Talk:Nelson Algren

message: If we're going to have a Quotes section, we should make sure the quotes are printed correctly. Please verify quotes before adding them. I just corrected one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psheehan (talk • contribs) 16:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please verify quotes 

message: Virtually every use of quotation marks in the accompanying article is improper, more than simply as a matter of correct punctuation.
# The article attributes the quotes to specific authors or publications, and supplies respective references to different publications by different authors. We cannot attribute to, e.g., Art Shay without seeing Nelson Algren's Chicago. In theory, we could say, sentence by sentence,
#:: According to Art Shay, Algren said ...
#: and 
#:: According to the Chicago Reader, Zgoda's editorial suggests the  general tone of the campaign, and can be selectively quoted as saying....  
#: but it's clumsy, looks lazy and unsound (bcz it is both), and is a bad idea. I'm replacing all such quotes with indirect-quote ("... says that ...") paraphrases of them, footnoted as at present.
# Several passages, most flagrantly the one beginning "The author is ... " and ending "... directed by Nazi money." are especially problematic, bcz they cannot even theoretically be fixed into the lazy and unsound bad-idea mode. The reason is that that passage is not a quote, but a partial paraphrase of a quote, via (explicit) elision of words where the "...." appears and (equally explicitly, tho ambiguously) either substitution of "[and]" in place of something else, or supplying of "[and]" where something was deemed missing.   When B paraphrases something written by A, a new work is created, even tho it is not an independent one. (If B lacks permission from A, it doesn't seem implausible for B to be unable to enforce any of B's exclusive rights. But even so, that would be remediable without our being able to know it's been remedied: B could obtain after-the-fact permission from A (perhaps in consideration of a fee or a cut of B's profits), without any notification to us.) Even if we and the users-for-commercial-purposes of WP can assert fair use in using A's words in discussing A's work, any claim that we are discussing B's work would be a transparent sham: discussion of B's paraphrasing work would be off-topic in the Algren bio and either off-topic or unencyclopedic nearly everywhere else; in fact we'd be infringing B's exclusive rights to their own paraphrasing of A's work, period, where copyright requires us to get permission (not enuf for GFDL) or do our own from paraphrasing the original. For that reason, their removal is a matter of WP:COPYVIO, and simply tinkering with the surrounding wording (rather than going to the original presumably used by the authors of the currently quoted paraphrases, and citing those sources) cannot be tolerated.   BTW, "ironic" tho it is, i note without ironic meaning that the bad idea would have the virtue of increasing visibility of the fact that the primary reference for the "...Polonia" section is based almost entirely on a self-described "alternative weekly" with insignificant paid circulation, and apparently started by then recent graduates with insignificant professional experience. The alternative press has a place in our ref sections, but an article with its largest section based so heavily and apparently slavishly on such a pub may well be overrated in being a step above Start quality.
I am tagging the accompanying article as "in use", while i undertake replacement of quotes as i described at the end of point 1 above. --Jerzy•t 21:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation problems 

message: I removed some material:
# This is refd to the Chi Reader:
#::  His writings' central focus on the area's Polish American underclass against the background of prevalent anti-immigrant xenophobia was taken by Poles as anti-Polonism.
#: "By Poles" means something absurd: "By all Poles".  So i looked in the source, which doesn't come close to that phrase, and i'm not going to be the one who hunts down the scattered language that would justify a more credible version.
# In the context of Nazi anti-Semitism and anti-Polonism (if that is the word), "deaths of 6 million Polish citizens" should (BTW) read more like 
#:: deaths of about 90% of the estimated three million Jewish citizens of Poland, and three million of the other 32 million Polish citizens.Country Studies Poland page
#: to avoid SYNTH that suggests that Poles were subjected to racism indistinguishable from what Jews were, and that something with a scope indistinguishable in all dimensions from the Holocaust happened to Poland.  Losing 20% of its population was an unthinkable disaster for Poland (even if one were to concede what is sometimes hinted, that most Poles where glad to be rid of the Jewish 10%), but the rest of this sentence creates one of the contexts where describing that disaster with the "6 million Polish citizens" boilerplate is viciously PoV.  That being said, what was hidden behind Axis lines until 1945 did not contribute to Polish-American criticism in 1942. (In fact, including it actually invites the impression that the article "doth protest too much" that the hysterical portions of that criticism were justified.) The statement, with or without restatement, is off-topic in the article.
--Jerzy•t 03:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some troublesome sentences 

message: The article credits Algren's The Devil's Stocking being quoted by "Asteron" in the Southern Television hoax, but the bibliography says that the novel in question was published six years after the hoax took place. Either Algren was quoting the hoaxer rather than the other way round, or the bibliography's dates are wrong.
84.69.53.157 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This caused me some head-scratching - I discovered this quote while researching the Southern Television Hoax, and had originally included it in that article before everyone started moaning that it wasn't relevant. One possible point of confusion is that The Devil's Stocking, published [in 1983] posthumously after Algren's death [in 1981], was apparently based on a real-life story which Algren had written an article about for Esquire in 1975. The passage in Algren's book is near-verbatim to the published accounts of the 1977 hoax, either in the Fortean Times or the other American newspapers which printed reports of the incident. There is some doubt as to the accuracy of the reported transcripts of the hoax broadcast, which would seem to suggest that Algren was quoting the reports rather than the hoaxer or reports quoting (unpublished) Algren. Bonusballs (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Television hoax 

message: I see no reason for this to be a section all of it's own. It is one line and Purdy really barely questions Algren's sexuality at all. So... I'm gonna be bold and merge it into something else.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.125.228 (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feud with James Purdy and Questions About Sexuality  

message: Appears as himself in Goldstein (film), otherwise important for its director, and Second City cast. won a Cannes award. I dont know where this might fit in the article, if at all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Film appearance

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nelson Algren. 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/20061205023601/http://kirjasto.sci.fi/nalgren.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/nalgren.htm
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) 03:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's too bad that The Neon Wilderness is missing, so Draft:The Neon Wilderness is available. 62.147.25.99 (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New draft for The Neon Wilderness