Talk:Elizabeth Barrett Browning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-Class) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
| WikiProject Poetry | (Rated C-Class, High-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment
Close to being a B, but could use citations, references, and certainly could be longer.
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 04:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
The recent (8 April 2008) change to the Literary Significance section of EBB's page seem quite idiosyncratic and indeed hostile. Who are the "many well-respected literary critics who question" the assessment today of her as one of the great English poets? Many more in the last two decades have championed the idea that her work was and has continued to be influential, with, for example, more poems by her included in anthologies (see Mermin and Tucker) and more serious commentary on her work, as recorded in _Victorian Poetry_'s "Year's Work" section. Too, fuller entries in reference works such as the DNB and CBELL indicate the growing recognition of her literary importance. And a five-volume scholarly edition is underway for Pickering & Chatto (Donaldson, ed.), the first in over a century. The specific failings the contributor lists are personal opinions not shared by any other scholars that I'm aware of (Harold Bloom is a notorious exception). Terms like "overly sentimental," "in poor taste" (how can meter and rhyme be in poor taste?), and "slavish adherence" are inaccurate and/or impressionistic.Suzibear (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How accurate is the Book/Film The Barrets of Wimpole Street---I just saw the Norma Shearer/Charles Laughton version from the 30s---Laughton is terrific as te tyrannical, unfeeling father. Is that an accurate portrayal? The article here makes him seem fairly innocuous...not to say benign.
Did she have tuberculosis? I thought it was some chronic bronchial diseaase that I forget the name of.--Marj 18:02, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It wasn't properly diagnosed at the time and what it was is still uncertain today. Some lung complaint but that's all we know. -- Derek Ross
When the article says, "Shortly afterwards the abolition of slavery, of which he had been a disinterested supporter, considerably reduced Mr. Barrett's means: he accordingly disposed of his estate and removed with his family first to Sidmouth and afterwards to London. " does it mean that Mr. Barrett was a disinterested supporter of abolition, or of slavery?Uncle Pavian
[edit] Non Sequitur
The main page says: "of which he had been a disinterested supporter, considerably reduced Mr. Barrett's means" but "disinterested" often means not having a financial interest. Perhaps it should read: "of which he had been an inactive supporter, considerably reduced Mr. Barrett's means." or "of which he had been an uninterested supporter, considerably reduced Mr. Barrett's means" 24.8.160.40 01:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know that disinterested actually refers to impartiality. 09:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.30.233 (talk)
[edit] Bibliography
I have today added two scholarly items to the See Also section. I know of no "standard" biography of E.B.B., but clearly an entry is needed for this. Also, I question whether it is worth mentioning Flush at all since it is clearly not a port of call for a reader principally interested in insights into E.B.B. herself. It's more the sort of thing to mention in a Trivia section. Sordel 08:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)poop
[edit] Major cleanup
I've just done a major cleanup of this article: previously the biography section had two biographies end-to-end, plus some other stuff not really suitable to be under this heading. I've tried to integrate the two biographies into one, and put some leftover material in a new section, but since I'm not personally familiar with all the details, whoever knows better please proof-read the result and fix any inadvertent errors that may have been introduced. Thanks!—Tetracube (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go too. I've cleaned up the punctuation and writing not apt for an encyclopedic entry but it's still pretty horrible in parts. Most is without specific references. I'm not familiar with the details either - I just edited for readability, syntax and punctation. It wouldn't be hard to clean it up more, give a more scholarly tone and a bit of juice. It's dry dry dry at the moment, I think Spanglej (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Refs
Have reduced tags to those at head of article - no need for tags to outnumber paragraphs in art. Added ref & bib section with a few refs to get ball rolling. Have at it Betty Browning fans.Tttom1 (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Article is the same, pretty much word for word, as the essay here: http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/landow/victorian/authors/ebb/ebbio.html - by Glenn Everett, Associate Professor of English, University of Tennessee at Martin, and Jason B. Isaacs '93Tttom1 (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmph, apparently somebody copied-n-pasted the whole thing into the article, before I came along, unsuspecting, and merged it with the other biography (that also looked like it was copy-n-pasted from somewhere else). I kept it mostly verbatim except a few changes here and there to make things flow more smoothly. What do we do in such cases? I'm not sure this falls under fair use, since pretty much the entire article was quoted verbatim, and that without attribution.—Tetracube (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
-
- This looks like pretty clear plagiarism, possibly a copyright violation. According to Wikipedia:Copyright problems: "Material whose presence on Wikipedia infringes copyright (ie. the material is not Public Domain, licensed under the GFDL or specifically licensed to Wikipedia on suitable terms) should, as a general rule, be removed." There is also a tag that blanks the entire page.Tttom1 (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have added a tag that should get an administrator to look at the page and decide what to do.Tttom1 (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- it is certainly not fair use. But I declined a tagging for speedy deletion as copyvio as it was not introduced at a single time, and there are very old noncopyvio versions. I've identified & blocked the person who--repeatedly--introduced the material discussed above. ( It can happen that such a copy is the other way round, but not this time, as the source does have an asserted date of 1987) -- The best solution is to rewrite it quickly--using the material in that article and some other sources as a reference. If nobody wants to do that, the best temporary solution would be to replace with a PD source, like the old EB. I don't like using the old EB, but it would do in an emergency. I'll come back tomorrow and check which, or remove at least the most recent copyvio leaving subsequent contributions. DGG (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
-
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This article states that Elizabeth Barrett Browning died on june 29.1861. She actually died on June 30, 1861. This really isn't a big mistake ,but this mistake can be easily corrected. (Thankyou) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.165.102 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
