Talk:Lines Written a Few Miles above Tintern Abbey

message: In the poem, Wordsworth refers to a Wye river: which one of the disambiguation page? --Daĉjoпочта 17:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty sure that it is the River Wye.  The River Wye article says that Wordsworth's poem refers to it.  Furthermore, the River Wye flows through a district called Tintern. I have wiki-linked to the River Wye page in the first sentence.  Dave Runger(t)⁄(c) 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wye river

message: This page needs an expert to revise it.  At the moment it sounds like a mediocre  high school essay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.113.248 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs an expert

message: It is a mistake to suppose that Wordsworth's poem was inspired by, or had any meaning connected or referring to, Tintern Abbey -- and, by inference, to any religious motif. The complete title is "Lines Written a Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey, on Revisiting the Banks of the Wye During a Tour" and the whole poem talks about the natural environment the poet had known as a young man and its influence on his later life. pabzum 201.13.104.176 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 17 July 2007

message: The picture on this page is completely inappropriate, not merely for the reason mentioned above (that is that the poem is not really about Tintern Abbey) but because a modern picture of a restored ruin is completely antithetical to Wordsworth conception of a relentlessly crumbling Romantic ruin. It is appropriate for the page to be linked to the Tintern Abbey article, but for the picture to be on this page, especially in this prominent position, fundamentally undermines Wordworth's intent and purpose: it clouds an encyclopaedic entry about the poem. 203.97.98.36 (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this opinion; the poem is not about the Abbey. Easchiff (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I'm in the middle of some work on Coleridge's 'Conversation' poems. This article presently describes "Tintern Abbey" as a "conversation poem", but I don't think this category is normally extended much beyond the 8 poems of Coleridge to which it was originally applied by Harper in 1928. In 2002, Magnuson wrote, "In 1965, M. H. Abrams credited Coleridge with originating what Abrams called the 'greater Romantic lyric', a genre that began with Coleridge's 'Conversation' poems, and included Wordsworth's 'Tintern Abbey', Shelley's 'Stanzas Written in Dejection' and Keats's 'Ode to a Nightingale', and was a major influence on more modern lyrics by Matthew Arnold, Walt Whitman, Wallace Stevens, and W. H. Auden." (). Please comment if you'd object to some corresponding revisions of this part of the article. Easchiff (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversation poems 

message: The point made in 2007 that this page needs revision by an expert is still true.  I have removed one incorrect statement: "It was, however, the only poem in Wordsworth's oeuvre of which he did not revise even a word for later publications, saying of it that he never wrote under circumstances more congenial."  There are considerable differences between the version in Lyrical Ballads and the one in Wordsworth's final edition of 1849-50.  ll 11-15 in LB read
"These plots of cottage-ground, these orchard-tufts,/
Which, at this season, with their unripe fruits,/
Among the groves and copses lose themselves,/
Nor, with their green and simple hue, disturb/
The wild green landscape."
The later version reads:
"These plots of cottage-ground, these orchard-tufts,/
Which, at this season, with their unripe fruits,/
Are clad in one green hue and lose themselves/
'Mid groves and copses."
But there is much else that needs to be done to it.  --MWLittleGuy (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision needed 

message: I see someone has changed the opening from "Lines written ..." to "Lines Composed ..."  The one title is as correct as the other.  The original title, in Lyrical Ballads, was "Lines written".  The title in the final version, in the collected works, was "Lines composed".  --Martin Wyatt (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Successive attempts to improve an unsatisfactory article were only resulting in repetition and loss of focus. It seemed better, therefore, to concentrate such facts as were there in a radical revision. Since it now emerged that the article's main aim was to place the poem in the context of the times, I added a final section that defined this further. It really needs someone competent to expand the article along these lines, as has been suggested more than once on this page. It also needs sharp-eyed editors who will in future delete unreferenced and amateurish POV such as chatter about 'the divine' when that word does not appear anywhere in the poem. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 2015 

message: Why is there so much space given to other people's poems? There are no less than 450 words about other people's poems in an article of 1350 words, i.e. one third of the entire article, and there is more direct quotation from Sneyd Davies's poem than from Wordsworth's! It's enough to note that other people's poems have been used in analyses (or rather, one analysis) of this poem. The rest should be deleted, or split off into a separate article. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:F4D9:1773:9F93:9575 (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest this new editor gets more experience of WP and a user name before throwing his weight around. The section above makes it clear that the article is still in progress. Giving the poem context is prefectly valid and the correct response is to fill out the rest, not to delete or banish the last section. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done on the , . The sections above make it clear that the article is "still in progress" since 2007! I am not the person to "fill out the rest", since I know very little about the poem, hence why I read this article: I was looking for some encyclopaedic treatment of this poem, not other people's poems. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:F4D9:1773:9F93:9575 (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Very much agree. And the ‘historical context’ seems to be a space filled by a very narrow academic literary criticism argument with vaguely political connotations. It will be of zero interest to non-academics and gives the general reader very little information about the cultural climate in which the poem occurs.  139.216.105.86 (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Other people's poems