Talk:Eureka: A Prose Poem

message: I've (clearly) been expanding this article like crazy in the last couple days. If anyone else is watching this article or happens to come across it, there are a couple parts that definitely need expansion if a hand can be lent. First, further information that Eureka has been considered an indication of Poe's declining mental health. Also, more positive reactions (I know there are more out there) to balance out all the negative. If anyone has a scan of an early printing, that would be a great addition too! Other than that, I'm fairly pleased with this article on one of Poe's most important yet obscure works! I may even nominate it for Good Article! --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding

message: Granted, this work has a bunch of different titles... but the most common one I've seen is "Eureka: A Prose Poem". Should we consider renaming the article to that, rather than the cumbersome "Eureka (Edgar Allan Poe)"? Just a thought. --Midnightdreary 14:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename?

message: Hi, I'm reviewing this article under the Good Article criteria. I have to read it first so don't expect a written response for one or two days. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this was easy. This meets Wikipedia:What is a good article?. My only question involves the sentence: "This lecture has alternatively been dated as February 9." Perhaps some text on why the date isn't known exactly and which date is prefered by concensus? The article is sourced. The text reads well. This article follows the conventions of literary analysis far more than so much of what appears on Wikipedia that it is refreshing to see. GA Pass. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the GA pass! It's such an odd piece in the story of Poe's life, it seemed worth the focus (plus it gets vandalized the least of all of Poe's works here on Wikipedia...). I feel good about this one, but I think you're right on the odd date situation. I'll see what more modern research concludes and go with one date (or, if nothing else, just leave it as an ambiguous "February 1848"). --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes ambiquity hides a lot of sins :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed that alternative date entirely. It certainly confused the issue. Several sources I have give the date that is currently in the article. I attribute the "alternative date" as a fluke or hearsay (that source, Thomas Holley Chivers, was probably writing from memory or recording from anecdotes from others). --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Sorry to make such a massive revert on, presumably, good faith edits. Here's my reasoning: some of the sourced material was changed, some of the sourced material was removed, no edit summaries justified it. New information was added, possibly from a reputable source, but too many weasel words and original research diluted the quality of this Good Article (i.e. "the work itself clearly shows that Poe was serious" = obviously unencyclopedic and original research). Considering the rampant vandalism that Poe articles receive, I'm cautious about monitoring them... Using edit summaries would have helped! My feeling is that the new source found would be good to further expand the science discussion, but not the literary discussion (as it comes from a science journal, it appears). One source, however, should not overthrow scholarly consensus. I hope I'm explaining my reasoning well and not coming across as overly harsh. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I am the author of the good faith edits. Sorry, I fully understand the reasons of your massive revert. Now I have just made a minor correction and added two references (it's my work, but I assure you it is reputable). I will try to expand the scientific part according to the Good Article directives in the next future... let me simply point out that I respect scholarly consensus: for this reason I eliminated the claim that Poe anticipated black holes. My corrections concerning non scientific questions, such as the mental health of Poe, were based, among other sources, on the autoritative biography written by Quinn. I understand the need to find a balance, but not all literary critics must be necessarily given the same weight (for example, the Freudian interpretation of Eureka by Marie Bonaparte -not mentioned in the article- appears to me complete nonsense). Anyway, I invite you to read my paper (you can retrieve the pdf version at the NASA site http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994QJRAS..35..177C), so you can judge by yourself what I mean and what were my aims. Alcap (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I agree on Bonaparte; I usually ignore her completely (though a quick mention might be necessary?). Daniel Hoffman's book discusses Eureka at length but I find most of what he says useless here. I think the scientific discussion here is weak so we can definitely build on it. The mental health of Poe question could also be discussed further. Thanks for taking a look though, and I hope I didn't put you off from further helping build this article... Eureka is sort of a forgotten work of Poe's but a colleague of mine swears it is the "key" to understand his life and his fiction... Go figure! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had read Hoffman's book, you would undestand why Eureka is considered to be the key to the mystery of Πόή.Lestrade (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the book and chatted with its author about it. Can you elaborate as far as what you would like to add here rather than just throwing out a comment like that? And explain also how this solves the issue of removing sourced content and adding unsourced original research? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

text: So, you're turning this page into a discussion board rather than a location to express ways to improve the article, eh? I'll remind you that Hoffman is giving his personal opinion on Eureka, not categorical fact. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The "Go figure!" comment was actually my own attempt at humor. However, I'll remind you of the notice at the top of this page that says that discussion pages are not for general discussion of the topic. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted good faith edits 

message: Poe concludes in Eureka "that space and duration are one."  This is, by definition, the space-time continuum.  It is not original thought or research for anybody to merely point out what Poe concluded.  It's not interpreted in anyway; it is merely a direct quote from Eureka.  It is also arguably the most significant aspect of Eureka because it predates Einstein by decades!  This fact needs to be in the Eureka article (it's already in the space-time article) and it requires no outside sources other than Eureka itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.188.129 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I took another look at what you wrote. In your edit summary, you said that Poe was the first to make that conclusion. Unless Poe actually wrote in Eureka, "I'm the first to make this conclusion", it would need an outside source. In fact, your edit did not actually say he was the first. So, I think quoting just Poe's words is just fine. However, it should definitely not be under "influence and significance"; that section must be sourced with outside sources (especially if you want to say it's "arguably the most significant aspect of Eureka because it predates Einstein by decades"). I think it would work fairly well under "Overview"... do you agree? Remember that this article is a Good Article so the rules are very stringent. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I should say thanks for bringing this to discussion. This type of collaboration is how this project improves! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Cool... so here's what I think: If we are just saying that this was Poe's conclusion, it's part of the "overview" and we can quote only Poe's own words. If we are trying to say that he was the first and that he predated Einstein or that he was making "possibly the most significant statement in the history of physical science", then it should be added to "significance" (I didn't mean to imply that this should only be about literature, by the way), but it would definitely need a source. I'm not sure John Astin is the best authority for this, though. So, for now, what do you think? Let's put Poe's quote in the "overview" and the two of us can keep an eye open for a source that specifically addresses the importance of that statement. Hopefully, one of us can find a book or article that discusses it in-depth enough to give Poe the credit he's due. What do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed! I'll keep an eye out for it (or similar analyses). As far as Astin's knowledge of Poe, he's definitely the real deal. See Edgar Allan Poe: Once Upon a Midnight. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space-time 

message: I noticed that the "allusions" section falsely attributes to Epicurus or the Epicureans the view that atoms were attracted to each other in space. Neither Epicurus nor other Greek atomists believed in an attractive force that brought atoms together. Epicurus thought that there were only two primitive sources of atomic motion: a tendency of atoms to move downward, and random movement that he called the "swerve." All other atomic motion, Epicurus thought, involved inertia and collision between atoms. Epicurus thought that atoms sometimes formed permanent composite bodies because they had special interlocking shapes that could resist collision with other atoms. He did not believe that they stayed together because of some fundamental force of attraction. I have provided a scholarly citation for these claims from a reputable secondary source. I also replaced the article's characterization of Epicurean atomism with a more general and correct characterization of that view.
I would welcome further revision. I doubt any detailed information about Epicurus' views is necessary in an article about a 19th century literary work. However, accurately portraying Epicurus' views is preferable if they must be included.74.232.71.22 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. Thanks for taking the time. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epicurus did not believe that atoms were attracted to one another