Talk:Vernon Louis Parrington

Lead

 * His works fell out of favor among scholars in the 1940s.

User:Rjensen, why have you added this to the lead section? The WP:LEAD section is for summarizing the most significant points of an article, which this statement does not do. I also question its accuracy and whether the source actually says that. I also question it because it's cited to a source from 1968 which avoids the question of whether he is still "out of favor" among anyone, and further, I question it because you have a consistent tendency to denigrate any subject associated with progressive or liberal ideas, so your edit appears to be POV pushing. The question of what is in favor or out of favor in the 1940s has absolutely no place in the lead section of this biography, and I challenge you to find a similar statement in any reliable biographical work about this subject. I will predict in advance that you cannot, and therefore, I will be ready to remove it once again when you are unable to support its placement in the lead with a current, reliable source. But please, show me the statement from the source you claim supports it now. You're attempting to misdirect the reader by saying "don't pay attention to these ideas because scholars 70 years ago dismissed them". Are you kidding? This is nothing but a glorified argument from authority. Why is it here? Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Goodness that's an intemperate tirade. the influence of a historian like Parrington is a central question for an encyclopedia. He fell very far--from near the top about 1940 to almost total obscurity in recent decades (today he's better known as the first football coach at a famous football school).  The last serious work was Hall's 1979 PhD dissertation (published in 1994).  I have not seen many public figures cite his inspiration in recent decades (but check out Stewart Udall who did like Parrington)--have you seen any? I challenge you to find a similar statement in any reliable biographical work about this subject. ok try this 1) David Levy 1995 p 668): "Vernon Parrington's work had an almost legendary popularity from its publication in 1927 until the beginning of the 1950s, when it began to slide into obscurity."  2) How about Yale's literary critic Harold Bloom (2009): "Parrington was, in turn, condemned to obscurity by critics like Lionel Trilling, who sharply criticized his literary nationalism and his insistence that literature should appeal to a popular constituency."  3) conservative historian Paul Gottfied (1997) " Vernon Parrington, once a leading critic of American literature, but now virtually forgotten."  4) Bruce Brown (2011) (who really likes Parrington) says "Parrington remains a great Ozymandian figure of American literature and letters, nearly buried and forgotten in the drifting sands of aesthetic fashion." 5) liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jt (2002) "Vernon Louis Parrington ... on the fact that today these books, once so mightily influential, are little read, and their authors are largely forgotten.".  Now perhaps you will oblige to either apologize or provide YOUR cites to show all these scholars are wrong. Rjensen (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You've demonstrated his work is obscure, but the undue weight you are giving it is telling and has no place in the lead. Levy's "slide into obscurity" is close to meaningless and "fall out of favor" is not synonymous.  The fact that he was criticized by Trilling should appear in the article.  Why doesn't it?  In any case, you've made a case for obscurity, not for "falling out of favor with scholars", especially in the 1940s, which is inconsequential. Again, what do the published biographies say?


 * "Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia: Parrington, Vernon Louis, 1871–1929, American literary historian and scholar, b. Aurora, Ill. His cultural interpretation of American literature was an expression of his belief in democratic idealism. His Main Currents in American Thought (3 vol., 1927–30) greatly influenced subsequent literary criticism. He was awarded the 1928 Pulitzer Prize in history for the first two volumes; the third volume was published posthumously. He also wrote Connecticut Wits (1926, repr. 1969)."


 * Guess who the source is for that entry? Hofstadter 1968.  Yet nothing about his work falling out of favor.  Why is that?  Let's look at another:


 * "Britannica Biographies: Vernon Louis Parrington (born Aug. 3, 1871, Aurora, Ill., U.S.—died June 16, 1929, Winchcombe, Gloucestershire, Eng.) American literary historian and teacher noted for his far-reaching appraisal of American literary history. Parrington grew up in Emporia, Kan., and was educated at the College of Emporia and Harvard University. He taught English and modern languages at the College of Emporia (1893–97), at the University of Oklahoma, Norman (1897–1908), and at the University of Washington, Seattle (1908–29). Parrington's major work on American literature was published in Main Currents in American Thought, 2 vol. (1927), which won a Pulitzer Prize in 1928. A third volume with the subtitle The Beginnings of Critical Realism in America, incomplete at his death, was edited by E.H. Eby and was published in 1930. Parrington, a Jeffersonian liberal, interpreted the history of American literature in light of the concept of democratic idealism, which he saw as a characteristic American idea. He also wrote The Connecticut Wits (1926) and Sinclair Lewis, Our Own Diogenes (1927)."


 * Again, nothing about his work falling out of favor. So no other reliable sources on the topic have this negative material you are promoting. Why is that? Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * More cherry picking? This is not appropriate for a lead section of a biography.  Why do I need to tell you this?  Look up above at what actual published biographies say.  They say he "greatly influenced subsequent literary criticism" and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in history for his work.  Yet, your version twists and distorts reality by cherry picking inconsequential negative material and placing it in the lead section where it doesn't belong.  Are you seeing the pattern with your edits yet?  And you only seem to do this on liberal or progressive topics.  I would love to see a conservative biography where you've done this.  I predict we'll find you writing hagiographies instead. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I added some new materials. They emphasize 1) he did greatly influenced subsequent literary criticism at one time 2) he fell out of favor among scholars c 1950 and Trilling was a factor. That means they no longer cited him or relied on him. He became forgotten. Arthur Schlesinger says his books " are little read, and their authors are largely forgotten." that seems to be to = falling out of favor. Hofstadter in '' Progressive historians " says "the most striking thing about the reputation of V L Parrington, as we think of it today, is its abrupt decline." (p 349) "during the 1940s Parrington rather quickly cease to have a compelling interest for students of American literature, and in time historians too began to esdert him." (p 352)  Now you can pick a cherry and find ONE scholar who denies his reputation collapse and says he is important today or in recent decades.  Rjensen (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * None of that belongs in our lead section, and I can't think of a single GA/FA biography that includes that kind of material in the lead. Please read and understand WP:LEAD.  Some of what you have written, provided it is checked for accuracy, cherry picking, currency, and other issues, may belong in a section about his career, his work, critical reception, or his legacy.  The fact that two encyclopedia entries above do not make these claims should tell you that you are on the wrong track.  From where I stand, you are intentionally and purposefully trying to denigrate the person by cherry picking things from random sources in order to create a  legacy of "falling out of favor" and "obscurity" based solely on your own personal bias and original research, not on what our best sources say.  Since you keep missing the point over and over again, let me break it down for you: Parrington was influential for his time, which is what the lead says and which is the reason we have an article on him. Whether he continues to remain influential after his death has little to do with who he was as a person or the works he produced.  You claim to be a scholar of history, in which case you must know that people and their works, whether good or bad, fall in and out of favor, in and out of obscurity, quite regularly.  This is not unusual at all.  Johannes Vermeer comes to mind, and his obscurity and rediscovery are mentioned in the lead because it is a notable aspect of his biography, as it is how we have come to know his work. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Your cherry picking of Bloom 2009 to say Parrington was condemned to obscurity by Trilling, one of his critics in the 1940s, becomes apparent when one looks at what Parrington actually said. He said:
 * "Parrington lies twenty years behind us, and in the intervening time there has developed a body of opinion which is aware of his inadequacies and of the inadequacies of his coadjutors and disciples, who make up what might be called the literary academicism of liberalism. Yet Parrington still stands at the center of American thought about American culture because, as I say, he expresses the chronic American belief that there exists an opposition between reality and mind and that one must enlist oneself in the party of reality.
 * Bloom also discusses this. You keep trying to define the man by his critics, rather than his works and accomplishments.  That's going to end now. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

How encyclopedias are written
Paper encyclopedias with real editors tell the readers how important a person is by how much space they are allocated. In the Columbia Encyclopedia for example Parrington is allocated only 80 words for his entry. The other Pulitzer Prize winners in history for the 1920s: 5 are ignored entirely the rest get get more space. That is the Encyclopedia ranks him toward the bottom of Pulitzer Prize winners in terms of importance. Viriditas cites that encyclopedia without realizing his low stature in it. Rjensen (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Vernon Louis Parrington. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150317223336/http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/Parrington/ to http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/parrington/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Head coaching record
These scores are not significant for an encyclopedia, since they are very marginal information and they don't communicate much about Parrington's life. I propose deleting them. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose They are on just about every head coaches page. To not have it would not be standard. Furthermore, the table does not list scores, that would be overkill on a bio, it is win-loss record. It isn't a list of the close to thirty games that he coached, it is a season breakdown of how the team did under his guidance. If you look on the thousands of articles of head coaches, many of them have them. It isn't that much different than Dr. Tom Osborne. See WP:WHENTABLE. -UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion. Head coaching record tables are a standard feature of bio articles for those who have been head coaches in college football and in many other sports. Furthermore, Melchior2006, your erroneous characterization of yearly won–loss record as "scores" does not lend credence to your proposal. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion. Because Parrington was a literary historian, this article is of interest to literary types, and they often don't take the intellectual accomplishments of college football players seriously. So now that you guys have explained the matter, I agree with you. Parrington is a rare example of a man who flourished in several areas. He is proof of an unusual combination of bookworm and football coach! --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing was not usual at all in the early days of college football, the late 1800s and early 1900s. Many college football coaches were also professors, or men who coached briefly while in graduate school and went on to notable careers in other fields, like medicine, law, finance, politics, or the clergy, e.g. Henry Luke Bolley, Fred W. Green, Bruce Griffith, William Mann Irvine, Matthew W. Bullock, Harry Arista Mackey, Evans Woollen, Madison G. Gonterman, Robert Walter Johnson, Clinton L. Hare, etc. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Live and learn! --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

ERROR in title: Main Currents "IN" American Thought
The correct title for Parrington's famous book is: Main Currents in American Thought: an interpretation of American literature from the beginnings to 1920.

https://search.worldcat.org/title/492172

https://www.abebooks.com/Main-Currents-American-Thought-Beginnings-Critical/31202258924/bd 36hourblock (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)