Former featured article candidateStephen King is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept

Philanthropist[edit]

I think this deserves to be mentioned in the lead, if not the infobox. MOS:ROLEBIO has been cited; I don't think his philanthrophy is a "sundry" role. In Maine he is primarily known for his philanthropic work these days; he is categorized in Category:Philanthropists from Maine which is itself categorized under Category:People from Maine by occupation. Philantropists by state is also categorized under Category:American people by occupation by state so I think philanthropist can indeed be an occupation. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King has done lots of things, including musician, entrepreneur, broadcast owner, and philanthropist. Listing all of these in the infobox and in the lead is contrary to MOS:ROLEBIO. He is primarily known as a writer. We need a consensus to make an exception. Sundayclose (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't propose listing all of those things, nor do I think he is primarily notable as a musician, entrepreneur, and broadcast owner. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't propose listing anything other than author, which is his primary occupation and for which he is known. If you ask the average person, "What does Stephen King do?", the answer will almost always be writer or author, not philanthropist. Musician, entrepreneur, and broadcast owner are just as much a part of his bio as philanthropist. The point is, we only list his primary occupation. Again, this requires consensus to single out one activity over all others. Philanthropy and other activities can be discussed in the article, but not in the infobox or lead. Sundayclose (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His philanthropy makes national news (LA Times, USA Today, CNN) and clearly is not something that he does on the side. If that's not an "occupation" for the infobox, okay, but there is no reason not to mention this in the lead. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which, if "philanthropist" is not an occupation, I might suggest that you nominate some categories for deletion or renaming. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can selectively scour the internet to find "national news" about his other activities. In the past, I have seen news reports on national TV about his musical activities, but he's not primarily a musician. But that's sidetracking the real issue, which is notability for anything in addition to writing. And I think you missed one of my points. I'm saying that "philanthropist" should be in neither the infobox nor the lead. As for categories, feel free to nominate for deletion or renaming as you wish. That's not my concern. My concern is that the lead and infobox should only contain his primary activity, which is writer, per MOS:ROLEBIO. Any exception requires consensus here. Many famous and/or wealthy individuals such as actors have philanthropic activities, but you don't see it in the infobox or lead. As just one example, Barack Obama has been involved in numerous philanthropic activities but does not have "philanthropist" in his infobox. There are many, many other examples. Sundayclose (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't miss your point, I'm trying to compromise with you and reach WP:CONSENSUS. I don't think Barack Obama is an appropriate comparison as his political career outweighs pretty much everything else he has done. I don't think that's the case here. My only point with the categories is that this can be considered an occupation. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any compromise because any inclusion of philanthropist requires an exception to MOS:ROLEBIO. And Obama is as good an example as King. King's writing career outweighs everything else he has done. But again I think you miss the point. Obama is just one of many examples. Anyway, unless you can come around to accepting the limitations of MOS:ROLEBIO we'll just have to see if there are other opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more point: It is utterly and laughably absurd to state "philanthropist" before "author" as his occupation, as you did when you reverted my edit. Sundayclose (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I've just removed it since it is disputed and was recently added(not by me). As I said I don't think the policy has been interpreted correctly here and that no "exception" is required; that this change falls well within it, but I have plenty on my plate so I'm not able to actively pursue this further. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "philanthropist" doesn't belong in the lead, as it's not what King is primarily known for. If you were profiling, say, Andrew Carnegie, someone known as a philanthropist, it would belong in the lead. But King is primarily known as a novelist, and that's what should be in the lead.
That doesn't mean that King's philanthropy isn't worth mentioning. In The New Yorker, Mark Singer writes that King "also subsidizes the National Poetry Foundation". That was in 1997; anyone know if he still does?
King's Philtrum Press seems worth mentioning, don't you think? But there's nothing about it in the article. I'd also be interested in knowing more about the radio stations King and his wife own; there's a sentence about it under "Personal life", but it seems like something to expand upon. Charlie Faust (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that "Philanthropist" does not belong in the infobox, as it is not what King is best known for. His philanthropic work merits mention, and indeed is mentioned elsewhere in the article. It's just not the most notable aspect of his life. King is known as an Author and it's appropriate that that get top billing. King is also an amateur musician, but you won't find that in infobox, nor should you.
The page for Bob Dylan (a Featured Article) lists him as a "singer-songwriter". That's appropriate, as that is what Dylan is known as. Dylan has been recognized for philanthropy, too; that doesn't mean he should be noted as a "philanthropist". (He's also done acting, but you will not see him listed as "Actor", nor should you, as that's far from the best known of his many facets.)
To wit: the infobox should include what a person is best known for. Charlie Faust (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with the Lead[edit]

"Stephen Edwin King (born September 21, 1947) is an American author of horror, supernatural fiction, suspense, crime, science-fiction, and fantasy novels. Called the "King of Horror", his books have sold more than 350 million copies as of 2006, and many have been adapted into films, television series, miniseries, and comic books. King has published over 65 novels/novellas, including seven under the pen name Richard Bachman, and five nonfiction books. He has also written approximately 200 short stories, most of which have been published in book collections."

Well, that's true enough, but "his books have sold more than 350 million copies as of 2006" is 17 years out of date. And isn't the number of books he's sold a little superficial? King would be the first to tell you that there are plenty of great writers (like Thomas Williams and Don Robertson) who are not bestsellers. If we have to mention his popularity, why not mention (as Joyce Carol Oates did) that he's the "world's best-selling author" and leave it at that?

"King has published over 65 novels/novellas." This is kind of confusing, as most of his novellas were published in collections, like Different Seasons. It's not clarified by "including seven under the pen name Richard Bachman"; are the seven Bachman books novels, novellas, or some of each? The "five nonfiction books" is confusing, too; I'm aware of Danse Macabre (1981), Nightmares in the Sky (1988, with photographer f-stop Fitzgerald), Midlife Confidential: The Rock Bottom Remainders Tour America With Three Chords and an Attitude (1994, with Amy Tan, Dave Barry, et. al), On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft (2000), Faithful (2004, with Stewart O'Nan), Guns (2013, as an ebook) and Hard Listening: The Greatest Rock Band Ever (of Authors) Tells All) (2013, an ebook with Tan, Barry, et. al). Of those, I'd say only Danse Macabre and On Writing are widely known; they're the only ones listed on his British site, And Nightmares in the Sky and Faithful were collaborations, as were the music books. So "five nonfiction books" is potentially misleading. Even if we attribute all of those to King, his nonfiction output is dwarfed by his fiction output. If we feel that Danse Macabre and On Writing, his best-known nonfiction books, deserve special mention, why not mention them specifically? Charlie Faust (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is "five nonfiction books" potentially misleading, it includes works which were co-authored and which aren't widely known. King also wrote a musical, Ghost Brothers of Darkland County, with John Mellencamp; it's not mentioned in the header for the excellent reason that it's not a major work (it is mentioned elsewhere in the article.) Nor is his directorial effort, Maximum Overdrive, mentioned in the header, since it's not a major work (it, too is mentioned elsewhere.) I maintain that Danse Macabre and On Writing are King's only nonfiction books which are widely known, and that merit mention in the header. Charlie Faust (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added that "Among the films adapted from King's novels are Carrie, Christine, The Shining, The Dead Zone, Misery, Dolores Claiborne, The Green Mile and It." Those novels are notable, among other things, for having films made from them. King's legacy may exist as much on the screen as on the page, so those films are worth mentioning. Elmore Leonard's page tells us "Leonard's short story 'Three-Ten to Yuma' was adapted as 3:10 to Yuma, which was remade in 2007. Rum Punch was adapted as the Quentin Tarantino film Jackie Brown (1997)." So King is in good company when it comes to having films made from his work mentioned in his header.
I added that "He has published under the pseudonym Richard Bachman and has co-written works with other authors, notably his friend Peter Straub and sons Joe Hill and Owen King." "Five nonfiction books" is somewhat misleading; Midlife Confidential and Hard Listening were co-written with his fellow Rock Bottom Remainders, and Faithful was co-written with Stewart O'Nan. On Writing is his best known nonfiction book, probably his best, and the one that merits mention in the header. So I added: "He has also written nonfiction, notably On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft." Charlie Faust (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The filmography lists IT Part 2 which mentions IT [part 1] but that isn't listed. Why?[edit]

The filmography lists IT Part 2 which mentions IT [part 1] but that isn't listed. Why? WordwizardW (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you see something you think needs fixing, fix it! Charlie Faust (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
King made a cameo in the sequel but didn't appear in the first film. The filmography isn't for listing the movies based upon King's works, unless he received some other credit for them. Jessintime (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The repressed memory and other tales[edit]

"As a child, King apparently witnessed one of his friends being struck and killed by a train, though he has no memory of the event. His family told him that after leaving home to play with the boy, King returned speechless and seemingly in shock. Only later did the family learn of the friend's death."

That does not belong in an article about living person. It is described as a textbook case of repressed memory: "he has no memory of the event. His family told him that after leaving home to play with the boy, King returned speechless and seemingly in shock. Only later did the family learn of the friend's death."

But repressed memory has been discredited (see, for example, Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketchum, The Myth of Repressed Memory, 1994). The clinical psychologist Richard McNally calls traumatic amnesia "the most pernicious bit of folklore ever to infect psychology and psychiatry." (See R. J. McNally, "The Science and Folklore of Traumatic Amnesia", Clinical Psychology.) Had King witnessed the event, he would, almost certainly, have recalled it clearly at the time, as traumatic events are usually the ones we recall most clearly. Per the article, he did not ("after leaving home to play with the boy, King returned speechless and seemingly in shock. Only later did the family learn of the friend's death.") He would, almost certainly, recall it now. Per the article, he does not ("he has no memory of the event.") That makes the story dubious, as the phenomena of traumatic amnesia is dubious at best. Traumatic amnesia is common in fiction (including King's fiction), but not real life. And it wasn't even in fiction until the nineteenth century, when it entered the popular imagination.

In Physiological Medicine, Harrison Pope, Mihcael P. Poliakoff, Michael B. Parker, Matthew Boynes and James B. Hudson tell of an experiment in which they "advertised in three languages on more than 30 internet web sites and discussion groups, and also in print offering US$1000 to the first individual who could find a case of dissociative amnesia for a traumatic event in any fictional or non-fictional work before 1800. Our search generated more than 100 replies; it produced numerous examples of ordinary forgetfulness, infantile amnesia and biological amnesia throughout works in English, other European languages, Latin, Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit and Chinese before 1800, but no descriptions of individuals showing dissociative amnesia for a traumatic event." The authors conclude that "If dissociative amnesia for traumatic events were a natural psychological phenomenon, an innate capacity of the brain, then throughout the millennia before 1800, individuals would presumably have witnessed such cases and portrayed them in non-fictional works or in fictional characters. The absence of cases before 1800 cannot reasonably be explained by arguing that our ancestors understood or described psychological phenomena so differently as to make them unrecognizable to modern readers because spontaneous complete amnesia for a major traumatic event, in an otherwise lucid individual, is so graphic that it would be recognizable even through a dense veil of cultural interpretation. Therefore, it appears that dissociative amnesia is not a natural neuropsychological phenomenon, but instead a culture-bound syndrome, dating from the nineteenth century." (See Pope, Poliakoff, et al, "Is dissociative amnesia a culture-bound syndrome? Findings from a survey of historical literature", Physiological Medicine.) And yet "spontaneous complete amnesia for a major traumatic event, in an otherwise lucid individual" is what the tale is described as, falsifying it with high confidence.

Were the tale true it would, presumably, have been mentioned by King’s family members in print. In the spirit of Pope, Poliakoff, et al., I have asked on this talk page if anyone could find any direct quotes from, say, King’s mother Ruth or brother Dave that mention the tale. Like Pope, Poliakoff, et al., I got a null result. Were the tale true King would, presumably, mention it in his memoir or in subsequent interviews. But he makes no mention of it at all in his memoir On Writing (2000). In the spirit of Pope, Poliakoff, et al., I have asked on this talk page if anyone knows of any interviews since 2000 where King mentions the tale. Again, I got a null result.

Where does the tale originate? In King’s Danse Macabre (1981), where he offers it as an explanation for what happened in his youth to make him write horror, a question he resented and about which he admits he used to “confabulate.” And he has offered other, simpler answers to that question. In recent interviews, King stresses that his childhood was "pretty ordinary." In one recent interview, when Terry Gross asked King about his childhood, he replied, “I’ve been queried a lot about how I got interested in this stuff. And at some point, a lot of interviewers just turn into Dr. Freud and put me on the couch and say, ‘what was your childhood like?’ And I say various things, and I confabulate a little bit and just kind of dance around the question as best I can, but bottom line – my childhood was pretty ordinary, except that from a very young age, I wanted to be scared. I just did.” (See Gross, Terry, Stephen King: ‘My Imagination Was Very Active — Even At A Young Age’ National Public Radio). He makes no mention at all of the tale.

In an interview with Time, King recalls that "I would be asked, 'What happened in your childhood to make you write those terrible things?' I couldn't think of any real answer to that." (See Cruz, Gilbert, "Stephen King on His 10 Longest Novels". Time.)

But actually, he had: In the introduction to Night Shift (1978), King writes that he is often asked how he became interested in horror and argues that most of us, whether we admit or not, have at least some interest in it: "No need to belabor the obvious; life is full of horrors small and large, but because the small ones are the ones we can comprehend, they are the ones that smack home with all the force of mortality... Fear has always been big. Death has always been big. They are two of the human constants. But only the writer of horror and the supernatural gives the reader such an opportunity for total identification and catharsis." (King, Stephen. Night Shift, p. xv-xvii.) He says this interest in horror begins, with most of us, in childhood. He makes no mention of the tale. His explanation is consistent with what he told Gross in 2015, where he says an interest in horror is "built in" as "part of human nature". As established, in the Gross interview he makes no mention of the tale. In a recent Rolling Stone interview, when asked how he became interested in horror, he replied, "It's built in. That's all." At this point, I shouldn't need to say that he makes no mention of the tale. (See Greene, Andy, Stephen King: The Rolling Stone Interview. October 31, 2014.) King has, time and again, argued that an interest in horror is part of human nature, certainly part of his nature, and not due to any primal trauma.

Not only does King make no mention of the tale in On Writing, in that book he offers a simple answer to the question of why he writes horror: "I was built with a love of the night and the unquiet coffin, that's all. If you disapprove, I can only shrug my shoulders. It's what I have." (King, On Writing, 158). "I was built with a love of the night and the unquiet coffin", which is to say it's part of his nature. That is more parsimonious than the baroque tale related in Danse Macabre. And, if the way King's books sell is any indication, it is not unusual to be "built with a love of the night and the unquiet coffin". No wonder King resented those interviewers who, as he told Gross, "just turn into Dr. Freud and put me on the couch and say, ‘what was your childhood like?’" No wonder he might make up a story to satisfy such interviewers: "And I say various things, and I confabulate a little bit and just kind of dance around the question as best I can.” Occam told us that the simplest explanation is usually correct, and the explanation King gave Gross (“my childhood was pretty ordinary, except that from a very young age, I wanted to be scared. I just did.”) is the simplest.

No need to belabor the obvious: Since the tale is an example of psychology that is dubious at best and dangerous at worst (per McNally, traumatic amnesia "is the most pernicious bit of folklore ever to infect psychology and psychiatry" and "has provided the theoretical basis for 'recovered memory therapy'—the worst catastrophe to befall the mental health field since the lobotomy era"); since King makes no mention at all of the tale in his memoir or in subsequent interviews; since there are no direct quotes from family members mentioning the tale; since he told the tale once in 1981 as an explanation of what happened in his youth to make him write horror but never before or since; since he has, before and since, offered other, simpler answers to that question (“my childhood was pretty ordinary, except that from a very young age, I wanted to be scared. I just did.”) and since he admits he used to "confabulate" when asked that question, it does not belong in the biography section of an article for a living person. Charlie Faust (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the source cited, George Beahm's The Stephen King Story, is very good, as it is an unauthorized biography published more than thirty years ago. Who does Beahm cite? It's King in Danse Macabre, isn't it? That's unreliable, seeing how King told the tale there as an explanation for what happened in his youth to make him write horror, a question he admits he used to "confabulate" about. If it were true, he would, presumably, mention it in his memoir, On Writing (2000). No dice. If it were true, he would presumably, have mentioned it in subsequent interviews. No dice. If it were true, it would, almost certainly, be mentioned by family members in print. No dice. Again, I challenge anyone to find an interview since 2000 where King mentions the tale, or any direct quotes from family members that mention it. And, I must repeat this, as it is the heart of the matter: the tale is described, both on this page and in Danse Macabre, as something that is common in fiction (including King's) but not real life, and not in fiction until the 19th century, when it entered the public imagination. Had King witnessed such an event he would, almost certainly, have recalled it clearly at the time, as traumatic events are usually the ones we recall most clearly. Per the article, he did not. He would, almost certainly, recall it now. Per the article, he does not.
In the spirit of Pope, Poliakoff, et al., I once again challenge anyone to find a direct quote in print where one of King's family members mentions the tale. I did this before, and got a null result. I once again challenge anyone to find an interview since 2000 where King mentions it. I did this before, too, and got a null result. I wish that I had $1000 to offer to whoever finds such a source, as Pope, Poliakoff, et al. did, but I do not. So it goes.
Charlie Faust (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments for keeping the story are specious. We are told it should stay because “it has been in the article for years.”  
And? There are things on Wikipedia which are flat wrong, some of which have been here for years. On this page, under “Personal life”, in a paragraph on King's experiences with addiction, we were told that King’s wife staged an intervention "shortly after Cujo was published.” Wrong. Is it ever. Cujo was published in 1981, and King struggled with addiction for years after: “In the spring and summer of 1986 I wrote The Tommyknockers, often working until midnight with my heart running at a hundred and thirty beats a minute and cotton swabs stuck up my nose to stem the coke-induced bleeding.” It was after that book, not after Cujo, that King’s wife staged an intervention: “Not long after that my wife, finally convinced that I wasn’t going to pull out of this ugly downward spiral, stepped in.” (King, On Writing, 96-97) As made clear in that memoir, Misery was also written in the throes of addiction, and King says that is the book’s real subject. Like The Tommyknockers, it was published in 1987 which, to be clear, was the year his wife staged an intervention. Elsewhere, King said he was “coked out of my mind” while making Maximum Overdrive (1986). None of this makes sense if, as this article used to say, his wife staged an intervention “shortly after Cujo.” That may have been in the article for years, but it should never have been there in the first place.
We were also told of the tale, "it may have psychologically inspired some of King's darker works", even though he has no memory of it.
Huh? How could it have "psychologically inspired" King if he has no memory of it? What, if anything, does "psychologically inspired" mean? That may have been in the article for years, too, but it should never have been there in the first place.
Had the story "psychologically inspired" King he would, presumably, mention it in his memoir. He does not. He told it once in 1981 as an explanation for what happened in his youth to make him write horror, a question he admits he used to "confabulate" about and which he resented. He was right to resent it. Are we to assume that Shelley, Stoker and Stevenson, among past masters of the macabre, experienced primal trauma, too? What a lot of rot. What about the legions who read the stuff? King is, after all, the world's bestselling writer; are we to assume that everyone who picked up a King book experienced some trauma to make them interested in horror? Perish the thought. And in On Writing King offers a far simpler explanation of why he writes horror: "I was built with a love of the night and the unquiet coffin, that's all. If you disapprove, I can only shrug my shoulders. It's what I have." (King, On Writing, 158) Which is to say it's inherent and not due to any primal trauma. If the way King's books sell is any indication, he's far from the only one "built with a love of the night and the unquiet coffin." That's the simplest explanation, and Occam said the simplest explanation is usually correct. Charlie Faust (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had posted what had become a rather lengthy thread with comments that weren't especially constructive. So I consolidated what I thought were the most important points into a single post.

Charlie Faust (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories