, and they allow many more people to experience the work. [By the way, I came here after viewing the 1984 The Sun Also Rises film article, which I noticed from a new wikilink added to an article on my Watchlist. I posted a thank you on the article's Talk page because it was so valuable to me. TonyTheTiger then invited me to this discussion.] Softlavender (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Softlavender, thanks for your comment. I agree that adaptations are important, as you say to "illustrate the work's importance", however I did mention in the other conversation in this post that the "Hemingway myth" engendered an inordinate amount of media mentions and adaptations, a conversation frankly I wished Obiwankenobi hadn't closed because there was more to be said in that regard and better to keep the conversations in one place rather than having to traipse from page to page. Here the problem, as I see it, is that this page mentions both the 1957 and the 1984 film adaptions in the text, as is appropriate for an FA quality page. Both films are also included in {{Ernest Hemingway}} so they're redundant on {{The Sun Also Rises}} and should be removed. That would only leave three entries on {{The Sun Also Rises}}: The Select (The Sun Also Rises) on off-Broadway theater production, a ballet (how can a novel be presented en pointe?), and a community theater opera production. In my view those three adaptations, giving the importance of this particular piece of literature and its enormous influence on 20th century literature, are of questionable notability. Per WP:Nav, and WP:CREEP my inclination is that it's better to have the opera, the ballet and the off-broadway production link into this page. As an aside: FA quality articles rarely include "See also" sections because the material is either woven into the text or left out as non-notable. Finally, no, I don't think consensus has been reached and the canvassing here is unhelpful. I won't revert again for the moment, but as the primary contributor (and if anyone looks at the contribution history, I really did do the heavy lifting on this page) I don't have anyone to pull in, so I'll leave you all to decide how these issues of redundancy and consensus are to be resolved and I may stop back by in a few days. Victoria (tk) 00:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy (that is, possible repetition of something that may have been mentioned and linked in an article text) is not only irrelevant but to be expected in a good navbox. The purpose of the navbox is to present all related items in a short, neat, close, and easily understood/viewed package. The issue of some sort of Hemingway myth is completely irrelevant; the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide and disseminate information as clearly as possible and to make it easily and readily available, not to obscure, censor or hide it. The lack of See Alsos is why FAs need navboxes. WP:CREEP doesn't apply to navboxes, and of course WP:Nav does not encourage censoring items -- navboxes should include all related items; that is their purpose. If you don't consider the opinion of a general reader (and informed Wikipedian) who appreciated the presence of an article and a navbox as helpful, then who should be opining on this page? I think it's better for people who understand the purpose and scope of navboxes to opine on this one's content and placement. Softlavender (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How would you resolve the problem of having two templates that include the same information - the two films are mentioned on both templates. If I hadn't considered the opinion of the general reader I seriously doubt I would have put the effort into making this page as good as I could, spent hundreds of hours reading sources and reducing to a page that was FA worthy. But if you don't believe I should be opining here, then fine. Victoria (tk) 01:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned, redundancy is not only expected but absolutely encouraged when it comes to two or more navboxes on the same page. That's not a problem, that is a goal. The point of an encyclopedia is to disseminate information as widely and as clearly and as understandably as possible, not to hide it, remove it, censor it, or prevent it from being desseminated. And the goal of Wikipedia is to link as many related or relevant articles as possible, to interlink the encyclopedia and aid navigation. Softlavender (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If the goal is to direct traffic to a specific page for a specific reason, then that would be the argument to use. Otherwise, no. Regardless, consensus is a pillar. Victoria (tk) 01:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning for objecting to the template. I don't think literature buffs should be as condescending about ballet as you were above. Many understand the language of dance very well and almost all important ballets are adapted from one form of literature or another (usually plays or novels). The most famous ballet in my mind is an adaptation of a story (The Nutcracker). Yes novels can be presented en pointe. I am not sure what to make of the opera at this point because opera research is outside of my bailiwick. Feel free to WP:AFD it if you wish. I am not sure how it will fare in such a discussion. Nonetheless, a template with three or more relevant links will survive a well-reasoned WP:TFD. I have never heard of an editor with your level of experience misconcieving templates in the way that you have. There is no rule that two templates can not share a link. Keep in mind the only reason {{Ernest Hemingway}} and {{The Sun Also Rises}} share links is because you have led the charge to keep the film adaptations section rather than do away with it in favor of the 6 individual works templates I have been proposing. We could devolve into an endless discussion about that issue, but let's just proceed with the overlap. It is not a problem. An article can have several templates on it. If we did not allow multiple templates to share links each page could only have one template and we know this is not what we want. So what is your point. Do you really believe we should remove all but one template from every page on wikipedia and make sure no two templates share any links? Yes the templates overlap because their subjects over lap. One chronicles Hemingway's career and another shows things related to arguably his most important work. Clearly these two templates may overlap. That is not a reason to remove one from The Sun Also Rises.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I don't feel asking people who are reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/The Sun Also Rises (ballet)‎ to comment here is WP:CANVASSing. Who else do we hope to help us reach a consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If there can only be one template on this article (an enormously bewildering notion contrary to everything Wikipedia stands for), it makes more sense to have {{The Sun Also Rises}} one -- the one that belongs here. I'm, not sure what this means: "If the goal is to direct traffic to a specific page for a specific reason, then that would be the argument to use. Otherwise, no." The goal of Wikipedia is very clear: to allow users the greatest access to the greatest amount of accurate information in the easiest and quickest way. That's why templates exist -- all templates including Wikimedia templates, portal templates, media templates, Commons templates, etc. I invite you to look at the comparable FA novel articles (i.e. of those novels notable enough to have more than two adaptations): Candide and Uncle Tom's Cabin. Look closely at the templates there. The same can be done with other media like comparably adapted FA Plays: South Pacific, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet. Do the same with comparably adapted FA comics: Batman. Nowhere is there any restriction on the number of navboxes; quite the reverse: the more navboxes, the better, because that's what Wikipedia is about: promulgating information. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Batman is about a character, not a comic. But look at the Hamlet example: that navbox covers more facets of the topic than just adaptations, and so is more useful and balanced than the template under discussion here. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There are very few works in the history of literature that can rival the most important works of Shakespeare for encyclopedic content and almost none of them are modern works. If editors want to created articles for Hemingway characters, they could surely be included. I am not sure if his works have quotes, words, or phrases that deserve the attention of the encyclopedia, but if they do they can be added to the template. None of this affects the propriety of using {{The Sun Also Rises}} on The Sun Also Rises.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course it does: as I already said, inclusion of the current template would place undue emphasis on adaptations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This assertation that a collapsed navbox at the bottom of a page that already includes a section entitled "Legacy and adaptations" places WP:UNDUE importance to adaptations is quite frankly ridiculous. And to remove the template based on the suggestion that this is somehow a policy matter is really clutching at straws. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. To me it's plain as day that if {{The Sun Also Rises}} is a useful template, it should appear here. Obvious, sensible, straightforward, non-controversial. --Lockley (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A template can quite easily be useful in one context and not another - assuming this template is useful in any context. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• comment, seems like the navbox is useful in the context of this article. could be grouped with the other one in a {{navboxes}} wrapper. Frietjes (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. This is how navboxes are supposed to work and as it stands, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, {{The Sun Also Rises}} should be included here. However, I can see that a case for redundancy could be argued, if the three non-film adaptations were added in an "other adaptations" section (or similar) to {{Ernest Hemingway}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment seems unnecessary and redundant...Modernist (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It is undoubtedly that (as is your writing both of those words when one would do, and as is everybody's prefacing their comments with the word Comment, for that matter), but could it not still occasionally be useful to a reader? Occupying a single line at the bottom of the article, with the content initially hidden, there doesn't seem to me to be any benefit to removing it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that if editors are objecting the inclusion of this navbox here, what they are actually objecting to is the very existence of the navbox, in which case they should take it to WP:TFD rather than repeatedly removing it from this article against the navbox guidelines (and current consensus). --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Break

• Suggestion. Okay - this version of {{Ernest Hemingway}} incorporates all the adaptations and related from all the other templates, so only one navbox would be needed across the board. Thoughts? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment one makes sense...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • At each individual work, like say The Sun Also Rises (ballet), it is not necessary to see adaptations of all other works or even a listing of all other Hemingway works. The template is unwieldy for use at adaptations as a single unified template. Also, I prefer the by works templates personally, because it is easier for the reader to associate adaptations with the proper work without clicking through to the article. Works such as The Breaking Point (1950 film) and The Gun Runners and things in the see also section are not easily associated with the proper work in a one navbox treats all format. Furthermore, what happens to things that are not exactly adaptations of works. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Conversely, at the moment, we have both navboxes at The Sun Also Rises (1957 film). The combined navbox reduces the number of navboxes by one and addresses the semi redundancy. Would having the combined navbox "adaptation" section ordered by work (where multiple adaptations are involved) address your concerns? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I noticed that you added that redundancy at The Sun Also Rises (1984 film). I was not a fan of that and don't think WP:BIDIRECTIONAL requires it. What I would do is order them by work but in the nested format that you have seen elsewhere so that at the individual adaptations, you can still just use the relevant by works template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, The Sun Also Rises (1984 film) would need to have them both, as it is mentioned in both templates (much in the same way that this article is, which is something that you advocate). I think the only way to compromise is with the combined template. I'll rework it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Another option. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of those absurdly minor adaptions like this [3] don't need templates, just wikilinks to the more major articles...Modernist (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's why the template should be nominated for deletion, rather than just removed from the articles. If it exists, it should follow the guidelines. It's borderline WP:NENAN, but whilst it stays, it should be present on the articles per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion would be nesting like this. Then the unwieldy template would not have to be used in places like The Sun Also Rises (ballet). You could convert the by works templates to single line versions like you show in your second alternative.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to nest, as actually, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, you'd still need to include the whole template. And I thought my version 2 was maybe too vertical - this is even clumsier. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does WP:BIDIRECTIONAL require the whole unified template on the page of an adaptation?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Because by nesting, each article is included in the unified template anyway. By that inclusion, transclusion should be required. Nesting is kind of pointless here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have already stated that the opera adaptation may be AFDed so that should not be used as an example. Are there other "absurdly minor adaptions" at issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• If - You've already stated that the opera adaption may be AFDed - Then you do it Tony...Modernist (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I would probably oppose an AFD although I think an AFD may have justification.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rob, thanks so much for reworking {{Ernest Hemingway}}. I've wanted to give some thought to this and essentially what you've done is what I've thought we could do. I can support either version. We should probably remove the "Works" from the title and simply label it "Ernest Hemingway". I agree too with Modernist's comment about some of the minor adaptations. Adaptations really are a problem with Hemingway because there are quite a lot of them - (it's an area I need to research). I may be tweaking that template a bit more when I get an opportunity, but am happy to see what you've done there. Victoria (tk) 15:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought about removing "works" from the title, but didn't know what to do with the link to Ernest Hemingway bibliography! I guess maybe in an "above" parameter? But incorporating the notable adaptations in the main navbox seems to address most concerns (and the ones previously regarding navboxes at Talk:Ernest Hemingway#Ernest Hemingway templates). Then (but only then) the individual navboxes can be removed from pages like this and ultimately deleted for redundancy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor amendments: OPTION 1 OPTION 2 --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

We could either remove the bibliography link, or rename. It's in the "See also" in the main bio and if removed, I'd add to all the articles throughout the series. Or we can rename the page and the template link to Works and adaptations by Ernest Hemingway. Ernest Hemingway bibliography has been heavily edited and now includes much of what's on the template. For a long time I've thought that page should be a list and a repository for all the Hemingway adaptions and such. Re above links, I prefer OPTION 1. Victoria (tk) 15:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think anyone would expect to see a link to it in the template. I think it works in the "above" parameter (per my newer options). Maybe there's some merit in a separate "adaptations" article, that way the "absurdly minor adaptions" could be covered without the need for their own articles. But we seem to have digressed and are probably now having this conversation in the wrong place! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it is a digression and it's a page that's fallen way on the back burner. I do like how you incorporated it in OPTION 1 and am happy with the solution/s you've provided. And thanks for doing the work! It's something I meant to play with on the weekend when I got some time. Victoria (tk) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Option 2 is way more useful/accessible to the reader that is seeking information about adapations. Still looking for an answer above about WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Option 3 appears the same as Option 2, but it preserves the flexibility to use the by works templates on the adaptations that do not need the entire unified template. It is also more informative to the adaptation information seeker than Option 1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think it would be better to hash this out at the new thread on the EH talk or on the {{Ernest Hemingway}} talk, but brief response is that OPTION 2 preserves the chronology of the publication dates whereas Option 3 doesn't. Because some are novels, some short stories, some very loosely based adaptations whereas EH was on set and heavily involved with others, it makes more sense to have the template as OPTION 1 with the works separated by novels, short stories, non-fiction, posthumous, then film adaptations, television adaptations, and perhaps stage adaptations. Some such as Bold Venture and Bacall to Arms might be left out until they can be properly sourced (Bacall to Arms is failing source verification at the moment so needs some digging). Let's get consensus one step at a time and have others weigh in on the issue of moving everything to {{Ernest Hemingway}} which would make {{The Sun Also Rises}} redundant. Victoria (tk) 22:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Remove {{The Sun Also Rises}} from this page and implement changes to {{Ernest Hemingway}} (with discussion either on the template page or or here to decide how it should look). Yes? No? Comments? Victoria (tk) 15:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes remove the TSAR template and update the EH template appropriately. --Mirokado (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Yes - this seems like the best solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Remove please or rather - support the TSAR is unnecessary and plainly stupid...Modernist (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I think this addresses my WP:BIDIRECTIONAL concerns, and satisfies the concerns of most of the other editors also. And, I'd like to add, this seems to be one of the most pleasant attempts at working towards a compromise that I've encountered. Thanks guys! --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've had to strike through that second part, given the uphill battle over the last few days trying to get Tony to see the clear consensus for a merge of the smaller templates to {{Ernest Hemingway}} here. It's a shame that what had been such a friendly environment to reach a consensus in had to deteriorate like that, like so many experiences here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not contested merging the smaller templates to {{Ernest Hemingway}}. However, with the number of times you have been reverted at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, you should understand that merging them does not mandate the larger template's use on the adaptions where most of the content is irrelevant and distracting. Merging them into the larger template does not make the larger template more desirable on the adaptation articles and as many people have told you BIDIRECTIONAL does not mean that the larger template must appear on the adaptation pages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Thanks all who posted and thanks Robsinden for helping with the {{Ernest Hemingway}} template! I'll give this a few more days and then edit the article accordingly. Victoria (tk) 00:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm in going ahead. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• support, just use one navbox, no need for multiple navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. And deletion/merging of any template requires a public WP:TfD, with announcements at TfD and the template's Talk page, just like any article deletion/merging, with the standard discussion and closing protocols of any article's deletion. This sub-sub-sub discussion of less than five day's duration on an article Talk page counts for naught when it comes to deletion or merging of a template or article. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe everyone here knows that a deletion occurs at TFD, this proposal is regarding removing this from this page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    • If you read the Proposal, its not just to remove the template from the TSAR article, its to delete the template and "implement changes to {{Ernest Hemingway}}" -- in other words, delete and merge. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
      • What about the proposal above says delete? I see the remove from this page verbiage and implement changes verbiage. Am I not seeing some other words?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
        • You have to read between between the lines; that's what is intended to avoid 100% redundancy between templates. But as I mentioned, deletion and/or merging of a template requires an official TfD. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Deletion is a drastic action. There is no such thing as a read between the lines deletion discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Your "oppose" !vote seems to be purely on technical grounds, but actually a merge would not need a formal TfD (especially with the unanimous support it has here), and once merged the individual templates would be redundant and eligible for CSD. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That's not true, Rob. Any merge-deletion requires an official WP:TfD. This tiny hidden discussion among 8 editors does not substitute for due process. Softlavender (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

TFD notification

Nominator has pointed towards a discussion here, I am notifying about the deletion entry on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_20#Various_Hemingway_navboxes. Hajme 09:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Sun Also Rises. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408171529/http://www.kcstar.com/hemingway/ehstarstyle.shtml to http://www.kcstar.com/hemingway/ehstarstyle.shtml

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) 20:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

First edition dustjacket

I've removed File:The Sun Also Rises dust jacket.jpg, added in this edit, visible here in the publications section. On my monitor it breaks the formatting. It's nice to have the entire dust jacket, but I'm not convinced it's necessary on this page - I've never added front/back dust jackets to any other literature pages - but if it can be formatted better have no objection. Any ideas/comments? Victoria (tk) 00:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)