This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Literature Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Occupations (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations Writing Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Writing, a WikiProject interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of content related to the fields of rhetoric, composition, technical communication, literacy, and language studies.WritingWikipedia:WikiProject WritingTemplate:WikiProject WritingWriting Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

for monetary or personal gain?

I suppose it depends what how you define "personal gain", but I think this is misleading. You probably don't write a diary or a livejournal for personal gain particularly, but I think it makes you a writer. -- Sam Francis — Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 26 September 2002 (UTC)[reply]

An article on the profession of "Writer" is not itself a writer, so I have deleted "Category:Writer" et al from this article. BeteNoir 07:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Alternative uses of writer" entry should be removed.

The individual who wrote this article for some reason has taken on a very personal, subjective tone in describing who is or isn't considered a writer - would a copywriter who writes scripts for film be any less of a writer than a writer who also writes scripts for a film for profit? Or a journalist or magazine writer who is also a PR/marketing flack? If so, most professional writers in the United States would not be considered a writer by Wikipedia's current definition, when in fact they are by the standards of the United States government (ad writers, marketers, journalists, and novelists all fall under the category of "Writer")[1], which most likely trumps the case of an individual inserting an entry into Wikipedia.

Wikipedia shows itself as an incredibly unreliable and unprofessional reference source through allowing this subjectivity.

1. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos089.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.124.213 (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

("Then change it, if you don't like it! I agree with you - now, do something about it! That's why it's a COMMUNITY project.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.229.173 (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article lumps writers and authors together .The present concensis is that Authiors have published and have been paid for there writings Writers have not!(DatedbyhmeonThur.Aug0,20092stcent aM. DR.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC forrecords"X")SoCalKid (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's very difficult to identify a difference between authors and writers. A person might be "an Author" by title, and another "an author of [something]" by action. But, in a literary sense, all authors are writers.

It is more accurate to suggest these:

An author creates something original. All authors are writers. Not all writers are authors.

Payment for writing has never been a requirement for either. Some writers are not authors, but they are paid for their writings, just as some authors have never been paid.

All writers must possess the ability to use language correctly and effectively, though, for slipshod writing makes for slipshod communication.

Persons who wish to be regarded as writers must first earn the title by proving that they take pains to ensure the accuracy of their language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.225.61 (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself a software writer. Does writing that has to execute/work count? Lycurgus (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that Category:American authors is a soft redirect to Category:American writers. Although the terms have some overlap, my understanding is that "author" connotes "book author." Maurreen (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested in category work, some "writer" cats need diffusion. For example, Category:American writers directly contains almost 3,000 articles, and Category:Writers directly contains more than 300. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a reference to an obscure editing tool (being a writer myself I have a fair idea of widespread tools for writers such as Ulysses, Scrivener etc.). Added a (in my mind useful) reference to fictionaut, which is a hugely successful free community for fiction writers that has grown since 2008 at an amazing rate. birkenkrahe (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "Cleanup" and "Citations needed" tags to this article for a couple of reasons. It seems to lack sufficient proper sources, contains some statements that seem to be more opinion than fact, and in general the article could use more (verified) content. I’ll see if I can help with this a little later, but thought it would be good to note that the article needs work done in order to try and comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No_original_research, and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. - Therandom (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup? Overhaul! Or delete! Either way, worst wiki article ever!67.190.86.13 (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps an expanded version of this article could include:

1. History: How writers came to be (will be closely related to the history of writing itself) and how they were received in their societies (roles they played, for example)
2. Typology: Different kinds of writers (focusing on the major kinds, like creative writers, scribes, etc.)
3. Methods and tools: Methods and tools used by writers in their craft

It's just an idea though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering is one of the ways to get information for Information based writing. Philosophers and other thinkers like essayists may not need to gather information to write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtwilson3 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A butcher is a person who sells meat, a baker sells bread, a fireman fights fires, a cup is a vessel out of which people drink hot or cold beverages, trousers are a garment consisting of two leg-shaped tubes attached to a groin-shaped area.... The definition of writer is sheer absurd reduction that serves no purpose other than stating the blindingly obvious. The definition of a writer is implicit and covered by every entry about a writer, whether novelist, playwright, poet, etc. It is necessary to attribute visitors to Wikipedia with some basic values and commonsense and not seek to redefine that which they already know Picknick99 (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

++ I find a lack of information that could be fullfilled, Graffiti, ¨they called themselves writers because thats what they do¨ (first verse of STYLE WARS). "I was, after the fashion of humanity, in love with my name, and, as young educated people commonly do, I wrote it everywhere." Ghoete, Poetry and truth

ElChicoIwana. Madrid2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.179.164 (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful that you added that quote back in, perhaps as a "no hard feelings" gesture, and I acknowledge your actions. However, in the context of the article, that quote I chose isn't actually a very good one. If you wanted a quote epitomising how an "instructional guide" textbook could be written about a topic, I suggest you swap my quote for a much better one. If you want to keep with the speech theme, there are numerous concise quips on the essence of being a speechwriter in that book. :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Your quote was a helpful reminder that since there are many writers of text books, they are a big contingent of writers. That also reminds me that in earlier centuries, writers of instructional manuals tended to be concerned with moral improvement, as opposed to skill development. Somehow that should go in if I can find a way to do it concisely and with a good reference. Of course, it's a work in progress and I will continue to look for the best quotes and develop the article if I can. For example, the bullet points I used to start the section still need to be turned into good prose to make this a good article. Whiteghost.ink (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After working on this article, it seems to me that the challenge it presents is to keep focused on the writer and the issues that concern the writer, and not stray into writing, which is about the invention and development of this system of communication and a very big separate topic. This makes it different from the other pairings - for example, editor/editing or blog/blogger. Here we have to refer more to the person than the activity or type of writing they produce. Hence, "poet" (not "poetry") and "novelist" (not "novels"). The latter make great links but this article is about the producers of the texts.

Obviously writers write the different kinds of texts. However, since the article is not about the texts themselves, we do not need to list the different kinds, although links to examples helps show the results of a writer's work. That is why I changed "religious texts" to "writer of sacred texts". In addition, "writer of religious texts" would be about religious commentaries, rather than the sacred texts themselves, and would have been similar to essays or instructional writing, which was already covered.

The quotes can be used to provide examples of what writers produce in the genre under consideration. If they are examples of good writing (or at least representative writing), they are more likely to give the best idea and be linkable. Readers of this article should be able to get a feel for the range of writing that comes out of writers without the article turning into an article about the types of writing. So quotations ought to do triple duty representing their writer, the type of writing and as a bonus, if possible be about writing itself. That is why I selected Robert Graves's short poem to represent a poet's work from all the millions of poets and poems available.

The images and examples give opportunities to make the content global and also add more links to actual writers and to a lesser extent, examples of things they have written, as opposed to writing about their works in detail. As usual, linkable examples allow for a bigger scope without using millions of words.

Obviously, there are lots of writers and they have been writing for thousands of years so covering the topic while reducing repetition is a challenge. Every reference needs to count in terms of range of types, breadth of time frame (that is, lots of different centuries) and space (lots of different cultures). Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why someone, without explanation, keeps replacing the lead image of a generalised, famous image of an anonymous writer (one of the most common writers, after all) with an image of Proust. I have no complaint against Proust who is indeed a great writer. However, there are a very many great writers - a vast cohort, in fact - from among which to choose to illustrate this topic at the general level. The selected images try to represent specific and different aspects of the topic rather than simply choose favourites. Please desist or explain. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,confused! Writer Vs Author? If one sells a piece of writing then that makes you an AUTHIR? Article didnt say ! Thanks!Eddson storms (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writer VS. Author -- In all senses of the word, a writer is someone who writes--someone who puts thoughts onto paper and communicates them to an audience or even just themselves. An author, however, is an individual who writes personal narratives, fiction, or indulges in the publishing world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudiSundevil (talk • contribs) 02:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wordsmith (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]