Talk:Nahum Tate

Date of Death Unclear
The day Tate died is not clear. Various sources give differing dates.

This needs to be explained. (And don't forget the Julian calendar.) Also a list of dates from credible sources would be good.

12 August 1715

- https://www.libraryireland.com/biography/NahumTate.php

- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Tate,_Nahum

''9 August or 16 August

Publication from his time (in Google search results page): "August 6, 1715: Nahum Tate, departed this Life on Saturday last." Converting 6 August to gregorian (17 August) and going to the Saturday before results in either 9 August or 16 August, but for the latter I'd expect to read "departed yesterday" -- unlikely if the publication was not geographically near to the event; the news travelled slowly at that time.

July 30, 1715

- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nahum-Tate

This is not simply a matter of converting julian to gregorian calendar (https://stevemorse.org/jcal/julian.html), for example:

12 August(gregorian)

converted to julian calender: 1 August

julian to gregorian: 23 August

The issue has been raised before in 2013 (gregorian:-) ) by Angeldeb82. Experts, we need you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:F13:7780:3C17:E372:37DF:546F (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Now resolved - definitely 30 July 1715. I checked and then put a full explanatory reply note in the section Date of Death Confusion below. But I didn't notice the same date-query in this separate earlier section.... So here's a further note. The quote above as to "August 6, 1715: Nahum Tate, departed this Life on Saturday last" needs no Gregorian/Julian conversion at all. It's just an incomplete quote from a journal Modern Language Notes (Vol. 49, No. 3, Mar. 1934) published by The Johns Hopkins University Press containing a 3-page article by H.F. Scott-Thomas titled The Date of Nahum Tate's Death, of which the first page is available to read free online. The article is well-researched and explains why 30th July is unquestionably his true death-date. H.F. Scott-Thomas states that the earliest announcement occurs in The Weekly Packet, No.161, from Saturday July 30, to Saturday August 6, 1715: Nahum Tate, departed this Life on Saturday last. - In other words, it printed on Sat 6 Aug that Tate died "last Saturday", meaning Sat 30 July. And therefore (as per my closing sentence in the later section below), the Lede's inclusion of the note "date of death uncertain, see Talk page" is not needed, and so I'll remove it. Pete Hobbs (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 2A02:908:F13:7780:C495:C214:D04A:209A (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Untitled
The term Anglo-Irish does not refer to a nationality, but rather to a particular group of people within Ireland, of English descent.

Faithful Teate
I've deleted 'quaint' as a description of 'Ter Tria' since I think its not a very NPOV. The term doesn't really do justice to the poem, which is quite epic and has some stunning passages of considerable originality. ANB (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Come Ye Sons of Art
Do we actually know if he wrote the text to this piece? Other sources state that that is questionable. Harpsichord246 (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Date of Death Confusion
I'm getting confused. Some articles say that Nahum Tate died on July 30, 1715, but this one says he died on August 12. Which death date is correct? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 10 years later, and I was confused too for a while, as the infobox states simply "Died 30 July 1715" and the Life para includes a quote "buried at St George the Martyr, Southwark on 1 August 1715" from an ancestry.co.uk source - and yet the Lede starts with "date of death uncertain, see Talk page". Then I found the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (transcribed at this Wikisource page) states "He died within the precincts of the Mint, Southwark, where he had taken refuge from his creditors, on the 12th of August 1715." Its modern-day successor is the latest online Britannia.com article, which begins "Natum Tate (born 1652, Dublin, Ire.—died July 30, 1715, London, Eng.)" with no subsequent expanded details of his death. One presumes the modern Britannia.com's date is based on latest and more accurate research, but its whole article is weak by comparison, a relatively short pale shadow of the 1911 publication - it doesn't engender much trust by comparison! But eventually I found a journal Modern Language Notes (Vol. 49, No. 3, Mar. 1934) published by The Johns Hopkins University Press with a 3-page article by H.F. Scott-Thomas titled The Date of Nahum Tate's Death, of which the first page is available to read free online. It's well-researched and explains why 30th July is unquestionably his true death-date - it's just a pity one must pay to read pages 2-3 if one wants to find out how/where/why later date-confusion arose. Therefore the Lede's inclusion of the note "date of death uncertain, see Talk page" is not needed, and so I'll remove it. Pete Hobbs (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Portrait
I suspect that the picture is of Henry Purcell rather than Nahum Tate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.143.132 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The article currently has no image of Tate. There are none at Commons, but there are some here, here and here. How can these still be protected by copyright? It's also been pointed out that he looked a lot like a certain British rock guitarist:  Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also like an image of Tate, but I think that was the image that 14.2.143.132 was talking about. | This revision removed the image, followed by | this, and | this (deleted files), which linked to File:Portrait of the composer Henry Purcell (1659-1695).jpg on Commons. Those images you saw may have been of Purcell. | This BBC page, and | this getty image both call it Purcell. Liam2520 (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Portrait of the composer Henry Purcell (1659-1695).jpg
 * But, the source of the image of "Purcell" on Commons, links to | this article, which says the image is of Tate! I'm confused. Liam2520 (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

image is innapropriate and innapropriately presented
the present image is, aside from being garish, not linked to any sources confirming it is indeed a depiction of tate, doesn't seem to exist on tineye or other reverse image searching sites, is still labelled as a depiction of him from 1700, despite being labelled elsewhere on wikipedia as a modern description. given the above confusion regarding the previous portrait used, I believe it may be better to just run without a porttrait for mr tate. DParkinson1 (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)