 | A fact from Iceberg theory appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 April 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Reference?
editCould anybody provide a reference for the citation? Where does Hemingway state this theory? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.77.110.188 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
- Comment: this short article should be combined with the main Ernest Hemingway article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree in spirit with Truthkeeper88... this isn't enough to be an article on its own. However, the main Hemingway article might be too long. Perhaps a separate article on Hemingway's style? He's significant enough at least in the US to merit a separate article on his themes,style, etc. This article also could use significant clean up regardless of combining with other articles. Much of the article is focused on summarizing Hemingway and not on summarizing/explaining the Iceberg Theory. This is info is redundant with the main Hemingway article. Bigjimleo (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- When I made the comment above the article was about two sentences long. Since then I've split this out from the main Hemingway article and intend to expand greatly. It's in its infancy. Let's see how it goes. Definitely too much information for the main EH article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Importance
editI had not requested an assessment because the article is in the process of being developed, but I'm curious why the prime writing theory of one of the most important 20th centuries writers, if not the most important, and for which he received a Nobel Prize in Literature, is assessed as low importance? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You are right. I was debating low vs. mid, at the time I was thinking "Well it only mentions one author, and doesn't appear to have a very thorough amount of scholarship which directly deals with the theory itself, so it must be low." But it does have more to do with Hemingway, who I don't think of as "big" but within the context of American lit I suppose it would have to be at least mid, becuase he is "big". Sadads (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well since it's his theory, he developed, it's only used in conjunction with his writing, I'm not sure how you'd change the article. Feel free to add to the scholarship. There's quite a bit to be found. As far as Hemingway not being "big", I would have to disagree. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Legacy vs honors
editI suggest that the "Legacy" section be renamed to something like "Honors" for obvious reasons. A section called "Legacy" would then be free to address the legacy of Hemingway's iceberg theory on other writers. I was not a lit major, so I don't know who, but there must be others who have been effected by Hemingway's example in their own writing. Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Capitalisation
editWhy the capital "T"? --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)