Talk:Stephen King/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Text before August 2004

I changed most of these titles back from "Stephen King/*" to "*" because most of the titles are distinctive enough that they don't need any further clarification, and having to type the "Stephen King/" bit to link to them is cumbersome. I did leave "Carrie" as "Stephen King/Carrie" because of the novel by Theodor Dreiser by the same name; I also left "Danse Macabre" further clarified because of the actual dance. "The Shining" does not need to be further clarified because the term is one Stephen King made up himself, and the movie is of course based on the book, with insufficient variation (IMHO) to warrant separate entries. Of course someone later can come in and prove me wrong with two detailed entries. "Stand By Me" is "Rob Reiner/Stand by Me" because of the song by Ben E. King which the movie gets its title from.

---

I have put in a number of write-ups for his novels as subpages to Stephen King, and will continue to do so. Putting some of them as subpages and some outside seems very stupid.

The books are clearly by King, so they're not a problem. The films could be listed separately if desired, since they're not the creation of one person. I haven't written about any of the films at any length, though. --Pinkunicorn

---

"Putting some of them as subpages and some outside seems very stupid."

Well then, that's neither the first nor the last stupid idea I've had. I don't think there's any argument that the novels are by Stephen King; my point was that most have distinctive enough titles that it's not necessary to make them subpages, especially since most of them have also penetrated the culture enough that further identification is not necessary (for instance, Cujo, The Shining, The Stand, etc.) I took exception with Carrie, as I said, because of the Dreiser novel. I imagine you must want to make The Taming of the Shrew a subpage of William Shakespeare.  :-) --KQ

---

If I did the Shakespeare pages from scratch I probably would, yes. Someone would surely put up redirects all over the place for me. ;-) I promise I won't be moving any Shakespeare stuff around, though.

For King, I think there are interesting things to say about the film versions as compared to the novels, so having a separate set of pages for the films is good. There tends to be differences in plot (perhaps this problem is smaller with Shakespeare). Also, the films are made by lots and lots of people so it's not as obvious what person/entity to put it under. Perhaps the director? Perhaps the screenwriter? Perhaps the author of the novel it is based on (if there is one)?

• Titles of films is generally going to be a problem. Year doesn't always work because sometimes two movies come out the same year with the same title, different directors, and entirely different plots. I'll have to look for examples later; I've run across plenty while searching for something on IMDb. Listing the director will usually help, for instance The Fugitive (John Ford) vs. The Fugitive (Andrew Davis); but then not always, for instance (and this is uncommon) The Man Who Knew Too Much (Alfred Hitchcock) vs. The Man Who Knew Too Much (Alfred Hitchcock). Anyway, I would say the best bet is to differentiate by director, not year, since the director does usually have the most say about what does and does not make it into the film--though there are of course exceptions, for instance when the director does not have final cut and the studio, convinced it has a turkey on its hands, steps in to blandify the script as much as possible, insert generic sex scenes and a pat happy ending, maybe a few explosions, etc. Various wikipedians could write probably 30 pages on this phenomenon in re: Brazil (Terry Gilliam) and Dune (David Lynch).

(Unrelated: KQ, when you add content, why do you flag it as a minor edit so it doesn't show up in the changes list? I just found this by accident.)

• bad habit. To me, minor edit is usually anything short of a new topic or complete rewrite, though I'm trying to make it a habit to leave the box alone any time I add more than ten lines of content. --KQ

---

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Wiki community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

( While his later works have tended to be not to my taste, he wrote some of the best horror stories I've ever read... he'll be missed. KJ

I haven't been able to track this down on any news sites. -- Tarquin 06:33 Aug 7, 2002 (PDT)

There's nothing about it here (yet?): http://www.nytimes.com/pages/obituaries/index.html --KQ 06:38 Aug 7, 2002 (PDT)

Nope, and the history for this page says: "10:24 Apr 11, 2002 . . 62.98.143.205 (Sad day... Stephen King dead)". I think we'd have heard by now. -- Tarquin

---

amazon.com doesn't have Umney's Last Case, The New Lieutenant's Rap, Secret Windows, or Six Stories in their database. Are these the prose equivalent of vaporware?

Those are listed under his "works" section at stephenking.com, so I doubt it. Koyaanis Qatsi 23:20, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

King's Style

It would be great if somebody more knowledgeable than me could write a bit about King's style, his recurring themes, etc. 82.82.147.82 20:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

King's On Writing would be useful as a reference. There's also a list of books in the Books about Stephen King article that might help.

On a side note, there is need for better chronological order in the Biography section, as well as more info on the early and middle points of his career. I also think we should arrange the sections a bit better. Not to brag or anything like that, but I think the article on Chuck Palahniuk that I wrote might serve as a good guideline for how we could better set up this article. Of course, that is just my opinion. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 22:26, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thandeka?

Naomi recently (2000) married her longtime girlfriend Thandeka, who is a school teacher, in Tennessee.

What is this? Is Thandeka male or female? I assume Naomi is female? Are they lesbians? If so how can they be married, particularly in tennesee? Sam [Spade] 11:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thandeka was Naomi's theological professor. Both are both female, and lesbians. They shared a "ceremony of union", not a state-sanctioned wedding.

Wow, thats amazing stuff! What religion was it that conducted the "ceremony of union"? Does Mr. King have any opinions on this? Any extra info whatsoever? Sam [Spade] 15:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And the 'amazing' part is what? mat_x 19:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't follow, sorry? If you have more info, it will be appreciated :) Sam [Spade] 01:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nor I. I was wondering if you could explain your glee, and then perhaps it will help me to become less hardened and cynical. mat_x 09:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lesbians make me happy, as do embarrassments for celebrities, as does reading wacky stuff about people I pay attention to. I just got done reading the dark tower series by this guy, so finding this out makes me raise an eyebrow. I also want photos, if you know where I can find em. Sam [Spade] 03:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A photo of Thandeka can be found here. A photo of Naomi can be found here. Adalger 13:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above comments by Sam Spade are off-topic. Wikipedia:Talk pages says you should talk about the article, not about the subject. Secondly, there is no requirement to have the "they are lesbians" comment in the article just because you like lesbians. Stop reverting it and let it be. After all, readers can understand that through context. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 23:57, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I simply can't see why it isn't on topic. The article read that King's daughter "married" her girlfriend. Because gay marriage is not legal in her state, Sam questioned the wording, and rightly, because as it stood, it is POV in the worst way. The further discussion was to establish the exact facts in the matter and to answer the question Mat posed.

Thats a good summary of my position. I also think a pic of Thandeka and Kings daughter together would make a cool addition to the article. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Off topic convo

I refer you to this article to help increase your understanding of possible uses of talk pages as means to strengthen community. Perhaps you truly feel that deleting someone else's discussion helps further the community spirit. I respectfully suggest that next time you feel someone has veered off topic, you use their talk page to suggest that they withdraw their comments or take them off-page and not seek to impose your views.Dr Zen 03:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't delete the parts about the article; I deleted the later parts that discussed his love for lesbians. Secondly, I edited the article to better explain it (yes Sam, that many words are needed to make the concept of civil unions understood) and Sam reverted my edit just so he could have his "they are lesbians" line in there. He isn't showing concern for the article, he's showing concern for his opinion.
And you, Dr Zen, should keep in mind that there is a rule that says you can delete flaming on the talk pages. Saying Perhaps you truly feel that deleting someone else's discussion helps further the community spirit to me doesn't sound like you are trying to handle this maturely and without malice. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:31, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, dude, but if you feel that discussing whether King's daughter is a lesbian is "flaming", we have one more issue we disagree on. I'm content to allow you your opinion and don't see the value in discussing it further.Dr Zen 03:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are flaming. Saying Perhaps you truly feel that deleting someone else's discussion helps further the community spirit, a comment that attempts to put words in my mouth, is a flame. You have been insulting me for no reason for the last few days while hypocritically claiming to uphold the community spirit of the encyclopedia. I don't know what your problem is with me, but it has to stop. Quit flaming me every time you talk to me or I'm getting an administrator involved. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 04:08, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hey guys, chill out. Please take this to your personal talk pages, or refer to Wikipedia:Conflict resolution if needed (I really don't think that is, but whatever). This page is for talking about Stephen King, not to argue about policy and flaming and whatever else. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tried taking it to the personal talk pages, but he isn't willing to listen. Furthermore, the rules say that flaming is supposed to be deleted from talk pages. However, I didn't want to get yelled at again for deleting something from here, so I decided to discuss it first. Unfortunately, now I'm in a catch-22 that if I discuss it I'm off-topic but if I delete it I'm being too forceful. So I'm open to suggestion as to what I should be doing about Dr Zen harassing me, because I've tried what's been recommended so far and nothing has worked. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 18:12, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

When all else fails, try Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please stop deleting mention of Naomi and Thandeka being lesbians

If you review the talk page, you will clearly see I was so confused by the suggestion of their relationship without clarification that I wasn't even sure of their genders. Naomi is almost always female, but thandeka? It ends in a vowel, but... There is absolutely no reason to cover up info like that, its downright unhelpful. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my edit I wrote "a civil union, since they are a lesbian couple". This better explains the situation, since "ceremony of union" does not explicitly stae what the ceremony was (could be assumed to be marriage), and I also mention their sexuality. In my opinion, this better helps a confused reader, who would probably be more confused about the ceremony than the sexuality of the couple. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 18:12, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I prefered "ceremony of union", since thats what the anon who seemed to know something said. For all I know, he was wrong, and Thandeka is a man ;) (wouldn't that be funny...). Anyhow, in reviewing the edit history just now I saw [1]. Moving right along, does anybody have a reference for any of this Thandeka business? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That was an entirely different situation. That person deleted an on-topic comment, not an off-topic one. If he had deleted an off-topic comment, it might have been ok, but he didn't. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 02:11, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

This [2] seems to verify "ceremony of union", rather than "civil union". [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Congratulations to Thandeka and Naomi King, who will be joined in a service of holy union on June 20 in Nashville at the UUA General Assembly"[3].

I think its safe to assume they did not have a civil union, at this point. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yep, Civil unions arn't legal in Tennessee, from the looks of it. Only a few places allow them, see Civil Union. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I changed the sentence a bit to make it sound better, while still being clear on Thandeka's gender. I didn't like the "(they are lesbians)" phrase; it sounds like something a person would whisper behind their hand. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 23:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seems acceptable to me, and if they have any further questions, they can always come to the talk page. Good job Lachatdelarue, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 01:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"ceremony of union"

We don't put quotes around other ceremonies, so no need for quotes around "ceremony of union." Rhobite 01:50, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Other ceremonies are well defined though. Our only knowledge of this one is through a quote. What is a "ceremony of union"? I know they danced down the "aisle"? Was there a church? Was it blessed by a minister? Do you see? It's all very unclear. Without the quotes there is a suggestion that this was a standardised form of ceremony. Do you know that it is? Can you point to a description of its form? I'm replacing the quotes until this can be cleared up.Dr Zen 02:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But with the quotes, the sentence is dismissive and IMO, borderline homophobic. The quotation marks imply sarcasm and derision. Unitarian marriage ceremonies are, as a rule, not standardized. That's no reason for treating them differently from any other ceremony. Rhobite 02:31, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

But you understand that without them the implication is clearly there that this is a civil union? By unquotemarking "union" the suggestion is clearly there that this is broadly an acceptable form of union. My personal view is that it is, but of course, my view is not what I put forward in articles! Could it perhaps just say they were joined in a Universal Unitarian "ceremony"? BTW, my dico has for ceremony "a formal act or series of acts prescribed by ritual, protocol, or convention". If the "marriage ceremonies" of Unitarians are not set out in ritual or protocol, and do not have a conventional form, the word "ceremony" seems entirely misplaced.Dr Zen 03:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the quotations should go. The use of quote does seem to say that it's not a "real" ceremony (see my point?). And yes, there was a church, and yes it was blessed by a minister (a UUA is a church, and whoever officiated was a minister of that church). [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 03:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've explained why I don't think it was a ceremony and why I believe we should not use the word union naked, as it were. Could you supply details of the ritual concerned? Anyone can invent a church, dude, but that doesn't give them the keys to the concept box. What is wrong with my suggestion of a compromise? I offer you ceremony without quotes but union goes. It's quite reasonable. Personally, I'm all for getting married in whatever form you choose and I have absolutely no problem with lesbians, but I feel that we should encompass both POVs.Dr Zen 03:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree w Dr Zen, until we have some coherant idea of what a "ceremony of union" is, it needs the quotes. I put the quotes there btw, since I didn't know what the heck a "ceremony of union" was, and still don't What I do know is what its not. Its not a marraige, and its not a civil union. I am assuming it has no legal basis whatsoever, and is probably meaningful only within the unitarian church. Until we can clarify what meaning it has to them for ourselves, we can't very well expect the reader to know what were refering to. How about somebody researches it, and creates a ceremony of union article. Otherwise, standard practice is to put curious or unorthadox terms into quotes, to let the reader know we arn't suggesting that is a proper term for what is being refered to. Taking the UU POV as our own is somethjing I am unwilling to do, and besides, its POV. And leave this "homophobia" (quotes because thats a pseudoscience term) bunk out of this, nobody is being homophobic, were being encyclopedic. Accuracy is our mission, not promoting curious and unexplained rituals. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image

The photo formerly illustrating this article is being removed as a copyright problem. Below reccomendations from WP:PUI on possible replacements:

• • replace with this its his official uncopyrighted press head shot. Alkivar 03:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • or even this its a Fair Use image from a public funded college newspaper. Alkivar 03:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • and if your doing historical work on him his yearbook photos. Alkivar 03:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pseudonyms?

Searching in Amazon turned up no books by "George Stark" or "John Swithen."

The bibliography on King's official website mentions one short story ("The Fifth Quarter") as by "John Swithen," and nothing as by "George Stark."

Does anyone have any evidence of books by either, or of anything as by "Stark?"

If not, then I recommend that the sentence:

Stephen King has written a few books or short stories under the names John Swithen and George Stark (the name of the pseudonym in The Dark Half) as well.

be emended to read:

Stephen King has also written at least one short story under the name John Swithen. Sturgeonslawyer 22:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nobody seemed to object so I went ahead and did it. Sturgeonslawyer 15:33, 6 Apr 2005 (PDST)

Political Leanings

Mr. King has donated fairly large sums of money to the Democratic Party. Where would be a good place to mention his politics? --BDD 03:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bryan Smith

We seem to have an inconsistency on Wikipedia. According to this article Bryan Smith committed suicide, yet in the Bryan Smith article itself, "In September 2000, Smith was discovered dead in his trailer. His cause of death was listed as an accidental overdose of the painkiller fentanyl, according to toxicology reports." is the text. Which is correct? Djbrianuk 18:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The Mist

It seems to me that The Mist was dropped from the bibliography. But why? --Targi 15:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Because it is a short story, not a book. It appears in one of his anthologies. -- LGagnon 18:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I have already realized my mistake, thanks. It is in the Skeleton Crew. --Targi 22:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Dutch link

Shouldn't the link to the Dutch site be in the Dutch version of the article instead of this one? It isn't much use to someone who speaks only English, and would likely only be used by those who visit the Dutch version of this article. -- LGagnon June 30, 2005 12:51 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are many collectors out there (also for other writers) who are looking for foreign editions of the books from their favorite writer. At least, I often receive mail with that kind of requests.

Popular Culture

Do we really need to list his appearances on Family Guy and The Simpsons? This seems a bit unimportant. -- LGagnon 00:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Although the section needs a rewrite, it really should stay. Very few authors get referenced in popular culture at all, really, so it's quite an achievement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I actually have a question of my own--was Dean Koontz actually hit by a car, as the section asserts? A quick Google search turned up nothing, though I freely admit that it wasn't all that exhaustive. If not, then that's a pretty glaring error. --XkarlmagneX 04:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That appears to be an error, along with the claim that they are both sci-fi writers. -- LGagnon 21:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The section about The Simpsons still mentions sci-fi. Is this accurate or is that still another mistake of the editor's that was left in? -- LGagnon 14:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Minor lack of consistency from a certified nitpicker.

I noticed that someone made a comment that "In October of 2005, King has signed up with Marvel Comics and this is his first time in writing for the comic book medium" when the bibliography clearly states the wrote the Creepshow comic [1982 Creepshow (comic book, illustrated by Bernie Wrightson)]. Which is true?

Still writing?

It says at the start of the "Recent years" section "in 2002, King announced he would stop writing". None of the article from this point on contradicts this, but quite clearly he hasn't stopped writing. Why didn't he, and shouldn't the article mention the small point that he hasn't in fact stopped? - rst20xx (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he said he considered retiring after he finished Dark Tower because he felt a bit burned out, but he changed his mind later on.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Don Robertson

I added Don Robertson to the influences in the author box. I also added a couple of sentences about King publishing DR's "Ideal, Genuine Man" and calling him one of three main influences to the Influences section. I can't figure out how to add a citation/reference. Idlewarnings (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Idlewarnings, here's a pretty easy utility for adding references. Just fill in as many fields as you can, click the button, then copy the code to wherever you need it. That's all you have to do. It will automatically add a footnote at the end of the article. You can also find general information at WP:CITE. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve Lightfoot conspiracy theory

Is it worth mentioning the wacky conspiracy theory advanced by Steve Lightfoot about Steven King and John Lennon? At one point, King did have restraining order against Lightfoot. In case you are not familiar with "theory" you read about it on http://robalini.blogspot.com/2007/12/stephen-king-murdered-john-lennon.html (I'd rather not post Lightfoot's actual website) Gnmtndogs (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

rework the whole thing

I'm working on a revision of the whole article. Here are some issues I'll be addressing:

• The introduction paragraphs of the current article contain some information that would be better placed in the main body of the text.
• The biography section is very messy and needs arranging in chronological order. In particular, the sub-section "Baseball" has a bit of unnecessary trivia.
• There needs to be a proper section on "Works", with a sub-division focusing specifically on horror and then further subdivisions on (off the top of my head), the Dark Tower series, his short stories, fantasy novels, non-fiction works, and work in other media.
• The Richard Bachman section should be incorporated into the biography section, and there should be a sub-section in the "Works" section on "Works written under a pen-name" (but more elegant!) and including discussion of the Swithen novel.
• The "recent years" section is really scrappy.
• adding references where possible.
• keeping what great stuff there is just as it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanrobot (talk • contribs) 12:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd welcome comments/criticisms/edits at my userpage or in reply to this thread. If anyone else is working on a similar thing then I'd love to collaborate, please get in touch. I won't be making vast cuts to the text but will make some small ones where necessary. I'm more interested in moving things around so they make more sense, adding information that deserves inclusion, and making the prose a little more elegant. If I spell things weirdly it's 'cause I'm British! - please bear with me. I'm going to work on it at my userpage for a while and then introduce my changes to the text - just want to emphasise: VERY willing to collaborate! Beanrobot (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys forgot to mention that one of his key characters saved his life and put him on the path to finish writing the dark tower series. (Just kidding of course ;D ) Worldgate (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just spent the whole day on it. I've made some changes to the text of the biography, but otherwise the changes are simply ones of order. I've divided the whole thing up into three sections for comprehension - Biography, Work, Response - and rearranged things so that the order just makes a lot more sense. I have got rid of a few bits which I think would be classified as trivia but they can be retrieved if necessary.Beanrobot (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

All in all it could use a lot of grammatical revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.112.47 (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Influence on popular culture

The wording about "popular shorthand for the Vengeful Nerd Wronged, the Killer Car, the Evil Dog, the Evil Clown, and the Haunted Hotel" seems to be non-NPOV and seems to be wording by a fan. At the very least a citation is needed (I already added the citation needed link), but I'm thinking that sentence should be removed. Limasbravo (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Corroborating information

The page on Stephen King says "Tabitha King is a published author with 9 novels to her name." Tabitha King's page says she has published 7 novels and a non-fiction book. Who's right? 85.204.141.137 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did he really have crazy hardcore sex with those girls after selling his first novel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.26.7 (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wizarrrrr

Is it only me or is there a weird text saying "Wizarrrrrrrrrrrrrr,", just before "Having sold over 350 million copies of his books, " in the seccond paragraph? What is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.20.70 (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

also, Stephen King lived thorugh the Cold War —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.206.74 (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Books of Stephen King

If someone has the time (or already done this), please make some pages going over some of his books: i.e. It, Thinner. I would love to read them from time to time. - Helopusobiwa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helopusobiwa (talk • contribs) 12:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Novels_by_Stephen_King MichaelCaricofe (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Try reading his The Dead Zone, a great read. --Fleurbutterfly 20:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Army quote

I believe this quote is not relevant to this article. What encyclopedic purpose does it serve? Jmj713 (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Can anyone make an argument for why this should be included? Chaoticfluffy (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if its discussed in a reliable source and/or gains significant coverage outside of some Conservative radioshow first.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the statements here. I don't see the relevance. If he has written any commmentary or op-ed pieces on the war in Iraq then these should be referenced.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the wording of the version that keeps being reinserted sucks. However, King himself felt the need to respond [4], so maybe there's something to it after all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the way it is worded it has no place here. I'll write a more encyclopedic version, we'll see how that works. Feel free to edit it or remove it totally. Jmj713 (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at the article, I think if it does go back in in a more encyclopedic form, it should go under Society and Politics, not Recent Activity. Seems to fit better there, imho. Chaoticfluffy (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put up a version now. Just need to add references. Jmj713 (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It should at the very least me be trimmed signficantly, its recentism, too much detail over a trivial issue. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to add to this? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think this army quote controversy is getting a little out of hand. I'm fairly new here, so I may be wrong, but is the intent of WP to be an ongoing chronicle current events? A mention of the army quote controversy seems ok to me; a running listing of everything said by King and his opponents in the debate seems...excessive. Would it not perhaps be more appropriate to have the article say something along the lines of "In May of 2008, a controversy emerged over King's comments regarding the US Army being a place for young people who can't read" and then link/reference to...everything else? I'm willing to be wrong on this, but I think at the very least we need to prune the paragraph about it, which is getting a little scary-big in comparison to the rest of the recent activity items. Chaoticfluffy (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a few whacks at it. See if that's any better. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. Thanks! Chaoticfluffy (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of citation request

I added a citation tag, requesting a source for the claim that King writes a column. Jmj713 keeps reverting this, why? I never knew he wrote a column and so proof is needed inline with wiki policy. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ref added. Jmj713 (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Headers vandalism May 13

We seem to have had a couple of kids carrying on an argument about their posteriors by changing section headers today. I quickly tossed up a replacement header for the section on King's success with Carrie when I caught it, but someone might want to check what the header used to be (or what it, uh, heads) and correct my effort. Chaoticfluffy (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Carrienovel.jpg

The image Image:Carrienovel.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Onwriting.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Jmj713 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Interest in a WikiProject?

Would anyone be interested in a WikiProject about the great Mr. King? There is currently a Dark Tower Project, but I see no reason why this could not work in conjunction with a King Project or even become a task force within the King Project. I wanted to see if there was any intrest in the project before proposing one. Thank You! Blackngold29 04:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd support an SK wikiproject.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like fun! Jmj713 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. He's published enough to keep us all busy... Chaoticfluffy (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed the project here. All interested are encouraged to add your name to the list. There are about 300 different articles contained within the "Catagory" of Stephen King and its Sub catagories. I suppose that will keep us busy for quite a while. Thank you! Blackngold29 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have started building a rough project page in my sandbox. If there's anything that you would like to add to the page please do so. This is the first time I've started a WP and I know I'm not perfect. I have also made a project banner. We have five people who have supported the project so far, but I'm gonna wait until we get the project page pretty good looking and hopefully a few more people interested, before officially launching the page. Thanks! Blackngold29 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

House?

Is it really appropriate to include a photograph of the guy's house? Seems it should be removed...

I don't see why it should. I mean, for one thing, it's not as if King's trying to hide it. He has bats and spider webs on his fence for crying out loud. If someone had broken into his house and took pictures of private areas, that would be another matter.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

films stephen king was in correction

i would just like to point out that there is no band member called gage creed in the shining and gage creed is the little boy in pet sematery as stated in the film section: [He appeared in Pet Sematary as a minister at a funeral, in Rose Red as a pizza deliveryman, in The Stand as "Teddy Wieszack," in the Shining miniseries as band member Gage Creed and in The Langoliers as Tom Holby.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.189.233 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Which version of "The Shining" are you talking about? He's definitely in the miniseries directed by Mick Garris as Gage Creed. Its meant as an inside joke for King fans. The character doesn't appear in Stanley Kubrick's version though. leafschik1967 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Gage Creed is the boy from Pet Semetary. King calling himself that in the miniseries is a reference to that.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

He was also in "Thinner" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.22.41 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Awkward Juniper Hill references

Some readers will know that a mental institution called "Juniper Hill" appears in a fair amount of Stephen King stories. For example, I should mention the following articles: It, Lisey's Story, and Suffer the Little Children, all of which share awkward references to the place. Can't we just make a link to it? For that matter, is it even notable.

I bring this up because I'm making a test version of Suffer the Little Children, and I've cut the reference in my version of the plot summary. However, it's interesting information. Where should I put it? I don't want to put in a "crossover" section, because they're mostly OR, or stylised trivia sections. If you have any information of note on Juniper Hill, please put it on my talk page, because the more I compile, the more likely I can make a worthy article. --MwNNrules (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud!

"A fictionalized account of the accident was written into the last novel of the Dark Tower series, in which the main character, Roland Deschain, tries to prevent the van from hitting King. Parts of the conversation between Smith and King, as he awaited medical attention, were used in the book, as well as an accurate description of the injuries sustained." Well thank you very much for the freaking spoiler! Now I know Roland actually makes it to the last book, among other things. This is NOT the first time this has happened to me on Wikipedia. There REALLY has to be a new system to report SPOILERS on articles. Particularly if they're of the authors of stories. I am hurt, to say the least.PedroFromHell (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, per WP:SPOILER it is you own fault if you read it; and spoil the story for yourself. Blackngold29 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree articles of a story or novel should not contain any sort of spoiler warning, after all, Start/Plot/End should be enough. But this is NOT an article about the Dark Tower, it is an article about the author. I did not expect to read "AND THEN THIS HAPPENED IN THE LAST BOOK OF ONE OF HIS BEST SERIES", so I do not see how it was my fault. You can't exactly predict what you're going to read next, without reading it. And I was not to know there'd be a giant spoiler about the Dark Tower series in an article that is not about the dark tower.

It's like reading the J.K Rowling article and somewhere around stumbling on "When Rowling decided the character Dumbledore would die in the last book, she did so by..." etc. Just come up with some sort of system that isn't necessarly "SPOILER WARNING". Instead, write two :: and a - infront of any piece of writing which may contain a spoiler. PedroFromHell (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand you point, but it seems notable enough for inclusion though I can't think of anyway to warn about a spoiler. It's probably a rarity since most authors wouldn't incorporate themselves into their stories. Any editors have an idea? Maybe we could leave some mention but take out sepcific spoilers? Blackngold29 18:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the PedroFromHell, and this is coming from someone who's usually among the people who go "Encyclopedia articles contain spoilers" when someone complains about spoilers in an article. Its a bit ridicilous to pull the "You spoiled yourself" bit in this particular case. We aren't talking about looking at an article about a fictional character (whereas it should be *obvious* that the character's arc would be spoiled) or even an article about the book itself. We're talking about the article for the author. One shouldn't expect a spoiler for a book that came out in 2004 while reading about an incident that occurred in real life in 1999. I think even mentioning that King appears in the series itself is a fairly big spoiler as he only appears near the end of the series.

I'm going to remove it. If it's adamant that this needs to be in the article, then it should say "King appeared as a character in The Dark Tower" and leave it at that. Or maybe make an article for his fictional self like there is for Stephen Colbert's persona. (Maybe I'll do that.)

Although, to Pedro: While it sucks you got spoiled, there's a lot more that you don't know yet about King in the story that isn't in the article. You should still be able to enjoy the book.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the info should be removed, technically WP:SLOILER does apply to all articles, including this one. I personally have refrained from reading the whole article because of the possibility of spoilers. But I wouldn't really be surprised if this is the only non-book/movie article that would cause a controversy. Blackngold29 18:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be a total wild woman and boldly institute what seems like a simple fix here. I restored the factoid that King wrote the accident into the DT book and that he used some of his actual conversation. I left out the part about Roland having to save him. Poof, major spoiler gone, interesting information retained. Any objections? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been giving thought to making a character article for Stephen King's character in DT like Stephen Colbert (character) and Category:Fictional versions of real people. Does anyone think that's a good idea?--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking my views in. Blackngold29, I think it's pretty unfair on yourself that you've not been able to read the whole article of a great author just because of fear of encountering spoilers to his works. As is for other readers. I think the information aforementioned, about Stephen writing himself into the Dark Tower, should be written into the article of... the Dark Tower. And in this article, it should be limited to say "The author's accident was touched upon in The Dark Tower series." Or perhaps simply not stating exactly which book number it happened in would suffice. CyberGhostface, I know it's not the end of the world, and it's only one spoiler in an incountable number of possible outcomes, but so far, I'm up to the third book, and I didn't know if Roland was going to make it all the way to the last. Perhaps Eddie would reach the Tower, and Roland drop somewhere along the way. I suspected it. But now I know Roland makes it all the way to the end. No point in tensing up when I read possible deaths, possible dangers, possible failures up to the last book. Now my mind will always echo "don't worry, he makes it in the end remember", which really quite bothers me. Anyway, thank you again for seeing my views. I hope this will help Wikipedia and even better Encyclopedia.PedroFromHell (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, Pedro, all you really know now is that Roland makes it into the last book. You have no idea if he drops dead of a billy-bumbler bite two pages after the car accident spoiler part, or if he dances naked upon the grave of the Blaine the Mono a chapter after that and decides that the whole tower thing? Was silly, and really he just wants to boogie the night away. I know you still feel spoiled, but do keep that fact in mind. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

New Stephen King WP discussion

I would like to invite all to palaver about a possible expansion of the Dark Tower Project to include all Stephen King related items. I feel that the large amount of projects related to the author warrants his own Project—but as this one already exists—hesitate to begin a new one. Please feel free to leave comments of any kind and be assured that The Dark Tower will be held in the highest regard within the new King Project. Long days and pleasant nights. Blackngold29 02:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Net Worth?

Not that its any of our buisness but does anyone know exacally how much King is worth? I know that other articles like Bill Gates used to have his net worth.67.142.161.32 (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

King is worth $45 million. linkage. I don't know where the prefered section to add that info would be, but anyone is welcome to put it in somewhere. Blackngold29 00:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The 45 mil is just what he earned this year. Read carefully: "Coming in third: Stephen King, who earned $45 million over the course of the year." Jmj713 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Afterall the article states that he is the highest selling of any horror novelist but without stating his net worth isn't somewhat lacking?164.106.195.48 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no consensus

Seeing no attempt at even asking for consensus for a merge of the popular culture section in here, I reverted it. ( I also retored the contents). If anyone does want to propose a merge, do it properly. DGG (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Author photo

I suggest using King's official photo, instead of the one currently up. Anyone else think it's a much better one? Jmj713 (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it free? We can't just throw any copyrighted image in there. Blackngold29 17:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, fair use, right? Jmj713 (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would we use fair use when we have a perfectly reasonable free picture? We should try to eliminate fair use, not add it. Blackngold29 21:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Influence by Thomas Tryon?

Does Mr. King indicate or acknowledge on him by contemporary horror writer basing his works in his youth's New England setting, Connecticut? His two best known works, The Other (1971) and Harvest Home (1973), preceded Carrie (1974). 74.248.162.146 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephenie Meyer and synthesis of published material that advances a position

I have to wonder if the Twilight fans are trying to edit this page.

From the "Writing Style" section, there as a brief paragraph on King's comments concerning what makes a good writer. In bold is what single-purpose IP accounts have been adding:

King has a very simple formula for learning to write well: "Read and write four to six hours a day. If you cannot find the time for that, you can't expect to become a good writer." He sets out each day with a quota of 2000 words and will not stop writing until it is met. He also has a simple definition for talent in writing: "If you wrote something for which someone sent you a check, if you cashed the check and it didn't bounce, and if you then paid the light bill with the money, I consider you talented." However, in an interview for the March 8, 2009 issue of USA Weekend, King criticized the writing skills of Stephenie Meyer, author of the immensely successful Twilight series. He went on to name other commercially successful authors as terrible writers.

This is obviously synthesis: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."

That, and King's criticism of Meyer is hardly relevant to his article--the guy's written reviews for tons of writers in the past. Why is this any different?

Hopefully if this pops up again people will remove it sooner. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Interests...?

Under interests it reads: "Stephen King enjoys baseball, soccer and the radio." Is that really needed here? 74.5.110.177 (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Agnosticism

King has stated several times when commenting on 'God Trip' that he is not sure that there is an afterlife, and Wikiquote[5] has a quote from him outrightly criticizing religion. His page has him down as a Christian, but I would like some input on this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.5.83 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

---

On his website in the f.a.q section, he answers the question "What is your religion?"

>>"Stephen was raised as a Methodist and attended church regularly in his youth. He no longer attends church, but he does believe in God and reads the Bible. Tabitha, his wife, was raised as a Catholic."<<

http://www.stephenking.com/faq.html#0.5

86.42.214.100 (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Yop

Ah, I see, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.160.174 (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that quote a lot being tossed around as if King himself said it but to the best of my knowledge it came from a character in one of his books. Desperation (which had the whole "God is cruel" message but wasn't necessarily anti-religion), I think? Perhaps someone can track down the original source? --Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, it's from The Stand (I guess I lose track when it comes to King's "Good vs Evil epics" :D ). The quote in particular was referring to the Trashcan Man and his obsession with Flagg. It was more of a comment on religious maniacs than religion in general--I.E. Trashcan Man blindly following Flagg as opposed to Mother Abigail's faith overcoming adversity and so forth.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How many screen adaptations?

Does anybody know exactly How many of King's works have been adapted into film? And how many of these are novels, how many short stories? I want to know because in the infobox it does now list the entirety of his adapted work (I understand it only needs to be notable stuff, but still), so if anybody could tell me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

67.189.162.43 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out his page on IMDB. If its based on his work it'll be there.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

removed text: Steve lightfoot

The following text was removed from the article: I believe there is a place for the lightfoot controvercy in this article, but I have placed the text here, and am open to suggestions about how best to work it into the King article. Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy and Lennon Murder

Since 1990, New York activist Steve Lightfoot has attempted to bring charges against King for the murder of John Lennon. Lightfoot believes codes are written in King's earlier novels, and King was under orders from former President Richard Nixon and (at the time) President Ronald Reagan to execute Lennon for his subversive views. Lightfoot claims to have a letter in his posession, allegedly from King, confessing to the murder, which matches the handwriting on a confirmed letter from King asking Lightfoot to leave him alone. King has never faced any charges for Lennon's murder.

This is a crackpot theory held in contempt by the majority of society. You're presenting it as legitimate fact.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is why I have asked "how best to work it into the King article", rather than just popping it straight in there again. Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe Sandor Clegane's point is that the opinion of a fringe crackpot has no place in the article at all. Or if it wasn's his/her point, it's still mine. The section cannot be simply reworked and reinserted, because any mention of it gives undue weight to one man's apparent delusion, which is a violation of WP:Fringe. In addition, the section as you added it was so badly phrased as to sound like an indictment of King, which is exactly the sort of thing we CANNOT allow in articles about living people WP:BLPs, lest we risk getting our collective asses sued off. A section accusing a well-known author of murdering someone, sourced only to a crackpot's website, is just never going to be ok. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my opinion as well. Even if it was made to be neutral as can possibly be and point out that everyone thinks Lightfoot is a lunatic, it's still too trivial to be on the article.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephen King- Fiorentina Fan?

Can this be verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie3039 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Murder of John Lennon?

hahaha, funny vandalism, but I gotta remove it. It's a conspiracy, not a fact. --66.8.195.29 (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Clean up of 2000-present

This section was just a list of miscellaneous facts and recent works. I moved most of the relevant information into the Richard Bachman, Dark Tower, political views, and social sections, renamed this section 'Later Works' to better represent it. I left in the comment about the vandalism of his own books in the book store, I couldn't find a better place for it, and removed the comment on the VT massacre as irrelevant - though really it could go in the society section. Alex (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Awards

I've expanded the Award section. I Hope people like it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland2111 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Stonehenge

Directing: Besides Dean Koontz and Orson Wells, could anyone possibly create a film about Stonehenge other than Spinal Tap? Mythology, Storm of the Century. Mike Stone, Psychiatry, Dante.75.202.160.218 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

King's fictional topography

Chesters Mill was in Under The Dome, and Haven is another place in Maine made up by him as well. Only three are listed, should they be updated to contain all five? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceT13TSOSIM (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 169.244.140.98, 19 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Spelling

169.244.140.98 (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of what? SpigotMap 16:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthrax

There was scare in south Florida, and connections with reasons why and themes in The Night Flyer are prevalent. What's so difficult to figure out? CAPTCHA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.201.167.190 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Enthusiast

Beginning book writer's club based on King and Koontz. Had an awful discription of material while visiting psychological offices. Person said all the stories were like worshipping death. They had to undergo all types of counseling. 75.200.150.116 (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro

I have removed the reference to the Twilight Zone/Hitchcock in the introduction, largely because it seems to artificially contextualize Stephen King's popularity. While properly sourced, and probably true, neither the Twilight Zone nor Hitchcock are either cultural barometers of unsurpassed importance, or particularly germane----it seems to me that the comparison, in the introduction, connects the three of them in an unintended way (TZ/Hitchcock seems rather arbitrary).

The Rhymesmith (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Best known for?

A recent edit to the lead suggests that King is best known for The Dark Tower series. I would have guessed that he was best known for his early horror fiction, like Carrie, The Shining, and Pet Sematary. What's consensus here? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I added it when i changed the lead. Given the coverage Dark Tower receives in the rest of the article compared to his other novels, and the vast reach of the series in his works, I don't think it is an unfounded statement, but I welcome other users to improve or build upon it. I don't know that there is a consensus, I just tried to make the lead summarize the article. Canada Hky (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thinner by King

i have a very old hardbound copy of thinner attributed to tabitha king, not bachman or stephen king. it's in my library. anyone have any explanation for this? her name is on the cover and spine and credited to her. 71.198.167.163 (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Siblings

I've read in On Writing that he is the youngest of ten children of his mother, but the oldest eight brothers and sisters died before he and his older brother Dave were born. Is it subject to inclusion into the article? 89.169.115.10 12:44, 30 September 2010

If you can provide verifiable, reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS, sure. Also, make sure to sign your posts so others know who they're talking to. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which will automatically time stamp them too. :-) Nightscream (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

quote

"Talent is cheaper than table salt. What separates the talented individual from the successful one is a lot of hard work." — Stephen King —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.184.26 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.71.14.155, 17 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the Stephen King wiki entry, under "Films and TV", there is a mistake. The problem is this:

"A season 3 episode of Quantum Leap is a homage to King, at the end when Sam realizes that the character Stevie is a young Stephen King and that Sam supposedly gave Stephen the idea for "Cujo" just before Sam leaps at the end of the episode."

This is incorrect. Sam gave Stephen the idea for Carrie not Cujo. The entry should be:

"A season 3 episode of Quantum Leap is a homage to King, at the end when Sam realizes that the character Stevie is a young Stephen King and that Sam supposedly gave Stephen the idea for "Carrie" just before Sam leaps at the end of the episode."

Please change Cujo to Carrie because this was what really happened at the end of the episode. 66.71.14.155 (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This reference states "Young Stevie will grow up to become the famous author Stephen King, a few of whose books are inspired by Sam's telling of what happened in the house, including The Dark Half, Carrie, Christine and Cujo."

I added this reference to the article, and removed the part you're disputing from the wiki entry: "and that Sam supposedly gave Stephen the idea for "Carrie" just before Sam leaps at the end of the episode". GoingBatty (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Done by GoingBatty. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Raphaelstone, 31 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

In his quote "cheque" is mispelled "check".

Raphaelstone (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

 Declined. Stephen King is American, and American English uses the spelling "check" for the monetary document. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.171.126.72, 3 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Typing error: "Some of his novels have been also been turned into comic books" Should read: "Some of his novels have also been turned into comic books"

94.171.126.72 (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks!     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     13:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation for "Car Accident and Thoughts of Retirement"

Citation needed for the inspiration behind Lisey's Story can be found during an interview he gave for MPR.org in November of 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agGuYCmJIIw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandana.mama (talk • contribs) 23:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Where in the video does he mention this? I saw a couple of times, and didn't see it. Nightscream (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

List of books?

There is no list of books published by the author? guys? 190.245.157.198 19:43, 15 February 2011

Feel free to add one. But please do not remove content from talk pages without giving a valid, policy-based reason in your edit summary. To make a new post or start a new discussion, simply place one beneath the most recent one. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There already is. Jmj713 (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

sorry, I meant to add, not replace the section above. I do not have the needed mental structure to understand WP templates, I am a WYSIWYG kind of person, therefore my contributions are limited to suggestions. Cheers Alessio.aguirre (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Jmj713: I disagree, I beleive that is a narrative of his work, not a list. You may see a list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bryson#Books_by_Bill_Bryson

Since Stephen King has published so many books, listing them all in his own article is prohibitive and that's why we have articles for his bibliography and another for his short fiction works. Jmj713 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Charinebean, 21 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} It debuted at #1 in The New York Times Bestseller List, and #3 in UK Book Charts.

I found a citation for New york Times Bestseller list at:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/books/bestseller/besthardfiction.html?_r=1&ref=bestseller

Charinebean (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: added your reference for the NY bestseller, but couldn't find anything on the UK charts. — Bility (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CandaceID, 9 July 2011

Under "Additional Reading" add the following entry:

Critical Insights: Stephen King, Gary Hoppenstand (Editor), Salem Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-58765-685-9

CandaceID 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Monkeymanman (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Regarding the citation needed on Stephen King's accident history in the Car accident and thoughts of retirement section of this Wikipedia article: This information about his accident is in Stephen King's nonfiction writing book On Writing in the section ON LIVING: A Postscript (page 253-270) in my 2000 Scribner hard copy edition ISBN 0-684-85352-3

Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this is done. I have the soft-cover edition, but it seems to have the same pagination. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dgirgenti, 16 August 2011

The most interesting part of the accident involving King and driver Bryant Smith was

on King's 43rd birthday – 21 September 2000 – Smith was discovered dead in his trailer in Brownfield, Maine. The cause of Smith's death was listed as an accidental overdose of the painkiller fentanyl, according to toxicology reports. Smith had suffered from a back injury and might have been prescribed the painkiller not long before his death. King publicly responded, stating: "I was very sorry to hear of the passing of Bryan Smith. The death of a 43-year-old man can only be termed untimely." During a 2001 interview with Bryant Gumbel on CBS' The Early Show, King noted that, besides dying on his birthday, Smith shared King's middle name.

Dgirgenti (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Mile 81

He recently wrote something called Mile 81, which is only available in ebook format. It's not mentioned anywhere on this article, so it probably needs to be added. Alphius (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Never mind. It's listed on the page for his bibliography. Alphius (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling

He is a declared Harry Potter fan and even mentioned the Snitch in one of his books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.238.30.235 (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And....? Ella Plantagenet (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually at least the last 3 of the Dark Tower books reference Rowling's works... items, names, and even direct descriptive references (picture of Harry Potter) are in those books.68.6.76.31 (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Pop of King

I have greatly enjoyed seeing Stephen King's more or less regular column over the years on pop culture (in Entertainment Weekly?), that is cleverly called The Pop of King. I didn't know exactly where this should be placed, but this deserves a mention, if not a section. I am pretty sure that I have seen other articles by him before as well. Shocking Blue (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right - it was in EW. There's a mention in the 2000s work section. GoingBatty (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Car Accident Section

It should be noted that King included extremely detailed, yet fictionalized, descriptions of his accident in his Dark Tower books. At least the last 2 of the series both directly foreshadow (eg: using descriptions in the foreshadowing) and directly detail (7th book) in second by second, minute by minute granularity, the events of his accident. I bring it up because someone referenced the Family Guy episode. this has relevance because FG is a popular show watched by millions, but the DT series is one of King's favorite (if not the most favorite) work he has ever made. As he has, himself, stated: "its his Lord of the Rings." I mention this because it should be added to that section68.6.76.31 (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

-- Hi, sorry for bad english, only to say that Bryan Smith maybe should have an article and his name should be a link in the car accident section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.76.55.229 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

King states in an interview that he was not reading at the time he was struck. He walked for 3 miles on trails and the last part on a road where he walked against the traffic and on the shoulder. It was a curve where the van came around already on the shoulder and he had little time to react. http://www.horrorking.com/interview6.html. Also, his book, "On Writing" has a section at the end that says the same thing.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, "said the driver was not speeding, reckless, or drinking" the link to this statement is broken and seems unlikely given that Bryan Smith was charges with driving to endanger and another charge. He ended up pleading guilty and losing his license for a year.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also also, would it be appropriate to mention that the driver of the vehicle committed suicide on King's birthday a year later? Seems of some interest, considering what must have been an excessive amount of guilt that plagued the man for nearly killing a local/national/international hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.230.63.58 (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the source for the interview, Crunchy? Nightscream (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC) It also said that he was walking and then he got hit and almost died... creepy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.25.146 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

His posted signature

Just wondering...is that his "signature" or his "autograph"? Celebrities often have both and they are intentionally distictly different. If what we have posted was a autograph obtained by a fan, the title of its section should be "Autograph". Rhodesisland (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The 1990s

3 1970s–1980s work

[...]

4 Car accident and thoughts of retirement

5 2000s work

6 2010s work

Can you spot the missing piece? · rodii · 21:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please change "exodus" to "expulsion" in this passage.

Original text:

In 1996 King collaborated with Michael Jackson to create Ghosts, a 40-minute musical video in which the singer portrays a recluse living in a mansion confronting an unwelcoming group of townsfolk initially calling for his exodus from their community.

Suggested edit:

In 1996 King collaborated with Michael Jackson to create Ghosts, a 40-minute musical video in which the singer portrays a recluse living in a mansion confronting an unwelcoming group of townsfolk initially calling for his expulsion from their community.

CarolinaDove (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"American Christian"

Why is Stephen King categorized as an American Christian at the bottom of this page? The article contains no mention of his spirituality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exercisephys (talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point! I've removed the category until someone can provide a reliable source within the body of the article. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the FAQ on his site, "Stephen was raised as a Methodist and attended church regularly in his youth. He no longer attends church, but he does believe in God and reads the Bible. Tabitha, his wife, was raised as a Catholic." Some Jordan (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Good find, Some Jordan! I like this source, but isn't strong enough for me to readd Category:American Christian. GoingBatty (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree that the American Christian thing doesn't belong. might be a good addition under Personal Life? Some Jordan (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Early Life

This section states:

"King uncovered a paperback version of an H. P. Lovecraft collection of short stories entitled The Lurker in the Shadows that had belonged to his father."

The title of the Lovecraft book appears to be incorrect. While that is the name Stephen King gives in the video linked as the source, he may have misspoke. In chapter 4, section 3 of his book Danse Macabre (page 96 in the Berkley paperback) he writes: "The pick of the litter, however, was an H. P. Lovecraft collection from 1947 called The Lurking Fear and Other Stories. I remember the picture on the cover very well . . ." at which point he goes on to decribe the green demon.

A quick search shows no record of a book called The Lurker in the Shadows but does show one called The Lurking Fear and Other Stories, which corroborates the book. If there is consensus, I suggest someone change it, as I cannot. (But I could be wrong.)

Btwriter (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I think a sic note would be appropiate in this case. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of adding a sic, why not just change the reference to Danse Macabre? GoingBatty (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of signature image - request for comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We've received a communication regarding the inclusion of Mr. King's signature as an image in this article's infobox. While facsimiles of his signature are relatively easy to find on the Internet, and there are many other bios that include signature images in Wikipedia, this particular copy is of high quality and it appears in the second Google hit when one searches for Mr. King's name. As such, the concern is that the image is being actively used to perform forgeries. IP cases that cover the ownership (or lack thereof) of a signature are sparse, and there seems to be no clear consensus as to their legal status. Wikipedia aims to err on the side of caution and courtesy however, especially in the case of biographies of living people. As such, I would like to see if there is consensus and community approval to remove the image from the infobox permanently. Please indicate your support or oppose opinions below (as well as any legal, guideline- or policy-based arguments) in the usual fashion. Thank you all in advance. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support removal Based on this, I think the signature is in the public domain; however, I don't believe that keeping the signature enhances the readers' understanding of the topic and it isn't mentioned in the article. Since removing the signature will not take away from the readers' understanding, and the removal of the signature has been requested, I say it should be removed. Ryan Vesey 02:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. We may also consider a broader discussion to have two infoboxes for living and non-living people. Living infoboxes would not allow signature/autograph parameters. Should we remove it from this article as contentious until consensus is reached?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal per Ryan's comments above. GoingBatty (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal, per all the above. Would also support removal of sigs from all BLPs - they serve no encyclopedic purpose and could give rise to all kinds of issues.--ukexpat (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd be neutral on that, and fully supportive of removing the signature of any BLP immediately upon request in the future. I'd suggest that when this discussion ends, a more general discussion starts at WP:VPP. Ryan Vesey 03:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support removal - The image of the signature serves no encyclopedic purpose, and its presence is reasonably believed to be harmful in a number of ways to both the subject and others. I too would support removal of signatures in any BLP. Risker (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal - I agree with Risker as regards living people in that the presence of their signature can cause much more harm than any good it brings to the encyclopedia. -- Avi (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal - per Risker, Avi and all the above. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "Autographs" are quite distinct from "signatures" an as such are quite unlikely to be used to harm Mr. King. I would be far more concerned to see his check signature (legal signature) on any page. The case at hand clearly falls into the "autograph" class, and thus is not nearly as much a problem as a real signature would be. I strongly suspect his legal signature has substantial differences from this illustration. And I ask editors above to re-examine whether their opposition is to "signatures" or to "autographs." Collect (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see what difference it makes that it's a BLP. We have autographs of non-living authors too so someone could copy those in a book and try and present it as signed by that author. Jmj713 (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal I do not see an encyclopaedic value in having these here - it can lead to too many issues as stated. Do we even know exactly where that signature was generated - if it was in my country (UK) it's unlikely to be allowed.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Stephen_King_Signature.svg explains how the file was made, but not where. It does seem to be created from an autograph, not a signature. However, since I'm not knowledgable enough to know the difference between his autograph and his signature, and since FreeRangeFrog didn't specify if the concern is the file may be used to forge his autograph or his signature, I still support respecting the request. GoingBatty (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The communication wasn't specific as to whether the image was being used as a signature or an autograph. For purposes of this proposal however, I don't think we should make that distinction, because none of us know if his autograph is different from his signature. That said, I would assume that the most common forgery scenario is as an autograph. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I'd question the license on File:Stephen_King_Signature.svg. How is that PD? Truthkeeper (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nominated as a copyvio. -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Are signatures valid encyclopedia information? I'm not sure that they are and I question their value. I would also question whether we should have signatures of any living person as it would seem to be a WP:BLP hazard. Perhaps there should be a wider RfC for signatures of living people. Just a thought. 64.40.54.47 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The tentative consensus seems to be that they have little encyclopedic value, and they do represent a privacy issue for BLPs. There are cases of course where there is some value in having them as part of historical figure and very high-profile politician bios. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea to open an RfC. Since |signature= is a parameter in multiple infoboxes (e.g. {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox writer}}, {{Infobox officeholder}}, {{Infobox philosopher}}), you might want to post a note on the template talk pages to join the RfC. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Great idea! Posted a note on all of those. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment An interesting legal angle to this: Is Barack Obama's signature facsimile as affixed to a bill in the public domain, since it's the work of a US government employee performed on the taxpayers' dime? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Both Barack Obama's and Stephen King's signatures are PD. The speedy deletion performed on commons was incorrect, but I'm not going to argue it because I was going to nominate it for deletion per Stephen King's request anyways. Ryan Vesey18:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.233.191 (talk)

• Support removal per Ryan Vesey and ukexpat. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal per everyone else. As for the broader question, presidential/gubernatorial/etc. signatures are significant as are some other "classes" of signatures, but I don't think they should be included in an article by default just because they are available. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal These signatures have no encyclopedic value or function. Except for very rare cases, they do not in any way contribute to an understanding of the subject matter. In addition, there are other (certainly moral, if not legal) considerations, since a signature is a private matter, even if it's already published elsewhere. Asav | Talk 21:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal - Per his request and, also important, I just don't see any encyclopedic value by having this in the article. Not just on this article but on many other articles. With some exceptions of course like John Hancock for instance. Garion96 (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. John Hancock is an example where the signature itself has encyclopedic value in its own right. It's also in the public domain as it was published prior to 1923 :) -- Avi (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal in this case. For others, I support removal only for living people and only if they request it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal in general—signatures are used to authenticate a wide variety of transactions; publishing a living person's signature is a terrible idea, and signatures should be taken down immediately, whether requested or not. That some other site does it is no justification. Abhayakara (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Autographs v signatures: My instinct is that signatures in general are not encyclopedic, unless there's a concrete argument about a specific case why that signature is. But: isn't an authorial autograph as may be found in signed works by that author encyclopedic? For instance, if I had a signed work by that author, wouldn't it help me verify its authenticity? We should of course be clear that authors for obvious reasons should not (and I think normally do not!) autograph books with their usual legal signature, and that an argument for the autograph being encyclopedically useful is not an argument for the legal signature being encyclopedically useful. Question: is the thing in question King's signature or King's autograph? Rd232 ^talk 14:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• It was an autograph; however, there is no way of knowing whether or not his autograph was his legal signature or not. I still doubt its encyclopedic value since there is no coverage of it. Furthermore, it was specifically the signature/autograph/scribble/whatever you want to call it that existed on this page that Stephen King requested be removed. I think that overcomes anything else. Ryan Vesey 00:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've always thought it was neat getting to see the signatures of the subjects of biographical articles. Abyssal (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is not censored. Signatures are encyclopedic. So are birth dates, birth locations, clear photos of the face and eyes... I am afraid of opening a floodgates of what could be removed to protect privacy. There is also the fact that if this is his autograph, and he has given out tens of thousands of those, why should anybody be prevented from sharing it with the world? I do think, however, that we should ask WMF general counsel on whether signatures have different standing in law. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned that there's such a serious misunderstanding of the phrase "Wikipedia is not censored". That refers to the fact that we will include factual articles on subjects that some people find objectionable (for example, articles on the sex organs, or images of Muhammed). It does not mean we keep material just because it exists. Editorial judgment is used on a daily basis to decide what is and is not relevant to an article. For someone as well-known as King, there are literally millions of factoids available (e.g., King was spotted at xxx restaurant or was photographed at the local market), but the vast majority of them are not in this article, nor should they be. Risker (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Query - at least some of the concern seems to be about the use of a "high quality" version, the likes of which could be copy-pasted and thus used for forgeries. Would a lower quality version resolve some of the concerns? Stalwart111 02:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal - Wikipedia isn't censored. But having his signature in the article isn't relevant at all. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Sensorship. Marilyn Monroe was pictured nude in the first issue of Playboy. Her article does not include that image as fair use although many may believe it should be there. Is this sensorship? --Canoe1967 (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Canoe1967 - This discussion is about autographs and signatures, not photographs. Please take your question to Talk:Marilyn Monroe. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought he was making a tongue-in-cheek point that not all omissions from articles are prohibited censorship. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really tongue in cheek but an example of how we can leave material out of articles if we wish, seeking consensus of course. This was done with Silk Road (marketplace) and the external link to their website. Ms. Munoroe's image may actually be in the public domain because it may have been published without a proper copyright notice. If this is the case we could upload a decent version to commons to include in her article. The discussion of signatures may yet go to a higher level of consensus for the same reasons as Silk Road. It is actually a link to readers being able to break the law. They could datamine signatures from Wikipedia because we gave them easy access to hoards of accurate ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Marilyn's cover is very relevant, King's signature not so much. --NaBUru38 (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 14 June 2013

Add following to external links:

• Stephen King book reviews at SFReader.com

SFReaderReviews (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - Spam - COI request. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Mercedes

Added book Mr. Mercedes which will be released in 2014. Many references.Boone jenner (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 October 2013

Under Collaboration section, specifically paragraph about Rock Bottom Remainders:

In July 2013, McBride co-authored Hard Listening (2013) with the rest of the Rock Bottom Remainders. The ebook combines essays, fiction, musings, candid email exchanges and conversations, and compromising photographs, serving as a memoir of these authors' double-lives.

50.197.137.198 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done A detail about a person other than the subject belongs in that person's bio instead. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done with different wording to emphasize King, with external sources used as references. GoingBatty (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest to update Political Activism Section

This raises some red flags about accuracy. I absolutely cannot verify the statement, "The essay became the fifth-bestselling non-fiction title for the Kindle.[99]" The reference is from a blog with some other rather interesting statistical anomalies. I'm a Amazon and Kindle buff and regularly check Non-fiction best sellers. I've never heard of "Guns" before this.

In contrast, I found that Guns was ranked #2 in Kindle Store > Kindle Singles > 'Essays & Ideas' category (much different than Non-fiction). It's currently rated at #5036 in the Kindle Store. "Guns" is currently not listed in Non-fiction Top 100 at all.

I recommend that reference [99] be removed entirely and the statement updated to something similar to "The essay became the second best Kindle Essay and Ideas Single." Or something more saavy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.207.135 (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2013

there is a paragraph that says Naomi is King's first daughter. King only has one daughter. Therefore it should just say daughter. 99.157.102.242 (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Pop culture cruft: Stephen King joins twitter

I consider the recently added (and reverted by me, then re-added by original editor) sentence "On December 6, 2013,Stephen King joined Twitter." to not rise to the level of encyclopedic content. IF the squib was more than a bare sentence, and IF the addition showed a connection with Stephen King's life, and IF it came from WP:RS, then maybe. As it is, I think it should just go away; but I don't intend to do more than just ask the original adder to self revert. - Neonorange (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a place for a link to a verified Twitter account in the External Links section of the page (similar to an official website), however I would agree that it doesn't really merit mention in an encyclopedic biography. Canada Hky (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it should either be expanded and better sourced by the original editor, or moved, as you suggested, to the External Links sections. As of now it looks as if it were a layout error. How about this division of labor: you make the move and I will point out the reasoning on the original editor's talk page? - Neonorange (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

The fourth paragraph in the "Collaborations" section says that King has collaborated with his sone, Joe Hill, on a novella called "Throttle." The paragraph should likely mention that they have also collaborated a second time on a novella called "In the Tall Grass" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cssprocon (talk • contribs) 16:01, January 10, 2014‎ (UTC)

 Added - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2014

Tribute to Stephen King

No entren al 1408: Antología en español tributo a Stephen King (English: Do Not Enter Room 1408: A Spanish Anthology Tribute to Stephen King) is a collection of horror stories by 22 Spanish-language authors, which aim to pay tribute to the style of the horror master Stephen King. The book was edited by the Ecuadorian writer Jorge Luis Cáceres, and published in Quito by the publisher La Biblioteca de Babel in 2013.

The Mexican edition of the book, to be published in 2014 by La Cifra Editorial, will contain stories by three additional authors: Javier Calvo (Barcelona, 1973). Carlos Yushimito (Lima, 1977), and Alexis Iparraguirre (Lima, 1974).[2] The Argentinian edition, to be published by the Interzona Editora, will also contain these authors' stories, as well as new stories by three yet-to-be-announced Argentinian writers, according to an interview with the editor Jorge Luis Cáceres Elismieles (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Elismieles: Where do you think this fits in to the article? GoingBatty (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Declining, since this isn't something that can easily be done. Anyone familiar with the article can add this text if appropriate, of course. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"Looping" is the wrong word

"The van was looping from one side of the road to the other"

For something that is moving, to be "looping" means it is going in circles. Airplanes loop. A dog dashing around, and among, people and items of furniture, could be said to be looping around. But the van was _swerving_, not looping.

For the van to be looping, it would have to be going down the road doing occasional 360's -- as if the driver were repeatedly doing a 180 to head back where he came from, and then abandoning _that_ decision and doing another 180 so as to go back to his first direction.

Editing the article is locked, so ... hellooooo, out there.  :)

P.S. - where his quote is transcribed, about how he lives in "a national guard town", the phrase "National Guard" should be capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.46.2 (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the writer meant loping, rather than looping. Doh!

Photo

What about changing the picture? For instance using a more professionnal picture, like the one used on his Goodreads profile? >>> https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3389.Stephen_King?from_search=true Jguerine (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC) jguerine

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2015

In the ===With musical artists=== section, "himon" -> "him on"

Cleepa (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ungrammatical colloquialism

"After leaving the university, King earned a certificate to teach high school"

Correct English usage would be "teach at high school". "High school" is not the subject being taught, which is what the current / incorrect phrase means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.69.60 (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This particular colloquialism is so common to be de-facto accepted, even if the folks over at OED don't acknowledge it. Language exists as an entity which none of us can control or rule. We have only the guidelines in WP:Style etc.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

Suppressed WP:BLP vio; unsourced speculation on Stephen King and fetal alcohol syndrome. — Neonorange (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2015

At the end of the "2010 works" please change the title of the third book from "The Suicide Prince" to the newly announced "End of Watch".

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_Watch_(novel) , http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2015/06/10/stephen-king-judy-blume-usa-todays-best-selling-books/28752797/ Darkry (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stephen King/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs more inline citations, and the trivia section needs to go. Quadzilla99 01:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Trivia's gone.--Ellissound 05:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Has five inline citations now. Is that sufficient?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 22:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stephen King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121123231050/http://www.fangoria.com/home/news/1-latest-news/3978-stephen-king-writes-for-fangoria.html to http://www.fangoria.com/home/news/1-latest-news/3978-stephen-king-writes-for-fangoria.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Image

I'd like to start a discussion on a new image for the article. A single facepic from 7 years ago doesn't do him justice, methinks. Stephen King spoke at a university in 2012, and the university video taped it, put it up on Youtube in good quality--and most importantly, under a CC license. There are any number of images or still-shots that could be used, especially since it's a 55 minute video. Does anybody want to look through the video, come up with a good timestamp, screenshot it, and upload to commons? Tutelary (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the current image is pretty good, and I'm speaking as someone who thinks that a lot of Wikipedia photos of celebrities are crap. The video's HD quality isn't as clear in my opinion.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)