Talk:Eugene O'Neill/Archives/2013

masks

This sentence in the introduction is fascinating, but not very informative. Can this be expanded into a paragraph explaining its significance? "He was also part of the modern movement to revive the classical heroic mask from ancient Greek theatre and Japanese Noh theatre in some of his plays."--In Defense of the Artist 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This link might help http://www.amrep.org/articles/3_3b/tragic.html In his play "The Great God Brown" the actors don and remove masks to show their characters putting on 'social' masks of character. (83.13.39.98 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

residence

Can anyone put in where he lived from 1944 to 1953? WikiDon 20:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

dillusionment

Does this word exist? It is in the first paragraph.

(DaddyDUS 09:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

_______________________

No it doesn't. The word the author meant to use was Disillusionment.

missing reference

With regards to the "recent research" that has shown Ella's father to have had aremenian roots. Such a close reference to recent research might require a reference. this addition would add credability, otherwise reference to such research is merely heresay.

   Pete_45_67@hotmail.com

Armenian roots?

In the article it says that recent research reveals that he had Armenian roots. Kind of surprising. Does anyone have sources and more information about this? Hakob 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where the Cross is Made

I found no mention of this O'Neill play anywhere on Wikipedia. Does anyone know it? I just read it on a random site.

Vandalism alert!

This article has definitely been vandalized: the 2 examples I found: "O'Neill spent the next few years eating popcorn" and his father "spanked himself to death". This needs to be fixed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.67.131 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks suspicious too that his death is atributed (without refernce) to cerebellar cortical atrophy, which, following the link, seems to be a genetic disease of domesticated animals that does not affect humans. Someone shoudl look into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.95.199 (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The WP article is possibly incorrect. The claim is cited from a page on the Washington University website which is derived from a refereed article, also cited elsewhere: Price, B.H. and Richardson, E.P., "The neurological illness of Eugene O'Neill - A clinicopathological report", The New England Journal of Medicine, April 13, 2000. Philip Cross (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Theater image

The caption for image: "Provincetown Theatre - Van Vechten.jpg" describes it as the place where O'Neill's first play took place. The same image on the Library of Congress has this caption: "The original theater where O'Neill plays were presented was destroyed in 1922. This photograph probably shows the second Wharf Theater." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djhayn (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What was his father's profession?

"Because of his father's profession, O'Neill was sent to a Catholic boarding school where he found his only solace in books."

What is the connection? The sentence doesn't make sense on its own. --Steve (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Wilderness NOT O'Neill's only comedy

At least two of O'Neill's early plays (The Movie Man and Now I Ask You) are clearly comedies. The notion that Ah, Wilderness is the only comedy he wrote is good shorthand for his approach to playwriting, but it's not accurate, and certainly improper for an encyclopedia. Reverting to an inaccuracy is problematic; to do so while labeling the reversion "copy editing & cleanup" is disingenuous. Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have again reverted what must now be considered vandalism, another attempt to alter the facts about O'Neill's writing of multiple comedies. O'Neill's manuscript and published versions of The Movie Man are labeled "a comedy", and every major O'Neill organization, archive, and foundation describes Now I Ask You as a comedy (which makes sense, since it's funny). (The Eugene O'Neill Foundation newsletter: "Now I Ask You, along with The Movie Man, ... is the only surviving comedy from O’Neill’s early years." The New York Times [Aug. 25, 2003]: 'Next year Playwrights Theater will present an unproduced O'Neill comedy, Now I Ask You, a comic spin on Ibsen's Hedda Gabler.") The recurrent reversions of this material despite repeated clarification of the facts can only be considered vandalism or arrogant self-righteousness. I invite commentary from other editors. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked, here and on your talk page, for you either to stop reverting references to O'Neill's other comedies or to explain, at the very least, your reasons for going against all verifiable knowledge and cited information on the matter. Your refusal to discuss is troubling, and leads me to presume some sort of maliciousness or vandalism, which justifies any editor reverting you on this matter.Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tonight I received my first response from Emerson7 in this matter, and all he said was "what on earth are you talking about?" I posted the following to his talk page: What on earth am I talking about? I have attempted for several months now to get you to discuss your wholesale deletions of cited material that contradicts your uninformed position that Ah Wilderness is O'Neill's ONLY comedy. I have posted detailed material refuting your position on your talk page and on the O'Neill discussion page. Your utter refusal, until now, even to respond to the situation (except to revert cited material) has led me to believe you must either have a personal agenda or be a troll or vandal. To save you the effort, here is what I posted on the O'Neill discussion page over the past few months. If I seem increasingly angry, it is because of your insistence on reverting without discussion. I have never wished this to be confrontational, yet have been unable to understand your reasoning as anything but passively-aggressive or malicious. I presume the former, at this point, but am still hopeful of a decent discussion.Monkeyzpop (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Emerson7 continues to do what must be considered vandalism at this point, deleting references to O'Neill's other comedies in order to promote the false notion that O'Neill only wrote one comedy. He does this even while leaving intact citations which refer to O'Neill's other comedies. He continues to refuse to discuss the matter. Reverting. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable references state he has had other comedies, so the wording should state that. I don't know enough about O'Neill to add any more to the conversation, but I agree about the wording needing to state that. TJ Spyke 21:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty silly dispute. Wording is clear here: saying it is his only "well-known" comedy is good compromise. Emerson7 simply must engage in discussion here as a sign of good faith. Referring to Monkeyzpop's edits as vandalism in edits summaries is, clearly, inappropriate. I suggest a full protection on this article until discussion commences. If Emerson7 is not interested in discussing, then he should not be interested in making any contributions to this article; after all, collaboration is the central tenet of this Wikipedia experiment. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you midnightdreary for you pompous and pedantic contributions. however, we actually there has been discussion on the individual talk pages, and had you bothered to take a look, you would have seen that the issues is with executing wholesale reverts of edits that are not in dispute. --emerson7 23:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I had taken a look, Emerson7, and I'll note that you are now making personal attacks (I'll let it go, though I am sorry that you saw anything pompous here). That, and your unwillingness to have public discussion rather than private ones despite requests to do so could both easily be taken as a lack of good faith. If the discussion was really about "executing wholesale reverts", you were guilty of the same by continuously re-adding disputed information, even if veiled among a few other minor edits (and marked as reverting vandalism!?!). Nevertheless, now that you're here, let's move forward. As a neutral party, I'd like to ask: what can we agree to do here? --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Exact spot of birth all that relevant?

Come on, do we really need to know he was born inside a Starbucks cafe, and that there is a plaque there, right at the top of the article. Shouldn't that kind of information be mentioned closer to the end of the article, after the more relevant stuff has been covered? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's interesting info but, I agree, it somewhat gets in the way of starting the article. Maybe a new section on "Legacy" that talks about the marker for his birthplace, his National Historic Site, and other methods of honoring him? --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Illness and death

"in 1956 Carlotta arranged for his autobiographical masterpiece Long Day's Journey Into Night to be published" does not agree with her stated year of death "Carlotta Monterey (1929-1953)". As the play's own page suggests that the arrangement took place 3 years after O'Neill's death, and that he died in 1953, then Monterey's year of death may be wrong. ... Googling shows the latter to be the case. I will update it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.141.33.241 (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't her life dates, they're the marriage dates.Monkeyzpop (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)