Talk:Herman Melville

Context and WikiLink Hawthorne

Moved to Talk:Herman Melville/GA1

 – This would be better handled by those performing the article's GA review. Please note that because this post was moved to a page which is transcluded here, the post will show up twice on the talk page. This is normal. I have placed the original post under the Extended content banner below to avoid any confusion. Regards,  Spintendo  09:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Information to be added or removed: Requesting a change to the first mention of Nathaniel Hawthrone in this Article (third paragraph). Not only is he listed only by last name / without a corresponding WikiLink, the sentence assumes that the reader has prior knowledge of Hawthrone and his relationship with Melville. However a clickable link and background on Hawthorne isnt listed till later in the article. Without context of his identity and their relationship a reader who is less familiar with the subject (such as myself) could easily be confused. Explanation of issue: If I was more knowledgeable on the subject I would re-word the sentence and properly introduce Hawrhorne, but I don't want to further dilute the article Herenow44 (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Answered on review page. Article has added a short addition on Hawthorne and Melville friendship. CodexJustin (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

200th birthday

The article says "The 1919 centennial of his birth became the starting point of the "Melville Revival" with critics rediscovering his work and his major novels starting to become recognized as world classics of prominent importance to contemporary world literature." I've proposed putting the article on the main page for the August 1 bicentennial of his birth. Jonathunder (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Consistent citations for Melville

After the recent completion of the GA for the Melville biography, it seems like a good thought to prepare the article to move further forward in the peer review sequence. The most immediate course would be to make sure that the citations are in a consistent format and someone like @Jonesey95: could be asked to look at doing this. My support for him to go ahead with something like this and to do this with any support from other editors who are good at citations to join him. CodexJustin (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, I would convert as many short citations as possible to use the {{sfn}} template, which helps uncover missing full citations and helps readers by linking from short citations to full citations. It also improves citation consistency, which is currently lacking in this article. I would also move full citations from the References section to the Sources section. I am seeking consensus before undertaking this change, because I have encountered WP:CITEVAR-based resistance and reverts in the past. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: This sounds really good. During the 12 month GAN for this article, I was hoping for one of the top editors of the biography to join in but apparently they have moved on to other articles. If there are no comments coming in over this week-end, then I am supporting going ahead with your plan for the citations which sounds well thought through. CodexJustin (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Quick comment: not a fan of converting established citation styles but I've not made many edits here, despite having had this page watched for as long as I can remember, so don't have much pull. One request, comment, though: typically articles to do with literature or literary bios lean on sources that are compilations of essays, i.e a book with an editor consisting of essays w/ separate authors. It's important the author field is the author of the given essay within the book, not the editor of the book. If that integrity can be maintain, I'm okay with this, otherwise less okay with it. Victoria (tk) 17:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. Linking short citations to full citations can help editors validate that the person being cited is the correct person, since short citations will be unambiguously linked to full citations rather than making editors scan the list of full citations manually.

I will attempt to preserve the dominant citation style as much as possible. Here's an example edit that converts "Bezanson (1986), 181" to "Bezanson (1986), p. 181". The only changes are that the author and year are linked to the full citation, and "p." is added before the page number. I skimmed the documentation and did not see a way to suppress the "p." notation, which IMHO assists readers unfamiliar with citations by explaining what the mysterious number after the parentheses means. If the "p." is a show-stopper, I'll dig a little more for a way to suppress it. Note also that Bezanson is the author of a chapter in a book with an editor, and the full citation cites Bezanson as the author being cited. Does that allay your concerns, Victoriaearle?

I will convert short citations without changing the content, so if short citations have the wrong name now, they will be wrong and linked (for easier validation and editing) when I am done. That is a minor but real improvement, like spray-painting a pothole in the street so that drivers can avoid it until the city staff come to apply a real fix. If I see anything that looks like it is incorrectly citing the editor rather than the author, I will flag it for a content editor to check. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Looks like things are ready to start for cites. CWH also looks he is joining in for the references and editing. Looks like a green light. CodexJustin (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Friends: I got burned out with the HM and MD articles, but have been watching the latest developments with admiration and pleasure. This cooperative approach is how Wikipedia should work. Go team!

I have made a few minor edits here and at MD to clarify points that I happen to know about and will be glad to follow your lead in converting to linked short forms as I go along.

I could not agree more that essays in an edited volume must be individually cited, not just the volume as a whole. Someone may know more about this than I do, but the Template:Cite encyclopedia is handy, although the Template:Cite book also allows the citatation of editors and chapter authors.ch (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, apologies for the belated reply. Your example is perfect and I have no preferences in terms of how page numbers are rendered, only concerned with keeping integrity of author info. Victoria (tk) 20:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Notes on citation consistency work

I have started making the citations more consistent, as detailed above. PLEASE inspect my diffs and report any errors, or potential errors, here. Below this comment, I will place a list of things I have noticed (these are the sorts of problems that using short citation templates can unearth, helping to make the article's content more verifiable). Anyone is welcome to comment, strike out, or whatever. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

List of potential things to fix

• I think it is strange to have a citation to "Melville (1993)".

The start of this effort by Jonesey95 yesterday looks quite good. With reference to Melville (1993) just cited, this presently appears as footnote 89, and was the previous editors shorthand for citing his footnote 88 just above it which is a full form citation. They refer to the same cited book and should be consistent with each other. Regarding the republication of popular books about Melville, these are often republished without changes in pagination, sometimes they include a new or updated preface paginated in Roman numbers. The page numbers still match up. CodexJustin (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. When I see "Melville (1993)", as a naive reader, it looks like someone is citing something written by Herman Melville in 1993, even though he had been dead for 100 years. It just strikes me as odd. If it is OK to have citations like this, you are welcome to strike through this concern in the list above. No problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You can use the editor's name instead, and I see what you mean here. It is a volume of Melville's various correspondences in a collected edition. CodexJustin (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• There is a ref that says simply "Sullivan 117". It appears to be missing a year and a full citation.

Sullivan, Wilson (1972). New England Men of Letters. New York: Atheneum. ISBN 0-02-788680-8. CodexJustin (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• All of the Arvin (1950) citations need page numbers. I have inserted {{page needed}} in each one; in each short citation, that template should be replaced by a page number or page range (or at least a chapter name) when an editor gets their hands on the book and verifies the location supporting each cited statement.

For now I think it is "p8ff", for the page designation. CodexJustin (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Pages 8 and following", in a 300-page book? If that is what is meant by "pp. 8ff", I don't think that would (or should, at least) pass at FAC. I'd rather wait for real page numbers than put something in there and remove the "page needed" template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Caution on Arvin: There are half a dozen references to Arvin (1950), but that book is no longer an especially reliable source, borderline WP:RS AGE. So my impulse would be to say that it's not worthwhile at this point to put a lot of time sifting through it to find page numbers. My hat's off to anyone who does, though.ch (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

More history of editing Arvin for this Melville biography at Wikipedia. The article at one time had access to an online version of this book which did not have pagination, but which could be easily accessed by one click to verify any passages cited. That seemed fine until the online Arvin became unavailable. Unclear if the current status is that we do have, or do not have on online version of Arvin, with pagination or without pagination? CodexJustin (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

There appear to be snippet views of Arvin (1950) available on Google Books, e.g. at this link and a few others. The text may be searchable enough to provide page numbers sufficient for our needs. Example search: "exceptionally tender...", a quote that is used in this article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Good, though there is a free online version at Internet Archive that can be borrowed here. I added that information to the Arvin listing. Is that OK?ch (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I tried to borrow it from archive.org and found that the pages were not viewable, but I may be misremembering. Can you verify that page views are available? If so, you can add the correct page numbers to the citations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I had no problem. I will try to find time, but maybe cut some references. Arvin often puts things in a colorful and quotable way that is not necessarily relialbe (or not).ch (talk)

Arvin DONE well, except for note 89, wich has a quote I can't locate in Arvin (1950) and the quote between notes 71 & 72 "Lust for personal freedom..." which referred to Arvin (1950) "Enviable Isles" (a chapter). This is not in the biography and I can't locate it through Google Scholar.ch (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If it helps, it looks like that section of text was added in April 2016 (link to diff). – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The quote using the rare form "exceptionalness" can be found on JSTOR in several articles, though apparently not Arvin. The text of that section in the article using that word may need redrafting. CodexJustin (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the legwork on JSTOR. The most likely suspect is a review of Arvin here. I have used my free JSTOR articles for this month. If nobody beats me to it, I will try next month or maybe I can get to the library. I think you are right that the paragraph should be recast in any case. Too bad, it was a nice juicy quote!ch (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Should Berthoff (1962) be Berthoff (1972)? See the full citation for details. If the version being referenced is the 1972 printing or edition, I think the latter would be correct.

 Done. (No change.) See below. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Should Matthiessen (1941) be Matthiessen (1966)? See the full citation for details. If the version being referenced is the 1966 printing or edition, I think the latter would be correct.

Matthiessen -- it's a reprint, not a revised edition. We need the original date of publication, which shows the reader what the state of knowledge was at that point. So Matthiessen should be 1941, with no need to specify whether it's the tenth or third or fiftieth printing, since they're all the same. If we put "1966" readers would unfairly expect Matthiessen to reflect postwar scholarship.

Likewise Berthoff. If 1972 is a reprint, then no need to mention it. In any case, there could be any number of reprints after either 1966 or 1972 which we don't know about and don't have to. They make no difference to the information cited or the page on which it appears.

Now, if in another case the edition changes the page numbers, as in some paperbacks, that's different because we need to inform the reader what page to look on.ch (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreement on this. Unless it is a new edition with a new preface, etc., then the first printing should be cited as most pertinent. Let me know it the other citations are alright at this time or if I have missed any of them. CodexJustin (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. (No change.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• There is a citation to "Parker (1988)" that has no corresponding full citation.

This is the Northwestern University scholarly edition of the novel here [1]. This link should have all the info. CodexJustin (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Parker 1988 I added a reference for it using the cite encyclopedia template, but couldn't get "Melville" into it. But this may be helpful if you want to tweak it:

Parker, Hershel (1988). "Historical Note". In Hayford, Harrison; Parker, Hershel; Tanselle, G. Thomas (eds.). Moby-Dick, or, the Whale. Evanston; Chicago: Northwestern University Press; Newberry Library. ISBN 0810103249. pp.691-692

 Fixed. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• The Kennedy & Kennedy citations need to be disambiguated.

The citations, 2 of them, are for 2 back to back issues of this quarterly journal published as: Kennedy, Joyce Deveau; Kennedy, Frederick James (February 1978). "Elizabeth and Herman". Melville Society Extracts (33): 4–12. The next issue of this journal #34 contained part 2 of the article. This seems to be documented in the article in its current form. Is this a format inquiry? CodexJustin (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have seen the two K&K articles, but in this WP article, they are cited simply as "Kennedy & Kennedy (1978a)" and "Kennedy & Kennedy (1978b)", and once as "Kennedy & Kennedy (1978)". My job was to format existing citations. I did not want to be the one responsible for deciding which fact was citing which article, and which article should be "article a" and which should be "article b"; I leave that up to editors who are familiar with the content. Let me know if you need help with the formatting once the sources are checked. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

These may be available directly from Hofstra U; the individual volumes were indexed as 33 and 34 here: [2]. CodexJustin (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Chapin 1922: This citation was not complete enough to verify. It appears to be a reprint of OCLC 570291090, originally published by Princeton University Press in 1922. This quote, and the name of the introductory chapter, needs to be verified by someone with access to the source.

Cite info here for reprint (short on-line preview here [3]): 216 pages, Palala Press (November 18, 2015), ISBN-10: 1346749507, ISBN-13: 978-1346749501. CodexJustin (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

CHAPIN Good that you brought attention to this, as it led to correcting the title of Chapin, which is actually John Marr and other Poems, which is a selection of M's poetry (online here, not a reprint of 1888, and fixing a reference to John Marr and Other Sailors (1988). Gnomes rule! (among others) ch (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Hawthorne, entry for 20 November 1856, in The English Notebooks, (1853–1858)" is missing a full citation. This sometimes happens when a brief citation is copied from another article.

This was republished in a separate volume of the collected works cited as: Series: CENTENARY EDITION OF THE WORKS OF NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE (Book 21), 878 pages, Ohio State University Press; 1 edition (February 1, 1997), ISBN-10: 0814206700, ISBN-13: 978-0814206706. CodexJustin (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I am leaving a signature here so that a bot won't sign this section. Any editor is welcome to modify and annotate the above list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I am done converting to short citations, pending resolution of the bulleted items above. Some of those items need research from editors with access to sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Moving toward a Featured Article Nomination

With citation consistency going forward, I think this is what Wugapodes had in mind when he requested it during GAN. It might be nice if CHW and friends might give a some thought to what might be needed at this time for the article to develop further towards a featured article. CHW has been editing for this article for several years and it would be nice to hear comments etc to move the article forward. CodexJustin (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, many thanks to Jonesey95 and CodexJustin for your careful and heroic work -- the article looks much better and readers will benefit.

I will put in my two bits and occasional edits for your consideration. One example of the sort of thing I have in mind is adding that he read Shakespeare more deeply in 1849 not only because he was looking for darker heros (think Ahab) and more powerful language but also because he came across an edition in larger print. I have access to a library that has most of the references, but I can only get there once in a while. I will check some of the references when I can. I assume that we shouldn't make the article any longer. Cheers!ch (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you know of any editors with FA experience that you might be able to get to look at the article for moving it forward? CodexJustin (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, it's great to see the article has made it to GA status! Congrats all MackyBeth (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"Unsuccessful writer" section propose change to "Commercial and critical failure"

Anyone who writes "Benito Cereno," "Bartelby," and Confidence Man is not an unsucessful writer. I propose "Commercial and critical failure" but will wait a while for suggestions before making the change.ch (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about a part of the "Unsuccessful writer" section - is the context of the Day Book as a white supremacist publication important to its attack on Melville? Or is that not relevant? Cerulean Depths (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Domestic abuse by Mellville

I am by no means a Melville scholar, but I was curious as to why the history concerning abuse of his wife and sisters is not mentioned. While I've only read online articles about it:

https://buffalonews.com/news/dark-side-of-herman-melville-stories-passed-down-by-family-show-him-as-monster/article_07e71590-ddb0-5bd6-84bf-88447a257e9f.html#:~:text=Melville%20beat%20Elizabeth%2C%20threw%20her,the%20oldest%20son%2C%20committed%20suicide.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2927436?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://observer.com/2002/06/melville-mystery-cannot-be-stifled-by-new-biography/

these article point toward existence of personal letters that overwhelmingly document the abuse. So, presumably it shouldn't be to hard to find original sources.

I mean, obviously Melville legacy looms large in American letters, but it would seem disingenuous to have zero mention of his behavior on this page.

73.181.103.236 (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello 73.181, and welcome to Wikipedia! This is a long article, and the topic is not absent:

"During this time, Melville was short-tempered because of nervous exhaustion, physical pain, and drinking. He would sometimes mistreat his family and servants in his unpredictable mood swings. Robertson-Lorant compared Melville's behavior to the "tyrannical captains he had portrayed in his novels". In 1867, his oldest son died at home at the age of 18 from a self-inflicted gun shot. Historians and psychologists disagree on if it was intentional or accidental. In May 1867, Lizzie's brother plotted to help her leave Melville without suffering the consequences divorce carried at the time, particularly the loss of all claim to her children. His plan was for Lizzie to visit Boston, and friends would inform Melville she would not come back. To get a divorce, she would then have to bring charges against Melville, asserting her husband to be insane, but she ultimately decided against pursuing a divorce."

Should there be more detail on this? Maybe, I'm not a Melville scholar either. Now, you can either hope that someone does something about this at some point, or you can start editing and see what happens. WP:TUTORIAL is a good place to start, and don't skip the part about referencing, that is essential, especially since this article is considered one of WP:s better efforts, a so called WP:GA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for pointing this out. I made some edits for your consideration. The newspaper reviews are not Reliable Sources, and the Renker article is pretty controversial, so I used the Robertson-Laurent biography, which is eqivocal. She sums it up:

An unsympathetic person might characterize Melville as a failed writer who held a low-level government job, drank too much, heckled his wife unmercifully about the housework, beat her occasionally, and drove the children to distraction with his unpredictable behavior. A sympathetic observer might characterize him as an unappreciated genius, a visionary, an iconoclastic thinker, a sensitive, orphaned American idealist, and a victim of a crude, materialistic society that ate artists and visionaries alive and spat out their bones. He was both, and more.Robertson-Lorant, p. 503-504.

Delbanco isn't much better. Hope this helps. ch (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

In order to add greater depth to our treatment of Melville in this article, shouldn't we make it known that he tried his hand at science fiction with a robot story entitled "The Bell-Tower" (which is, sadly, still redlinked at the moment)? 2605:A000:FFC0:5F:F9BD:9D:B97C:57D4 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)