# Talk:Anthony Esolen

"blank verse, or unrhymed poetry written in iambic pentameter (first notable for its use in Milton's Paradise Lost)" is ludicrous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.30.32 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC) 

Agreed. Shakespeare, for one, heavily uses iambic pentameter, and precedes Milton. If no one objects, I'm for removing that reference to Milton.Mlouns (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Anthony M. Esolen. 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 {{dead link}} tag to https://books.benedictpress.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/1348/keywords/esolen/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209001750/http://www.zenit.org:80/article-19444?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-19444?l=english
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704083536/http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1090/article_detail.asp to http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1090/article_detail.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011201710/http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1506/article_detail.asp to http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1506/article_detail.asp
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) 10:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I added Lucretius' name to the first one but then stopped. Is it normal for translations to be listed without reference to the original author, even when they are authors as well known as Lucretius and Dante? Wildgraf quinn (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Display name 99: I'm not particularly familiar at doing GA reviews, but am familiar with Esolen and academia in general. I have a concern about the sourcing of his teaching experience at Chapel Hill: that seems to be sourced to a blurb from Goodreads, which I wouldn't necessarily consider a reliable source for this. The time period makes it look like he taught there as a TA during his graduate studies, which would be very different than a tenure track or even an instructor/teaching professor appointment. I can't find a copy of his CV online to verify what he is claiming in regards to his time there, but I am curious as to that claim. I'm pinging DGG since he generally is good to consult about academics. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, thank you for your assistance. I suppose I can understand your concerns regarding Goodreads. Much of the same information, however, can be found in source 3, which seems to be more reliable. I will therefore remove good reads from that and replace it with this. Display name 99 (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Both are your standard speaker/author biography blurbs, which are inherently promotional sources. Of course he is going to claim to have taught at Chapel Hill in one of these: its one of the best public universities in the United States and lends secular credibility to him to people who might be outside religious circles. The question is as Wikipedia, when we present this fact are we presenting it in an accurate way. If you look at other academics such as Elizabeth S. Anderson (picked as a random example of someone who got her PhD in the same era), we don't list their graduate teaching experience while earning their PhD. Also as a note, is there a reason we have his middle initial? WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MIDDLES would suggest that we should have it at Anthony Esolen, which has a redirect now. RS prefer him not having a middle initial, and there isn't another Anthony Esolen to disambiguate from. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Him teaching there is mentioned at Goodreads as well. Although it might not be extremely reliable, the fact that so many sources ate reporting it tends to lend it some credibility. I'd think that if he were straight-out lying about having taught there that the university would have found out and said something. I also can't see why we wouldn't want to mention it in the article. It might not be the most important thing he's done, but I don't see any harm in alluding to it.
I agree with your suggested name change. I tried to move the article once, but was not permitted to do so. I'll file a request. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Both were mentioned because they are the promotional blurb he puts on books and gives to places where he is giving a keynote. They are what he wants the people who buy his products to know about him. Its not a question of lying, of course he taught courses there: it is standard practice for graduate students of that era and later. The difference is that being required to teach a course as part of your graduate education is very different than an academic appointment, even a term faculty appointment, which is what the article now seems to imply. We have no verification from non-promotional sources that he held an appointment there, and his CV (which is promotional but would at least list a title) is not available online. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
How would you phrase it? Display name 99 (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
My initial thoughts would be to remove pending verification by non-promotional sourcing, but I would like to see what DGG thinks. Giving such weight to what appears at first glance to be graduate teaching experience is not something I would support. I've also tagged the Morehead as needing a citation: currently Morehead-Cain is undergraduate only. I don't think it has ever been a graduate scholarship (even pre-Cain) but I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, please explain your recent removal of reference to the Massachusetts Pro-Life speech. Why do you object to it being mentioned? Display name 99 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I explained in the edit summary so I didn't post here: he's a regular on the lecture circuit. The fact that he gave a keynote at one event in 2009 simply isn't noteworthy. The only references were to the organization itself an a YouTube video, which suggests that the speech wasn't noticed by anyone else either. We don't have to include everything that is verifiable, and the inclusion of one keynote speech out of many he has given isn't appropriate unless it was for some reason noticeable (such as Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner). TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The best source for teaching experience is an official CV. But an official CV normally includes everything possible, no mater how minor, including every individual talk given anywhere and everything published down to a letter to an editor or a book review. For teaching positions, we normally include them in chronological order But for a teaching assistantship during graduate school, we never mention it--it's a matter of course--essentially everyone who ever got a humanities PhD in the last 50 years had such a position. That's what his experience at UNC looks like; it may conceivably have been something other, but that would by ususual and would need to be specifically documented. (If we have TAs included in other article, we should remove it--I routinely do whenever I see it unless there's some special significance to it) . For his next position, Furman, we need the official title: it makes a difference if it was Lecturer or Assistant Professor. We need the sequence of ranks and years at Providence College.  I consider goodreads an unacceptable source for anything at all, especially a BLP. People have been note to exaggerate there--they never do on an official CV.  I consider the listing of Chapel Hill here as a typical example. It should be possible to find the material elsewhere. It is certainly not needed for the books-- WorldCat is the standard.  DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, DGG. I've removed the UNC teaching pending verification. I've left Furman in for now, but agree that we should specify if it was instructor/lecturer, adjunct, or assistant professor if it can be found. I've come up empty on an official CV, but the Furman is at least after his PhD. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Display name 99 like I mentioned on your talk, I'm not going to GA review because I think I'm too involved after the above dialogue, but here are my comments on the article as whole: One of the difficulties in writing an article on him is that he is very much on the speaker circuit so the material that is available is what he wants you to see. The UNC issue was a huge example of this because UNC is more prestigious than any other institution he has taught at, and he lists it as teaching experience even though he really was just a standard humanities grad student. Makes sense for him, but we can't report on it. As DGG mentioned, the exact nature of his Furman appointment needs to be nailed down. There is a significant difference between lecturer or adjunct professor, and assistant professor. Dates of ranks at Providence (the institution where he got tenure) are also very important. Finally, the thing that he is most notable for in an academic sense is the Dante stuff. He wouldn't have a platform for the stuff that he gets press on if he didn't have a Divine Comedy translation that was pretty unique, so anything you can do to expand that would improve the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll see what can be done. I do agree with the difficulty in finding sources to use. I don't think that the Providence dates are a huge issue though, because if he was being dishonest about them in his reports to speaker circuits it probably would have come out by now. They're reported as the same virtually everywhere, so I see no reason not to believe it. Display name 99 (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Its not so much an issue of truth as much an issue of what should be in a professor's article. The dates of appointments and the exact titles and lengths provide important biographical information Not a huge issue since we do know he worked there and was a full professor, but they are an important part of his biography. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anthony Esolen. 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/20110614140639/http://www.providence.edu/English/Faculty/esolen.htm to http://www.providence.edu/English/Faculty/esolen.htm
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) 03:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anthony Esolen. 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/20170521122210/http://www.providence.edu/english/faculty/Pages/aesolen.aspx to http://www.providence.edu/english/faculty/Pages/aesolen.aspx
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) 14:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anthony Esolen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Doctorg (talk · contribs) 15:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Display name 99:I am now starting this review. Thank you for the time you have put into this article and your work towards expanding Wikipedia’s quality content. I will add my comments into each of the following sections. DoctorG  (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Use of prose, grammar, and spelling are consistent with Wikipedia policies and common practices. Looking at the early life and career section, the use of "he" and "his" makes the prose feel stale. I suggest you change the last sentence to start with his name instead of "he".
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Article is well cited throughout and backed up by quality sources. The position held at Furman college still seems to be incomplete, but it isn't contentious, so I don't think the GA submission should be failed for this.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The article is broad enough and includes work, career, and early life
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
NPOV looks good and content is well balanced. Editors have included content regarding disagreements at previous college in a neutral fashion.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
This article is stable and there are no apparent edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Sole image in use is properly licensed. Are there any other images of him lecturing that can be included in the article?
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Doctorg, thank you for doing this review. I agree with your comments about the opening section of this article, and added Esolen's name to it twice. I was also able to get an image of him from 2016 and place it in the article. However, I was not able to add any more information on his tenure at Furman. The only two things that truly distinguish Esolen more than an average college professor is (1) his Divine Comedy translation and (2) his social commentary, the most notable of which happened in 2016. There's very little information on him that I've been able to find that goes beyond these two things. As you indicated, his teaching career at Furman was most likely fairly normal. So I can't really add anything else. Display name 99 (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
After a careful review and some minor changes from the editors, I believe this article meets the standards for a GA class article and am passing it. Thank you, @Display name 99: for your work and submission.

As I was updating the Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion section, I wasn't sure of the best category this article would fit within. I put it under religious figures for now, but that doesn't seem to be a good fit. Any suggestions?  DoctorG  (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I'd make it a Language and literature GA and list him as a writer. The issue here is that he's not actually notable for any of the recent stuff that tends to be religious focused: if that was it we wouldn't have an article on him. He's notable as a Dante translator. I considered whether it'd be appropriate to list him as a philosopher, but I don't think that would apply: he writes columns in conservative magazines and to my knowledge has never published an actual work of academic philosophy. He's certainly not a religious leader or figure: just a right of centre academic who in his non-academic work plays politics on disputes within the religion he is a member of. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, that is a much better fit. I'll make the change. DoctorG  (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Changes have been made, I think this is a much better categorization. Thanks, @TonyBallioni:, for your input. DoctorG  (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone,
I have concerns over the following sentence describing Esolen’s writing under the “Literary Work” section:
“His prose is notable for its florid, overwrought quality, paired with arguments for social conservatism that rely on assertions not rooted in evidence.”
The sentence seems to make an accusation that is unsupported by the source, and applies it to the whole body of Esolen’s work, rather than one article, as the source does.  The source itself also strikes me as biased, as it has a clearly political slant to it.  I think it might be better if the sentence were rephrased to stare that “some accuse [Esolen] of relying on assertions not rooted in evidence.”  An alternate opinion on the same subject might also be effective to ensure a neutral perspective.
Dlmartineau01 Dlmartineau01 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it serious that this white male american, also italian descendant, talk every kind of absurd and nobody ads the fact that he had fascist tendencies? 
HIS BOOKS ARE PURE HATE SPEECH!
That man is nos a man of science and everybody should know it. 2804:389:1096:CA6B:A8CB:D780:8831:E388 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)