Jump to content

Talk:Maurice Sendak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Query Velveteen Rabbit

[edit]

According to wiki, the Velveteen Rabbit first appeared in 1922 with illustrations by William Nicholson - did Sendak illustrate a later version or is this mis-accreditation? —JR

Response: Many versions of the Velveteen Rabbit (with different illustrators) are out there. The version in Best in Children's Books: Volume 35 is illustrated by Maurice Sendak.

Re the adding of Category "gay author" (evidence needed)

[edit]

Re the adding of Category "gay author": http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.231.54.198 216.231.54.198 added the category of "Gay Authors" to this page citing http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/childrenandteens/story/0,6000,1100149,00.html[1] as a source, BUT I can't find any mention of "gay" or "homosexual" in this article (which is actually an edited extract from Tony Kushner's book The Art Of Maurice Sendak: 1980 To The Present Published by Abrams). Maybe I missed it, if so please point it out . Otheriwse the category will be need to be removed or another credible source will need to be cited . Antmusic 17:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems likely to me that his partner of many years, Dr Eugene Glynn, a psychoanalyst, a man of vast learning as well as fierce opinions, has helped guide him in his study."samwaltz 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that could mean "business partner"... it does not flat out say that he is homosexual (or possibly bisexual either). If he has not "come out" then this article should not speculate. Antmusic 02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In certain cases, that would be true. However that would be qualified as "his business partner"; in any case, the closest authors and other artists have to business partners are [Literary agent|agents]. In such a case, he would be described as Sendak's agent, editor, etc., and not "a psychoanalyst". samwaltz 03:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to make sure that you are following policy and not doing anything libelous. If it is at all possible that Maurice Sendak is not gay, then that needs to be removed. For example, if he is bisexual or even pansexual, that needs to be removed. If he does not call himself "gay" that needs to be removed. If he is not out of the closet, that needs to be removed. If he would be angy that that was in here, it needs to be removed. The sentance in that book is a little too ambiguous to prove that he is gay. My personal opinion is that it would be conjectural interpretation to use this article as a source because it does not state that Mr. Sendak is homosexual, and that is not allowed per policy. "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." Antmusic 16:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, this article should absolutely not be within the scope of the LGBT Project either. I removed that tag for the reasons listed above. Comme le Lapin 06:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed the "Gay Authors" category. Comme le Lapin 07:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he is not gay as conclution

No, the conclusion is: that without concrete proof, no one's sexuality or sexual preference can be questioned or mentioned in a biographical article. Antmusic 15:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bturnip (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you guys are rediculous, he is gay, here is the article, the lgbt portal tag should be reapplied. stop pushing people in the closet just because you think it'd be libelous to be called gay yourself. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/arts/design/10sendak.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.228.222 (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon commenter would do well to notice that the discussion above is many months old, and the source mentioned was applied to the article before you posted it, you might have checked. It's entirely correct to wait with applying sensitive info about a living person until WP:RS is available.. MURGH disc. 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just interested in the decision to label him as "really, really gay". Are there levels I am unaware of? Are we sure he isn't "a little bit" gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.213.195 (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was just vandalism from today (13 minutes before your question here!). Since removed. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He mentioned it in the Colbert Report Wiiztec (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did. The video of that interview is already an external link added to the article. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query re:Mutt and Jeff

[edit]

The Wikipedia page for the Mutt and Jeff comic strip states that Sendak worked as an assistant on the strip as a high schooler, and links to this page, but there is no mention of his work. Can/should this be verified and added? Bturnip (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who added it to Mutt and Jeff, as it was stated in the lambiek comiclopedia (usually an RS) but nothing is made of it in other sources I've seen. Presumably it was briefly in his youth, and many sources choose to put little weight on it.. MURGH disc. 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and Guy

[edit]

The closest thing to putting a Gay theme in one of his books is the conclusion of We Are All in The Dumps, where Jack and Guy adopt a child together - indicating they are a married Gay couple. The second closest: the illustrations to Fly By Night, in which Davey is in Full Monty. Das Baz 17:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing from Bibliography

[edit]

Hi guys

Anyone knows if there is a reason why Melville's Pierre is not included on the Illustrator section of the bibliography?

Pierre, or the Ambiguities: The Kraken Edition (written by Herman Melville) [2]

I would go ahead and add it, but I am pretty much a newb.

Cheers, Wcloister (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


2013-06-12, datestamps show one recent reply above this line. Otherwise it's pre-2010.

2011 interview

[edit]

This may be worth a read and could contribute some points for citing. I don't have the time now and for the moment have only been able to add it as an additional ref in Where the Wild Things Are. --Trevj (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Guardian interview, there's a New York Times obituary that could be used to improve the article. 13:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead?

[edit]

Folks, according to most of the internet, Maurice Sendak has passed. If this is true, which is very likely, we should probably update his page. (Shadowwolf14 (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)) Ah-ha! It was just updated....may he rest in peace..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowwolf14 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is true that he has died - there were enough reports on the BBC news about this on May 8 2012, including a mention at the end of Newsnight. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on noting he was an illustrator

[edit]

I would like to congratulate this article, and also the article Deaths in 2012, for pointing out that he was an illustrator as well as a children's author. On the day his death was first announced on BBC news reports, he was often described as being "a children's author". I think that it was on the Today_(BBC_Radio_4) programme on Radio Four this morning (Wednesday May 9 2012)it was pointed out that he actually congratulated more books by other people than write his own book. So this article (and also Deaths in 2012]]) deserve praise! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to call him and his ilk "illustrator and writer"
  • illustrator first for emphasis
  • writer rather than author because author broadly covers illustrator, composer, etc
--P64 (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That line was not a joke.

[edit]

Guys, that line was not a joke. Use common sense. If he were joking, don't you think he'd at least say after that "In all seriousness, though...", "Just Kidding!", "Joking aside..." and any similar lines in that segment of the interview? I read through that entire section, and not once did I even see even a hint that he was joking around at that point. Even if he were joking around, it would still have been tasteless either way. Don't forget, a congressman once joked about assassinating President Clinton while the latter was in office, and it got him hounded by investigators, the media, and the Secret Service. If it was tasteless back then, it certainly is tasteless now regarding that statement about Bush, and I don't even care for Bush that much. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why were both Groth and Sendak laughing? I think that may be a clue. Or was it one of those evil Dr Blofeld type I-rule-the-world-type suicide-bomber laughs? Bwaaaahahaaa!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I laugh a few times even when I'm not joking. Heck, I can name a few people who laugh when saying things that they are completely serious. For instance, my film teacher when laughing about the soldiers pointing weapons when making the serious comment about disliking the military. Heck, Ellen Degeneres' show once had the laugh track play when she revealed that she was going to have an abortion. There are various instances where laughter does not equate to joking. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was this a serious political interview by a serious investigative publication? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, it was serious enough to be posted on Breitbart.com, which is serious enough in its investigative publications to try to hunt down anything that the media failed to report regarding Obama, among other things, and also makes it clear enough that it doesn't really care about Republican or Democrat views as much as vetting things the Main Stream Media fails to do, which includes even celebrities and other government officials. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a semi-blog site trying to make cheap political capital out of joke interview questions with a harmless illustrator of childrens' books, now sadly departed. But maybe Sendak had his house stuffed full with semtex and timing devices, yes? What has Obama got to do with this? or Ellen Degeneres? or "a congressman who once joked about assassinating President Clinton"? You appear to have a political agenda here and seem to be pushing a very weak and dubious WP:POV. In fact, Breitbart.com makes quite interesting reading. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I intend to spread is facts, and that's exactly what I'm doing: spreading facts. Political ideologies actually mean very little to me. For one thing, I'm an independent voter, meaning that I'm neither for the Republicans, the Democrats, or any political party whatsoever. A political mercenary, if you will. Regarding Sendak, I used to read his books as a kid, BTW, and had memories reading them, multiple times. And BTW, Breitbart is not simply a political site. Breitbart was a site created to expose the stories that the MSM either ignores or otherwise covers up (which is why I brought in Obama into the equation). And I take it you haven't heard of the term "Depraved Kids Show Host," right? There actually are people who despite appearances of being kid-friendly or being harmless, are actually not that harmless. As for Ellen Degeneres, I was trying to cite an example of how laughter doesn't always equate to jokes. In one episode of her show during the 1970s, she mentions that she was going to go through with an abortion, and the laugh track appeared at that moment, even though she was being serious in regards to getting an abortion. As for that mention of the congressman who once joked about Clinton, I made it quite clear how it ties in: That guy got investigated for making a joke about assassinating Clinton, and I made that point to point out that even if he was joking, it was an incredibly tasteless joke. Clearly, you don't seem to care about facts at all. And it's not POV or an opinion, it's a fact, period. Heck, several of the posters on the site don't even care that much for Bush, yet even they disliked it. Heck, I don't really have that much favorability towards Bush, either, yet guess what, I still found his statement disgusting even if it was a joke, which it was not. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Facts, eh? I think Clinton and Ellen Degeneres have no place in this discussion, unless to bolster a POV. Can you tell us what evidence Breitbart presents to support that interpretation, apart form the content of the script, which is used here to support a different interpretation? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Martinevans123 here. There is clear evidence, if you read the interview, that Sendak is joking, and that the interviewer understands that Sendak is joking. Whether the joke is in good taste or not is beside the point (and I think that this question gets into POV territory). More to the point, I think that this small snippet from the Comics Journal interview is pretty insignificant to the life of Maurice Sendak--yet it takes up a good chunk of the "Personal Life" section for this article. Clearly this doesn't belong here. The "Personal Life" section should actually be about Sendak's personal life. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, I think the paragraph in question should be removed, and editors should limit the content of the section to significant information about Sendak's personal life.Jpcohen (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is so little in the article about Sendak's political views that even one off-the-cuff joike, even one in bad tasate, at least gives a suggestion of what his allegiances were. But I would not object to removing this in the interests of article balance. Alternatively the existing entry could be qualified with a new sentence, e.g. "It was been claimed by at least one political commentator, e.g. Breitbart, that Sendak was serious in his threats to harm."(ref) - but that might make Breitbart look like a raving conspiracy-theory right-wing-apologist pressure-group with no grasp of reality? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, even liberal sites such as Yahoo addressed how he effectively admitted to it, so I think we should note it under bipartisan basis. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]

The image needs a caption. Context makes clear that it is a portrait of Sendak so the one crucial element of the caption is the date (eg, "Sendak in 1999").

Visiting the file page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Maurice-Sendak_portrait2.jpg i suppose no one here knows the date.
--and i doubt that the fair use rationale is adequate. --P64 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Fair use" does not mean "because I want to". Many biographies on Wikipedia lack a photo of the subject because there is none available that's in the public domain. Please explain how is this case is different. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I cannot post this box on the main article, I'm posting it here. Wordreader (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{copypaste | http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Maurice-Sendak_portrait2.jpg}}

I added the simple caption "Sendak" with hidden comment !-- prefer more specific but File page and its cited source do not help -->
Regarding copyright there is a dedicated WikiProject Copyright Cleanup and there may be one for images in all respects. I don't know the privileges or conventions for editing those pages for any purpose. --P64 (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:Wordreader, User:P64. Unfortunately, that box is used for text copy-pasting and not images. There are different processes to flag your concerns with the image. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion for how to flag your concerns with the fair use of this image. There are several steps suggested specifically at Wikipedia:GID#For images claimed under fair use that could be useful to evaluate your concerns. :) If you have questions, please feel free to drop by my talk page - I'll be happy to try to provide more detail. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portals

[edit]

I deleted six of the eight shortcuts to WP:PORTALs leaving Children's literature and Visual arts alone. Three of the others were inserted at the head of the list this week[3] perhaps satirically. --P64 (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

85th birthday and Google

[edit]

To mark Sendak's 85th birthday, the Google search page has created a gorgeous tribute. Be sure to click on the video-go triangle to see an animated movie-ette of Max and Sendak's other main characters. Does anyone know if there is a way to access the Google banners of the past? I can't figure out how to do so. If there is a way, this effort by Google should at least become an external link if not added to the article as an honor. It would be a shame to have it lost after today. Do check it out. https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian has weighed in with a downer of a review of Goggle's effort. (They seem to be reading a lot into it.) However, most of the commenters disagree with them. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2013/jun/10/maurice-sendak-google-doodle-false-note Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Google banners ARE archived as "Google doodles" (sorry not to know - I rarely use Google): http://www.google.com/doodles/finder/2013/All%20doodles Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many people who have a Google Doodle dedicated to them have it mentioned in theor article, so I have added one. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about Google doodle and wondered about it when I edited our biography Eric Carle this week. There we give no formal source but this external link.[4]
Does Google doodle refer, for everyone, to Google "changing the logo on its home page"?
--P64 (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
posted along with replies in three recent sections

I fixed many references in various ways. Everywhere that I provided author or author and date the format is manual. For example, "Inskeep, Steve (September 26, 2006)." is in the code.

Five links within references seem to be dead now. I marked one of them {{clarify}} rather than {{dead}} which may be equally appropriate. --P64 (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recovered three {dead} ref links, two "USM Libraries" (my abbreviation) and The Jewish Museum. I marked one other {subscription required} and one more {dead}. This leaves three dead links, Washington Post and Toronto National Post in references and The Contemporary Jewish Museum.
I think I checked the main link in every reference, only a few links elsewhere.
--P64 (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of works problems.

[edit]

I haven't checked all the links under the List of works section, but have seen that these two WP internal links are problematic:

  • The Singing Hill (by Meindert DeJong) (1962) (Harper Row) - links to a 1941 cowboy film.
  • Circus Girl (by Jack Sendak) (1985) - links to an album by Australian country music artist Sherrié Austin.

A number of the internal links go to articles that may certainly be the correct ones, but the linked-to articles don't always mention Sendak. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Internal links do not always have to link to something that also references the article, but I will check these. HullIntegrity\ talk / 15:13, 30 May 2015
Wordreader -- I got it. I de-linked them as incorrect HullIntegrity\ talk / 15:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The Missing Piece (1976) - has no link but is probably a reference to the book by Shel Silverstein. Maurice Sendak did not have a book by this name, as far as I can tell. Thanks, spleebo 18:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)(talk)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maurice Sendak. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maurice Sendak. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maurice Sendak. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maurice Sendak. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

[edit]

Does anyone have information about his personal life--spouses, kids, etc.? That information is usually included in wikipedia entries of individuals if available, I have found.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.79.49 (talk)

Pronunciation of "Maurice", "Bernard"

[edit]

It's handy that there is a guide to pronouncing his surname "Sendak". But was "Maurice" pronounced "Morris" or "Maw-REECE"? For that matter, was his middle name "Ber-NARD" or "BURN-erd"? 2601:545:8202:4EA5:6DFF:5B77:7156:BBC3 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maurice_Sendak&oldid=1252176372"