Talk:As I Lay Dying

message: This needs to be completely rewritten or else deleted. It is atrocious. The two last paragraphs contradict each other in stating that different characters are "the Christ-like figure" to be found in the novel. Other gems include lines like "The true hero lives in the tension between thinking and acting…"
I will leave it up for a day as a grace period, but unless anyone familiar with the work steps up to rewrite this section, it will be removed. Ipsenaut 01:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the section was pretty bad, and it was probably original research considering it also had no references. But don't you think a day is a bit too short? I know it could be rewritten, but considering it's taken more than a year for someone to reply... --Qmwne235 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christlike figures section 

message: The Agamemnon quote refers to Greek rites including the 
lady with dog like eyes which is goddess Isis or the Holy Spirit
and your dying is a prelude then to your rebirth 
as a Christlike figure or quetzacoatl ... 
harkonen 19 @ atreides —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.22.112 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title suggests other things 

message: Do we really need a reference, with links, to "the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and other English-speaking countries"?  Is the distinction between colleges and universities worth mentioning?  Hasn't Faulkner received recognition outside Anglophonia?D021317c 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He does have a lot of recognition outside of English-speaking countries (especially Sweden in 1951), but not as much as in English-speaking countries. I agree that that part should be removed. Also, in most countries, the difference between colleges and universities in this context is not worth noting. --Qmwne235 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-promotion of English 

message: Nowhere in the book does it actually give the exact ages of any of the characters, so I am curious as to where these numbers came from.  Could the person who added them please give a citation?  The book does state the childrens' relative ages, so If nobody comes up with a citation, I will change them to approximate ages or just "youngest," "oldest," etc.  FerralMoonrender (MyTalk • MyContribs • EmailMe) 03:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For Darl, the age is mentioned. When Darl refers to Cash having done what he was doing for two years before he could have enjoyed it (Chapter 3), it is implied that he is two years younger. As for Vardaman, I have heard guesses from 5 to 14. I suppose the person who added this information chose 7-9 because of his general manner of thought and the fact that Tull could not see him when he opened the door, signifying that he is short. I don't know the reasoning behind the other two. --queso man 23:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says Dewey Dell is 17 in, I beleive, Moseley's chapter 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it says so in there and in her own last chapter. I would like to correct my earlier statement. Darl's age is not given directly. However, Jewel is known to be within two years of age and older than Dewey Dell, and Darl is about ten years older than Jewel (I forgot where this can be found). It is implied that Cash is two years older than Darl in Darl's second chapter, the third in the book. Vardaman's age is never even implied; one possible conclusion is that he is 7-9, as per my reasoning above. --queso man 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a copy of the book on hand, but I'll believe you people about Dewey Dell being 17 and the other relative ages.  The only thing I would be hesitant to put in is an age for Vardaman (even an estimate) as I have heard much debate as to whether he was just very young or actually mentally impared. Otherwise, It would be great if you would put in the relative ages, and that Dewey Dell is 17.  I'll leave it to you, because as I said I don't have a copy of the book, so I don't have the exact facts.  Thanks for all your help. FerralMoonrender (MyTalk • MyContribs • EmailMe) 01:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Vardaman's age is debatable. I remember my teacher telling me that Cliff Notes gave his age as 14, which both of us disagreed with. I personally got the impression that he was around 9; others though he was closer to 7. Having a variation in possible ages of 100% is a bit too much for a definite answer. The rest of them are roughly deducible from Dewey Dell's age and scattered hints mentioned earlier. --Qmwne235 22:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character ages 

message: Surely the novel is more significant? 138.69.160.1 20:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, but probably not enough to warrant moving this to replace the disambiguation. After all, the band is somewhat famous. I'm not sure myself; the novel definitely is more important, but it seems that especially among younger people (like me), the band at least prevents the novel from obtaining that kind of almost universal recognition when the name is mentioned that's usually pretty common in articles for which there are disambiguations but that still have a title without any parenthetical descriptions.  --Qmwne235 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The novel more significant? Hm, thats quite irrelevant. The band's well known too. Who these people who decide that the novel is more significant? Nothing is more signifcant than something else. "As i lay dying " should be a page where you have the choice between the novel and band...--Narayaan (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general guideline is that if one possibility is much more notable than all the others, it should be the one to which readers are redirected. For example, Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein, not Einstein (disambiguation) or Einstein (crater). As for your statement that nothing is more notable than anything else, I would dispute that. Albert Einstein is certainly more notable than the crater. I'm still not sure the novel is much more notable (although it's much more significant) than the band. I would normally agree that we should make a disambiguation, but since the system has already been set up this way, I suppose it should stay that way, since both systems would probably work equally well. --Qmwne235 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation? 

message: :Image:Dying87.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Dying87.jpg 

message: Peabody, the doctor in the novel, responsible for at least one chapter of the books content, is not mentioned within the article.  I do not know the book well enough to add him in myself, so would he be mentioned somewhere?Just another guy trying to be a Chemical Engineer, Nanobiotechnologist, and Mathematician (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and he seems to be a somewhat important character in the beginning. Even though you said that you aren't very familiar with the book, maybe you should just add a brief description of his activities and thoughts. Unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of the book, so I can't do it myself. Moseley would be another character it might by best to mention, but probably under Dewey Dell. --Qmwne235 00:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a short section on Peabody. Improve it if you can. Eva-psyche (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you to 99.234.29.73 for correcting my error on Peabody. Eva-psyche (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Peabody 

message: A few months ago a very limited discussion was held by a few editors on an disambig redirect page. The result was a claimed "consensus" that the article As I Lay Dying should redirect to As I Lay Dying (disambiguation). The reasoning was that a band named after the novel was now more well known than the novel, meaning the main "As I Lay Dying" phrase shouldn't link only to the novel. 
The problem is that as it clearly states here, disambig pages should only be created "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term." That is not the case here. Since the band is named for the book, making the book the primary topic, and the band's album has part of its title taken from the band's name, the proper course is to have a disambig link at the top of the novel article. 
If people want to change this guidelines, that is fine. But to do that, we need to have a true consensus building discussion. Please go [] to voice your opinion on this issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is no conflict here with any guideline.  A requested move of the disambiguation page to the base name has been made;  see Talk:As I Lay Dying (disambiguation)#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  As I Lay Dying disambiguation 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was no consensus. Primary topic moves must show a clear, unambiguous prevalence for a single topic; that is not apparent here. kotra (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I Lay Dying (novel) → As I Lay Dying — The novel is the clear primary topic of this name. Some time ago it was argued that As I Lay Dying (band) should be the primary target, but use in reliable sources favors the novel by a very wide margin.--Cúchullain t/c 17:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lists the traffic stats tool as one of the "Tools that may help determine a primary topic, but are not determining factors..." In this case I don't think a few months of more page hits for the band does much to challenge 79 years of prominence for the novel. The only uncontentious way for us to make a judgment is to look at the most common usage demonstrable by reliable sources, and as I have pointed out below, use in reliable sources favors the novel by an order of magnitude.--Cúchullain t/c 13:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, but I disagree with that weighting of the two metrics, and with the claim that the way that favors one is the only uncontentious way, as it seems contentious. "Primary topic" in Wikipedia does not necessarily mean "first", "earliest", "most important", or "most scholarly", nor does it necessarily mean "most recent", "most popular", or "most Google hits". It just means "more used". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Through my search, the band has about x6 more web hits than the novel. Band and the Novel. The same with the news results. 1 250 hits for the band and 866 for the novel, with the earliest novel news in 1930 and the earliest band news in 1970. Although I do suspect some contaminated results, as the band was not formed in 1970, I suspect the musicians in the band were children at the time. Jerry teps (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support leaving it as it is.Jerry teps (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, my results may be slightly inaccurate as safe search is turned on. As I am currently at TAFE, I cannot turn it back off. But I assume this would only slightly alter the results. Jerry teps (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Full marks to Cúchullain for kicking off a fresh discussion. For context, please note that past discussion(s) regarding this subject can be found at Talk:As I Lay Dying. Mlaffs (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus cannot be made if only one side is participating. Also, the point made about the Google books results is extremely weak. Of course it's going to appear more often than the band. Shall I look for the novel on "google music". Searching "As I Lay Dying" + "band" results in more hits in Google Search and Google News (In "All dates" archive) compared to "As I Lay Dying" + "novel". Also, to R. fiend, who can't help but to throw insults to try and make my points look weak. I do not listen to the band. At all. Nor do I like the genre of music. Stop making assumptions and childish insults. Also, as everyone appears to have completely ignored my previous points (as no one has even tried to refute this), Wikipedia Guidelines specifically state that "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article. If the primary topic for a term is titled something else by the naming conventions, then a redirect for the term is used. Any article which has primary usage for its title and has other uses should have a disambiguation link at the top, and the disambiguation page should link back to the primary topic. Similarly, any article which has primary usage for a name that redirects to it and has other uses should have a "such-and-such redirects here" disambiguation link at the top, and the disambiguation page for that name should link back to the primary topic." According to Google the term is pretty much exclusively referring to the band, with only 2 results on the first page for the novel. Jerry teps (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where that level of defensiveness has come from, but I hope it's not the result of anything I've done. To try and respond to your statement that only "one side" is participating in this discussion, I have notified several other people who had previously been involved in the discussion. To avoid violating CANVASS I kept the notification brief and extremely neutral and did not select people based on their previous opinions or on how they voted in the last move discussion. I have also left a note at the relevant wikiprojects. Hope it helps, but doing much more than that will really be pushing the CANVASS guideline.--Cúchullain t/c 13:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Moving back to the discussion, I don't want to repeat myself, but "use in reliable sources favors the novel by a very wide margin." Personal web sites and and blogs are not reliable sources, and that's most of what turns up on a general Google search. News articles, such as the type that show up on Google News, aren't preferable either. And as I have pointed out, it depends on which google search you look at. Google Books, and especially Google Scholar, which are far better for the purposes of locating reliable sources (but by no means perfect), resoundingly return more hits relating to the novel than to the band. And that's if we're willing to overlook the shortcomings of the Google Test. We may also look for reliable sources the old fashion way: my university library currently has 48 works relating to "As I Lay Dying". One is an edition of the novel, and 3 or so do not discuss the novel as such, but only reference it in passing. The rest are all scholarly discussions of the book, notes to reading it, discussions of Faulkner and American and Southern literature, etc. And not a single one refers to the band. A JSTOR search is similarly telling: just from the journals my school has access to, there are at least 188 articles discussing "As I Lay Dying". Not all are references to the novel, or contain in-depth discussion of it, but a significant majority are, and none so much as mention the band.--Cúchullain t/c 13:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I got radically different results from Google than you did, Jerry. The first page of my search for "As I Lay Dying" gave me 4 hits for the band (their official page, their Myspace page, their Wikipedia article, and a page on last.fm ), plus a link to their video results. The novel returned a comparable 4 results (its Wikipedia article, its Spark Notes, a page from Amazon.com, and a professor's page publishing commentary.) plus a link to the Google Books results. The second page returned 5-vs.-5 as well. Google News did return more hits for the band, but only for the last few months; searching for "all dates" returned far more hits for the novel and some independent uses (which are allusions to the novel). But when we get to the more relevant Google searches, Google Scholar and Google Books, they resoundingly favor the novel. To me it looks like some Google searches can make the title look like it could be ambiguous (though I don't see how they can be used to argue that the band is more prominent). But the more relevant searches show the novel to be "more used" in the type of sources required by V.--Cúchullain t/c 13:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, your right, it is different. I'm at TAFE at the moment and the results are different, with 3 links referencing the novel. I'm not sure what's up with that. And I apologise if I came off as defensive. What I meant was that a true consensus cannot be made if only one side has decided to participate. The side that has not decided to participate most likely does not care about the matter, and are not worried about the resolution. While this is all fine and dandy, a true consensus that contains discussion from both sides and comes to a conclusion. Also I wouldn't expect the band to appear in many scholarly discussions. 1. They're a band. 2. Heavy metal is not exactly a scholarly genre. Also, I want to make this clear to everyone (not directed at you, just clearing this up for anyone reading this). I barely listen to this band, nor do I listen to the heavy metal genre (on occasions, there are a few "good" bands, but I find the majority of the bands not to my liking (I can listen to them, it's just not something that i'd go out and listen to)). Also, I currently do not wish for the page to redirect to the band at all. I just want to come to the correct conclusion which may or may not be the conclusion I am currently supporting. I also think that it should remain a disambiguation page, as many arguments will inevitably arrise in the future if either article is moved. Jerry teps (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I just reread my first statement above. And it does seem very defensive. Again, I apologise. Also, to clear up my statement about. I meant those who support the band have chosen not to participate, so a correct conclusion based on debate cannot be made, and therefore, a consensus cannot be made, as only those with the same bias has chosen to participate. Jerry teps (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ! Just noticed the section above. And I realise both sides have participated, I apologise sincerely and I really should of paid more attention. Jerry teps (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, yesterday, (or maybe the day before) wasn't the move template right here? not at the top, I thought this was a new discussion. Jerry teps (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, now I see, the time stamps state that they were discussing yesterday... Jerry teps (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha, this is one of those "FAIL" moments. Jerry teps (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
*Support - As said above, the novel is clearly primary and of greater note. That's what matters. -R. fiend (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2009 

message: *Oppose. I was in favor of the proposed arrangment back in January, when the previous moves made traffic stats questionable. Looking at the traffic stats now (3 times as many hits for the band than for the novel for each of the past two months), I would leave the disambig at the base name (if the hits are balanced by the reliable sourcing mentioned above) or move the band to the base name (if they don't). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lists the traffic stats tool as one of the "Tools that may help determine a primary topic, but are not determining factors..." In this case I don't think a few months of more page hits for the band does much to challenge 79 years of prominence for the novel. The only uncontentious way for us to make a judgment is to look at the most common usage demonstrable by reliable sources, and as I have pointed out below, use in reliable sources favors the novel by an order of magnitude.--Cúchullain t/c 13:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, but I disagree with that weighting of the two metrics, and with the claim that the way that favors one is the only uncontentious way, as it seems contentious. "Primary topic" in Wikipedia does not necessarily mean "first", "earliest", "most important", or "most scholarly", nor does it necessarily mean "most recent", "most popular", or "most Google hits". It just means "more used". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Through my search, the band has about x6 more web hits than the novel. Band and the Novel. The same with the news results. 1 250 hits for the band and 866 for the novel, with the earliest novel news in 1930 and the earliest band news in 1970. Although I do suspect some contaminated results, as the band was not formed in 1970, I suspect the musicians in the band were children at the time. Jerry teps (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support leaving it as it is.Jerry teps (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, my results may be slightly inaccurate as safe search is turned on. As I am currently at TAFE, I cannot turn it back off. But I assume this would only slightly alter the results. Jerry teps (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Full marks to Cúchullain for kicking off a fresh discussion. For context, please note that past discussion(s) regarding this subject can be found at Talk:As I Lay Dying. Mlaffs (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus cannot be made if only one side is participating. Also, the point made about the Google books results is extremely weak. Of course it's going to appear more often than the band. Shall I look for the novel on "google music". Searching "As I Lay Dying" + "band" results in more hits in Google Search and Google News (In "All dates" archive) compared to "As I Lay Dying" + "novel". Also, to R. fiend, who can't help but to throw insults to try and make my points look weak. I do not listen to the band. At all. Nor do I like the genre of music. Stop making assumptions and childish insults. Also, as everyone appears to have completely ignored my previous points (as no one has even tried to refute this), Wikipedia Guidelines specifically state that "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article. If the primary topic for a term is titled something else by the naming conventions, then a redirect for the term is used. Any article which has primary usage for its title and has other uses should have a disambiguation link at the top, and the disambiguation page should link back to the primary topic. Similarly, any article which has primary usage for a name that redirects to it and has other uses should have a "such-and-such redirects here" disambiguation link at the top, and the disambiguation page for that name should link back to the primary topic." According to Google the term is pretty much exclusively referring to the band, with only 2 results on the first page for the novel. Jerry teps (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where that level of defensiveness has come from, but I hope it's not the result of anything I've done. To try and respond to your statement that only "one side" is participating in this discussion, I have notified several other people who had previously been involved in the discussion. To avoid violating CANVASS I kept the notification brief and extremely neutral and did not select people based on their previous opinions or on how they voted in the last move discussion. I have also left a note at the relevant wikiprojects. Hope it helps, but doing much more than that will really be pushing the CANVASS guideline.--Cúchullain t/c 13:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving back to the discussion, I don't want to repeat myself, but "use in reliable sources favors the novel by a very wide margin." Personal web sites and and blogs are not reliable sources, and that's most of what turns up on a general Google search. News articles, such as the type that show up on Google News, aren't preferable either. And as I have pointed out, it depends on which google search you look at. Google Books, and especially Google Scholar, which are far better for the purposes of locating reliable sources (but by no means perfect), resoundingly return more hits relating to the novel than to the band. And that's if we're willing to overlook the shortcomings of the Google Test. We may also look for reliable sources the old fashion way: my university library currently has 48 works relating to "As I Lay Dying". One is an edition of the novel, and 3 or so do not discuss the novel as such, but only reference it in passing. The rest are all scholarly discussions of the book, notes to reading it, discussions of Faulkner and American and Southern literature, etc. And not a single one refers to the band. A JSTOR search is similarly telling: just from the journals my school has access to, there are at least 188 articles discussing "As I Lay Dying". Not all are references to the novel, or contain in-depth discussion of it, but a significant majority are, and none so much as mention the band.--Cúchullain t/c 13:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I got radically different results from Google than you did, Jerry. The first page of my search for "As I Lay Dying" gave me 4 hits for the band (their official page, their Myspace page, their Wikipedia article, and a page on last.fm ), plus a link to their video results. The novel returned a comparable 4 results (its Wikipedia article, its Spark Notes, a page from Amazon.com, and a professor's page publishing commentary.) plus a link to the Google Books results. The second page returned 5-vs.-5 as well. Google News did return more hits for the band, but only for the last few months; searching for "all dates" returned far more hits for the novel and some independent uses (which are allusions to the novel). But when we get to the more relevant Google searches, Google Scholar and Google Books, they resoundingly favor the novel. To me it looks like some Google searches can make the title look like it could be ambiguous (though I don't see how they can be used to argue that the band is more prominent). But the more relevant searches show the novel to be "more used" in the type of sources required by V.--Cúchullain t/c 13:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, your right, it is different. I'm at TAFE at the moment and the results are different, with 3 links referencing the novel. I'm not sure what's up with that. And I apologise if I came off as defensive. What I meant was that a true consensus cannot be made if only one side has decided to participate. The side that has not decided to participate most likely does not care about the matter, and are not worried about the resolution. While this is all fine and dandy, a true consensus that contains discussion from both sides and comes to a conclusion. Also I wouldn't expect the band to appear in many scholarly discussions. 1. They're a band. 2. Heavy metal is not exactly a scholarly genre. Also, I want to make this clear to everyone (not directed at you, just clearing this up for anyone reading this). I barely listen to this band, nor do I listen to the heavy metal genre (on occasions, there are a few "good" bands, but I find the majority of the bands not to my liking (I can listen to them, it's just not something that i'd go out and listen to)). Also, I currently do not wish for the page to redirect to the band at all. I just want to come to the correct conclusion which may or may not be the conclusion I am currently supporting. I also think that it should remain a disambiguation page, as many arguments will inevitably arrise in the future if either article is moved. Jerry teps (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I just reread my first statement above. And it does seem very defensive. Again, I apologise. Also, to clear up my statement about. I meant those who support the band have chosen not to participate, so a correct conclusion based on debate cannot be made, and therefore, a consensus cannot be made, as only those with the same bias has chosen to participate. Jerry teps (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ! Just noticed the section above. And I realise both sides have participated, I apologise sincerely and I really should of paid more attention. Jerry teps (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, yesterday, (or maybe the day before) wasn't the move template right here? not at the top, I thought this was a new discussion. Jerry teps (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, now I see, the time stamps state that they were discussing yesterday... Jerry teps (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha, this is one of those "FAIL" moments. Jerry teps (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
*Support - As said above, the novel is clearly primary and of greater note. That's what matters. -R. fiend (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: The page now states that Anse was not aware of Addie's affair.  But in recounting the history of her childbearing, Addie states twice that she had cut Anse off sexually before Jewel was born.  Would Anse then not be aware that Jewel was not his son, even if the identity of the father was protected by Addie?
AAT17 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Addie never says that she cut Anse off sexually. She says things like "he was dead to me" but I take that to mean something more along the lines of her not loving him. Additionally, a lot of scholarly articles use those lines to describe Addie's mistrust of language and naming. P.gandal (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anse's awareness of Addie's affair 

message: The last paragraph of this section cites Adie's wish to be buried in Jefferson as one of her dying requests, but that is not accurate. She makes Anse promise to bury her with her kin in Jefferson after Darl was born. I have it in iBooks, so the best pagination I can give is: 238-239 of 405. I feel the entire last paragraph could use a rewrite. Davehennager (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary techniques 

message: What is meant by "he did not change a word of it"? That he never revised it after publishing, that he didn't create more than one draft, or something else? InverseHypercube (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it to mean that he wrote it down on paper, the first time (i.e., his first draft).  And that first draft was, in fact, the final draft (i.e., the published piece).  I have read elsewhere that he meticulously planned this book in his mind, before actually writing it down (i.e., typing it) on paper.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  And, in any event, that is a direct quote attributed to Faulkner himself.  He stated that he "did not change a word of it" and, furthermore, that he "wrote it in six weeks".  Ultimately, both claims were found not to be true.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "He did not change a word of it." 

message: The current plot summary is copied word-for-word from the SparkNotes plot summary of this novel.  I assume that this is not allowed?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that too. It looks like it was added on 30 August 2011 by 76.103.238.159. I've restored the section to an earlier version that's rather short and incomplete, but I haven't read the novel so cannot expand it. Jfmantis (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: The intro states that AILD is Faulkner's 7th novel, but his bibliography show it as fifth. Which is it? It seems to me it should read fifth, but I don't want to step on an editors toes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seventh novel? 

message: I'm removing the claim that Darl is the most objective character in the book. The claim is at best problematic, and there are a great many critical studies that warn against too closely aligning Darl with any sort of objective reality or authorial voice (not to mention Faulkner's own claims that he is insane from the get go).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.218.13.42 (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "most objective character" 

message: Hello, sorry I'm french, and I speak english very bad... (pléonasme ?! ahah !) but it is writing "Faulkner presents 15 different points of view, each chapter narrated by one character, including Addie", and in the list of the characters, they are 16 (and in the book also !) Perhaps I did not understand the "including", for Addie ? Thanks ! --84.6.210.151 (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: One character narrates two chapters.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on As I Lay Dying. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207224252/http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html to http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207224252/http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html to http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The lede currently states that the title is based on the 1925 translation by William Sinclair Marris, which it quotes as reading "As I lay dying, the woman with the dog's eyes would not close my eyes as I descended into Hades." However, the Marris translation (link displays relevant page spread) does not appear to include this quote – in fact, it's written in a completely different meter. What translation does "As I lay dying" really come from? Do we have a source? — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 06:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marris translation?