Talk:Thomas Traherne

message: Based on this individual being included in the Calendar of saints (Anglican Church of Australia), I am adding the :Category:Anglican saints and the Saints WikiProject banner to this article. I am awaiting reliable sources which can be used to add the content to the article. John Carter 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saints banner and category

message: I'm confused. The passage beginning "His poems have a curious history" suggests that they weren't published before they were found on a market stall in the 1890s. Then we have a reference in the Influence section which says that the character of Thomas Clarkson quotes from (and correctly attributes) one of the poems in a recent film. Our article on Thomas Clarkson says he died in the 1840s. I presume this is just an anachronism in the film. But if so, what's the point in including it in this article? Or did the poems circulate before they were found on this market stall? 
Telsa (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote in the film comes from the poem The Salutation which was first published by Dobell in 1903. Clarkson cannot have known the poem from a published source, so it must therefore be an anachronism. But I suppose it says something about the impact of Traherne's poetry on English literature that it is so generally assumed that his works must have been widely known long before the 20th century. To quote another line from The Salutation: "Behind what curtain were you hid from me so long!" Man vyi 15:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thanks. Yes, I agree. I came across Traherne some years ago, and it never occurred to me that it had been rediscovered (discovered, even?) in this way. I am inclined to remove the reference from the "influences" section, though, as it seems as though the influence was on the scriptwriter rather than the historical character. Telsa (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion over dates

message: I have added a considerable amount of content to Traherne's article based on a number of sources which I have listed under "References." Every new bit of content is duly sourced, and I will go over it soon to add in-text citations to verify from where each new bit of information comes. I believe Traherne, a man whose works are roundly admired in academic circles by virtually unknown outside of them, deserves a much more thorough treatment than he receives here, and I will likely be adding even more to it in the upcoming few days. If you have any questions about what I have added, please leave me a comment on my talk page. - Sestet (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. The popular culture references show that his work has penetrated thence, contrary to claim made above in 2008. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indicate how any of them really matter.  It's not like Eliot citing the legend of Philomela (and Ovid) in The Waste Land.  This is a passing 10 seconds of film...most people have never seen, or writing no one reads. These references aren't even notable by a bare minimum standard.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Pursuant to WP:HTRIVIA and WP:IPC, I have chosen to remove again the insignificant/unimportant/non-notable cultural mentions that were readded by you earlier this evening. Please refrain from adding such trivia unless it were to indicate some relevant and salient materials necessary for informing the reader about Traherne's life and works or an interpretation of his works.  Just saying that Traherne or a line of his poetry was mentioned in insignificant places does not edify and is not notable, rendering inclusion rather meritless and puerile. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree with ColonelHenry's view on this matter, but the edit-warring in the article itself should stop until some sort of consensus is reached here. I disagree that "such references are encouraged by Wikipedia:In popular culture" (an essay that carries little, if any, weight), since the section in the article was clearly what the essay calls "indiscriminate". If someone wants to write a sourced prose passage on Traherne's reception in the wider culture, they should post it on this page, and only if it gains consensus should it be added to the article. Deor (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Deor.  I have no objection to Xxanthippe readding the material IF (and only if) he/she can establish how these trivia are relevant/salient in understanding Traherne's work or life. However, I do not see these as anything other than useless references that don't add anything to any understanding of Traherne.  Therefore, their opportunity to add anything of merit to the article is rather improbable. --ColonelHenry (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotations are valuable as they give the passing reader a flavor of Traherne's unique style. The argument that material should not be included in an encyclopedia if it is available elsewhere is not tenable as it would imply that encyclopedias, which are compilations of such material, should never be written. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

text: * Then why even bother having "wikiquote"?  More apt, why bother directing people to wikiquote?  The quotes herewith shouldn't just be left there as bullet-point list of quotes, they should be analyzed if possible to explain how they are relevant to themes and motifs in Traherne's works and thought and put in an appropriate analysis section.  If they were incorporated into an analysis/interpretation section, that is where they would be best appropriate and able to edify.  Consider the following: (1) As per the essay WP:QUOTE/WP:QUOTEFARM, Quotations that can't be justified for use in an article directly may be placed in Wikiquote and a Wikiquote template put on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject. (2) Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section. This is relevant here, as a quotation section in an article serves no purpose that is not redundant to or better served by Wikiquote.  As such, a pretty turn of phrase--in this case several quotes in their own section--is best left to wikiquote. To think otherwise, in your words, would be "impertinent." --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial Changes 

message: I don't like these type lists in articles.  They smack of trivia, which is not liked by MOS and other guidelines. The following bullet point statements were removed when I renovated the article. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. The popular culture references show that his work has penetrated thence, contrary to claim made above in 2008. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indicate how any of them really matter.  It's not like Eliot citing the legend of Philomela (and Ovid) in The Waste Land.  This is a passing 10 seconds of film...most people have never seen, or writing no one reads. These references aren't even notable by a bare minimum standard.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed the popular culture references (not significant "me too" list)

message: As so little of Traherne's work had (apparently) survived his death, Traherne was previously labeled a "missing person" in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. In 2004, thanks to a number of additional discoveries, his status changed so much that he is no longer labeled a "missing person". He is now highly regarded, such that if there were a picture of him (no portrait of Traherne has been authenticated), he would be put next to other well-knowns such as Wordsworth.Slayton, Mary (2005). "A Poet-Cleric's ‘Little Booke’". Modern Age 47(3). pp. 266–269.
The discoveries responsible for his renewed vindication as a theologian, beside the poems, are the Centuries of Meditations, a collection of short paragraphs or meditations reflecting on Christian life and ministry, philosophy, happiness, desire and childhood. These are gathered in groups of a hundred, four complete centuries and an unfinished fifth. Some of these, evidently autobiographical in character, describe a childhood from which the "glory and the dream" was slow to depart. Of the power of nature to inform the mind with beauty, and the ecstatic harmony of a child with the natural world, the earlier poems, which contain his best work, are full. In their manner, as in their matter, they remind the reader of William Blake and William Wordsworth.  He quotes George Herbert's "Longing" in the newly discovered Lambeth manuscript. 
His poems were published, in modernized spelling, in The Poetical Works of Thomas Traherne, B.D (1903), with an original-spelling edition following in 1906, and in Poems of Felicity (1910). The Centuries appeared in 1908; Select Meditations was not published until 1997.
*Removed in revision. Seems redundant and insubstantial fluff.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fluff removed from works/publication history/posthumous

message: NOTE: This is a comment I placed on Xxanthippe's talk page after the user reinserted unimportant popular culture references into the article (those excised as per the above). I formatted this section 09DEC12 to maintain continuity, after Xxanthippe placed the comments here (after dismissing them, quite presumptuously, as an "impertinence"). --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Pursuant to WP:HTRIVIA and WP:IPC, I have chosen to remove again the insignificant/unimportant/non-notable cultural mentions that were readded by you earlier this evening. Please refrain from adding such trivia unless it were to indicate some relevant and salient materials necessary for informing the reader about Traherne's life and works or an interpretation of his works.  Just saying that Traherne or a line of his poetry was mentioned in insignificant places does not edify and is not notable, rendering inclusion rather meritless and puerile. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree with ColonelHenry's view on this matter, but the edit-warring in the article itself should stop until some sort of consensus is reached here. I disagree that "such references are encouraged by Wikipedia:In popular culture" (an essay that carries little, if any, weight), since the section in the article was clearly what the essay calls "indiscriminate". If someone wants to write a sourced prose passage on Traherne's reception in the wider culture, they should post it on this page, and only if it gains consensus should it be added to the article. Deor (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Deor.  I have no objection to Xxanthippe readding the material IF (and only if) he/she can establish how these trivia are relevant/salient in understanding Traherne's work or life. However, I do not see these as anything other than useless references that don't add anything to any understanding of Traherne.  Therefore, their opportunity to add anything of merit to the article is rather improbable. --ColonelHenry (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas Traherne (comments from Xxanthippe's talk page, DEC2012)

message: I am also inclined to remove the "Quotations" section since we do have a wikiquote article, and if they are salient to mention vis-a-vis any discussion of legacy/analysis of his works, I will likely incorporate them there in the relevant section. --ColonelHenry (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotations are valuable as they give the passing reader a flavor of Traherne's unique style. The argument that material should not be included in an encyclopedia if it is available elsewhere is not tenable as it would imply that encyclopedias, which are compilations of such material, should never be written. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * Then why even bother having "wikiquote"?  More apt, why bother directing people to wikiquote?  The quotes herewith shouldn't just be left there as bullet-point list of quotes, they should be analyzed if possible to explain how they are relevant to themes and motifs in Traherne's works and thought and put in an appropriate analysis section.  If they were incorporated into an analysis/interpretation section, that is where they would be best appropriate and able to edify.  Consider the following: (1) As per the essay WP:QUOTE/WP:QUOTEFARM, Quotations that can't be justified for use in an article directly may be placed in Wikiquote and a Wikiquote template put on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject. (2) Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section. This is relevant here, as a quotation section in an article serves no purpose that is not redundant to or better served by Wikiquote.  As such, a pretty turn of phrase--in this case several quotes in their own section--is best left to wikiquote. To think otherwise, in your words, would be "impertinent." --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations section

message: I just deleted two references to Traherne's 'Baccalaureate' degree, assuming this was a mistake and that the original author actually meant to write 'bachelor's degree'. But on looking the former word up in the dictionary, I find that the terms are actually synonymous, which I was not aware of before. Anyway, I think it would be better to use 'bachelor's degree', as that term is more widely used in modern English, with 'baccalaureate' being normally being used to refer to something quite different. Celuici (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * "Bachelor's" is what modern people--typically Americans lacking erudition or much knowledge on historical usage--insist upon completely ignoring the nuances of the two terms. When Traherne was alive, "baccalaureate" was (and still is) appropriate in this usage and more precise, and in keeping with British English (if you notice the article as a "Use British English" template on it). Reverting. Next time, ask before jumping to erroneous "assumptions".--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *The small number of quotations in the OED suggest that 'degree of baccalaureate' or simply 'a baccalaureate' would better reflect early modern usage, with the compound forms along the lines of 'baccalaureate X' (sermon, degree) occuring much later. The OED also has 'bachelor(s)' as a much older term, with baccalaureate being a Latinised derivation from it. Issues of questionable historical precision aside, using a Latinate archaicism with multiple contemporary meanings instead of a widely-understood English term is poor usage. Celuici (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baccalaureate degree 

message: This article has been heavily edited by User:ColonelHenry. The article was subsequently determined to be a WP:Good article by an editor who ensured that its structure and syntax were adequate but who did not appear to have much knowledge of its subject matter. User:ColonelHenry has recently been community banned from Wikipedia after having been found to have engaged in sock puppetry, vandalism and the creation of hoax and false articles on an industrial scale. [] One administrator described his conduct as "high treason". It is not clear how much of the content ColonelHenry added to this article is false. Rather than check each of his additions by going back to the sources,  I have reverted the article to the version of 21 Oct 2012 before he started to edit. Some good edits may have been lost but that is better than having a suspicion of fraud. Comments are welcome. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a cleanup in process, please wait. I looked at several articles and found no problem. If you have particular points that appear dubious please question those here. I will revert to the version that was reviewed as a Good Article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers are warned that the version reverted to above may contain corrupt material. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Absent specific concerns, the fact that an article was edited by a now-banned editor does not automatically mean the article has problems.  I think it is critical for people to simply review the article and the source material and then specifically flag or fix any problems found.  Slapping on a random "unbalanced" tag makes even less sense if the actual concern is inaccuracy.  Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoax editing

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Thomas Traherne. 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://archive.is/20130415235228/http://www.thomastraherneassociation.org/Pages/WhoWasTraherne.aspx to http://www.thomastraherneassociation.org/Pages/WhoWasTraherne.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19981202214413/http://www.mum.edu/msvs/trahernepart1.html to http://www.mum.edu/msvs/trahernepart1.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) 21:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have deleted one sentence on the grounds that, as written, it is contradictory. If Dobell, who I've not read, thought the father of Thomas was John, why did he think the father was also Philip (no need for silly doubling of final consonant)? Why should the political views of the father, whoever he was, be reproduced in the son? Thomas, it is abundantly clear, could think for himself.
Clifford Mill (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Have now deleted rest of paragraph, which does not stand up to scrutiny and is probably wrong. Clifford Mill (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traherne's political affiliation between 1649 and 1660