Talk:The Great Gatsby

message: Just for future reference, the novel never says that Nick is a nickname. "Nicholas" never appears in the book although "Nicolas" does (for another person). So the simple fact is that we don't know that Nick is a nickname, or the spelling of the full name if it were. It is extrapolation to assume it is "Nicholas" and we should not use it. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding 'Nicholas' 

message: A recent edit changed Daisy's name to "Daisy Fay Buchanon" from "Daisy Buchanon (née Fay)". I have found only one instance in the novel in Chapter 4 where "Fay" is used: "The largest of the banners and the largest of the lawns belonged to Daisy Fay's house." [This is Jordan speaking about Daisy when Daisy was only 18 and was seeing Gatsby. Daisy lived in Louisville at the time.] It's ambiguous here whether "Fay" is her middle or maiden name. I suppose the most obvious and likely interpretation is that "Fay" is Daisy's middle name (after all the whole two name-name thing is a Southern cliché) and that the edit corrected an error that said it was her maiden name. It not unreasonable, however, to believe that "Daisy Fay" is her first and maiden name. I am unaware if there are any other statements that make implication's over Daisy's name. If I have missed some, please comment. I will re-add the change to make "Fay" her middle name but it would also be good to collect some sources that say one way or another. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's impossible to know one way or another, and any source saying otherwise we should likely question the reliability of otherwise they'd KNOW it is impossible to know with certainty. The form you changed to is acceotable use regardless of Fay being middle or maiden. That said, i am pretty sure 'Fay'  as a surname is extremely rate; OTOH 'Fay' is a VERY common middle name, especially when paired with first name as a double-name, and as for the first name in such name pairs, "Daisy" is about as cliche as is possible. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6CB7:62BD:5DB:4891 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daisy Fay 

message: Is it true that the revival of interest in Gatsby (and Fitzgerald himself) was sparked by the dramatic death of Zelda in the house-fire? Valetude (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. According to both Mizener (1965) and Bruccoli (2002), the Fitzgerald revival was at its zenith in 1944. Zelda died years later in March 1948. Also, the 1949 Gatsby film was already in pre-production when Zelda died, and the film did more to boost Fitzgerald's reputation than Zelda's death. -- Flask (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posthumous fame 

message: People claim that Jordan Baker is a professional golfer. In the 1920s there were no woman professional golfers and the upper-class Buchanans would not have associated with professional golfers. It was a lowly trade then.  Professional golfer
The first woman professional golfers played in the 1930s:Helen Hicks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.240.228 (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If the book claims that she is a professional golfer, then that's what we should declare her to be. If sources have noted that this is at variance with historical fact, that may be worth noting. DonIago (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

text: She was Amelia Earhart but F. Scott couldn't quite figure how to put it . --Laurencebeck (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Jordan Baker

message: Jason Quinn (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure how much this helps regarding reassessment of the article, but I've attempted to fix the specific plagiarism issues you've outlined here, User: Jason Quinn. I also put this original message in the wrong place (below). Sorry about that. --Hobomok (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual reassessment 

message: Seems a bit ago that the article went up for reassessment and lost its Good Article status. I know when this happened I corrected the problems that resulted in its losing such status... It seems that it might be a good time to revisit assessment given the novel heading into public domain next year. I'm sure there will be an uptick in news and attention (believe there already has been r/t this), and the novel seems to continue to be as timely as ever given the critical/scholarly analyses listed on the page. Anyone have any thoughts on this? --Hobomok (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Critical analysis section needs to be fleshed out a bit more before GA Nomination. I can try to work on it in early December. -- Flask (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see where that would be necessary. More information r/t contemporary criticism beyond the ecocritical one listed, and/or more readings of popular themes like class and gender? I'm happy to put some time that I might also have in December toward this if you would like some help! Hobomok (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Flask, I really like the work done on the Critical Analysis section--important stuff that needed/needs to be done, I think. Per edit summary, might I suggest we find another source for Class Inequality discussion besides the Gillespie article? While Gillespie does have a graduate degree in Lit. studies, it would seem to me that an article in a popular magazine (wherein the author uses the text to make a point about libertarianism) doesn't belong alongside peer reviewed articles... Just a thought, as I know there are many, many scholarly articles that discuss class in Gatsby that could take its place. Could also fill-out other contemporary work on the novel below it, but I do think the final article in the "Other Interpretations" section works well, as it provides an idea of current scholarship and Gatsby's staying power r/t contemporary issues a century after the novel's publication. Just my two cents. --Hobomok (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Hobomok. Yes, I concur that more scholarly sources than Gillepsie are needed for that section. JSTOR seems to have several scholarly articles that can be cited. I hope to have the Class Inequality section rewritten and resourced within the next few days. On a side note: I also will replace the SparkNotes citations with ones from Mizener's biography of Fitzgerald. It seems odd to cite a SparkNotes pamphlet when more authoritative sources are available. -- Flask (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Hi, Hobomok. Yesterday, while rewriting the Critical Analysis section, I realized that the bottom half of the American Dream section already discussed class disparities so I combined that with the Class Inequality section to create the Class permanence section. I felt this was a more accurate section title since the critics/scholars emphasized that Gatsby is more than about just class inequality but the fact that such inequalities cannot be transcended. -- Flask (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

text:   Hi Flask, I think this is an excellent and much-needed update to the critical analysis section—especially the race section you’ve created and extended. It is always an important section, but particularly exigent in our current moment. I’m not sure what the current state of environmental criticism related to Gatsby is, but a quick skim of the cited article shows the novel mentioned in Leo Marx’s The Machine in the Garden and Matthew Little’s  article “I could Make Some Money: Cars and Currency in the Great Gatsby.” These might be worth adding? On the other hand, as ecocriticism continues to expand, perhaps more explicitly environmentally-minded Gatsby articles will appear, and it is best to leave the section as-is for now as an example of Gatsby’s enduring power as social, political, and now environmental commentary. Hobomok (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Hobomok. I implemented your suggestions and rewrote the environmental criticism section. I added Marx (1964) as a full paragraph as well as included Matthew Little as a bundled citation. I also rewrote the argument by Keeler (2018) to include more detail. The old version seemed so reductionist as to be almost a straw man. Let me know what you think or if you have any other suggestions. -- Flask (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Flask, I think this is an excellent rundown of (Leo) Marx and the presented article. Both of which provide a good overview of the ecocritical ideas around Gatsby past and present. Overall, I think this newly strengthened criticism section is an excellent encyclopedic rundown of various forms of criticism on Gatsby. As always, this rabbit hole could go deeper and deeper, but I think this is an excellent place to close the critical analysis section. Perhaps there will be more to add at a later date, but I think these containers and their representative scholarly works do a great job of providing an overview. Hobomok (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Hi Hobomok. I agree. I think the article is now ready for GA reassessment. Flask (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, Flask. I’ll leave the honors to you, as you’ve done most of the heavy lifting here. I can always make the call though, since you have done so much already! Hobomok (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Flask, the least I can after all of your hard work! Hobomok (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nomination? 

message: The Great Gatsby entered into public domain as of January 1, 2021.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That is reflected on the page. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  Yes, I see that now.  Did not see it before. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain 

message: Original version cover art, before any text was superimposed on it, is now available at commons  
It is definitely notable enough that it could be used here, although this page is already so full of illustration that there might be no more room for it.
Could also somebody verify that that the original cover art is really in public domain? It was published together with the book in 1925, however its author Francis_Cugat has died only in 1981, so I'm not entirely sure.
The drafts for the cover  that are already on this page are still marked as copyrighted, although their page was last edited in 17 July 2019, so this might be just outdated information. If they have already entered public domain, higher resolution version should be probably uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Yaqub Kabanoki 23:34, 31 May 2021‎
:Hi, . Unless I'm mistaken, the two sketches of the cover by Francis Cugat included in this article likely remain under copyright because they were not published until recently. In order for those sketches to be in the public domain, we would need to verify they were published prior to 1926. However, in the case of the cover art lacking only the book title and author name, I believe that image is in the public domain as this was the final version of the artwork that was published in 1925. As such, I added the image to the article. If I'm wrong, I'll remove it. -- Flask (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for a quick reply . I like the way that you included the cover in the article. I was trying to find the original source for the draft illustrations to learn more about their copyright status but I was only able to find link to their black and white version Celestial Eyes: From Metamorphosis to Masterpiece (the source link to University of South Carolina on the :File:Francis_Cugat_Gatsby_Cover_Drafts_1925.jpg is now defunct). Yaqub Kabanoki (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, . Thank you for the additional research. Based on what you linked, it appears the color versions of the sketches reside in the Matthew J. Bruccoli Collection at Princeton University Library, but they have not been digitally scanned and uploaded by the Princeton librarians. I assume those sketches likely still remain under copyright. -- Flask (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover art 

message: The Great Gatsby article has been nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. As any Wikipedia editor can participate in a review of a FAC nomination, it would be appreciated if any willing persons would please contribute their evaluations of this article, whether pro or con.  Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Great_Gatsby/archive2 — Flask (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking more reviewers for Featured Article Candidate nomination 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The plot recap in the article states as fact that Gatsby and Daisy, when reunited "embarked upon a sexual affair." But this is never explicitly stated or even hinted at in the actual novel. We are told only that they were lovers in the past, when they first knew each other, "and Gatsby felt married."  Hemingway admired the manuscript greatly when Fitzgerald showed it to him. However, he told Fitzgerald that the novel never makes clear whether Daisy and Gatsby are sleeping together in the present. He found this a weakness. Fitzgerald replied that he agreed, but he had never made his mind up as to whether they were or not.So much of Gatsby's feeling for Daisy was a tragic version of courtly love. Fitzgerald found it entirely believable that this emotion could have remained in his head, like his own for Ginevra King. Younggoldchip (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your insightful and knowledgeable comment. I concur the phrase should be changed. How shall we update the phrasing? I fear that replacing it "embarked upon a romance" would be misleading since we don't know if Daisy returns Gatsby's affections. We could delete the word "sexual" and leave it as "embarked upon an affair"–thus slightly more ambiguous? Let me know if you have a particular replacement in mind. — Flask (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Plot Recap Makes An Unlikely Assumption