Talk:William Hazlitt

message: This page needs a lot of work. It has too much about WH's father and too little about WH. --Jose Ramos 12:18, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right. I've fixed the slip. Thanks. --Alan W (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The reference to Hazlitt's education gives the incorrect link to the present day College named Hackney. The Hackney College link says the name is a source of ambiguity and lists three previous unrelated Colleges. It is "One name for the college set up by Calvinist Dissenters in Homerton in 1786, also known in various accounts as the New College, Homerton Academy, or Homerton College" It seems the article should be reworded and linked to Homerton College, University of Cambridge instead. Tiddy (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed your comment. Though Homerton is near Hackney, in none of the sources mentioning the Hackney College that Hazlitt attended—the Unitarian New College at Hackney— have I seen its location given as Homerton. It's always Hackney. I wonder if any source could be found to establish that the two colleges, Homerton and Hackney, are one and the same. I am skeptical. My sources also say that the college closed for good in 1796, so I think that the Wikipedia article identifying it with Homerton College, which still exists, is mistaken. I just don't know enough for certain to be able to correct the mistake. I left the link as it is in this article only because Hazlitt is mentioned in the article on Hackney College (the current one, again, no connection with the one Hazlitt attended). Maybe that link should be "dewikified". If there are any experts on defunct Unitarian colleges around on Wikipedia, their help in sorting all this out would be appreciated. --Alan W (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: Whoever you are, you have made some thoughtful, judicious edits here. Most of this text is mine, as I've been building up the Hazlitt article gradually over the past few months. So, speaking for myself at least, thank you! I really needed that second pair of eyes. And Happy New Year! --Alan W (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.... And now 69.117.71.159.... Another anonymous editor—or the same one, hiding behind a different IP address? I seem to detect the same master hand. Whoever you are, thank you again. Very well done. I am once more reminded how much tightening my bloated prose can stand.--Alan W (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On further consideration, this time it's not so much tightening as sharpening, clarification, focus, better organization. In any case, thank you.--Alan W (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the Anonymous Editor at IP address 71.202.222.35... 

message: This article is fascinating and in-depth to those with a good knowledge of the Romantic/Revolutionary periods. However I get the feeling it is rather impenetrable for the non experts. Perhaps it could be re-organised in such a way as to be less biographical and more informative. Why should we care about Hazlitt etc etc. Some upsumming might be useful. The tone is very scholarly. Perhaps as simple as a more extensive summary for what is now a long article.
I was prompted to discuss because of my admiration of the writing and effort, this surely has the potential to be featured.
Tadramgo (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I look back, it seems that by now I have written by far the greater part of this article, so I thank you for your kind comments. I have been adding to it little by little for months now, as Hazlitt has long been a favorite (or favourite—as an American I have been trying to conform to British usage here) of mine, and it is about time that he received adequate coverage. I am nowhere near finished, and the article will get longer if I have anything to with it. That said, you make a good point. Expanding the "lead" at the beginning is something I have been thinking of for a while. As you say, that might solve the problem of the article's seeming impenetrable to the non-specialist. Of course, someone else might get to it first, but, for now, it is on my to-do list. It's all a matter of having the time; I have to balance this with that little annoying matter of having a full-time job, plus dealing with the rest of life. <grin> Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay Style and Organisation of Information 

message: With the massive size, we have a problem with WP:WEIGHT. Author pages should have biography, but of about 70k allowed (by MoS), only 45k should be biography. We have very little about his literary style, legacy, etc. There are also a couple recent biographies that are very good and left out of the citations. I think we need to rethink the strategy of the page a bit. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been building up the biography section little by little as time permits. I agree that there needs to be better balance, but I want to finish the biography before I think about other things. I'm working on it! Of course someone else could start first, but, in any case, I plan to go in other directions once I finish the biography. And, yes, I am aware that the recent books have been left out of the citations. I own them all, and once I read them I will modify the biography as needed. All part of my plans. So even if no one else does any of this, I will get to it eventually. It's just a matter of time. If only I didn't have a full-time job to worry about, I would have done all this a long time ago. Hazlitt is one of my favorite writers, and he certainly deserves the attention as far as I'm concerned. --Alan W (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The biography is already way too large - by about double the acceptable limit according to the MoS. There will need to be some forks - probably early life and some career forks. There is a problem with some of it written in an essay like manner (example: "She had aspirations to better herself, and a famous author seemed like a prize catch. But she never really understood Hazlitt"). I can put up a few suggestions for changes if you want. I performed the major overhaul of the Samuel Johnson article and got it to FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly some of the bio could be forked off. If I don't get to it for a while, maybe someone else will take on the task of the redistribution. As for the style, well, there have been one or two anonymous editors who did a fine job of tightening up the prose. I'm sure we could use more of that kind of thing. I know that my own writing can get bloated. As for writing in an essay-like manner, well, my own view is that that kind of thing is better than making the writing so dry that no one bothers to read it. The writing should of course still be as NPOV as possible and supported by citations, but I think it should be readable. The snippet you quote above was probably mine, and I know I can find more specific citations if needed to back up the implied assertions. I know, for example, that I didn't decide for myself that Hazlitt's second wife had aspirations to better herself; it's in the bios someplace. I already went through that kind of thing to bring an article up to GA standards a few months ago, and expect to have to do it here to make this better. As for suggestions, they are certainly welcome. Others may act on them--and probably I will eventually too--but again speaking for myself, I am just one person and can do only so much in a given period of time. I appreciate your interest in this article in any case, and it's good we've got a dialogue going here. --Alan W (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The essay aspect was the choice of "prize catch", which I think you can agree is a tad off. :) And I've been interested in the article for quite a while. I've just been building up the Romantics from the top down and slowly going back and forth through them (filling out works and the rest). I was planning on working on Hazlitt's and Hunt's works at the same time (and Southey's and Lamb's at the same time at a later date). I think that once we get some bulk author structures up (a page on childhood, essays, etc) we can find out the proportions needed (not necessarily remove text, but move it and then summarize it here). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see what you mean about "prize catch". To me that doesn't sound as bad as it seems to sound to you; on the other hand, I agree that that phrase and maybe a few others here and there could be viewed as a bit too colloquial for the context, and I suppose that in time such excrescences can be pruned as necessary. I am interested to see your overall plans for the Romantics. Hazlitt certainly deserves a place there. Eventually, all of what you say should no doubt be done. And your comments have got me thinking about other things this article needs. It could definitely use a few more good illustrations. I am not particularly good at that kind of thing, so it would be great if someone else could find some. Meanwhile, I will continue with my own plan of first finishing the story of Hazlitt's life (I really am almost through; I'm down to his last two or three years now), then doing the other things I mentioned, then probably building up the lead (a point that another Wikipedian brought up a while back, above), and then, well, I'll see. --Alan W (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I will make sure that you have the lead. Hazlitt deserves as much attention as the others - major works with entries, indepth coverage, etc. I mostly wanted to give you the heads up, as I saw that you were rather active as of late (more than you were previously). I would most likely work on secondary pages (works and the rest) before anything else. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Now that we have each given the other a heads-up about our plans, we should both be able to work cooperatively. And, yes, I have tried to be more active lately, since, as I said, I really do want to get the basic biography finished. I feel it would be nice to give the article's readers something complete to read while various editors are continuing the construction of this piece and that. Even if the house is not yet the mansion Hazlitt deserves, it should have a ceiling, floor, and four walls. :-) --Alan W (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Being ranked so high may well be right, but the footnotes 2,3,4 quote Barzun Packer Howe as talking about other writers, only indirectly bringing in Hazlitt, which makes me less sure about Hazlitt's greatness. Footnote 1 is more direct about Hazlitt.-Rich Peterson69.181.160.248 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point. There are many other sources that would support his now being generally ranked so high. I have been meaning to add them and to expand the "lead" of this article, but I been sidetracked a bit by work on another Hazlitt-related article—still Hazlitt, so I feel my time is well spent. I'll get back to this one eventually. Unless someone else adds those sources first, I'll see that they get there (later in the article as well as in the lead), sooner or later. --Alan W (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, but don't feel hurried or even obliged--you and your family are, as you know, your highest priorities. And Rome wasn't built in a day. best wishes,69.181.160.248 (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your good wishes. Not to worry about my feeling in a hurry or obliged. Whatever obligation I feel, my motivation here, is my love of the subject matter, and the pleasure of sharing my knowledge with others and contributing to the general cause of building up Wikipedia as a public knowledge base. Even so, I always work much more slowly than many of those around here whom I think of as "Power Wikipedians" (or something like that). I think that if the building of Rome had been left to me, it would still be under construction! Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: first paragraph; ranked with other great critics, writers

message: Good to have another pair of eyes go over this, NotFromUtrecht, and I can't argue with most of what you did (not all of what you changed was my writing, but I think most was). I do think that some further revisions to your changes were needed here and there, especially in the passage about which you invited a discussion here, and I'm taking you up on the invitation. I don't think that saying the event had an "immense impact on his career" is emphatic enough. Meeting Coleridge was the event that Hazlitt himself believed to have unlocked his abilities as a writer, so I've recast the sentence to make it clear that this is representing Hazlitt's P.O.V. For good measure, I've brought in a secondary source. His biographers all speak of it as an event of enormous importance. Since none actually comes out and says in so many words that this was the event of greatest importance, I agree that it is best to remove those words. So I let Hazlitt speak for himself, and added the support of a biographer who considered it to be an event of life-changing significance. --Alan W (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Recent Changes 

message: This article is really well-written, if it was an academic essay, but I do have to question the writing.
"But other opportunities awaited him." / "His mind nearly snapped." I'm not sure these types of sentences belong in what should be an encyclopedic entry. It is my understanding that one individual is responsible for a great deal of authorship for this page, and that's great! It really is good, compelling writing--I'm just not sure it's appropriately NPOV. 
"First Acquaintance with Poets" / "Philosopher, again" / "Success—and trouble" These subheadings read like chapter titles and don't really help the reader navigate.
It is also, as others have said, egregiously long. Hazlitt's significance should be fairly easily ascertainable by the average reader and I don't think it is in the article's current form. Tttttarleton (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am that "one individual", and thank you for the complimentary words. My belief is that it only helps if the writing is good, and that in fact is one requirement of a featured article (not that this one ever reached that level). I will say that if you read something like "His mind nearly snapped", I did my best to assure that the tone of such a phrase follows the prevailing tone of the reliable sources. "NPOV" means "Neutral Point of View", not "Non Point of View". Of course if the tone were imposed by a feeling purely my own, that would not be following Wikipedia's rules. But I have cited my sources and done my best to capture the viewpoints and tone of those sources. My view is that if the tone of an article is bone-dry, readers are that much less likely to be motivated to read on. And many will wonder why the subject was ever an object of interest in the first place. Encyclopedia articles, like any articles, have value only if they are read with interest, and to create interest they have to be more than the equivalent of a listing of stock or real-estate prices. Good encyclopedia articles have always been more than just strings of facts. --Alan W (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: In a note to an edit to this page, you wrote: "The article is NOT listed in any vital article list page." Ah, but it is: here. He's number 40 under "Art historians, theorists and critics". I didn't put him there. My own choice would have been "Writers and Journalists" or maybe even "Philosophers". But there you have it. --Alan W (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Cewbot is a bot and won't receive notifications. It looks like a tremendous amount of fiddling with talk page headers is occurring. The second row of the displayed header at the top of this page includes "level-5 vital article". That is a link which goes to the place you mention. My guess is that Cewbot used an obsolete edit summary after removing the deleted  because that function is apparently now replaced with "vital=yes". Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, hello there, Johnuniq! It's been a while. I hope you've been well. Yes, after I posted the above, it hit me that Cewbot is a bot. But the thought also occurred to me that in these days of powerful AI, the bot might respond as if he/she were human, and I might not be able to tell the difference. :^) I never did pay much attention to what goes into denoting an article as "vital", but from what you say, it sounds like no harm has been done by whatever happened, exactly. Thanks for taking note of this. Regards, Alan W (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vital?