Talk:Berenice (short story)

CBS Radio Play "Berenice"
Didier Olmstead (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)I have added a reference to the Radio Play on CBS Radio Mystery Theater for their production of an adaptation of the story "Berenice". The radio play is now available for listening in the public domain, and it is also listed on wikipedia in the CBS Radio Mystery schedule for that year.

Dicebant mihi
Dicebant mihi sodales si sepulchrum amicae visitarem, curas meas aliquantulum fore levatas. From Ibn Zaiat. Being only half of the poem, the phrase has no pointe (well, in the context of Berenice, it has one). Here is the missing part: Dixi autem, an ideo aliud praeter hoc pectus habet sepulchrum?

My companions said to me, if I would visit the grave of my friend, I might somewhat alleviate my worries. I answered "could she be buried elsewhere than in my heart?"

This citation was found in "The Works of Sir William Jones, Vol. 2", London 1799, probably where Poe found it. Riyadi (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This article's lead paragraph
I judge the lead to this article overlong and rather poorly written. I made a major edit to it which was reverted. The user who did the reversion then tried to bring back some of my changes and did this sloppily, leaving unfinished and repetitive sentences. Besides, the very progress of first reverting and then incorporating some of the reverted changes goes against Revert only when necessary. I hope this won't be regarded as ad hominem, but judging by the user's name and personal page, I judge reversions like this to be personally biased towards keeping one's own writing intact in Wikipedia.

The reasons provided for the reversion were it being original research (although I deemed it a reinterpretation of the "plot summary" section already in the article) and an ambiguous quotation from Manual of Style/Lead section whose use in relevance to that edit I consider a fallacy. I made a further edit, more minor and authoritative, which hasn't been reverted as of yet, and leaving this on the talk page for others to consider in the future, for me the matter is closed. P. T. Tabayi (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to make one minor point by way of example, the edit in question linked "idée fixe (psychology)", though the article nowhere addresses the concept. I would argue the inclusion of that link in the lead was a violation of both WP:LEDE and WP:OR. Best wishes. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, to revert that entire edit based on such an example would be against Wikipedia guidelines, which it is. Secondly, the article mentions the protagonist's condition in almost the exact terms which are used to describe idee fixe in its own article. Once again, referencing the inclusion of a single link as sufficient reason for a total reversion and as arguably against two sets of Wikipedia guidelines, seems blatantly fallacious to me. Encyclopedic and academic spaces are not the place for egocentrism and fan-boyhood, following all articles related to a specific author and guarding one's own contributions to it by way of hasty and inappropriate reversions. I hope to see such spaces emptied of such mannerisms, but, as we know, that is quite wishful thinking. P. T. Tabayi (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you were so personally offended by my revert of your edits. I'm not sure what policy it violated but I do hope you continue editing on this project. I do suggest you be cautious about how you reference another editor ("egocentricism and fan-boyhood") as you have crossed the line into a personal attack, which is quite clearly a violation of guidelines. Best wishes. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the terms you mentioned. I dislike ad hominem arguments as well, all I should have said is that I think you are showing bias in such matters, total reversion being emphatically uncalled for, and I guess I get irritated because I feel strongly about bias (I do notice the irony). I probably will continue such edits as I'm reading Poe chronologically and checking the articles here. Hope we can find more agreement in the future. P. T. Tabayi (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And I apologize if I came across as showing bias. I assure you that my intentions are only to encourage improvements, regardless of who makes those improvements. I would recommend the lede take less precedence in future edits; these kinds of articles need the most growth in the more analytical sections, especially content which is not already attributed to a reliable source. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)