# Talk:A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning

"Rudnytsky 1982, p. 190." doesn't appear to point to a citation. Thanks for the work on this, glad to see it nominated for GA! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops; my bad! *slaps self*. Thanks for pointing it out, Khazar2 :). Should now be fixed! Ironholds (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Ha, no worries. I've got a script that points out ref harv errors in big red text. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Does all this, most of which which can be found at the Donne article, really add anything specific to our understanding of this poem? (or the other Donne works it has been pasted to)?Straw Cat (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A brief recollection of how Donne got to the position he was in to write the poem, and what influenced him to do so? Yes. The GA status suggests it's valid content. Ironholds (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade by tagging this for reassessment, but really the GA review, by someone who self-describes as "not a poetry expert", is risible. Yes, all the boxes were ticked, without much comment, but this article, about one of the most famous poems in English Literature, is not (IMHO of course) Good, not well-written - it's turgid and pedantic. When I have some time I hope to work on it. meanwhile for a good, scholarly, rigorous, helpful GA assessment the recent one on Dostoyevsky is a shining model.Straw Cat (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
"I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but....it's turgid and pedantic" is sort of the "I don't mean to be rude, but..." of literary reviews, I guess. Reassess it, do whatever you want, but please try to be more polite. Ironholds (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I did say IMHO. It's just that when one is writing about a master of cool, taut, sharp, witty verse and prose ...well, you've got to put some effort in.Straw Cat (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, well that abbv of course forgives all coarseness and bluntness. Thank you for suggesting that the hours of work that went into this article did not involve effort; you have, indeed, successfully convinced me that my previous goal - to write full articles on all of Donne's work - is a total waste of time, particularly if you insist on following me from page to page. Do what thou wilt with this; I'm evidently either too unskilled or too lazy to contribute to it. Ironholds (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
That reply itself betrays the, perhaps unconscious, WP:OWNERSHIP assumptions which have led you, in expanding the articles, to jump on anyone who has the temerity to change the result - even if there were questionable deletions, or even plain mistaken statements, as in the Devotions on Emergent Occasions article. This project is a collaborative effort - even the most powerful WP administrators' work can be improved. Also I can't understand your reluctance to follow WP:MOSTYLE and preserve Donne's distinctive spelling, punctuation and capitalization.Straw Cat (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how it demonstrates ownership problems. I literally wrote the article, insofar as I completely replaced the existing content with new content of my creation. You're right; Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It's a lot easier for it to be collaborative when you don't walk in and simply go "this is turgid and pedantic, put some effort in". Regardless, I'm a volunteer; I'm not paid to put up with insults and I don't have to contribute despite them. As said, make whatever tweaks you feel are necessary: I've stopped caring. Ironholds (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You say "preserve Donne's distinctive spelling" as if he had carefully chosen his particular spellings, when in fact there just simply wasn't an authoritative standard at the time.  Modernized spellings of Donne's (and others') works from the period are far from uncommon.  Further, not all of Donne's poetry has survived in his own hand, and scribes were notorious for using whatever spelling they fancied—the spelling handed down to us is not necessarily Donne's own.  This has nothing to do with the MoS; it's an arbitrary editorial decision, and the MoS neither supports nor recommends against either (reread it carefully and you'll see how you're misinterpreting it.  While you're at it, give Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not a glance).
You should also keep in mind the social aspect of Wikipedia you yourself have brought up.  We're all familiar with the superhuman disinhibition the keyboard and an anonymous username give us; they allow us to call the work of our neighbours "risible", "turgid", or "pedantic", while boasting of the feats we ourselves could accomplish in the other editors' places.  This only serves to alienate fellow editors, which detracts from one of Wikiedia's greaest strengths—having a large number of eyes on each of the articles to promote high (and continually improving) quality and keep the vandals at bay.  I don't know what you hope to accomplish by trying to scare away two pairs of eyes.  Given the opportunity to contribute, collaborate, discuss, or educate, you've chosen instead to defecate in the middle of the back room. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220053830/http://www.wwnorton.com:80/college/english/nap/A_Valediction_Forbidding_Mournin_John.htm to http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nap/A_Valediction_Forbidding_Mournin_John.htm
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) 22:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)