Talk:John Keats

NB: Grave Epitaph in "death" section
The epitaph on the gravestone was purposely laid out by Brown and Severn as a poem (they were poets. Keats was a poet). Please respect the poems lineation and line breaks for this reason. Every week at the moment someone changes it back to a prose format. Yes, there is a one day difference between the headstone's given date of death and the official date. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ATTENTION!!!! take note that in the photo of the article is represented the grave of Shelley, NOT THE GRAVE OF KEATS!!!!!! Consequently the epitaph too rephers to Shelley. See in http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4107598936204&set=a.1588097030231.2076526.1469982095&type=3&theater a photo of either the grave of Shelley (on left) and the grave of Keats (on right, with his name). The photo is mine, taken in March 2010 and I allows the use in Wikipedia. Paolo Bottoni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.211.240 (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, in your photo the grave on the left is that of Keats inscribed with the line 'Here lies One Whose Name was writ in Water,' the same in as the photo pictured in the article. The grave on the right in your picture is that of Severn, who wanted to be buried next to his friend. You can see that Keats's grave is engraved with a lyre (with a broken string) and Severn's pictures a palette, as he was a painter. You can see Shelley's grave stone at Percy_Bysshe_Shelley. Span (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Bright Star poem added
As part of a year's ongoing adding of content to this article you'll notice that Bright star is the only poem quoted in its entirety. This is because it is a sonnet (a short 14 lines), it is well known, it has demonstrable links through Keats's letters to Isabella Jones and Fanny Brawne, it highlights his conflicted state and was one of the last poems that Keats revised before he died. This is why it is emphasised as an image as much as a poem. If anyone feels this is adding undue emphasis, please discuss. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for discussing this on the talk page; I hope you will not continue to make unliateral decisions about the article. I consider it undue emphasis. But I did not delete the poem itself because this can be a matter of discussion. You went further than quoting the entire poem, however. You set it apart by placing in within a box with a blue background. And now you have done it again (with a different color). I have never seen this done on the page of a writer who produced numerous notable works. Until some sort of consensus is reached about including the poem, please respect the consensus process and the fact that Wikipedia is group process (not your personal webpage) by not doing so again. And contrary to your statement on my talk page ("By the end of February 15 2010, if not, I will add colouration to the image"), you do not set deadlines for consensus on Wikipedia. And now that an opinion opposing your edits has been made, the default decision in the absence of a consensus is not your position.
 * Some of your arguments about the poem being the only one quoted in its entirety may have merit, but "it is well known" and "it highlights his conflicted state" are not acceptable rationales because these factors apply to more than this one poem.
 * Thank you. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Last born/First to die
In the name of accuracy, I have changed the sentence that begins this page, "John Keats was the last born of the English Romantic poets and, at 25, the youngest to die" to "John Keats was an English Romantic poet." While the former statement is nicely poetic, it is simply not true. Keats was the last born of the Big Six (Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Shelley, Keats), but he was not the last born of all English Romantic poets, of whom there were dozens. Thomas Lovell Beddoes, for instance, was born in 1803--eight years after Keats.

67.194.200.2 (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

had made several large loans that he could ill afford.
"had made several large loans that he could ill afford." begs the question, Who was he loaning money to and what were the consequences? In the context it might also be worth checking the sources in case this should actually have been " had taken on several large loans that he could ill afford to repay".  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I have added more detail about loans to Benjamin Haydon and George. Keats's financial straits and their impact are discussed at various points in the article. "Money was always a great concern and difficulty for him, as he struggled to stay out of debt and make his way in the world independently"; "Keats's long and expensive medical training with Hammond and at Guy's Hospital led his family to assume that medicine would be his lifelong career, assuring financial security"; "Sometime before the end of June [1819], he arrived at some sort of understanding with Brawne, far from a formal engagement as he still had too little to offer, with no prospects and financial stricture". I hope the burden of his financial situation comes across. Span (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that resolves that nicely. His financial straights were clear, but not that he was taking on such extra commitments. One detail that might help would be to resolve the loose ends of his own inheritances from relatives. Some legacies are mentioned and it is implied that he never saw them, what eventually happened to that money?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  09:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

He had a significant influence on a diverse range of later poets and writers.
He had a significant influence on a diverse range of later poets and writers. Implies to me that he influenced subsequent but not current generations of writers. If he is still influencing writers today then perhaps He has had a significant influence on a diverse range of later poets and writers. would be more apt.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarified. Span (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Keats' letters were first published in 1848 and 1878.
"Keats' letters were first published in 1848 and 1878." This reads oddly to me, and could perhaps be rephrased as "Some of Keats' letters were first published in 1848, with his letters to Fanny Brawne added in 1878.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarified. The first publication date is fine. Span (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The Epitaph
This page previously read "His last request was to be placed under an unnamed tombstone which contained only the words (in pentameter), 'Here lies one whose name was writ in water.'" The problem here is not the highlighted word Pentameter (all that is seen on the page), but the link to the article on Iambic pentameter.

The most straightforward scansion of the intended epitaph as one line of pentameter is trochaic: "HERE lies ONE whose NAME was WRIT in WAter." It would be completely unnatural to try to pronounce it as a regular iambic line: "Here LIES one WHOSE name IS writ IN waTER." True, true, if we found this line at the beginning of an otherwise iambic poem, we could rationalize it by scanning it as a headless first foot (the missing unstressed first syllable) on a line with a feminine ending (the extra unstressed syllable at the end). But we have no reason to shoehorn the line into an iambic pattern because Keats gave us only one line. And it consists of five trochaic feet.

Although I have corrected "iambic" with "trochaic," other corrections are possible. We could leave it described only as pentameter, with no hyperlink. We could leave out "pentameter" (since Severn and Brown have broken the line) and use some other formula, such as "an unnamed tombstone marked only with the following metric line, 'Here lies one whose name was writ in water'", etc. But please don't revert it to "iambic pentameter," which simply makes no sense, at least not without discussing it here first. Thanks. Mandrakos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a minor point, as you say. I'm working the article up for a GA submission and I added the iambic pentameter mention to the article quite a while ago. I did add a ref the other day that supports the line as iambic. I personally think it could be read either way - trochaic or iambic. Nobody has suggested it is good iambic pentameter (with the stresses in the right places). How about leaving it as just 'pentameter'? Span (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "I did add a ref the other day that supports the line as iambic." (?) I don't see this ref, or any source citation at all on the two paragraphs about the tombstone. (Regarding GA submission, this lack of source citations is a bigger problem than the lack of irrelevant hyperlinks to literary jargon, by the way.) "The stresses in the right places" are the very definition of the meter, and they aren't there, period. So let's agree that "iambic" is out. And "pentameter" isn't that meaningful for a single line by itself; as I noted, Severn and Brown didn't even choose to present it as a single line, so it isn't pentameter on the stone. The simplest version would also be the most accurate, and more eloquent: "a tombstone bearing no name or date, only the words, 'Here lies One whose Name was writ in Water.'" (Keeping the capitalized nouns of Keats's original, dropping the cap on Whose added by Severn and Brown when they broke the line; since here we are referring to what Keats wrote them about his wishes, not how they rewrote it.) I would be happy to make the change, it that's acceptable. Mandrakos (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's currently no ref because you reverted it. WP tends to work by what can be verified and sourced rather than by personal opinion. But I agree with the line of your argument. Span (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not noticing the ref added during your undo. I am glad that you now see it won't sustain the argument: any trochaic line can be laid across two lines of an iambic poem (or vice versa) by breaking it in the middle of a foot; all it goes to show is that the stresses do in fact fall as I said. But we're in agreement now, and I certainly agree it's intrusive and unnecessary to insist on the trochaic pentameter nature of the line as first proposed by Keats. The line's metrical nature speaks more eloquently for itself, so that's the change I'll make. Thank you for setting a superior example of WP courtesy; I fear my own tone was testier than I intended.    Mandrakos (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, WP can be a testy place sometimes. Thanks for flagging up the question. Best wishes Span (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of word "encroached", 3rd paragraph under "Early Career"
I don't know much about Keats, but I was reading this, and the following sentence seemed to me to not use the word "encroached" correctly: However, Keats increasingly encroached on his writing time, and he grew ambivalent about his medical career.

I think it should maybe be changed to something like the following:

However, Keats increasingly felt that his study of medicine encroached on his writing time, and he grew ambivalent about his medical career.

Thank you.

Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.138.212 (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Conversation with Coleridge
"On 11 April 1818, Keats and Coleridge had a long walk together on Hampstead Heath. In a letter to his brother George, Keats wrote that they talked about 'a thousand things,... nightingales, poetry, poetical sensation, metaphysics.' " This report is inaccurate. The letter it is cited from was a long one, more like a set of diary entries, written to George and Georgiana Keats (not just George), covering the period 14 Feb. to 3 May 1819 (not 1818). The quotation comes from the section covering 15 April 1819, and in the original letter it's quite clear that the two did not have a long walk together. Keats bumped into Coleridge and his companion, Joseph Green, the latter of whom he knew from Guy's Hospital (Green was a demonstrator there), and the three of them walked together for about two miles. Coleridge and Green then peeled off, and Keats continued on his way. The letter makes it quite clear that it was not a conversation. Coleridge, as was his wont, simply monologued, and neither expected nor really solicited any response from Keats or Green; the letter strongly implies that Coleridge didn't let either of them get a word in edgewise. Calling it a conversation, then, is somewhat misleading. They neither met nor talked as equals, that is, as both poets. Coleridge discoursed, the others listened, fascinated, no doubt by the range of his interests, but regarding him with some amusement and distance. Theonemacduff (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've amended the language in the 'Coleridge walk' section a little to reflect that fact that it was Keats' report of the walk. Anna (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Will and testament?
I have heard someone on the radio mention that Keats had a "last will and testament", including an instruction to divide his books among his friends. I think it would be good if the article included mention of this document, which I could not find in the article or on Wikisource. Unfortunately, I have no good source at hand, so I am recording the need here. Ijon (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keats didn't leave a will or testament, wrote a letter to a friend saying he should divide his books between his friends. I'm not sure it's very significant, other than to note that Keats was broke when he died. But we knew that already. It's a small detail in a long article. Anna (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct info on Keats alma mater?
This is a question on possible inaccuracy, but I don't know the answer. John Keats's page says his alma mater was Kings College London, but the linked Wikipedia page for that college says it was founded in 1829, eight years after Keats died. I don't see anything on the Kings College page that suggests an explanation for this discrepancy in timing. Does the Keats page give an incorrect college name, and/or is the college's name linked to the wrong Wiki page? --100.14.64.200 (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Lisa Lapp, 08 August 2016


 * As is mentioned in the article, Keats attended Guy's Hospital (founded 1721) which later became part of Kings. Anna (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Place of birth
Where exactly was Keats born and why can't it be linked? The plaque commemorating his birth place is at the site of the "Swan & Hoop" here, in front of The Globe pub on Moorgate? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Moorgate is fine. Moorfields was more of a medieval name for the fields nearby before 19th C development. I should have fixed the link. Apols. Anna (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anna. It was just that Moorgate was (and is) a street, In fact the Moorgate article opens with "Moorgate was a postern in the London Wall originally built by the Romans" and it doesn't seem to be clearly defined there as an area or district. That's not the kind of sentence that opens most articles on London streets. I'm fine with the link in the infobox, but should "Early life" begin slightly differently, e.g. "John Keats was born at Moorgate, East London.." or something? In fact, it might even say: "John Keats was born in Moorgate, London above the public house the Swan and Hoop, now known as 'Keats at the Globe'" or even "John Keats was born at 24 Moorfields Pavement Row, Finsbury, on what is now Moorgate.... " as per e.g. this source? I see that the birthplace plaque currently doesn't even get a mention in the entire article. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Or maybe someone else has some ideas, as I now see you may be gone for a while on a long break? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. You're right. My article edit was apropos of the link to Moorgate as opposed to Moorfields, which is somewhere slightly different and would cause confusion. The area and names have changed so much and shifted around so much (particularly after WWII bombing) that it's good to be as specific as poss. I wouldn't include 'Finsbury' - that's even more complicated. Apols for the late reply. Anna (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anna. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Date on gravestone
Despite Keats' own wishes, his gravestone bears the date "Feb 24 1821". I removed the previous observation "There is a discrepancy of one day between the official date of death and that on the gravestone", and the explanation added by User:Alfion, as it was all unsourced (although the simple observation seems to be correct). Also, we currently don't know when the headstone was installed, which might or might not make things clearer? Happy to re-add if there are good sources for this (or any) explanation. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote this quite sometime ago and so don't remember the detail, but it's easy enough to check views in the biographies. Anna (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Paris Review? https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/02/23/writ-in-water/ AnonNep (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * An interesting source, but not sure if it explains the discrepancy. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as literature goes, the Paris Review is 'interesting' just as The New York Review of Books is 'interesting'. As it states 'Here lies One Whose Name was writ in Water. 24 February 1821. [sic—Keats actually died on February 23.]' & sets out the context. It also references Keats quoting Lord Byron's Don Juan; 'Tis strange the mind, that very fiery particle / Should let itself be snuffed out by an article.' Ah, to be to be snuffed out by an article (or in one), aren't the poetic Muses cruel? AnonNep (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Are the Muses so cruel they deliberately get the date wrong on your tombstone? Or perhaps we can find a better explanation. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In genealogical research, of the three civil/religious records, such as birth/baptism, marriage/wedding &, finally, death/burial, are respected in that order. Why? You're not in a position to lie about baptism/birth & you might fudge the dates & details for marriage/wedding. But death/burial are 100% based on who is around you at said time & what what they choose to believe & say. Yes, getting a date wrong on a tombstone is no more unusual than upping or downing age at marriage. Tomb/gravestones reflect what you've said & what those after your death, in a position of authority (executors, etc) chose to see recorded. It doesn't make it fact. AnonNep (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right. I'd just expect an encyclopedia to say something like: "the recorded date of death is correct, the date on the gravestone is wrong, the reason is xx". Academia has had 197 years to establish the truth? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In one case, at least, (& I've just been generally browsing) academia seems to accept his death but, understandably, questions the 'truth' around the recording of it, starting with that gravestone https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WDMfDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA43 Why can't this RS ambiguity be included in the page? AnonNep (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no reason. But then I can't actually see the pages in that source you've linked either. Maybe someone else, who can see them, or maybe who has a real copy, could advise you. If you can find conflicting sources, of equal merit, over the date of death, I'd suggest they should each or all be used. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It does often happen with historical notables, along with uncertain/differing birth/baptism records. I would say the Keats discrepancy is interesting rather than terribly important. If you have access to the various good biographies, I would check what they say. I suspect most of Keats mates were off their tits a lot of the time. All the more so in grief. 🌱 Anna (talk)
 * If Academia has failed to determine "the truth", at least it's had 197 years to consider the evidence? Pass me that slug of laudanum, would you? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, why not include the ambiguity? Surely that 'Academia' has 'had 197 years to consider the evidence' & 'has failed to determine "the truth"' is that not, in & of itself, worthy of note? AnonNep (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, why not. Except at the moment, to me, it looks less like ambiguity and more like contradiction. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I must be dense, obviously, as there's RS sources, academic & otherwise, regarding the issue of his date of death. Where there is RS contradiction there is also ambiguity. But this ambiguity can't be clearly set out within the article because... AnonNep (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. You tell me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the obvious progression from this, as you have 'no idea', would be for me to start a new Talk Page section suggesting that Reliable Sources (RS) be used to create a new addition to the article setting out reasons for ambiguity in his date of death & asking if such an inclusion requires a new sub-section or could be incorporated to the main body text. Any ideas, or even opinions, on that? AnonNep (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your question was a rhetorical one. I still see no reason why "this ambiguity can't be clearly set out within the article". I'd prefer just suggestions for good sources on the topic, from whichever angle. Sorry, I couldn't see anything very useful in that The Paris Review source. If you feel a new thread is called for here, I have no objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Keats death - acknowledge the ambiguity
Following on from the previous discussion I propose that the ambiguity over the date of Keats death & burial should be acknowledged in the article body. Whether in the existing sections or a new one, to be supported by WP:RS. An example, from 'Undefinitive Keats' by Nicholas Roe in 'Literature and Authenticity, 1780–1900: Essays in Honour of Vincent Newey'. Edited by Michael Davies, published by Routledge, 6 May 2016, page 43 : follows:

"Comparable ambiguities gather around the moment of Keats death. From Joseph Severn's contemporary letters and later reminiscences it seems clear that Keats dies at around 11.00 p.m. on friday 23 February 1821. However, the register of burials for the Non-Catholic cemetery at Rome tells a different story: John Keats, English Poet. Died the 24th of February, 1821. Buried the 25th ditto in the Morning at 15 o'clock. Aged 26.'' 24 February? Aged 26? Much later in the nineteenth century, these details were repeated on the white marble slab placed on the wall of the house where Keats died at 26 Piazza di Spagna, where they can still be seen with the age altered by some later hand to read '25'. the peculiar hour of the burial, 'in the morning at 15 o'clock', is based on the Roman way of reckoning the hours of the day from six o'clock the preceding evening. At 6.00 p.m. English time, 24 April became 25 April in Rome, so the burial that took place on the 25th at '15 o'clock' Roman time was 9.00 a.m when reckoned on the English system". AnonNep (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree,the ambiguity should be mentioned. That source looks very useful. It begs the question as to why the "Roman system" was in use like that? I there any article that could be linked for that? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The source looks good. Many of ideas might well be speculative rather than definitive, but that fine, as long as explained in those terms. Anna (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies if any of the posts here have been a bit... opaque. We've both been stewarding the page and other poetry-related articles for a very long time. Your enthusiasm is welcome, Nep. Anna (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No need for apologies, I was happy to find something that might be useful :) Perhaps you or one other other old hands could work on appropriate wording & make the edit? (Not my strong suit when it can be a bit of a tricky one). AnonNep (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Alma Mater
King's College, London wasn't established until 1829, several years after the death of Keats. Citing it as his Alma Mater is therefore ridiculous. He enrolled at Guys Hospital as a medical student, and Guys has since been absorbed by Kings, but that's not the same thing - and that should be made clear. Hanoi Road (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Text now says: "Keats registered as a medical student at Guy's Hospital (now part of King's College London).." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Good job. Hanoi Road (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

today's money
The phrase "about £50,000 in today's money" is pretty meaningless, if we don't know when "today" was. Wikipedia articles are supposed to remain correct into the future. Inflation will render this statement false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.24.35 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to agree. Using this formula £ gives £563,705, a sum which still seems rather large for what Rossetti (1978) describes as a "moderate amount" . Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But have added the conversions for clarity. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a currency converter from the National Archive in the reference. But yes, much better to have added a gizmo, if it's accurate. As mentioned in the money section two down, I don't think Rossetti is necessarily a great source on Keats' finances. Thanks Martin. Anna (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Seadowns, are you taking issue with the National Archives. Anna (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my remark was completely misguided, and I thought I had deleted it. Arithmetic was wrong by a large factor. I will delete it now. Seadowns (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The talk pages are here for us to discuss these things and think these things through out together, Seadowns. It's been a useful discussion. Anna (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Schooling
His parents were unable to afford Eton or Harrow...
 * His father worked in a stable, and does not sound as though he could contemplate Eton or Harrow. What is the significance of this rather odd statement? Valetude (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Many of Keats' peer group of poets, such as Shelley and Bryon, went to Eton, Harrow and Oxbridge. Keats was regarded as a common Cockney, an outsider. He was self-conscious of his lack of education in the humanities and set about studying classical literature to make up ground. Blackwoods mocked him for his low birth and low class diction. It is discussed in the Wentworth Place section. It was part of his ambition - to understand the poetic landscape and fit in. I don't have the two references to hand, but Keats' modest background, education and poverty were a defining character of his personality and work. Anna (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This solid source mentions that Keats' father had wished to send his son to Harrow, as the family firm prospered. However his faher died in a riding accident and Harrow etc was not possible. Anna (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that such inequalities in privilege and education would last for the next 200 years, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added in the detail to clarify the situ, checked and added the sources. Valetude, Keats had a large and complicated family. Some members had signifiant property and were much wealthier than others. Some acted as 'benefactors' to others. Deaths, re-marriages, guardianship, legacies, wills and possible embezzlement, added drama to how the wealth was used, who was sponsored by it and where it ended up. The article does describe some of these dynamics. Anna (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Value of his Legacies

 * As I mentioned in the "today's money" thread above, using the formula £ gives £563,705, a sum which still seems rather large. But, as far as I know, that's the standard inflation formula for UK in use across English Wikipedia. Maybe it's wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The English National Archive historical currency converter is given as the source for the convertion, and seems the most solid source you could get. It suggests that £8000 equates in 2021 as £459,443.20. I guess with all the devaluations, coming off the gold standard, changes in coinage etc, estimation over time is not an exact science. Anna (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked the ref I put in for the £8000 figure when I wrote most of the article. The ref is from the National Dictionary of Biography, and yes, it does state '£8000'. Although as the WP articles says, John Keats received a quarter of this figure. Martin, re your comment in the other money talk section, I don't think Rossetti (1878) is a great source on Keats' finances. It's very possible this kind of financial detail was only found much later in the archives. Anna (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I recommend keeping current conversion rates out of the article. I have checked the offical biogs I have access to (listed in the article's references) and I can't see any conversion suggested, only the historical figures. There is more than £100 000 difference between the WP gizmo rate and the National Archive rate given (above) - a pretty huge gap. The Bank of England Inflation calculator gives a figure of £651,492 (an even bigger gap). The National Archive says they work out conversions so: "The data used in this currency converter comes from our historical records such as those of the royal household and Exchequer. These documents may record large purchases by government institutions rather than ordinary retail prices, and wages of skilled craftsmen rather than the general level of earnings." There is an element of guesswork and approximation for all sources, so I think it's not useful to add it in to the this Keats article.  Anna (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. There is no meaningful comparison to be made, as spending and spending patterns were utterly different then and now. Bmcln1 (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The inflation formula template must be good for something (?) If it really works as poorly as this, it ought to be flagged up for impovement at the appropriate forum? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did have a little dig around to see if I could find the WP conversion gizmo sources, with no luck. But if any conversion rates for the pound over 300 years ago are so approximate and subject to historical guesswork, I'm not sure it's appropriate in Keats' context anyway. If you can find the gizmo creator, then, yes, it would be appropriate to flag some major caveats to its use. As Bmcln1 says, spending patterns have changed hugely, even since the 1970s in the UK, with greater credit available, cheap oil, increased house ownership, statutory wage rights, changed tax and benefits systems etc. So comparisons are not that useful.  Anna (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Bicentenary
Today is the bicentenary of Keats' death: Perhaps the events organised to mark the anniversary should be added? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "On 23 February 2021, to mark the 200th anniversary of Keats' death, the play Writ in Water, by playwright and academic Angus Graham-Campbell, was broadcast by BBC Radio 4"? But there is no "Legacy" section, so not sure where to place anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Guardian also has this peace where Ruth Padel, Will Harris, Mary Jean Chan, Rachel Long and Seán Hewitt choose their favourite poem. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Dodgy pronouns
"In April 1804, when Keats was eight, his father died from a skull fracture, when he fell from his horse while returning from a visit to John and his brother George at school. Thomas Keats died intestate and his mother remarried two months later."

I'm sure we can see how confusion creeps in here. There are three men mentioned in the two lines - John, George and their father Thomas. Pronouns are only useful if it's clear who they are referring to. Thomas Keats' mother did not remarry in 1804.

It's been many years since I have been a regular, full time editor. A great big barrel of thank yous to all those who have been stewarding the poetry articles and doing a tremendous job. All best wishes. Anna (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * At the very least, that re-marriage claim needs to be corrected? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, the above is the version that was reverted for being unclear. Anna (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. So the current version is now correct and sufficiently clear, I hope. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

John Keat moral for young generation
He want to show that young generation author can also do such improvement. He was the famous author and writer of the young generation. We should try to become like John keat He is inspiration for young authors. So all young authors best of luck! 2409:4042:2813:4FA8:0:0:26:40AC (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for telling us. By the way, his name was Keats. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

'Popular culture'
The guidance on including 'popular culture' or trivia in an article reads the "source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject." This first reversion mentions a film that features a few lines of a Keats poem. The subject of the second reversion isn't about Keats either. They are 'passing mentions'. The guidance also says "Cultural references about a subject... should not be included simply because they exist." Keats is a globally known poet. There are thousands of songs, plays, films, films etc that make mentions of him and his work. Biographies get swamped but tangential bits and pieces and make the articles weaker for it. Anna (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Keats' TB and autopsy
This is not really apropos of anything, it's just a really interesting, academic but arresting article on the details of Keats' descent into TB and the findings of the autopsy on his body two days after his death. Our WP article is long as it is and I don't think it's necessary to add in more detail, but good to know the research is out there for anyone wanting to explore further. Best wishes. Anna (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Link to EB1911 article
I am wanting to add a link in External links to the article on John Keats in the 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica but am encountering some resistance. This is the article:. Any views, one way or the other? ArbieP (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The text was already covered by a reference]. I have said elsewhere, there is no virtue of trying to squeeze EB1911 into every article you can. There are much more definitve, modern sources. I'm not convinced a hundred year old encyclopedia article offers unparalleled insight. You are doing this shoe horning into dozens of WP articles, in order to raise the profile of EB1911. That is not how WP works. We are here to improve the nature of WP articles, not promote books or links. You have been asked not to add random links into articles and not to split citations by dropping in random refs. I do understand that you are |very excited by the EB1911 and 19th century editions, and there is good work to do with this, no doubt, but shoe horning is not the way. I might suggest that you turn to the WP article on the EB 1911 edition. It could use your help. Anna (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Career section should be broken up further
I find the career section is too long and should be broken up further. The current 2 subsections (Wadsworth andBrawne) are a beginning. I dont feel comfortable doing this and hence placed too long|section flag. What do you think, ? Seems like a perfect task for you, in my opinion. Thanks. Wuerzele (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added in some headings as per your suggestion. I'm aware that reading this article is a totally different experience on a phone to a computer. Longer articles must be a PITA on a phone. Anna (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

HIS?
Maybe I’m reading this wrong but on the article the is a picture with the text being : Relief on the wall nearHIS grave. (Or something like that) Maybe I read it wrong but I feel that it’s wrong. I just do. InfernaIBaze (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you say more about what is wrong? Why is the word "his" relevant. Anna (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Compound adjective
In the phrase "In October 1815, having finished his five year apprenticeship with Hammond", "five year" apparently is intended to be a compound adjective. Thus, it should be hyphenated (see MOS:HYPHEN). I tried to correct it, but got reverted. Stefen Towers among the rest!  Gab • Gruntwerk 19:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)