Talk:John McPhee

Genre.
I just deleted the word "genre" from the phrase "one of the pioneers of the literary non-fiction genre", because it seemed unneeded. But then I got to looking at "literary"-- I have a feeling that it really means "good" in this sentence. Is there a recognised genre called "literary non-fiction"? Never mind, I should have looked further first. Maybe the word "genre" should be restored? Still seems unnecessary to me. Mwanner 18:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Uncommon Carriers and the Williamson turn.
Will someone with access to Uncommon Carriers, Ferrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006, please have a look at page 47, re Butakov and the Williamson turn. From request at info-en@ -- Jeandré, 2006-07-09t14:13z
 * I just read it (it's great) and yes, I noticed the mention of Butakov as the originator of the Williamson turn. Once I have the book in front of me (later today probably), I'll see about adding that information to the Williamson turn page (and making an Uncommon Carriers page).

The Princeton University team
The "Background" section says "McPhee was born in Princeton, New Jersey, the son of the Princeton University team physician, Dr. Harry McPhee." Does anybody know which "team?" The football team, the rowing team, the debating team? Paulburnett (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a generic reference to athletic teams. See here and here Tedickey (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to his piece `Progression': `[His] father was a medical doctor who dealt with the injuries of Princeton University athletes. He also travelled as the chief physician of several United States Olympics teams.' So, yeah, athletes in general. Hotel-c (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John McPhee. 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/20110909065656/http://www.nationalbook.org/nba1975.html to http://www.nationalbook.org/nba1975.html

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) 11:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John McPhee. 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/20110720030745/http://humanities.princeton.edu/journalism/roster.html to http://humanities.princeton.edu/journalism/roster.html

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) 09:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

New Yorker staff writer
A staff writer is not necessarily the same as a contributor. The suggested link does not indicate that McPhee is a paid employee of the New Yorker magazine (nor in fact an employee of anything except Princeton). here is a related link discussing the difference TEDickey (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This refers to him as a staff writer since 1965 . 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Another page, specifically about The New Yorker says "Writers at The New Yorker are nearly all independent contractors, rather than staff, and thus do not receive health care or other benefits, despite being largely prevented from writing for other outlets." Whether McPhee is/is not a staff writer is not given a reliable source in this topic. You should find a source citing the New Yorker itself rather than some random third-party comment. TEDickey (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The Paris Review calls him a staff writer since 1963 . But I'm gleaning that these are not WP:RELIABLE sources for you..... 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * sure - I'm looking for what the New Yorker might describe its relationship, rather than a third party. They are the ones that define the relationship. TEDickey (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

He is not listed in this page about the staff of the New Yorker. TEDickey (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Times calls him a staff writer for 50 years . 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And the New Yorker calls him a staff writer since 1965 . 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Even without the New Yorker description, it strikes one as an odd calibration, to insist that the statements by Paris Review, New York Times and his book publisher aren't acceptable. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not really odd when you consider the way people cut/paste from odd places, add a few words make it their own "research". The New Yorker cite is usable TEDickey (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So, if I follow you, Paris Review and New York Times are not reliable sources because you believe they cut and paste? 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise the Washington Post ? 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Back to the point: the topic does not (yet) cite this in the body of the text, nor is the term "staff writer" (appropriately sourced) used in the topic. Categories have to be based on the content of the topic, not on external sources. Talk pages are not a reliable source TEDickey (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't think the point was forgotten. The contention that what we accept as WP:RELIABLE sources aren't merits an explanation--you haven't responded yet. Now you've introduced a new goalpost, per Wikipedia policy re: categories being based on the article content rather than external sources. It won't be hard to add sourced content to the article, per the cites I've added here. What's going on here? 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not understand, TEDickey, what you mean with "Talk pages are not a reliable source". We all know that; it has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The guideline's been there quite a while WP:CATVER. Before commenting, do some reading TEDickey (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone still cares about this debate, but in case someone is still waiting for something authorative, here is something that is at least from McPhee himself, rather than a third party. On page 19 of his Draft No. 4, McPhee writes:
 * The picnic-table crisis came along toward the end of my second year as a New Yorker staff writer (a euphemistic term that means unsalaried freelance close to the magazine).

glv (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Counting McPhee's books
I just updated a mention of McPhee's "twenty-nine books" to read "thirty-one books". (That sentence hadn't been updated in years, and he has continued to publish in that time.) But if you count the rows in the table, there are actually 41, not 31. I want to explain my thinking; consensus may move in a different direction.

Nine of McPhee's books (Wimbledon, The John McPhee Reader, Alaska: Images of the Country, the limited 1983 edition of half of Annals of the Former World, Heirs of General Practice, In the Highlands and Islands, Outcroppings, The Second John McPhee Reader, and The American Shad) consist of material already published in other books, in a few cases accompanied by a photographer's photos. Another (The Princeton Reader) is a collection he co-edited, containing essays by other writers. My count of 31 includes only the books with original McPhee material. (Annals of the Former World contains a long piece not published elsewhere: "Crossing the Craton".)

This way of counting mostly follows the way McPhee's output is listed in the frontmatter of his own books. I say "mostly" because until recently, the two "John McPhee Reader" collections were usually listed, and sometimes Heirs of General Practice is still listed as a separate book.

But in my opinion, the rule I've adopted is the most consistent and reasonable, and will be easy to keep up to date. It is similar to the way, on pages about bands, original studio albums are usually listed separately from compilations and various repackagings. glv (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)