Talk:Langston Hughes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] Notes/Citations
Added further notes and citations for reference.TonyCrew 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Replaced dead link with new open link & added further notes/citations and a photograph of book cover for the Ways of White Folks, 1934.TonyCrew 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Setting up archives
- Hi all Langston Hughes editors, After reverting some vandalism to this talk page I decided to follow wiki protocol regarding archiving talk pages, because the talk page was getting rather long (>32K). The archive box should be pretty self-explanatory. --lquilter 18:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of Spam Link & Quote
Removed quotes added. There is a Wikiquote page containing quotes by Hughes. Moreover, link given from where quotes were taken is a spam link.TonyCrew 04:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
The level of vandalism to the stability and integrity of this article has become to severe. I have requested simi-protection of the article. I do not know if the request will be granted, but it didn't hurt to ask.TonyCrew 05:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering the level of vandalism, more than the Ernest Hemingway article that has received semi-protection, I hoped this article could get "semi-protection." This was declined. Those of you who vandal patrol and other, thank you for your efforts and for allowing me to show my appreciation on you talk pages.TonyCrew 05:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Replaced information deleted by user Cptbuck as any search will prove the error of deletion.TonyCrew 08:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sexual Orientation
If one is so-called "closeted" throughout one's life, there is no evidence to prove one's sexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.15.49 (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
THERE IS HARDLY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FACT OF HIS SEXUAL RELATION. IF SO, NEEDS TO BE ADDED AND NEEDS TO GO IN THE BIO SECTION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.238.50 (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think that Hughes' orientation, closeted or not, belongs under "trivia." MJFiorello 02:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Created the category of Visual Media where the sexuality of Hughes is also noted. More, made more specific his role and involvement in the Spainish Civil War where he was only a correspondent.TonyCrew 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Added documentary film to Visual MediaTonyCrew 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I hate how people are so quick to claim him as a homosexual when his sexuality was never concrete. His private life remains ambiguous, regardless of how some people interpret his poems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinity2 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 2 June 2007
Usere Infinity22, please refrain from such POV prejudiced diatribes absent of research. Moreover, please do not come in and change DOCUMENTED footnotes/quotes. Your actions constitute vandalism.TonyCrew 15:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
User Infinity22, please stop changing material that you obviously are not familar with. You are adding prejudiced materialTonyCrew 01:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- It seems like sexual orientation ought to be discussed more in the biography section. A short couple of sentences about the fact that he was gay; never married; very closeted. ... Then the "visual media" references won't just introduce this new biographical material out of the blue. I'll work on it. --lquilter 18:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Photograph
Repositioned picture of Hughes' home due to Visual Media being moved to better position in article. This should improve the aesthetics of the article.TonyCrew 00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox for Writers
User Emerson7, please, the infobox follows wiki guidelines for writers. Adding "expressed age" upon Hughes' death is not necessary. His age the day he died is already included in article.TonyCrew 05:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
i love this mans poetry so basically langston hughes rocks
[edit] Ostrom encyclopedia
You might add A Langston Hughes Encyclopedia by Hans Ostrom (Westport: Greenwood Press, 2002) to the bibliography. Thanks for the good work. Ostrom 17:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Black
I'm not sure if there's a wikipedia policy on the matter, but for an important pro-black right peot/campaginer etc., nowhere does it actually say he is black. While one could quite easily deduce this from the article and/or photo, would it not be more helpful just to slip in the adjective in the first paragraph? Larklight 10:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Larklight. Your concern is already included in the "Career" section of the article where the vital chacteristics of Hughes and his works are summed up.TonyCrew 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- While many readers might expect the article's first words to be:"...was an African American poet, novelist, playwright,..." (emphasis mine), I rather admire the author's de-emphasis of a fact which (as Larklight also noted) can hardly be overlooked or mistaken by anyone who's viewing the page. Doc Tropics 00:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] On a similar note...
I'd perused this article before, but I just noticed something that caused me to read it very carefully, twice:
There is an LGBT banner at the top of the page, and at least 2 of the refs are from books about gay/lesbian authors, but nowhere in the article could I find a specific mention regarding his sexuality. It's possible I overlooked something obvious, but it seems like a curious omission given the banner and refs. I'm not necessarily advocating that it should be addressed explicitly; some might argue that it's not relevant unless he was "notable" for being gay.
I'm wondering if Tony might shed some light on this and satisfy my otherwise idle curiousity? Doc Tropics 00:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Doc, Actually your question is addressed in the article. Specifically in the Visual Media section.TonyCrew 15:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Doc, don't worry about anything. I can understand the feeling. :-) TonyCrew 22:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
-
This isn't directly about Hughes but I believe it is important, nevertheless. "where he became a member of the Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, the first black fraternal organization founded at a historically black college and university"- not true, they were not the first. Ever heard of Alpha Phi Alpha on the campus of Howard University? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.115.172 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 31 October 2007
- The statement is in fact correct. Omega Psi Phi is the first black fraternity founded at a historically black university (Howard University) whereas Alpha Phi Alpha is the first black fraternity, founded at Cornell University, which is not considered a historically black college or university. –panda 06:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia Tag
Removed "trivia tag" to incorporate nonsuperfluous trivia into article as warranted by trivia guidelinesTonyCrew 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removing photo
The caption inside the image of Hughes testifying before the House says he is testifying before Senator McCarthy. I have no problem with someone cropping the photo and reuploading it. Ryratt 05:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Restored photograph. The picture is from a past historical event. Hughes was required to testify at two o'clock on a Monday afternoon before the Senate Permanent Sub-Committee on Investigations led by Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy himself questioned Hughes with Roy Cohn present and also asking questions of Hughes. It is on documented government record.TonyCrew 06:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Again, the text caption says "Langston Hughes, before the U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee in 1953", the article also says he spoke before the House, yet the bitmap caption says he is before the Senate. Please choose which ever is the correct one. Ryratt 04:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The text has been corrected. TonyCrew 18:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Notes
Added further notes/citations as a safeguard.TonyCrew 19:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] photos
A couple of comments about the photos, which are great. Separately signed for threated discussion. TonyCrew, you appear to have been the major contributor for a while, so I'm guessing you added these; do you or other editors have thoughts about my comments below? --lquilter 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] placement in "notes" / refs
(1) It's disruptive to have them in the notes section -- makes it very hard to read the notes because of the way the text flows. Was it intentional, to illustrate the notes? If so, then there should probably be more attention paid to the CSS to get the flow better. If not, however, then I'd suggest that we keep the notes pure text (unless an illustration is really absolutely essential), and move the images to the text of the article. To the extent the article has too many images maybe we need to pare them and pick the most important. Or, include in a footnote, the REFERENCE link to the image, rather than actually embedding the image for display in the note. --lquilter 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Removed from note to avoid confusions and clutter.TonyCrew 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wow, no sooner spoken than done! --lquilter 23:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] courtesy of
(2) The "courtesy of" notes are inappropriate. Wikipedia requires public domain content, noted GFDL permissions, or fair use rationales for images and other media. Unless these have specific "permission statements", then they should just be described. Source is fine, but "courtesy of" implies that permission is given only for wikipedia -- which is not okay per wikipedia image policy. So, if the images really *are* "courtesy of" then we need to reexamine whether they can really be included in light of WP's policy; if they are not "courtesy of" but are actually GFDL, public domain, or fair use, then they need not say "courtesy of". --lquilter 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- All photos comply with tags assigned to them. Moreover, courtesy was a "polite" gesture that I now understand should have never been placed. Therefore, word has been completely removed.TonyCrew 22:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wow, no sooner spoken than done! --lquilter 23:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Death
- While he's obviously dead, the main body of the article makes no mention of this whatsoever. I can't change it because the page is locked, so I'd appreciate it if someone added this detail. 24.131.128.231 (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- The article makes it clear that he's dead in the first sentence. Plus, the Death subsection discusses the circumstances of his death. –panda (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ooops, my bad. I totally missed all those. Thanks for clarifying, and I apologize for the waste of time. 24.131.128.231 (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article makes it clear that he's dead in the first sentence. Plus, the Death subsection discusses the circumstances of his death. –panda (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you direct me to Hughes' "Personal?" Thank you. Mig (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] homosexuality
There is nothing in the references cited to support the initial thesis of the following passage:
Italic textAcademics and biographers today acknowledge that Hughes was a homosexual and included homosexual codes in many of his poems, similar in manner to Walt Whitman, whose work Hughes cited as another influence on his poetry, and most patently in the short story Blessed Assurance which deals with a father's anger over his son's effeminacy and queerness.[14][15][16][17][18][14][19][20].Italic text
The problem is the generalization that 'Academics and biographers today acknowledge...'. No concrete evidence is cited to back this extremely generic assertion, and the works cited simply do not uphold the hyperbole. These are weasel words. Surely some academics do support the thesis, but the references don't support anything other than some vague ambiguities. This should be adjusted for a properly encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzeaux (talk • contribs) 06:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm also not sure about those citations. Are there eight sources that all support the entire sentence? It would make more sense to spread them throughout (i.e. a source that says "American biographers today acknowledge...", another to support Whitman as an influence and another to support "most patently in the short story"). --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
