Talk:Louis Kronenberger

Kronenberger at Time magazine

For Louis Kronenberger citation, thank you: the citation should have been for Sam Tanenhaus, which I have corrected.

Also, you keep removing interesting information about Kronenberger at TIME, where he worked longest: sorry, what is the benefit of deleting information?

Certainly, none of it is demeaning to him – rather, the information from Saroyan et al. elevate him, while adding context, such as who his colleague were at TIME.

(Your last edits were very sloppy, too, and left the article awry.)

At this point, may I suggest that you fill in citations needed for the remainder of the article?

--Aboudaqn (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to talk this through—we can can go to the dispute resolution forum of your choice, if you'd like—but I don't think I've eliminated anything. There's now more information in the footnote than there was in the text. As for citations, I don't think any more are necessary. Everything not otherwise cited can be found in the ANB sketch.

Technically you're better than I at providing the proper citation forms, and I apologize for sloppy editing, which I hope can be excused on grounds of age.--John Foxe (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Aboudaqn, for initiating the mediation process.--John Foxe (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

John Foxe (talk): I need to refile for mediation: is there anything you'd like to add to this Talk Page? FYI, I resolved the "need citation" markup and also sub-divided his Works significantly (he was a prolific and versatile writer!) --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

My criticism is two-fold. First, the article is now more a bullet-point list than an encyclopedia article. All subdivisions should be eliminated before "Bibliography." Second, Saroyan's mention of Kronenberger in a play, and the names of Kronenberger's coworkers at TIME, belong in the notes rather than the text. They tell us little about the man.

Formatting: John Foxe, I respectfully disagree. This entry is a "stub" and needs filling out. Each major event in his career (right now, each major employer) receives a paragraph that begins with a start date. He had two major roles in his life: professional writer/editor and academic. As people fill out what they can (with citations), each paragraph stands a good chance of becoming longer. As example, his TIME years do have interesting facts added. Two interesting facets of his academic career seem (IMHO) to merit separate paragraphs: actual academic institutions for whom he worked and other academic assocations from writer colony to museum to academic associations. If anything, the lists under "Bibliography" could benefit greatly by folding up or columns: any thoughts there?--Aboudaqn (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Any folding up or column formatting of the bibliography would be fine with me.--John Foxe (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

TIME details: John Foxe, again, I respectfully disagree. The details there are quite informative for "everyman" readers who might have heard of his name but otherwise know little or nothing about him. The citations from Saroyan and Chambers put him in context of his peers – with great accuracy, as Saroyan was quoting a masthead (i.e., snapshot in time), while Chambers (to whom Saroyan clearly reported) was citing Kronenberger in context of the TIME writers he felt made the greatest contributions. Were I researching about Kronenberger, I would find this kind of information extremely helpful: how do you not?--Aboudaqn (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's just a list. If you can't prove that Kronenberger and his co-workers influenced one another in some way, it doesn't tell us much. We can deduce that TIME had some great wordsmiths in their shop, but that information's germane for the TIME article rather than this one.--John Foxe (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Kronenberger was prolific, but his prose strikes me as as mannered, concerned more with style than content and therefore not the sort of writing that will endure. It would be nice to find some critic who says that.--John Foxe (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

John Foxe, forgive me, but if you're so passionate about this entry, why not spend time conducting the research you've suggested could prove interesting? --Aboudaqn (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I mostly just like clean Wikipedia entries. After reading Kronenberger's memoir, No Whippings, No Gold Watches (1965), I decided the man himself was pretty opaque and that I'd have difficulty getting much beyond his ANB entry. (In class I use a paragraph from his memoir to demonstrate how one can write well—using assonance, periodic sentences, and phrases that scan like poetry—without saying very much of consequence.) Still, if down the road I run into some good scholarly commentary about him, I'd want to add it.--John Foxe (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Help: Request for Editor as Third-Party Mediator

John Foxe and Aboudaqn seek another Editor to join us to resolve issues above as third-party mediator: can you please help?