Talk:Mark Twain/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

POV-pushing

User:Dale-DCX had made edits to various articles that changed the wording "...is an American..." to "...is a...from the United States of America". This sounds very stilted. The user claims that he's disambiguating "American" with other states on the American continent, but this argument is specious. The word "American" in the article already wikilinked to the United States article, so there's no chance of confusion, and as far as I'm aware no citizen of any other country call themselves "American" in normal discourse. They call themselves Canadian, Mexican, Venezuelan, Brazilian, Costa Rican, Argentine, etc. DHN (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You really are not getting it are you? I never mentioned citizens of countries state themselves as American. I stated anyone or anything from America (continent(s)) is American. Nothing to do with individual states. Just as a Briton is a European, a Mexican is an American. No Mexican is going to claim they are from a different continent than America, well, unless they have no clue what continent they are on.

The Wikilink may go to the United States of America, but at face-value it is not clear if Mark Twain is a citizen of the United States of America, or a person from America. Dale-DCX (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ida thunk that this question was thrashed out long ago, but I can't find anything. If Dale really wants to change this, he'll probably have to change 5,000 other articles as well, so why not go through some sort of process? Both POVs are understandable to me, but they are both POVs. As I said, I can't find anything in the rule books. Why not start out with Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) and see where they send you? Remember WP:AGF Smallbones (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be more than willing to change all of the articles with this ambiguous element. Well, with some help of course. I should think there is no POV here whatsoever. Just wanting to make things as clear as possible. Dale-DCX (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. The expression "an American" refers only to a citizen of the United States of America. No one else qualifies. Others may like to think of themselves as Americans, but they're mistaken. If you doubt that, ask the rest of the 305 million citizens of the USA.JGC1010 (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an extreme view we needn't espouse in this article. I'm all for using the term 'American' to signify 'citizen of the United States of America' as long as a) it's historically accurate within the context and b) it's wikilinked to the United States of America. Note that Mexico's formal name translates to United States of Mexico, so there's another pitfall to avoid... Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Citizens of the United States are the only ones who regularly and consistently refer to themselves as Americans. From German to Japanese, the word for American is derivative of American. While from a continental and hemispheric perspective, individuals living in Canda or Colombia, may call themselves American, but those who do fall into a rather pitiful minority. Hands down, the term American is used, and virtually always refers, to citizens of the United States. Lets not ignore common convention and use in exchange for being overly sensitive to a usage that is much less popular, used, or common. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 13:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Extreme or not, it's the real deal. A citizen of the United States of America is an American. Citizens/subjects of any other country don't qualify. If they call themselves Americans, they're wrong. If you don't like it, don't interfere in something you're not.JGC1010 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't assume... You think I'm not American? Strike one. Benjamin Franklin did this country a great deal of good when he started calling all the colonists "Americans". It helped them pull together. Mark Twain writes as an American in the same vein. I have no problem with that, but I also have an objective viewpoint that acknowledges the rest of the world. We have wikilinked 'American' to 'United State', as is appropriate. That's enough for me. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

Samuel Clemens High School in Scertz, TX is also named after this author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.129.126 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry

First of all the citation listed as a 'reference' for his freemasonry is an *original research paper* that is disallowed on wikipedia. Also, if one goes to that page, even the author says: "No paper or biography about this Missouri Freemason would be complete without one of Mark Twain's famous stories. Here is one -- truth or fiction -- you be the judge."

And the second reference is some site dedicated to Freemasonry (hardly neutral on the matter).

So I ask that someone look into this.

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.201.30 (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, about you comment regarding the second citation. That's actually a webpage run by the Freemasons. If one were to cite the US Government's own webpage listing a man by the name of James Garfield as being the 20th President of the United States, would you claim the page is biased since it's not from a neutral source on the matter? Who would be a neutral source? The webpage of the government of another nation? If so, where did they get their information? Some old documentation from the US Government? Oh, but that's not a neutral source is it? Primary sources aren't meant to be neutral. Granted, the Freemasons have this whole reputation - whether it's deserved or not - for secrecy and deception. So why would one believe one of their web pages? Well, quite simply because they ARE the primary source for such matters. Anything else is likely to be original research, short of finding some kind of correspondence from Mark Twain mentioning it. Oh but then Mark Twain isn't a neutral source, since he was involved and is therefore biased on the subject. 24.254.163.150 (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ranks as a FreeMason

The article states that he was initiated into Free Masonry on May 22nd, 1861 and became as Master Mason on July 10th, 1861... Are we really to believe that he went from initiate to master in just under 3 weeks? Seems a little far fetched... I'm not debating that he wasn't a Mason or that he attained those ranks, just I find the time frame of 19 days to be a tad suspicious. 24.254.163.150 (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Master Mason" is generally used for a "Third Degree Mason." The first degrees are quite rapid. 19 days was not unheard of around the time of the Civil War. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E7DC143BF933A25753C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all states some Masonic lodges can grant Master Mason status in a single day. Collect (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Twain was a Freemason.[65][66] He belonged to Polar Star Lodge No. 79 A.F.&A.M., based in St. Louis. He was initiated an Entered Apprentice on May 22, 1861, passed to the degree of Fellow Craft on June 12, and raised to the degree of Master Mason on July 10." There are no ranks in Freemasonry only degrees, and there is no higher degree in Freemasonry than that of Master Mason. The numbers attributed to the degrees are only representative of the order in which they are received. Additional degrees in the two main Masonic appendant bodies, i.e., the York Rite and Scottish Rite, have no significance to 'rank' or heirarchy. Once one becomes a Master Mason, they may attend Lodge and ballot on proposals, much like being a full fledged member of any organization. The degrees in Freemasonry comprise moral and spiritual lessons for living in society and that is their intent and purpose. Freemasonry and its appendant bodies and various affiliated organizations are involved in many philanthropic endeavors. Masonic Officers hold their office for a year, they are elected to their positions and serve primarily as administrators for their individual Lodges and Grand Lodges. Samuel Clemen's progression from Entered Apprentice to Fellowcraft in three weeks and then from Fellowcraft to Master Mason in four weeks is typical. Many Grand Lodge jurisdictions offer one day conferrals for all three degrees in this day and age. Additionally, a Grand Master may at his discretion confer the status of Master Mason to a person 'on sight' although this is an exceptionally rare occurance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HopefulRomantic (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism?

Does anyone have any citations that back up the assertion that Twain was vegetarian? Citation #54 under "Vivisection and vegetarianism" only mentions his opposition to vivisection, not to eating meat. I've read several biographies, etc. of Twain, and none mention vegetarianism--while it wouldn't be wholly out of character for him, it does seem a bit radical.Edgbeatles (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In Twain's letters he writes to his friends and family about meals taken with famous personages and in tale-worthy locations where he's eating all manner of meats including tripe, beefsteak, sausage, bacon and probably more I haven't yet found. It's certainly enough to allow us to delete the word vegetarian from this article. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious Stranger

I think the two mentions of the Mysterious Stranger could be improved by removing the descriptive clauses attached to them. In the first instance--"Of these works, The Mysterious Stranger, which places the presence of Satan, also known as “No. 44,” in various situations where the moral sense of humankind is absent, is perhaps the best known."-- the clauses describing the book are confusing in their vagueness and clumsiness. But more importantly, saying that Satan exists "in various situations where the moral sense of humankind is absent" is not quite true. For one, it leads to reader to believe that this is THE Satan, and not his nephew, and more importantly in the novel it is not the absence of "moral sense" that is the problem, it is the presence. That is, throughout the work, Satan discusses the problematic nature of morality by demonstrating how its presence leads to undesirable consequences. In the Second instance--"The anti-religious The Mysterious Stranger was published in 1916, although there is some scholarly debate as to whether Twain actually wrote the most familiar version of this story"--the claim that scholars debate whether or not Twain wrote the piece, is false, though it is clear what the author meant to say. The debate does not concern whether or not he wrote the material, but how it was edited from the three manuscripts. No one doubts he wrote the material; it is merely a question of the nature of the editing process. This would be a trivial concern, except that as the sentence reads (within the context of the paragraph on his religious views) it implies that the doubt of authorship might counteract the work's anti-religious contents, that such contents are from another source. That is not true; and, moreover, such anti-religious sentiments are consistent with much of his work, especially his later writings. So, I think those two sentences should be changed. It would not be hard to do; simply remove the descriptive clauses and the sentences work fine. I am not allowed to do so as the page is semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.84.43 (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies yet I feel I must interject with Twain in this regard. Somehow it seems that the John Common layperson and Marble Palace prat seem to both be missing the mark, with Twain. Mr. Clemen's detractors oft misperceive his humor for sincerity, and his serious note of integrity as joke no less. On a more personal note, and no I don't feel the need for reference, Mr. Twain was quite the admiring fan of James Cooper, no less, that he pointed out some err in season, taking to heart kippling reason.

Racism

What about his racism ? See s:Roughing It/Chapter XIX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.70.190 (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.24.68 (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Twain paid the costs at Yale for a black student. Hardly the act of a racist. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt2/257-258.pdf Collect (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Practically everybody living in the 19th century would be considered a racist by modern standards; it doesn't make sense to single out and describe a specific person as a racist, however, unless they were more racist than the average background level for their time and place. Twain, as Collect points out, was rather less so. --Jim Henry (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe you mean to say that most Americans living in the 19th century could be considered racist by today's standards - remember that les États Unis were not everyone's second-best friends back then. Only the parts of the world that at that time had a great deal of human trade going on really had the chance to be racist. This would exclude a large amount of inner eurasian countries which, even then, had great populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asperger, he'll know. (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Slavery existed at one time or another in every "inner eurasian country." Ethnic Cleansing (genocide) was a going concern in that Utopia of yours right into the 21st Century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.149.173 (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Including Russia etc. (emancipated in 1861 officially, continued for a long time afterwards), Turkey (while the slave market was closed in 1847, slavery continued on in the Ottoman Empire until well into the 20th century) and the Middle East, China, India etc. well into the 20th century (800,000 slaves still in Myanmar according to some reports). Slavery was found in Native American culture etc. as well. Collect (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bartlett's quotations

I've heard that Twain was not in Bartlett's quoations until after his death. Does anyone know how to verify this? RJFJR (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure this really matters for Wikipedia, but Twain is represented in the 10th edition which came out in 1914 (four years after his death). The previous edition was released much earlier in 1891 and in my quick search online and in the library in which I work, I haven't been able to find a copy of it. However, though he was famous by 1891, I wouldn't really be surprised if he wasn't represented in that edition, as much of his most famous work was at that time less than 15 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.84.43 (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans

The given reference emphasises that we don't know Twain's actual views on the topic Tedickey (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This so called "quote" is undoubtedly Mark Twain's assertion of the common thoughts and notions of the day and was undoubted taken by the very people he despised and turned into a quote and to being presented as his own feelings regarding Native Americans, as he so often speaks in second and third person. -- Rather than the norm for the day, which he was not. -- There is no chance whatsoever that this is an actual quote of Mark Twain's true feelings or anything he said except possibly as a demonstration of those around him! Something like the swell hearted patriots and there saving the lives of those they slaughtered. -- Tom Bunnell—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.171.249 (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If the above is the case, why not find any of the other evidence in support of his liberal views towards Native Americans and expand this section? I do not say that you are right or wrong on the subject; I simply suggest that, rather than simply disputing the neutrality of the section, you add research to clarify the matter. Srajan01 (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mark Twain's essay (NOT FICTION) entitled "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offences" has numerous examples of Mr. Twain respecting Native Americans; indeed, Mr. Twain gives Native Americans considerable more respect than the subject of the essay. This is but one sample:

"Did the Indians notice that there was going to be a tight squeeze there? Did they notice that they could make money by climbing down out of that arched sapling and just stepping aboard when the ark scraped by? No, other Indians would have noticed these things, but Cooper's Indians never notice anything. Cooper thinks they are marvelous creatures for noticing, but he was almost always in error about his Indians. There was seldom a sane one among them."

So, not only does Mr. Twain explicitly state that most Native American's are sane, he also suggests they are much more intelligent than Mr. Cooper gives them credit for in his novel. The fact that this agitated Mr. Twain is a testament to his fundamental sense of fairness and is reinforced by many of Mr. Twain's quotes regarding humanity.

There are passages in Roughing It very harsh toward one particular Indian tribe, but at the same time pretty respectful toward most or all of the other tribes he'd had any experience with. And a later passage where he writes about some Indians leaving an area ahead of a flood, and being disbelieved when they explained why, by white men who regretted it a few days later when they were trapped in a house on high ground by the same flood the Indians had predicted. --Jim Henry (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-capitalist?

I'm going to remove that quote again. Twain certainly identified with the poor and the workers, but to say he was an "anti-capitalist" seems to be going way too far; to be concerned for social justice does not necessitate opposing the capitalist system. The source for this is an article in the "International Socialist Review" ([1]), which is clearly a biased source in making such a statement. Much of the article provides valuable quotes that back up Twain's anti-imperialist stance and his sympathies for the oppressed, but there is no evidence presented that he was an "anti-capitalist." Simple attribution isn't enough for a claim to be made in WP; the source has to be reliable, as well. While I think that WP:RS would indicate that the International Socialist Review is not a reliable source at all, at the least it is not "third-party": it has a stake in the information being presented (i.e., it is advantageous to present Mark Twain, a popular and respected figure and thinker, as a socialist). No? Korossyl (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I'm sympathetic to your view that calling Twain "anti-capitalist" seems far-fetched. But it's not just that that article calls him anti-capitalist, but they have at least one quote from him which seems to back that up. Now, while they're certainly not going to be a great source for neutral views, I don't see any reason to believe that they made up the quotes.

Anyway, maybe there's a better way to say it than the current article phrasing, but I don't like the idea of getting rid of something like that because it "feels wrong" when it's attributed. Cretog8 (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what quote? I looked through the article (searched for quotation marks, too), and while there were a lot on the anti-imperialist side, I didn't find any at all for him being an anti-capitalist. I could've missed one, easy... Twain being an "outspoken anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist" is from the article's writer itself (fourth paragraph, second line), and I don't think the claim should be taken at face value coming from this particular source. If there were any Twain quotes, though, I'd be all in favor of leaving it in; I just didn't see any that backed up anti-capitalism. Korossyl (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I searched for "capital", which worked better than searching for quotes in this case because it was a block-quote:

Who are the oppressors? The few: the King, the capitalist, and a handful of other overseers and superintendents. Who are the oppressed? The many: the nations of the earth; the valuable personages; the workers; they that make the bread that the soft-handed and idle eat.

Cretog8 (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, and I was sure I had looked through the block quotes, too. Well, that's a pretty unassailable argument, there... I think the best thing would be to actually add that into the article; there are a number of quotes already sprinkled around there. He was quite clearly an anti-capitalist, then, but I think the point would be better made if the evidence was presented upfront, no? Thanks for the info! Korossyl (talk)

22:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Twain invested large amounts of money in a typesetting machine with the goal of making money. He also invested in book publishing. By any measure he was a capitalist, albeit not too successful at it. His wife's family was unabashedly capitalist, making their money in railroads. Collect (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sequel?

In 1872, Twain published a second piece of travel literature, Roughing It, as a semi-sequel to Innocents.

Shouldn't this be "prequel", if we're going to assert any such relationship between the books? --Jim Henry (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sit by Me Statue of Mark Twain on Bench

I think the artist should be given credit in this article. His name is Gary Price. He lives in Springville UT.

I LOVE this statue. We have one by the library in our town and I frequently just sit beside him. The book he is reading The Adventures of Huck Finn

I hope you can add this piece of information to your article. ~AnnieofBlueGables 30 Oct 2008

If you can provide a reliable source verifying that Mr. Price is indeed the artist, then his name might be added to the caption below the picture of the statue ("...by Gary Price"). There needs to be a verifiable source, however, not original research.--JayJasper (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The version where he's reading a book isn't verified at the Gary Lee Price webpage. There, it appears that Twain is standing behind a park bench along with Becky Thatcher at the side of the bench and Tom Sawyer who is sitting. The style is very similar to "Sit By Me" but not enough to prove authorship just from appearance. The Houston elementary school statue must have a plaque that can be photographed; if it includes the name of the sculptor that would be enough evidence. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Aphorisms

The text of the opening says "He is also known for his quotations."

That's not quite the right word. When others quote his words, they're quotations. When Clemens himself made them, they were aphorisms. He wasn't (usually) quoting anybody else. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And many things attributed to him, were said by someone else. My rule: "If you say something sufficiently witty and clever, someone else will immediately attribute it to Mark Twain." Collect (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

influence by Cervantes

A quick google around found only random comments of the sort found in student's term papers (and blogs) - no reliable sources. Also, the twainquotes.com url seems out of place here, since there's no indication on the webpage how it relates to the "influenced by" section. Tedickey (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I've taken Cervantes out, along with the tags and the dubious reference. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

China controversy

The use of the term "Mark Twain China Missionary" etc. is not supported by any reliable source.Collect (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in contending for the the term, and am open to another short-hand way of referring to it.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

The article about to the person sitting in darkness does not mention Ament at all. Collect (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what your problem has been. The cite given previously was to an expurgated version. The unexpurgated version of Twain's article "To the Person Sitting in Darkness", 25% of the article refers to the Indemnities Controversy. Ament is mentioned specifically by name 8 times - 3 times in newspaper articles quoted in full by Twain, and another 5 times by Twain himself.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

There is, if anything, a bit of coatracking going on. The arguments about the missionaries included a great many people, not just Mark Twain. Collect (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following your argument here. Sorry. Other people certainly became involved in the controversy - but it was Twain and Ament who are both central to the controversy. It was Twain's initial February 1901 article in the North Atlantic Review that fanned the controversy into flame, and his subsequent April 1901 follow-up article "To My Missionary Critics", which references Ament in the subtitle and again repeatedly in the article, that kept the controversy alive. Almost all Twain biographies consulted reference Ament and this controversy, as it is one of the first public attacks on Christianity by Twain published.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

The article is not primarily about the Philippine-American War, but rather is a polemic against imperialism (check Twain scholars referenced in both Ament and Controversy articles), using the situation in China, South Africa and the Philippines as examples. The missionaries (specifically Ament and his colleagues) are seen as agents of imperialism.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

Also, it looks like the material properly belongs in the anti-imperialism section, not in the religion section in the first place. I shall trust you shall move the material to the appropriate section. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have no major objections, inasmuch as Twain himself primarily saw it as an example of imperialism, but the negative reactions to his initial article were primarily from religious sources, and his subsequent article was almost exclusively focused on the morality of looting, indemnities and the missionaries' leadership. So, while the origins were (in Twain's mind) anti-imperialistic, the controversy quickly became religious in nature. Again, I am not sufficiently vested in whetre in the article it should be placed.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)).

Anent this, I would think "China missionary indemnity controversy" would be a reasonable name for an article (capitalizing every word implies that it is a title in common usage, which it is not), and add the comments of the others who were involved (Twain was far from the only person to be sure). Collect (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the Twain WP article, your suggestion would be fine, as long as there was a link to the Controversy article

However, outside the context of the Twain WP article, removal of any reference to Twain would make the title less helpful. Your suggested title would encompass far more than the article currently covers. It would involve the Roman Catholic Church and others. In fact, it would be a subset of the whole indemnities debate within the context of the aftermath of the Boxer Uprising.

I would prefer his theological discourses be found under "religion" if anyone can actually come up with a guaranteed correct version of what he meant <g>. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)