Talk:Alexander Pope

message: I changed this: "He was the last major poet to write in traditional rhyming couplets; he developed the heroic couplet beyond that of any previous poet, and essentially exhausted its usefulness for later poets."  There's room for disagreement about who's major, but I'd count Keats (Lamia) and Frost ("The Bear", "A Considerable Speck", "The Egg and the Machine", "The Onset", "The Tuft of Flowers").  I don't know whether the current version is true.  Does anyone have any information on use of the heroic couplet before and after Pope?  —JerryFriedman 20:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm sorry to be cranky, but this article is pretty insufficient for a poet as significant as Shakespeare or Wordsworth.  As a poet, it's possible that no one in English matched him for technical skill.  As a person, he has an extremely interesting life.  As an historical person only is he less interesting than someone like Wordsworth.  To have his Pastorals skipped over (see Augustan poetry), to miss out on what each of the Moral Epistles were, to not mention the imitations of Horace and Virgil, to make Rape of the Lock a quick mention, it all goes against my own interests.  Unfortunately, it has been an age since I've read Maynard Mack's biography, but I surely hope that someone passing by this article with Mack fresh in his or her head, or someone with an interest in this article's state and has access to a U. library and can go read Mack (and Aubrey Williams's critical work on Pope), can incrementally build this up.  I'd love to see Pope's article be a Featured Article, or at least FA quality. Geogre 4 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)  (No, this is not on my list.)
: Aye.  It would make a nice excuse to visit the local library on a sunny Saturday afternoon!  --Ardonik.talk()* 05:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, I know it annoys me when I see an article on something I sort of know about, but not quite enough, that could really be improved.  But you should do what you can to better it - a little goes a long way on these kinds of things, I find. john k 06:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissent 

message: Who is Diana? Her name is mentioned in the image but is linked to disambiguation page.
Clarified as of February 28.  I redirected the link to Diana (mythology), the page on the Roman goddess. ~e.o.t.d~ 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diana

message: Hi. I'd just like to query the link to Famous Freemasons at the foot of Pope's page. As far as I'm aware Pope was never a Freemason, and in fact they join the parade of dunces in The Dunciad. I've seen this assertion before and the Freemasons are notorious for gathering as many historical figures into their rolls as they can, with little or no evidence. I'd like to remove the link but I just thought I'd sound out opinion first.
I googled, but on at least the first few pages all the assertions that Pope was a freemason appear to be on masonic websites. I'd like better evidence than that.--Guinevere50 19:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is ample evidence that he was a freemason.  In fact, there is an essay that is largely devoted to the subject.  Please read Alexander Pope and Freemasonry: A discursive essay.  I will revert this removal of information only once more before taking it to RfC.  Celarnor Talk to me 02:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, it should be noted that he is the author of The Universal Prayer, which is used by the freemasons. Celarnor Talk to me 02:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If he was a freemason... How could he also be a practising Catholic? just curious. Alveolate (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Freemasons

message: According to the definitive biography by Maynard Mack (Alexander Pope: A Life, Yale University Press, 1985 pages 437-440), Pope became a Freemason in 1730, eight years before membership was prohibited by the Catholic Church. The illustration on page 439 shows Pope's name on the membership list of the Goat Tavern Lodge. How important Pope's Freemasonry was to his work and how much room it should be given in a brief article like this is another matter. My guess is, not much. This article seems to have gone backwards over the last two years. I suggest anyone trying to revise it should use Mack rather than outdated 19th-century biographies that happen to be online. --Folantin (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Final word on the matter

message: Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry   to this article. Does anybody have any objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswatt (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006  (UTC)
:Note: This user has added similar requests to link to biographies hosted on the same site to about 50 different articles. Although I believe that these requests were made in good faith, adding the links to all of the articles would be spamming. In addition, the biographies tend to be not very insightful and/or minimally informative, and the webpages contain Google AdSense links.
:A fuller explanation of my own opinion on these links can be found here, if anyone wishes to read it.
:Hbackman 23:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: I am hoping that someone will be able to flesh out my Pope-related article, Characters and Observations.  It's about an anonymous handwritten manuscript of aphorisms discovered in the late 1920s.  Pope probably owned it, since his name is on the cover, but I wonder if anyone since has determined if he actually wrote it?  Thanks in advance.
The Sanity Inspector 22:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters and Observations Mystery?

message: I've spotted rather a serious contradiction: in the first paragraph of Samuel Johnson's Wikipedia entry, you'll find this claim: 'Dr Johnson is the most quoted English writer after Shakespeare'. It doesn't at all square with the assertion of this article that Pope 'is the third most frequently quoted writer in the English language, after Shakespeare and Tennyson.' Now it seems to me that 'Johnson' has a better source for this, because it is checkable (though I haven't bothered), whereas here we just have a book title and no page number. The mistake could merely be down to sloppy use of the word 'writer': perhaps 'poet' was meant in the Dictionary which this article cites. Can anyone look it up?
:The 'most quoted' in this article refers to the most quoted in the Oxford dictionary of quotations. The article should probably change to say 'most quoted in the oxford dictionary of quotations', like the article for Tennyson does.-AlexCatlin (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 'most quoted'

message: The article begins with this clause in alleged need of a citation,
Alexander Pope is generally regarded as the greatest English poet of the eighteenth century ... 
I think this fact is abundantly clear to anyone with knowledge of the traditional English literary canon, so much so that a citation would be mere pedantry. As such I have removed the citation needed markup.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.20.152 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe any encyclopedic statement of fact requires a citation, regardless of how common knowledge of the fact is among certain groups.--68.222.26.206 (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at The Cambridge Companion to Alexander Pope.  The inner cover reads "Alexander Pope was the greatest poet of his age and the dominant influence on eighteenth-century British poetry." Celarnor Talk to me 20:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "citation needed" 

message: I just removed both links to the pastorals, because neither went to the right article, and the right article doesn't exist, as far as I could tell. The first went to a page on biblical pastorals, and the second to the literary genre of the pastoral, but neither to Pope's pastorals. If somebody can find the right article, or wants to write it, be my guest. AdjectiveAnimal (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pastorals" 

message: This is really a high quality article from what I can tell. The only problem I think is that it is a bit on the short side, especially compared to a lot of the articles on Romantic/Transcendentalist poets. I'm hardly qualified to do it, but I do think this article could only get better if it were lengthened. I liked the way it was structured and worded, but it does read a LOT like a research paper, and I'm not sure if that's good or not. 68.2.55.131 (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article 

message: I'd like to propose that we add a section to this article for references to Alexander Pope in popular culture. This is a common section on many Wikipedia entries and I think that it's valid here. The only reference I'm aware of comes from the film "The Da Vinci Code" which refers to him. Are there any reasons why it is not reasonable to add this section? (Fooglmog (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A. Pope in Pop Culture 

message: Recently several new images of Alexander Pope (below) were uploaded. One was a higher res version of the lead image, which I've replaced. If you're interested in any of the others and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to any of them. Dcoetzee 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New files 

message: This section is pretty much all garbled nonsense. It is, I believe, better to have none of it than all this ambiguous and misleading gobbledygook. If nobody raises any objections here, in a couple of days I'm going to remove it but for a couple of sentences.--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope and Homer 

message: The article currently says: "At the time the poem was published, the heroic couplet style (in which it was written) was a moderately new genre of poetry". This seems an overstatement - the link tells us that it dates back to Chaucer, though certainly Dryden had made major use of it not that long before Pope. Anybody think this ought to be edited? Guinevere50 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroic couplets 

message: ...on totally butchering this article. This is the first time I've looked at it for three years and what a mess it is now. It wasn't a perfect article but it was a good basis for expansion. Whoever decided it would be a great idea to completely destroy the chronological order wants shooting. You've made me split my infinitives, it's that bad. --Folantin (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and the criticism section is just great now. It was always a bit underdeveloped, but the way to improve it was not to remove Dr. Johnson (I can't believe I'm writing this), William Empson and even the negative - but exceptionally famous - comments of Matthew Arnold. Still, I understand that stuff is merely "historic" (i.e. before the "modern era" began in the 1980s) and at least we have some sterling criticism from contemporary geniuses to compensate. I reckon the current version of this article must have been written by the ghost of Colley Cibber dictating via the medium of Derek Acorah. Revenge at last!--Folantin (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could restore the content which has been deleted from the criticism section? I suppose it was probably removed because it was unsourced, but it shouldn't be too hard to find good references for the critical reception of Pope's work. Matthew Arnold's 'classic of our prose' comment is mentioned in the Literature Online source, so you wouldn't even need to find an additional reference for that. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the English WP have so little to say about one of the greatest English poets? I never cease to be amazed at the disappearance or even non-appearance of editors capable of doing something useful with articles like this. Where is everyone? McCnut (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite frankly, I don't even know where to start when the paltry lead is preoccupied with the frequency with which he is quoted and fails to mention Pope was a--if not the--central literary figure of the Age of Reason. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine the editors are too busy complaining to have time to make any descent contributions. Span (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I think the where is everyone question is valid. There are very few editors working on lit related pages these days, and writing about lit is labor intensive. If and when I get a chance, I'll have a look here. If an earlier version is better than this, why not revert to the better version? It's easier to cite a well-written section than to undertake a full rewrite. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Spangle, unfortunately, yes. Arguing over the Soviet legacy takes up most of my Wikitime. In fairness, some of the most contentious topics are the best opportunities for research (race and intelligence being another such area of interest), so not a personal loss, but certainly a loss where the creation of content is concerned. Off topic, maybe I can start us off on an improved lead. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations... 

message: The following was added to the article:
"I don't know how to edit wikipedia or provide a well written article but I think there should be some mention of Pope's relationship with, and sussequent attacks of, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu somewhere in this article."
--- 143.117.227.236  (Request transcribed without comment by Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for account of dealings with Lady Mary Wortley Montagu from an IP editor

message: Nothing is said about the vast body of his correspondence, which he himself thought a most important part of his legacy, and indulged in a subterfuge to bring to attention in his lifetime. Can anyone fill it in?  Seadowns (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Correspondence

message: a short note, but perhaps there should be a "popular culture" section of the article.
For example, he is mentioned frequently in Bradburry's Fahrenheit 451, with significant meaning- if more examples could be found, it may be useful to add.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.249.227.170 (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage in popular culture 

message: I vote we remove anything that has nothing to do with Alexander Pope. The modern section about Marxism and Feminism is a raw attempt to name drop people from an ideology people may have no interest in. This isn't a blog to spew opinions.
Here is my objection. Let's take this piece that is written about Alexander Pope. Replace "Alexander Pope" or "Pope" with any historical figure. Obviously ANYONE in history can be criticized from a "theoretical perspectives such  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.101.49 (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Genghis Khan#Perceptions. clpo13(talk) 19:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Irrelevant Data 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alexander Pope. 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/20061010113614/http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poet/263.html to http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poet/263.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alexander Pope. 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/20070927223740/http://www.richmond.gov.uk/local_history_a_pope.pdf to http://www.richmond.gov.uk/local_history_a_pope.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Section was mis-titled, only one short paragraph having to do with "feminist reception". A generic, unattributed painting of Pope was arbitrarily captioned with a thematically unconnected and unsourced feminist polemic. The rest of the section consisted of various criticisms dated from two years in the 1980s. That's not encyclopedic. The references, such as they were, came down to a couple of bare titles, without page references, and an online source without a link. If you want to write a serious section, then please consult Wikipedia:Citing sources first.  The content itself is not the issue, but when it's opinion, then it must be completely cited.  Otherwise it gets deleted under NPOV policy.  
The current "Reception" section is fine, so if you have more recent sources, then why not just add them to the section?  You can even use the deleted citations but with proper sourcing. Also, if you want to include post-this-or-that criticism, then restore the deleted introductory paragraph, changed slightly to this: "More recent criticism of Pope focuses on the man, his circumstances and motivations, retroactively evoking hypothetical perspectives through the lenses of Marxism, feminism and other forms of post-structuralist thought." (Link your terms!) No separate section is necessary. — J M Rice (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed spurious "Feminist Reception" 

message: I can't find any such statement anywhere in the cited book, so I suggest removing: "Pope is the second-most quoted writer in the English language, as per The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations,"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.100.67 (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The internal link to the ODQ is immediately followed by a link that leads only to the home page of the OUP rather than to an old (5th) edition of the ODQ, as labeled. The ODQ page links only to an advertisement for the current edition (8th). But clearly the 8th supersedes the 5th, and an internal link supersedes an external link. Unable to confirm that the ODQ does say that "Pope is the second-most quoted", I concur with 71.163.100.67's suggestion. Instead: "Pope is frequently quoted in", which seems fairly plausible. Belastro (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove quote

message: * Pope secured a revolutionary deal with the publisher Bernard Lintot, which earned him two hundred guineas (£210) a volume, equivalent to about £31,500 in 2020,[25] a vast sum at the time.
This doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Is £31,500 considered "a vast sum" in 2020? I guess it would depend on the circumstances, and whom one asked, but generally speaking it would fall somewhat short of that description. So why would its 18th century equivalent be any different?  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Vast sum