Talk:Ernest Hemingway

Arrogance and attitude toward women & animals

I admit that I have not studied the archives here, but wish to ask anyway: has nothing reliable at all ever been published about this man's disgusting personal behavior even though it often was so obvious to everyone? The article reads as if he was a perfect angel, as far as I can see. He was not, and the text needs balance. Great writer, yes. Wonderful man, emphatic no. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024

Anderson suggested Paris so that Hemingway could met the American writer

This sentence should say could meet not could met - bad spelling 2A05:87C6:1F6E:0:7882:B858:8B08:927D (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, a typo, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:TFA

Pinging Victoriaearle and Ceoil: Hemingway is on the TFA-pending list for the 125th birthday in July ... I see you've both been editing this this year, any thoughts on whether July would work? - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dank, thanks for the reminder. I'm still good for July. I've been side-tracked over at J.K. Rowling's talk page but need to switch gears & get back here asap. It needs a bit of tidying & receives fairly frequent edits, but generally it looks ok to me. Victoria (tk) 15:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War section

Hello User:Victoriaearle, you have deleted my entire edit on the Spanish Civil War as, according to you, it was “overly detailed for this article”. I have inspected various WP policies on the level of granularity expected or recommended for various types of articles, but failed to find guidelines appropriate for this case. If you know of any, would be grateful for a link.

For the time being, I do not think my edit was overly detailed.

“This article” contains numerous very detailed sections, which I believe to many readers might be of rather limited importance. For instance, the section „Idaho and suicide”, which deals with the last 2 years of Hemingway’s life, is 881 words and generally appears to be half-way between a medical dictionary and a manual of depression-tackling techniques. I do not think my edit on the Civil War was more unnecessarily detailed than the Idaho piece, let alone few others.

My edit – which including the paragraph written by someone else was 645 words, provides a unique opportunity – which you will not find anywhere else, unless you care to go through 400 pages of Muller – to track exact Hemingway’s whereabouts in Spain (1937-1938). Thanks to it, the reader might judge for oneself whether he saw much or little, how extensive his experience was, and to what degree he might have based his writings on his own observation. Also, my edit allows the reader to realize how extensively Hemingway used to travel: during less than 2 years (actually, in 22 months) he crossed the Atlantic 8 times.

Once you have disposed of my edit, what is left seems rather odd. Currently the section “Spanish Civil War” is more about Hemingway’s relations with Dos Passos, Joris Ivens, and Martha Gelhorn than about what he was doing in Spain. Among very few pieces on his whereabouts one is wrong, namely the claim that in July 1937 Hemingway attended a conference in Valencia (he was in the US at the time). Also the claim that he was “present at the Battle of Ebro” and was “among the last to leave the battle” might mislead the reader to believe that Hemingway saw much of it; in fact, the battle lasted from late July until early November, and he was at the banks of Ebro during few hours on November 5, when it almost over, just to see last Republican troops withdrawing across the river.

Have restored my edit. If you still believe it is too detailed, instead of proceeding to delete it again please comment on this talk page, or if you think it pointless, please resolve to any of the usual methods of sorting out editorial conflicts.

regards, --Hh1718 (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hh1718, thanks for the ping. Please take a look at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You made a bold edit, I reverted. Now we should be discussing to achieve consensus instead of reinstating the edit - which is considered edit warring.

Hello User:Victoriaearle. The BRD cycle is an optional strategy, neither a mandatory nor a recommended one. It might be adhered to, and it might be not, in favor of another one. I do not think it is appropriate for this very case. To me, your using BRD looks like “excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes”. I will eleborate further below.

Besides, if one opts for BRD, it is recommended that a revert is accompanied with some reasonably meaningful information on its rationale. All you provided was “rvt to previous version b/c new edits are overly detailed for this article, but will find & read muller & try to incorporate in summary style”. First, it repeats your point about my edit having been “overly detailed”, the point I have already addressed on this talk page (please see above) and which you ignored. Second, it advances a rather unusual rule that no edit is valid until you read the source referenced and confirm it. --Hh1718 (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

As to why I reverted:

a. this article is a WP:Featured article and needs to adhere to the the criteria. Also it's been scheduled for a main page appearance next month, so I'm working on bringing it into compliance

this is extremely vague statement. It explains nothing. Please be precise and give examples of at least some instances when my edit violated specific criteria. --Hh1718 (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

b. citations need to be rendered in a consistent manner. If you could supply bibligraphic info for the two books cited in that section here on the talk page I can reformat per the style used in the article.

providing citations in another format is not a justification for sweeping deletion of the entire 650-word section. There are other means available: tagging, pinging the author (i.e. me) or – why not? changing the format yourself. --Hh1718 (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

c. as mentioned in my edit summary I intended to find the books, read them, and rewrite accordingly. I've not gotten to it yet but haven't forgotten.

the fact that you have not read Muller yet is no reason whatsoever for deleting an entry of a person who did read Muller, and quoted him extensively. --Hh1718 (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

d. because this is the main biography page it should be written in Wikipedia:Summary style. That was my intention when/if I can do the reading (I've been unwell and work very slowly, so apologies in that regard). In my view the material is interesting and anything that doesn't make it onto this page should go to For Whom the Bell Tolls.

same as point a. A vague indication pointing to style guideline page is not sufficient to do a sweeping deletion. Please be specific: provide examples and style rules you have in mind. --Hh1718 (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

e. Finally the article needs to adhere to prose and Wikipedia manual of style. There are some MoS (manual of style) issues & prose issues that I may not have the time to address immediately.

all right, here I am prepared to concede a point. As a non-native I am perfectly aware that my English might be clumsy here and there. Unless it is all rubbish and needs to be re-written from scratch as barely understandable, why don’t you spent 30 minutes correcting, instead of doing away with the whole piece? --Hh1718 (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I did have every intention of reworking your edit. It needs to adhere to the relevant issues mentioned above. In the meantime, since we're on the cusp of an edit war, now we have to wait for others to weigh as to whether to keep it. If you were to revert yourself for the meantime, if would save a lot of trouble. If not, let's see what other think. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 20:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It is nice you decided to acknowledge my tip that earlier info on Hemingway’s taking part in a Valencia congress of July 1937 is false (though I am not sure on what basis you have acknowledged it, since you say you have not read Muller’s book). However, I disagree with the rest of your sweeping edit, which I consider heavy-handed, backed by very vague references to unspecified criteria, and inconsistent. I am reverting your revert. Grateful to get some specific info from you.

And BTW, somehow the section on Cuba got lost on its way, now bundled together with the Spanish Civil War. Not sure whether this was intentional, guess not, presume that in your edit of June 1, 01:53, you incidentally marked too much for deletion. In a separate edit (to make it easier for you to revert it in case that was intentional, in this case apologies) I am restoring the Cuba heading and hence re-separating the pre-war Cuba section (in the new convention you have introduced in June).

regards,--Hh1718 (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hh1718 please don't reinstate that version. At this point that's edit warring. I'm going through the article to prepare for Today's featured article and changes have been made throughout. Furthermore I've checked books out of the library that are Hemingway biographies as opposed to a history of the Spanish Civil War to redo the section and to be able to save some of your edits.

Pinging Dank as a head's up re a slow edit war here. Please advise, because it can't go to the main page during an edit war? Victoria (tk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, how can I help? - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain that FAs need to adhere to the criteria, which this edit does not. I'm in the process of addressing the concerns & rewriting, but am slow. Edit warring in preferred versions creates instability & if that continues then we can't run it in July. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 13:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hh1718, this stuff is complicated and there are a lot of different things to think about and rules to follow. Please make changes in smaller steps with more discussion. Victoria, the TFA is your call. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like it run. I'm taking on board that the Spanish Civil War section needs work & am beginning work in my sandbox but health interfered again & I needed a few days off. I'm about to invoke FA own, because I don't think the comments above assume good faith. I am trying & trying to make it perfect. Victoria (tk) 14:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2024

Change: "A family friend Hemingway him a job in Toronto, and with nothing else to do, he accepted." To: "A family friend offered Hemingway a job in Toronto, and with nothing else to do, he accepted." NormanCS (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Peaceray (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

Wababababobo (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

remove this message below ( find where it is in the page)

He also often used bilingual puns and crosslingual wordplay as stylistic devices.[167]

as it is already stated earlier in the page

He also often used bilingual puns and crosslingual wordplay as stylistic devices.[161][162][163]

the source for [167] could be moved over to the earlier stated part Wababababobo (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching that. Victoria (tk) 21:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)