Talk:Mark Twain/Archive 6

article randomly jumps from "clemens" to "twain" proper nouns
This seems to be a very confusing literary style similar to random jumps between the pronouns "he" & "she" because the author is trying to please two groups but instead creates whiplash grammer. Clemens deserves impeccable language and the article should completely use "Clemens", keeping the note about how his idea for later pen name came about.

Mark Twain on India quote not here then?
Hello, as I recall Mark Twain once said a pretty detailed and pretty nice quote on India's butts. I understand that maybe not everything is going to be an article but if anyone is famiilar wwith what he said on India, i think it belongs in this article, maybe in the section of his views then. Because the aritcle wasd pretty detailed. And was a pretty nice opinion. I think it should be in the article.

Twain and Joan of Arc
I don't see a whole lot about Mark Twain and Joan of Arc. Please consider adding a link to this page http://www.maidofheaven.com/joanofarc_mark_twain.asp  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicalpoet (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Religion
dashjafiodshgfouishg';oif The religion section is a bit clumsy in its attempt to discuss the complexity of Twain's (no doubt evolving) religious ideals (or the lack thereof). It begins with a sentence stating that Twain was a Presbyterian and implying that this is his basic religious beliefs; that is, it acknowledges his critique of religion, but does so in a way that renders those critiques secondary to his Christian foundations. Likewise, further in the section it claims that "despite" his criticisms he raised money to build a church. I am sure this is true but the phrasing is odd in that it once again presupposes that his criticisms are of lesser concern than his money raising. This is particularly troubling as he raises this money in the 1860's, prior to his gaining fame and much prior to his increasing criticism of Christianity and religion in general. Thus, his building the church says little about his religious ideals later in life. Once again, I do not doubt the factual nature of these claims, but they as stated do come across as a POV attempt to cast Twain as a fundamentally Christian man. Instead, I think this would be better if it more clearly delineated a timeline of Twain's changing thoughts on religion, showing that there is evidence of some religious conviction by him early in his life, but that as he aged this lessened to the point where his writings suggest he alternated between some form of vague deism and outright atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Clemens attended church on a regular basis in Hartford and his funeral was at Brick Presbyterian in New York City.  He was primarily opposed to "organized religion" but certainly was not an atheist.  In fact, I doubt an atheist could have viewed religion with as much humor as Twain did.  It is certainly documented that he loved singing spirituals. Collect (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Singing spirituals tells us more about his taste in music than religion.

The article itself needs to leave it at what he said and did and what events happened that could have affected him. His religious convictions were tested by the death of his wife and all but one of his children, old age, and turn-of-the-century Christian imperialism. He at least despised organized religion. Losing so many loved ones made it hard to believe in a benevolent and personal God. He never mentions an afterlife. --Javaweb (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

The idea that atheists can't view religion with humor is patently absurd and demonstrably false. However, I can agree that I was going too far in specifically labeling him "atheist" and/or "deist" without documentation. Javaweb is correct that we need to limit our treatment of Twain to the facts of his life and writings. My main complaint, and I admit it didn't come across well in my original post, is that the overall rhetorical flow and organization of the Religion section (in particular, the few interjections noted above) comes across as a POV attempt to assert that despite his often radically anti-religious statements, Twain was really, fundamentally Christian. I believe the section could be better organized and phrased to better demonstrate the evolution and complexity of Twain's religious beliefs (or the lack thereof). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * WP works by using what reliable secondary sources have written, and not what any editor "knows" to be correct. Find strong reliable sources for claims (as all the current claims have been sourced) before complaining.  He does, moreover, mention an afterlife in his autobiography. An amusing essay is "Etiquette for the Afterlife." Clara, the surviving daughter, was quoted as saying he "most of the time he felt sure" of an afterlife.  Likely as close as anyone would have been to knowing what he thought.    Collect (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The scholarly Shelley Fisher Fishkin book in particular weighs Twain's writings carefully against his activities to conclude that Twain was, at root, a religious man. Nobody can know his true heart, of course, but the deeply religious conversations he had with his pastor Dr. Twichell included some of Twain's most prolific years, 1871 to 1889. For decades he collected funds for missionary work despite his damning of the greed and hypocrisy he discovered in William Scott Ament's Chinese mission. Fishkin points out that Twain's appreciation of gospel music (he occasionally broke out singing negro spirituals) includes the aesthetic element of the music but "the religious content cannot be entirely ignored." Twain's "sustained and intense critique of religion, Christianity, and idealism, in general" does not stop him from being religious. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The sub-topic cannot be discussed without referring to William E. Phipps' book Mark Twain's religion in which he lists the biographers and Twain scholars who said Twain was atheist or irreligious, and the ones who noted his religious beliefs. Phipps devotes the whole of the book to show Twain a very complex person who wrote against religion from the inside, as a person who was religious. Both the Phipps and the Fishkin books are used in this article as references. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Though I disagree with you and Fishkin (in a number of ways), I can respect your positions and that they are not unfounded. However, as I tried to state in my last post, my real concern here isn't to argue whether or not Twain was religious. Such an argument is largely irrelevant to Wikipedia. I take responsibility for the confusion as my opening post in this discussion was brief, argumentative, undocumented and to some extent beyond the scope of what Wikipedia is about. I apologize. That being said, the real problem I've been trying to point out is the phrasing and organization of the "Religion section." This is not simply a matter of information being sourced, as Collect maintains. He/she is correct in pointing out that the information about Twain and religion is from reputable secondary sources, but I have never disputed that, and I think we can all agree that material can be both factual/sourced and presented in a POV manner. Binksternet, in your own post you admit that many sources argue for Twain's being fundamentally irreligious. This is a real controversy in Twain scholarship, but rather than an NPOV presentation of this controversy, the religion section at multiple points presents Twain as being--despite what other scholars might think--fundamentally religious, and specifically Christian, and more specifically Presbyterian (at all points in his life). For instance, the opening sentence of the section says, "Although Twain was a Presbyterian, he was sometimes critical of organized religion and certain elements of Christianity through his later life." This sentence clearly and unequivocally establishes that Twain was Presbyterian, and dismisses his criticisms of religion as secondary and ancillary to his "true" beliefs, as if these criticisms were merely whims. And, this sentence is just one example. A further critique of this sentence and others in the section is that they contribute to an awkwardness in the prose. That is, this section comes across as having been composed by multiple authors with differing views on the matter, and as a result the section comes across as disjointed,clumsy. Binksternet, this section might be better if rewritten such that it a) recounts the facts of Twain's religious life (ie. the churches he attended--and importantly, when; what his contemporaries said of his religious beliefs, and -of course--what he said of his beliefs) and b) more clearly articulates the scholarly divide on the issue of Twain's religiousity. In doing so, it would come across less as an awkwardly phrase apology for Twain's being religious and more as a serious attempt to document to complexity of Twain's beliefs (as you have noted) and of our scholarly attempt to understand those beliefs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, though, all debates about how religious Twain was aside, the religion section is terribly written, and needs to be thoroughly revised. As is, each paragraph is unfocused and reads like multiple authors trying to one up each other with divergent opinions on his religiosity. As a result it is a confusing read wherein we are repeatedly told "Twain is really religious, but really he's not, but really he is." Moreover, parts of the section are just absurd; for instance, in response to some of his more heretical statements later in life we are given the fact that 50 years prior he donated money to a church. I'm not saying that such a donation is necessarily un-noteworthy (though in this case it probably is), but as stated within the overall structure of the article it comes across as his "real" position, undermining his later skepticism, despite the fact that the two are separated by decades. The timeline of his religious evolution could be more clearly stated, and the very real scholarly debate over the nature and significance of Twain's changing religious views could be more neutrally displayed, rather than coming across as a simple "he said, she said" debate within the article that only makes it more confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia, in fact, is a bunch of people trying to balance all the available reliable sources. He, by the way, attended church more in later life than in his early life, and his funeral was at a church (Brick Presbyterian).   Sources appear to agree that he was mainly against "organized religion" which does not make him much different from a great many religious people.  Collect (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you, I understand that Wikipedia is in fact written by multiple authors. That is irrelevant. Just because it is written by multiple people does not justify awkwardly flowing prose, a lack of focus, and at times incoherent argumentation. It's one thing to explain that there is some debate about the degree to which Twain was religious, the nature of his religious beliefs, and how they changed over time. That can be done with a NPOV and with a consistent, easily readable voice. But this section is not consistent in voice or tone. It shifts rapidly between assertions that he really was religious and other statements indicating that he was highly skeptical, and does so without clearly explaining the divergent claims. To someone who comes to Wikipedia to learn about this subject, this section would be unhelpful. Once again, ultimately--though I find the assertion that Twain was a fundamentally religious person highly problematic--I don't really have anything at stake in the argument other than making the article more accurate and more clearly written. The problem here is that the section is poorly written and organized. I am fine with including the facts (and they are facts) that Twain donated money to build a church, that he attended church regularly even later in life, that there are relevant quotes from friends and family concerning his beliefs, etc. Those things all have there place in the article (except the donating money to a church early in life; that really does seem to be trivial matter. As I pointed out beforeit's only purpose in the article is as a rather incoherent response to the question of his later belief... even if we take the view that he was religious, that is simply a trivial fact and there are better arguments for the matter). At base, all I am saying is that the section could be reorganized to do 2 things. The most important of these is that it could be better organized such that it more clearly explains the subject matter. The second and less important is that the revision could solve the POV problem I have previously pointed out. That is, the article promotes the POV position that Twain is at base religious, and does so in problematic ways. Ultimately, this problem is slighter than the issue of readability, but it has been too often the focus of this discussion, obscuring the more pressing issue of the sections focus, flow and readability. I'll admit, this distraction is at least partially my fault. Even with this matter, however, my problem is not necessarily with the idea that Twain was "religious," but more with lack of clarity with which that position is made and how it is promoted in contrast to other views of Twain's religious beliefs. At any rate, it's late, and I apologize if this post has itself reads as a rambling mess. I'll happily clarify or expand on any of these points.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a bit old, but the above editor made some valid points. Opening with 'Although Twain was a Presbyterian ...' but then further down writing '... Twain stated that he believed in an almighty God, but not in any messages, revelations, holy scriptures such as the Bible, Providence, or retribution in the afterlife' is not just inconsistent; it's contradictory. I've never read any material suggesting he was an atheist, but I think labeling him a Presbyterian (especially in the opening of that section) seems like a jump. I think the confusion here is that he was a member of a Presbyterian church, but throughout his life, in the early years all the way to the later years, his beliefs never matched up with Presbyterian doctrine. It should be clarified that he was member of that church, or simply that he attended services and has his funeral held wherever. As it stands, the way it is worded is misleading. To give a real-world example, I was raised raised Jewish, as well were my parents and both sets of grandparents. However, we all attended a local Southern Baptist church quite often, and both my mother's parents are buried in a Baptist cemetery. My parents own plots there for themselves as well. This does not mean any of my family has ever been Southern Baptist. They were all religiously Jewish. For myself, I'd consider myself agnostic, but there's a very high probability I'll be buried in a Christian cemetery. Where you choose to go on Sunday or what songs you choose to sing or where you're buried doesn't invalidate what is heavily documented. Incidentally, the citation being used is from a review of a book by a Presbyterian Minister who was a Theologian at a Presbyterian-affiliated college. That's not a huge deal, but it would be wise to add an additional citation as this might be one person's opinion based on bias. BUT... here's the real problem. The citation? It's from a non-RS source that copied the review from another non-RS, which makes the statement as it stands OR. I'd second the motion for an edit to be done to clarify this matter. 65.0.154.47 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the above, even though 84 is the citation following after the Presbyterian statement, it's citing the quote that follows the statement, as it is from a book that appears to be claiming Twain as an Atheist. The citation that seems to be used to claim Twain as a Presbyterian is 85. Everything that has 85 as a citation ("Nonetheless, as a mature adult he engaged in religious discussions and attended services, his theology developing as he wrestled with the deaths of loved ones and his own mortality.[85] His own experiences and suffering of his family made him particularly critical of "faith healing," such as espoused by Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science. His more inflammatory works on religion require a nuanced understanding of his theological arguments and criticism.[85]" would appear to be OR. 65.0.154.47 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Long night pouring through Mark Twain biographies. I checked out four books, and oddly enough, the three that actually mention religion describe Mark Twain as not being religious. One was by Justin Kaplan, called Mr. Clemens and Mark Twain. Wikipedia says it won the Pulitzer Prize for biography and a National Book Award. The other was by John Lauber, called The Inventions of Mark Twain. The last one was by Maxwell Geismar, called Mark Twain: An American Prophet. I'm going to assume good faith that no one was trying to push an agenda, but it appears most scholars are of the belief that Mark Twain was not religious, and certainly not a Christian of any denomination. If he was attending church regularly, it's fine to include that in the article, but we can't use attendance to a church as proof that he subscribed to a certain denomination. At any rate, we can't use a newsletter that anyone can write for/to as a RS. Requesting edit. 65.0.152.37 (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Funeral at a Presbyterian church, donated money to at least two Presbyterian churches, attended church every week in Hartford, described himself as being brought up a Presbyterian, and decried "organized religion."  Associated also with "The Independent Congregational (now Park) Church" in Elmira with pastor Rev. Thomas K. Beecher, brother of his neighbor in Hartford, who also just happened to be the one who perfomed Clemen's marriage ceremony in 1870.   The two least organized (non-hierarchical) groups are Congregationalists and Presbyterians (which are theologically indistinguisable if you read up on the history of the two groups) .     Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Close, but no cigar. I never disputed any of that information. I said what is currently in the article is 1) misleading and 2) OR. OR not because I dispute what you're saying, but OR because the citation is not from a RS. But if all of the information you posted makes someone a Presbyterian, perhaps we need to correct scholars who deny that Voltaire was a Catholic. He, too, donated money to several churches, attended church, described himself being brought up Catholic, and decried "organized religion." . Cheers. 65.0.152.37 (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like OR on your part. BTW, what church was Voltaire's funeral held in?  Collect (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding me. Go look at the citation I'm discussing. It is not a RS. It is a newsletter that anyone can write for. Wikipedia does not consider newsletters/forums that anyone can write for RS. Therefore, the information that uses that citation in the article is currently OR. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. After you look at that, respond. As well, you might want to read my above statement again. Notice I never said Voltaire's funeral was held in a church. :) Maybe I haven't been clear about my concerns regarding that section of the article, so let me restate them. 1) I think the current wording of the opening is misleading, because it would seem to imply that his religious beliefs were at least somewhat lined up with Presbyterianism. The other information in the section completely contradicts that. It's one thing to be affiliated with a religious sect, it's another to subscribe to their doctrines. There's no indication in this article nor in any biographies that I've read that suggests Twain had the remotest agreement with Presbyterian doctrine. I completely welcome any information that will prove that wrong, as obviously I haven't read every scholarly work on Twain in existence... I can only say that every bio I've read indicates Twain was not religious. Which leads me to my second, but more important, concern about the section. The citation is not RS. The suitable course of action would be to remove the citation, and mark it 'citation needed' until there can be some sort of consensus about the majority view of scholars on Twain's religious beliefs. So, people should first respond to issue of it being OR. From there, we can discuss the merits of mainstream scholarly opinions on this. I'm definitely open to opposing opinions regarding this issue, but are you (or anyone else who wants to join in) disagreeing about the citation not being RS? If so, let me know why. Thanks and sorry for the lengthy reply. 98.95.118.106 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I know there's a limit to how long a Wikipedia article can be, but the following needs correction/clarification/expansion: "His own experiences and suffering of his family made him particularly critical of "faith healing," such as espoused by Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science." First, Christian Science is not faith healing. Mrs Eddy specifically warned her students about the bad effects of faith healing, particularly when it was based on faith in the healer. God is the healing agent, not human faith. Second, Twain absolutely detested MBE, probably because she was something rare and strange in 19th-century America -- a powerful woman. Oddly, his views about Christian Science were nowhere nearly as vicious. I don't have the source, but he said something to the effect that, if healing were possible 2,000 years ago, why shouldn't it be possible today? (He was being serious, not ironic, I believe.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Faith healer James Rogers Newton dramatically (but partially) cured Mark Twain's future wife Olivia of a chronic spine problem; Newton got Olivia out of bed and barely walking, which was a huge improvement for the 18-year-old. Twain is very sympathetic to the Newton tale. He cannot be described as opposed to all faith healing. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Grand Central
Grand Central Terminal VS Grand Central Station  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsky (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This page makes reference to 'Grand Central Station'

Under 'Friendship with Henry H. Rogers' it says:

"A month later, Twain was en route from Connecticut to visit his friend in New York City when Rogers died suddenly on May 20, 1909. Twain arrived at Grand Central Station to be met by his daughter with the news."

The words 'Grand Central Station' are a link that takes you to the Wiki page for Grand Central Terminal

That link tells us that:

Grand Central Terminal (GCT) — often incorrectly called Grand Central Station

Although the terminal has been properly called "Grand Central Terminal" since 1913, many people continue to refer to it as "Grand Central Station." "Grand Central Station" is the name of the nearby post office,...

I assume that they met at the train station, Grand Central Terminal and not the post office, Grand Central Station considering the sentence says he was 'en route'. Mattsky (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note the year. The "terminal" was opened in 1913, and the article states that "Grand Central Station" was "the name of a previous rail station on the site" meaning that when Twain was there it was, indeed, "Grand Central Station." Collect (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Picture
Mark Twain, you and your tie are beast. Just saying.
 * ——67.180.86.254 (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.89.131.205, 1 May 2011
There is an sentence with a bad use of Language Arts: He smoked pipes constantly, and Susan Crane did not want him to in her house anymore. It should be: He smoked pipes constantly, and Susan Crane did not want him to enter her house anymore. It also says: All of the Clemens family are buried in Elmira's Woodlawn Cemetary. Cemetary should be spelled Cemetery.

68.89.131.205 (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2011 (CT)

✅. Fixed! Thanks for your note. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Vivisection" has changed meaning since 1899?
"Twain was opposed to vivisection as the word was understood by him in 1899 (the meaning of this word has been subject to change over time)." What is the source for the meaning of the word "vivisection" changing since 1899? The wikipedia article on vivisection does not mention any such change in meaning. Vivisection is surgery on live animals for scientific research purposes. What did it mean in 1899? I move to strike that part. - JefiKnight (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember it being discussed on this page. It would be now in one of the archives of older discussions. I was not involved in the orig. discussion so that's all I know. --Javaweb (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
 * Thanks. I think I see the point that is being made. Twain objected to the pain caused by the vivisection methods at the time. He probably wouldn't object to vivisection under modern anesthesia, for example. I think that part can be made more clear. - JefiKnight (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We cannot know what his opinion would be in modern times, and we cannot guess. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know we can't guess in the article itself. But between you and me, based on his objection to the pain, it is probably a good guess. But you are right, the most that can be said with certainty is that he may or may not have objected to vivisection under modern anesthesia. - JefiKnight (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * His objection to the pain may not be the whole story. Identifying the pain as the reason might have been convenient rather than a complete statement of his feelings on the issue. Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

why is this locked?
what is controversial about Mark Twain? 50.9.109.170 (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of vandalism from multiple sources over a long period of time. See the page log.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.160.225.8, 20 August 2011
"The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is a wrong title: the correct title has no "The".

Yougeeaw (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, both are correct. The book was first published in London (for copyright purposes), and that true first edition was entitled "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", with the other title appearing on the U.S. first. The books may be seen at: https://staging.airflowsciences.com/rkn/Twain/3400-3449/3414/index.html and https://staging.airflowsciences.com/rkn/Twain/3400-3449/3415/index.html Rknasc (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from ReferenceMan, 7 September 2011
Change http://www.pbs.org/marktwain/scrapbook/index.html to be http://www.pbs.org/marktwain/scrapbook/04_trouble/index.html

My reasoning: - The original page does not mention the quote in question ("The coldest winter I ever spent was summer in San Francisco"). - There is no easy way to search pbs.org for the exact page. - It took me 5 minutes to go through each of the pages of the scrapbook to find the reference to the quote. - It would save others the same 5 minutes.

ReferenceMan (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ JguyTalkDone 21:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.65.78208, 18 September 2011
68.56.65.208 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And that is relevant to the biography in what way? Recall that Mark Twain has figured in literally thousands of books, films, short stories, television shows, radio shows, plays, songs etc. Collect (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

His father
Hello ! One section says his father was in commerce, the other says he was a lawyer, so which is correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Degourdon (talk • contribs) 01:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, although true (he was both at various times), I cleared it up a bit. The proper place for a full exegesis on his father's career should be on his dad's page. Twain was born into a well-read, but certainly not rich, family. Codwiki (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 10 November 2011
Hello,

Please include this link for further reading. It offers a perspective regarding contemporary debates on changing the use language in Huckleberry Finn.

http://diverseeducation.com/blogpost/329/

Pam.felder (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌, per WP:EL, we don't link every blog article out there-- Jac 16888 Talk 03:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Information mismatch between this and related page
The conversion of $300,000 to today's worth has a 2 million dollar difference between this page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paige_Compositor. Also, since money is a changing thing, and wikipedia has no 'publishing date', it would be prudent to say something along the lines of "$x,xxx,xxx as of [Month] [Year]". Haven't got the time to do it myself at the moment, sorry. G2sean (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Mark Twain Doodle
It will eventually be archived at http://www.google.com/logos/logos11-4.html once 2012 begins. 11 --> 2011,  4 --> Oct-December (4th quarter of year) --Javaweb (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Blatant use of peacock terms
In the Section Financial Troubles, it describes the Paige typesetting machine as being "a beautifully engineered mechanical marvel, but prone to breakdown." This sentence needs to be replaced, removed,or rephrased. A few other sentences have a similar feel, such as "he worked hard to pay his creditors in full". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.31.37 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Faulkner or Hemingway
Are you sure that it was Faulkner who called Mark Twain "the father of American literature"? So far I have always been informed that it was Hemingway who called him so. If you are right, Hemingway would just have parroted Faulkner. And if so, this would be a sincere charge of Hemingway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.250.239.29 (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For Faulkner see . Hemingway said ""All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn" .  Certainly similar. Collect (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 January 2012
In the Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn section of this article, Ernest Hemingway is misquoted. The article currently reads "All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain, called Huckleberry Finn." This should read "All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn."

Moltofichi (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Um -- Hemingway spoke in italics? I would not quite call it a "misquote" to be sure - but I suppose the change is mostly harmless. Collect (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, now that I've asked at WT:MOS whether italics should be added to a quote, I've realised what Moltofichi is actually saying. The article doesn't say "called Huckleberry Finn", it says "called, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn".  Well I've made that change, and I guess the MOS folks will tell us whether we should also add italics. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of place
The last two sentences in the second paragraph of the section entitled "Early Life" feel out of place to me.

"Twain was born two weeks after the closest approach to Earth of Halley's Comet. On December 4, 1985, the United States Postal Service issued a stamped envelope for "Mark Twain and Halley's Comet."[7]"

These should be either put in a different section of the article or removed.Oweng4000 (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The two claims are well-connected, and the connection was made by Clemens when he predicted the date of his demise. Collect (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I was talking about. This is in a section that talks about how he was one of the few Clemens to survive to adulthood. Regardless, I think the USPS part should be in the pop culture section.Oweng4000 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It refers to Twain's birth - the commet connection is non-trivial, and was stressed by Twain. The material is fully proper where it is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing about the stamps is non trivial?Oweng4000 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Oweng4000. The stamp is a bit out of place. I've moved it to another section to keep the 2011 stamp company. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2012
I just noticed there's no mention of Clemens's residence in Muscatine, Iowa, evidently for a period of weeks in 1854 or 1855. Obviously this factoid can't be added on my say-so alone, but the source I most quickly quickly cite is a newspaper article I myself wrote a decade ago—for the same newspaper where young Clemens worked for brother Orion, then the co-owner with John Mahin. According to Muscatine's Twain expert Max Churchill: "Sam came from St. Louis on the packet Keokuk in 1854." See http://muscatinejournal.com/betwixt-and-be-twain/article_f16c1d51-4fa9-5748-bc42-2e94a7ffeb29.html. A more recent editorial in the Muscatine Journal says: "he lived in Muscatine during part of the summer of 1855." It also says: "From Dec. 16, 1853 through March 15, 1855, he published eight stories in the Muscatine newspaper - a total of about 5,800 words." http://muscatinejournal.com/news/opinion/editorial/columns/journal-editorial-that-other-famous-muscatine-resident/article_7bfb22ae-222d-11df-a6de-001cc4c03286.html. I leave the particulars to scholars, but I assure you Iowans will be grateful for this Wikipedia mention. I'm posting on the run and trusting the experts will get it right. If necessary, I can help dig up other sources. Thanks for your attention! 66.207.7.144 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Daniel G. Clark (Jan. 26, 2012)

66.207.7.144 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, WP:BRD  Chzz  ►  02:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed pic at top to the younger Mark Twain
A lot of people don't know it, but Mark Twain was once a young man. In fact he wrote most of his best stuff before he was 55. On the other hand most of our pictures are of him in a white suit with white hair, pretty much following the Hal Holbrook stereotype. I'd guess the stereotype first developed as photography and printing improved about 1900, allowing the first real mass distribution of his photos when Twain was in his last feeble years. (Pretty much the same stereotype is applied to Leo Tolstoy as well) Twain was a very vigorous writer. His voice was not that of an old man, so I'd appreciate it if folks don't keep on putting in the feeble old pix and stick with a picture of the real man in all his vigor. Smallbones (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Section move proposal
Anybody object to moving Friendship with Henry H. Rogers to just after Financial troubles? It seems rather out of place, stuck between Writing and Views. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Twain's secretary
From watching the panel discussion at the Tucson Book Festival, it's clear that Twain's treatment of his secretary, Isabel, was actively tamped down by Twain's official biographer. There is now a book out called Mark Twain's Other Woman: The Hidden Story of His Final Years the claims of which, I believe, deserve mention in this article. LHM 05:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the book - at least one claim in it has been debunked by . What is clear is that Lyon had first been Olivia's secretary, then was secretary to Twain, while her husband was a business adviser to Twain.  The "falling out" may or may not have been due to Clara, for whatever reason, and Twain wrote a diatribe about Lyon and her husband which will be published in Vol. 3 of the new autobiography.   Until the falling out, there was no apparent ill-treatment of Lyon, though I suppose the falling-out per se is the "treatment" written of?  The book makes much of such trivia as the fact that Lyon was not regarded as the equal of Twain, and had to sit with his daughter Jean, as a social event.  Likely we should wait for Vol. 3 to be published - I am sure there will something juicy to add then. Collect (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Honors Section
Suggest adding to this section the honors of LL.D. from Yale University, 1901, LL.D. from University of Missouri, 1902, and D.Litt. from Oxford, London, 1907. MR2David (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 May 2012
Please link "robber baron" to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

I had no idea what a robber baron was and first thought of a misspelling (e.g. rubber baron or something). 178.191.126.203 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2012
Please link mention of this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Connecticut_Yankee_in_King_Arthur's_Court — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.149.236 (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)