Talk:Francine Prose

Charlie Hebdo and PEN
I'm aware that the PEN awards to Charlie Hebdo have sparked controversy, and that Francine Prose has been involved in this through her withdrawal from the awards. However, at the moment, the extensive quotes which have been added extend our coverage of this to the point where the coverage of this one issue dominates the article as a whole. Is it significant enough to warrant so much weight? My feeling is that we can trim back on the quotes, note that she was outspoken in regard to the PEN award and withdrew in protest, and leave it at that, unless this becomes a greater issue over time. - Bilby (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A trim of a sentence or two (or compressing of that bit of information) would be appropriate, but I think also: the better option here would be to grow the rest of the content! If you are interested in her, I would suggest doing so. I never heard of her. For what its worth, most of the changes and additions of uncited material come from an IP address and . This might be a teaching moment for the newer users of summary style and limiting detail and WP:Undue. Sadads (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Relooking at it: we also need to make sure that their are secondary opinions that treat that topic as "controversy", instead of interpreting the primary source,Sadads (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. At present, this section isn't a 'controversy', since it doesn't reference any criticism of Prose. Currently it's just 'here are some things she said' - the thing being criticised is the PEN award, not her, so it really belongs in that article instead. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I will do a clean up real quick; I am thinking like one sentence. Feel free to add what you think is appropriate to the main PEN awards page, Sadads (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the IP for 24 hours per the continued addition of inflammatory material as explained in edit summaries. The user clearly identified who I was, indicating access to the history, and thus awareness of the feedback and my links to policy information, as well as an ask to move to talk page (IP addresses don't get notifications). User is arguing that the content is "crucial to understanding her approach", which sounds like WP:OR and relying on Primary sources to frame the information in such a way that it create Undue emphasis without secondary source support for that perspective. Current use of Primary materials, seems a little heavy, but have edited to highlight the core arguments from works, instead of the reading of meaning or connotation. Would welcome feedback from others, including, etc, Sadads (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The over-reliance on The Intercept as a source is problematic because The Intercept played a crucial role in the PEN controversy from the very beginning, and Francine Prose publicly argued for giving the award to The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald instead of Charlie Hebdo. This context should perhaps be mentioned when citing this source. Verified7712015 (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

List of books and awards
I've only found this: Anyone have a more reliable source? Darx9url (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Her 20 listed "most widely works in libraries" at WorldCat are 20 distinct books, 19 as writer. Those are among the 29 books we list here. (If I scan correctly, those missing are the first 4 novels plus Goldengrove, the first collection, the children's picture book, and the 2003 2006 2008 nonfictions.)
 * The other one of her top 20, rank #18:


 * The Mrs. Dalloway Reader, edited by Prose (Harcourt, 2003),
 * I expanded the picture book listing with data from a WorldCat record; added Anne Frank to the infobox and annotated that listing because it is her #1 book at WorldCat. Presumably Anne Frank should be covered in the prose. --P64 (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francine Prose. 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/20150930172215/https://pages.wustl.edu/figure/humanities-medal-jan-2014 to https://pages.wustl.edu/figure/humanities-medal-jan-2014

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) 11:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francine Prose. 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/20100619071506/http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/in-praise-of-prose-15434 to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/in-praise-of-prose-15434

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) 19:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The New Yorker Controversy
Because Prose was the person to make the plagiarism accusation against Shepard, repeatedly calling on her followers to take a stand and writing a letter to The New Yorker, and because Prose is mentioned in the majority of reports on the story (LitHub, LA Review of Books, The New Yorker, The Guardian), this is relevant information for her own entry. Yes, it should be included in Shepard's Wikipedia entry too.

CrackedCauldron (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing it shouldn't be covered here, but it's now the largest section in this article, which seems unbalanced to me as it's not clear to me that the controversy is about her. Now that it's been added to Sadia Shepard's article, it could be trimmed here to Prose's role and omit Shepard's defence. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to cut the second paragraph and leave the rest, or omit the response altogether? CrackedCauldron (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cutting the 2nd paragraph would be a start; it is much more appropriate in Shepard's article. I also suggest to omit the sentence "In a discussion with Deborah Treisman, published on The New Yorker's site on January 1, 2018, Shepard acknowledged the influence, stating that "This story owes a great debt to one of my favorite short-story writers, Mavis Gallant, and specifically to her story 'The Ice Wagon Going Down the Street'", adding that Gallant's piece "feels so Pakistani." because it adds nothing to Prose's position. Further, the verbatim Shepard response, "In acknowledging the great debt to Gallant ... role that cultural identity plays in my story." should be paraphrased. Maybe: "Responding to Prose's accusation, Shepard acknowledged her debt to Gallant but maintained that her use of Gallant's story of self-exile in postwar Europe to explore the immigrant experience of Pakistani Muslims in today's America was justified." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Those changes work for me. I've updated the page. Are you fine with removing the undue weight template? CrackedCauldron (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Template now removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)