Talk:E. Annie Proulx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

This article is part of WikiProject Wyoming, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wyoming.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.




Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Brokeback Mountain didn't win Best Picture! Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

I appreciate the concern, but just be sure to keep it out of the article section.Dvmlny 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


An encyclopedia as People Places and Things. Sad. Fifty years from now the editing of perishable stuff like this wll be enormous. The article could be reduced to 250 words and still be relevant.--Buckboard 06:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but the information is here, so let's keep it.Dvmlny 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Quebec origins?

why this notation? logically a nation should follow as a modifier of national idenity, no? last i looked, quebec was a province, not a sovereign nation. would it not be more appropriate to list "canadian", or "franco-canadian origins", etc.? -- Denstat 07:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this has been taken care of.Dvmlny 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oscars Dust-up

In the section describing the Oscars article, the heffalump part seems sort of POV, gratuitous, maybe even a little celebrity-mongering, I don't know. Is there anyone watching this article with an opinion? I think it ought to be cut.Dvmlny 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole section on the Oscars 'Dust-up' needs to be re-thought, or just excised from the article entirely. At the moment it certainly has undue weighting for what - at least in the context of such an important writer of contemporary literature in English - is an exceedingly minor controversy. Perhaps mention of it could be reduced to a passing reference somewhere in the body of the article, which is frankly the most coverage it deserves in an encyclopedia article. SpaceyHopper 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any response, I have made the change I suggested above. 86.31.112.89 10:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm deleting the section 'criticism of academy awards'. It was added without reference to the discussion here and frankly gives undue weighting to what I've already described as 'an exceedingly minor controversy' in the context of the wider career of an 'important writer of contemporary literature in English'. Furthermore, this section is merely a re-hash of Proulx's own words to which a reference is provided in the very first paragraph of this wikipedia entry. SpaceyHopper 01:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether her post-Oscar's article should stay or not, the paragraph speculating on the meaning of 'heffalump' needs to go. It is pure wikieditor guessing. If someone can provide a notable source for the speculation, by all means re-include it. Ashmoo (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm going to delete that whole section again. It's been re-written since I last changed it, but it's still crap. SpaceyHopper (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted this section again. It's full of opinion asides, commentary, original resource and is totally uncited. There may be some facts in the story, but all the stuff about what it's supposed to mean is clearly some Wikipedia's editor's opinion and personal interpretation. It does not belong on this page. And that's before we even begin to consider whether it's notable enough to have an entire section to itself. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to itemize what's wrong with this section;

  • Biographies of living persons. The material in the paragraph is both uncited and controversial. Policy is clear on this that it should be removed.
  • Original research. The paragraph contains personal interpretation and commentary of events. This is original research and does not belong on Wikipedia.
  • Notability. The events discussed in the paragraph are not notable and are given undue weight within the article.
  • Consensus. Discussion by other editors on the talk page has repeatedly led to this paragraph being removed.

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early story?

There is a short story, "The Customs Lounge", by "E.A. Proulx", in the September 1963 issue of If, a science fiction magazine. The magazine gives no biographical information. Given the unusual name, this seems very likely to be Annie Proulx. Does anyone have any further information about this story? Mike Christie (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

An ISFDB editor pointed me at a reference, so I've included the story and reffed it. Mike Christie (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Critics

I've cut down the section on BR Myers' attack on Proulx's work, for a few reasons. What was there made it sound as if Myers' criticism was targeted primarily at Proulx, when in fact she was just one several writers that he attacked. Also, to have given a whole (albeit short) paragraph to the Myers attack gives the incident an unjustified and misleading weight; Myers is not an authority on contemporary American fiction, his specialism is North Korean Studies. Finally, this article is supposed to cover Annie Proulx; Myers and A Readers Manifesto are both fairly covered in Wikipedia articles of their own, to which this article is linked. SpaceyHopper 14:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)