Talk:The Chrysanthemums

message: I'm going to try to clean up this page myself, but if anyone can assist me I would greatly appreciate it.  I've read the story, and I can put more accurate and relevant information in this article. --Nevhood 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitely needs cleanup 

message: when looking at this page on March 13, 2007, i found this link, "http://amb.cult.bg/american/4/seinbeck/chrysanthemums.htm", that was in the external links section to be ending at a 404 page in what appears to be russian. Will attempt to find another online source for this short story, but would appreciate some help. Might have to turn to my local library for a copy. --Kablaq 17:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New external link needed 

message: Most of this article appears to be personal interpretations, perhaps the results of class discussions about the story. This qualifies as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I've tagged the article as such for now. If there are external sources for any of the ideas presented in the article, they can be added as references. Otherwise, most of the content will have to be removed as original research. --Icarus (Hi!) 04:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The contents of this article may have value in its own right, for the reasons you have stated, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for this type of content. Personal interpretations can and have been removed from articles about fictional stories. Please review the official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research if you are interested in learning about why, no matter how interesting or insightful personal interpretations may be, they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. I have seen a number of other instances in which articles about stories had personal interpretations, some mundane and some incredibly creative. Wikipedia does not exist for, and could not possibly support, personal interpretations from any random person who happens to stop by, no matter how valuable such discussions may be in appropriate forums. --Icarus (Hi!) 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?

message: After seven months with no reduction in the amount of original research in this article, I decided to be bold and remove much of it myself. I removed a great deal from the article, and reduced the excessive verbosity of what remained. Like the previous anonymous commenter said, it's become a mish-mash of bits and pieces from different students who came here after reading the story in class (probably, in some cases, copying and pasting from a paper they had to write about it). I've left in what appear to be the more significant key points. The previous version of the article can be seen here. If any interpretations have published academic sources, those can, of course, be included. --Icarus (Hi!) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed that there is original research used in the summary which Wikipedia does not allow. For example, it was interpreted that Elisa was felt attraction to the man who visits the ranch and that Elisa and Henry seem like a “well-matched couple”. There seemed to be more as well but I can be wrong. Although the interpretations are good for assignments and also in trying to further understand a story, without concrete evidence from a reliable source which is required by Wikipedia, they are just personal interpretations. You did a good job of reducing the amount of original research present int the article so I hope that I can reduce it even more. I also liked that you put the original unedited version of the article in your comment.Esierra12 (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing original research

message: In what I can only describe as the complete failure of Wiki magic, someone has set the page The Chrysanthemums, one of Steinbeck's major stories, to redirect to the main John Steinbeck page, which neither references nor mentions the story. I'm changing the redirect to The Long Valley, because if we must have a redirect instead of a proper article, it should at least be to a page which includes the words referenced, because otherwise we're just going to confuse people. 169.231.41.53 (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: It appears that this link: http://www.answers.com/topic/the-chrysanthemums-story-2 redirects to a generic Answers.com search page.  It displays a lot of interesting information on flowers, but doesn't seem to provide much information pertaining to this story.  I'd suggest that it is removed or replaced.  kc0wir [Editor] (Talk|User) 02:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect/bad reference link?

message: This article has a large amount of opinions in it, such as "they seem a well matched couple" and "clearly Elisa envies the man’s life......"These are interpretations and are not explicitly stated. I am planning on removing these from the article.Tmerc2 (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Everything should be kept neutral and shouldn't try to convince a reader towards an opinion. Jjperez1 (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: These comments belong in the section above on "original research." Dumas1110 (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of opinons 

message: The article could use an analysis section to talk about the point of view, the narrator, and different themes in the story such as: marriage, inequality between genders, and loneliness and isolation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nholm2 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Analysis 

message: I added a brief section on the page that discusses how  the chrysanthemums are as a symbol of Elisa.  Erikalugo1 (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your interpretation of how the flowers and Elisa are similar. They are both strong and sturdy, while also being delicate and dainty. However, I do think this section could be longer and some textual evidence could be shown to push your point a little further. It's mentioned multiple times that she's a strong yet delicate woman, and when the tinker comes to her garden, she's weary of letting him near her pots or scissors. That shows off more of her masculine side, as she's keeping the stranger away from her personal items. 
Erisdon (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think making a point of to talk about masculinity is another good point. Yes she is delicate but she clearly yearns to be more powerful. Ashsosa1 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

text:  I like the explanation of the flowers and what they symbolized. However, I believe that more symbols should be discussed in this section. 
9Frank (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there are more symbols than just the chrysanthemums themselves, like the way Elisa's husband treats her.Jchud2 (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I think we should also talk about the fights mentioned in the story. In the beginning of the story, Elisa didn’t seem interested in fights or watching them, and she quickly says no. But towards the end, after what happened with the man, she expresses some kind of interest in the fights.Kimcaaa (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. In the beginning we see Elisa wearing a floral, more form fitting dress yet in a way she tries to cover up her femininity by where bulkier clothing (the gloves, apron, and mens hat to cover her hair). In a way its like she is protecting herself and trying to give off a "mighty" or "strong" image that typically comes along with masculinity. We later see a much more feminine side to Elisa later that night after she "scrubs" herself clean almost symbolizing a shedding of her previous more masculine image. This more feminine and vulnerable look is seen throughout the night up until she sees the chrysanthemum shoots in the road. It's then that we see her revert back to that more protective masculine side from the being of the story when she gains interest in the fights which is typically designed as a much more gory and masculine subject or event to go and watch. So I also feel that the fights were an important part of the story.Marissabizzario (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I added a brief section about the fights in the plot summary(in the first paragraph and last paragraph).I found that they were important to the plot and showed a slight change in character in Elisa. Feel free to elaborate on it. Marissabizzario (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I edited and added to the section on Symbolism Jjperez1 (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I am adding another form of symbolism in the chrysanthemums 9Frank (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree. Their are many other symbols in the story that greatly contribute to the theme and tone of the story.Mleon15 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I also agree.  I am adding a sentence about the fog with a source momentarily. PeachGuy (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I added a wiki link to Language of Flowers. Mleon15 (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Symbolism 

message: There could possibly be some edits made in the "Characters" section. Possibly adding more information about the characters that is in the "Plot Summary", which would allow that section to be slightly shortened.Jjperez1 (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the character section needs to be edited and fixed since there was no mention of a ranch hand named Scotty in the Steinbeck’s short story. Maybe, there is a character named Scotty in another interpretation of the story such as a movie, etc., but this Wikipedia article seems to be referencing Steinbeck’s original story. If there are other places that “The Chrysanthemums” are featured they should have their own section where they are mentioned. Furthermore, the character titled “the tinker” should be replaced with “The man” because he never states his exact job title to Elisa, only what he does and it is what he is also called throughout the story. I plan to edit the character section so it would be in line with the story.Esierra12 (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to go in and make a few minor edits. Feel free to change anything.Jjperez1 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really appreciate that you changed some of the things I was concerned with about the character section. But I think you did not cite and reference some things correctly. I am going to try to fix some things so hopefully, the warning box would go away.Esierra12 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing the Characters Section

message: I am editing the summary of some grammatical mistakes in hopes of making the statements clearer and understandable. I am also editing out the word "clearly" that is used in a couple of places because the way the word "clearly" is being used makes the statement an opinion. There are also a lot of unnecessary commas that I am editing out. I am also renaming the "Symbolism of the Chrysanthemums" to simply "symbolism" in hopes that others will add the other symbols in the story to this page. Erikalugo1 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also made some grammatical changes to the "Plot Summary" section to better fit Wikipedia's Manual of StyleEmilydean1 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the summary and symbolism section 

message: While reading the summary I noticed that it was too long and that it had some unnecessary information could be taken out to shorten it. Furthermore, the summary also had some incorrect information in it. For example, the part that says Elisa boasted that she was strong after Henry commented on her appearance, as well as Henry's reply, is not present in the story
Also, there where words either paraphrased or taken directly from the story that was not cited at all. Such as how Elisa is described as in the summary. Without the citations or references to whatever is used then there is a case of plagiarism, unintentional or not.
Later I hope to cite whatever needs to be correctly cited in order to hopefully get rid of accidental plagiarism.Esierra12 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the summary and incorrect/not cited information 

message: Steinbeck portrays Elisa as strong, empowered woman who despite that is often is seen in the shadow of her husband. Her physical features often come across as masculine even though on the inside she is as feminine as a woman could be. Elissa's clothing as heavy and masculine. Steinbeck repeats the word heavy several times throughout the story to prove how her appearance can come across as masculine. Steinbeck does shoe how the character's feminist by pointing out her wearing a "figured print dress" but then details how the dress is "completely covered by a big corduroy apron." The author makes it a point to state that her new dress is “the symbol of her prettiness” (243). Elisa is shown as a pretty woman but is hidden behind the masculinity of the world. Her husband seems to be the breadwinner of the couple while she sits home and tends to her garden and puts all of her time and effort into the chrysanthemums. Her hard work and passion will always be clouded by a man’s success. 
 It can be shown throughout the entire story how some could be questioning the characters femininity when there is so much masculinity shown.Lmuraskin18 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a great point. We even see Henry in a way label her work on the chrysanthemums as not good enough. We see this when he first comments on the chrysanthemum and complements them saying "Some of those yellow chrysanthemums you had this year were ten inches across", but then his comment is quickly followed by "I wish you’d work out in the orchard and raise some apples that big.” One can interpret this as him praising her work, but just because it's a more feminine task it's in a way not good enough and almost a waste of time. We can assume that this is a typical thing for Elisa to go through . That's why when the "the man" (or tinker who wants to fix the pots) complements her chrysanthemums and in a way praises her (without following it with a negative comment). So she acts the way she does, which is so happy, ecstatic and gains confidence.  Marissabizzario (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Femininity versus Masculinity   

message: I changed the last two sentences in the first paragraph of the plot summary.Mbish4 (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Summary 

message: I believe background information about the story such as the name of the publisher and other information should be added at the beginning of the page.Jovany Pedraza-Garay (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will be getting around to this by adding an infobox for a book and filling it out with as much info as I can find.Jovany Pedraza-Garay (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorporation of story information

message: What does raising chrysanthemums have to do with pleasing her husband? I feel like there was more opportunity to talk about other meanings of chrysanthemums and how that meaning relates to her as a person. Jsand8 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  symbolism