Talk:Philip Larkin/Archive 6

Untitled
From November 2009 to August 2011

References section
The long list of citation templates in the References section makes it hard to edit. I've just added a reference to the lead, and I wanted to write it in the way the rest of the article's referenced -- short ref in the text, full citation in the References section-- but I couldn't see where to add it to References -- mostly because of the templates, but also because the section is split into biography, critical works etc, though there aren't clear divides.

I'd suggest having one alphabetical list, so that editors can quickly scan it and see where to add more, and removing the templates unless there's a specific reason to keep them. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the purpose of the templates was ensure a consistency of style? That's the only reason why I did them all, that and general impression that templates were the right thing to do  almost - instinct 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where did you get that impression, as a matter of interest? The reason I ask is that a lot of editors believe that, and use templates even though they can be quite a nuisance, and despite the relevant guideline (WP:CITE) not encouraging them. Are they explicitly encouraged somewhere else?


 * Their use can be contentious for a number of reasons, but in this context, if you go to edit mode, and look to see where to add a new reference, you can see that working out where to put it might take a few minutes because the templates make the list hard to scan. Consistency can be achieved without templates.


 * The only reason you might want to keep them is if you intend to use the fancy referencing style that connects short refs in the text with the full citations in the References section. If you don't want to do that, they serve no purpose. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Like a child, I was merely learning my behaviour from copying others. Before I spent an eternity getting them pretty in templates I had spent just as long making them pretty without templates. As long as its pretty, I'm really not fussed. Before we spend time getting rid of them, we should probably have a discussion about the way that some templates are in the footnotes themselves and some in the References  almost - instinct 23:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is much easier to have all of the citations in an article in citation templates rather than in plain text. It is important when there is a change of house style and the central template can be adjusted and the style automatically applied to all articles using the template, without having to go through each article manually adjusting the style. It is very important when trying to parse the articles by computer as when in templates the references can be exported and parsed appropriately. We should be encouraging the use of the various cite templates. Keith D (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)It's harder to write articles well when there are lots of templates, because the extra words in the text make editing for flow quite difficult, so if it's a well-written piece you want, the fewer the templates in the text the better. The templates in the References section are another matter; whether to keep them depends on whether you're going to use a citation system that needs them.


 * Keith D, citation templates shouldn't be added without consensus, because they make articles harder to edit and load, and they have few, if any, advantages. There is never a change of house style of the kind you describe. People are allowed to use whatever citation style they want so long as they're internally consistent. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article currently uses cite templates in a consistent manner throughout and so should continue to use the style for new additions unless there is consensus to change it. Keith D (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article uses mainly cite templates and I do not see why a different format should be used. Snowman (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this question does not seriously affect the content of the article, this is one of the least important issues that needs to be addressed right now, so perhaps we can revisit it later. Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference requests
Could we have a reference for Larkin's parents living in a council house, and in the one photographed specifically (it doesn't look like a council house), and are we saying he ever lived in it?
 * Caption written by photographer, IIRC  almost - instinct 23:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't be a reliable source. I looked around to see whether he or his parents ever lived in a council house, but I've not found a source. It should probably be made invisible until we find one. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "When Philip was born they lived at 2 Poultney Street in a suburb of Coventry. It was a council house but not the type mythologized in histories of the Labour movement. Poultney Street had been built by Coventry Corporation as an investment to provide housing for the skilled workforce of the locality. For the Larkins it was a temporary residence until Sydney found something that befitted his status as Treasurer." Bradford pp27-28.There is a photograph of 2 Poultney Street in Motion (Illustration 5). Allriskinrev (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "This former council house at 2 Poultney Road [It is Road. Bradford is wrong.] was the Larkin family home from 1919 to 1925. The estate was built on ‘garden city’ principles and designated Radford Garden Village. Sydney and Eva Larkin, together with their daughter Kitty, were the first occupants. Philip Larkin was born at home on 9 August 1922..." From: http://clg.coventry.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=19875024 Allriskinrev (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added more information to the image page, with references.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, could we have a reference for the Times saying he was the country's greatest post-war writer? It sounds unlikely somehow.
 * Currently footnote number 117, supporting "and in 2008 The Times named Larkin as the greatest British post-war writer" in the "Posthumous reputation" section  almost - instinct 23:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally, did the publication of the letters trigger controversy about his affairs, as we say in the lead? I recall only the fuss about the racism and misogyny. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is the photograph of his grave not in the section discussing his death? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The gravestone is inscribed with words written after his death, so the photo is scarcely out of place in the Posthumous Reputation section  almost - instinct 10:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be better where the article discusses his death and where he was buried. His grave is not connected to his posthumous reception. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference
Query on ref 142 'István D. Rácz. "Larkin in Context: The Second International Conference on the Work of Philip Larkin" About Larkin No. 14 October 2002 1990' - what do the two years in the reference apply to? Keith D (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Me, I'm afraid. I had meant to type the page number. I thought I HAD typed the page number. It wasn't even late!! Allriskinrev (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
Some criticism for whatever it's worth, intended to be constructive, not demoralizing. If the article didn't have the potential to be an FA, I wouldn't bother with this, so please don't be disheartened by it. (Almost instinct, I read elsewhere that you said you felt discouraged; don't be -- it's very good; it's just not as good as it could be, but it's close.)

First, the article reads in places more like a collection of facts than a flowing narrative, often raising more questions than are answered. Just to take one example (but there are many):

"He lived with his family in Radford, Coventry, until he was five years old [is this the house that we showed an image of, or not? Did he stop living with his family when he was five?] From the age of five until adulthood [when?] Larkin lived in a large three-storey middle-class house [what is a middle-class house?], complete with servants quarters. [Did he actually have servants?] Having survived the bombings of the Second World War, his childhood home was demolished in the 1960s as part of a road modernisation programme. [Which childhood home? Did someone say this was ironic; if so, who and what was the context?]"

And then you mention that his father was a Nazi.

There isn't a sense from reading it that the writer has fully grasped, and loves, the subject matter (you have to love your FA subjects). It feels as though a fact has been lifted from here, and another one from there, without a full understanding and appreciation. His father's Nazi tendencies are far more important than what kind of house he lived in, and should be right up front. And the facts about which kind of house, and when and where, should flow into one another as part of a story, the painting of a picture, not just dots of colour here and there. With every fact you write, you should be thinking, "And why does this matter?"

Secondly, there's almost nothing about the intense controversy his letters provoked -- and I mean in academia, not in the Guardian -- and the debate about multiculturalism versus the dead, white, male poet that Larkin epitomized. There's also the issue of the man versus the artist: should someone's personal views affect aesthetic appreciation of their art? I think there would need to be some scholarly input about both of those issues (and not just Jardine writing in a newspaper), because they're huge issues, and they both came home to roost over Larkin. No one really cares what Poetry Book Society voters or BBC listeners think.

There's also too much leaning against quotations in lieu of writing. For example:

"In 1980 Neil Powell could write that 'It is probably fair to say that Philip Larkin is less highly regarded in academic circles than either Thom Gunn or Donald Davie'.[86] But more recently Larkin's standing has increased. 'Philip Larkin is an excellent example of the plain style in modern times,' writes Tijana Stojkovic.[87] Robert Sheppard asserts that 'It is by general consent that the work of Philip Larkin is taken to be exemplary'.[88] 'Larkin is the most widely celebrated and arguably the finest poet of the Movement,' states Keith Tuma, and his poetry is 'more various than its reputation for dour pessimism and anecdotes of a disappointed middle class suggests'.[3]"

A said, then B said, then C said ... yes, but what does it all mean?

The article needs one last intellectual push before it's ready for FAC. What's needed, in my view, is for whoever considers himself the main writer to take a couple of weeks off to read some academic papers about Larkin, then come back and do a final sweep for flow and substance -- with the other editors agreeing not to interfere with the writing until a first draft is ready. MoS issues come at the very end. They matter the least.

Now, please take this an constructive criticism. I know that input like this can be horrible when you've put a lot of work into an article (I know because it's been done to me many times), but if I don't do it, someone else will, and you don't want it happening during the FAC, because that really can be gut-wrenching. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Slim raises excellent points, guys. Much of what she says matches up with what the peer reviewers said as well. If I can get anyone copies of articles or book chapters to help out with this process, please let me know. I am more than willing to help with obtaining research materials. Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been waiting eighteen months for one of the many people on wikipedia with academic credentials to sort out the criticism part of it. I'm not going to make the mistake of thinking that I'm qualified to do the job.
 * Well, I've got academic credentials, but I've never done any academic work on Larkin (my Eng Lit course stopped at 1918 and my Modern Eng Lit course stopped at Auden). My sister did study Larkin, but I don't think I'll ask her to join in here, as she wanted me to tell her what "Mr Bleaney" was about. --GuillaumeTell 18:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't be bothered to prove to Slim how much I love or don't love the subject. If you really care about the answer, do an edit count.
 * If you know about this: "there's almost nothing about the intense controversy his letters provoked -- and I mean in academia" then add the content yourself. Instead we just have yet more discussions about positions of photos and use of templates, discussions we had months ago. Many problems from the Peer Review are listed. They sit above, nicely organised, awaiting help. There's precious little point berating someone for failing to do what they are unable to do, as useful as shouting at your dog for not doing the washing up. This reminds me of the PR reviewer who airily said: disappointing to see the Letters weren't used. Unlike me, he's got a copy, why doesn't he add it?
 *  almost - instinct 09:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that criticisms about valid and verifiable references are perfectly justified. What I have a slight problem with (Slim) is the tone of criticism in other respects. You seemed reluctant, for whatever reason, to accept that Larkin was born in a council house [we all know he was middle class and his parents, at one time, had a servant; and that he came from a privileged background]. And you criticise entries about the various homes Larkin lived in as a child, but 'appear' to be disappointed there's not more about Larkin's father's 'enthusiasm for Nazism' [bearing in mind this article is about Larkin and not about his father]. No-one states in this article that Larkin's father - to use your words- 'was a Nazi' (I'd love to hear why Larkin's father's Nazi tendencies are 'far more important' than what kind of house he lived in. Equally relevant, I might accept - at a push). Larkin's father was, for want of a better word, an administrator; he admired that aspect of the German/Nazi government and financial systems. Larkin's father was awarded an OBE, you don't criticise the article for lack of that bit of information. You seem to want more about the controversy, and you drag out the, frankly, sad issue of the 'dead, white male'. There seems to be a pattern here.


 * The academic and intellectual view of Larkin, I believe, is slowly beginning to enter a corrective period, as can be seen in John Osborne's Larkin, Ideology and Critical Violence (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). It's our job here - as people who do 'love' this subject - to do justice to the 'subject'. Now, do you want the contributors to write 'your' article on Larkin to save you the time of doing it yourself, or do you want an intellectually rigorous article written by people who love the subject. If it's the latter, please tone down what seem to be your personal views on Larkin, and give advice - not opinions. In return, I - and I'm sure those others who have invested vast amounts of time in this article (much more time than I have) - will do our very best to bring it up to a standard we can all be proud of. Allriskinrev (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I also raised the details about the house in the peer review - I think that making the details more relevant to the reader (explaining how they are indicative of class and what that meant at the time, etc.) would help. Does this make sense? Awadewit (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Council house: my father, like Larkin's father, was a local authority employee in England.  When he changed jobs (which he did quite frequently during the period 1946-1956) he was invariably allocated a council house (probably free of charge or at nominal rent) by his new employer - originally as somewhere to live, but later as a temporary arrangement until he could sell his previous house and buy a new property.  He was never City Treasurer, but, as Chief Assistant Engineer or Deputy Borough Engineer at the end of the above period, he was quite high up the Council employee structure, and would certainly have regarded himself as middle-class.  So, if I may extrapolate, quite important people lived in council houses from time to time.  Hope this helps explain the likely position in Coventry.  And, no, I can't supply a reference. --GuillaumeTell 22:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That does help (thank you!) - surely one of the Larkin bios must mention some of this? :) Are there books that I can check that you don't have access to? Awadewit (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On the nail with that GuillaumeTell. I've just looked in Motion, and he says that was precisely the case with Sydney Larkin: "(It was a council house; Sydney's employers had arranged for him to live there during the acute housing shortage after the war.)" (p. 8) Allriskinrev (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Some responses:


 * Almost-instinct, I accept that you love the subject. My point is that this isn't obvious from the article.
 * Regarding the council house, why would I care one way or the other? But the article didn't say he was born in a council house. All we had was an image of a house that didn't look like a council house, with a cutline that said it was, but with no source, and without saying whether Larkin was born in it. It said only that his parents had lived in it, and it didn't explain the relevance to people who don't know about the English class system; it also didn't explain how the parents managed to jump from a council house (assuming that's true) to a house with servants' quarters, whether with or without servants, which the article didn't even specify. Anyone reading that paragraph would come away not knowing much from it.
 * I disagree about the father's Nazi sympathies not being particularly relevant. He raised the poet.
 * Almost-instinct, I was assuming you were trying to get this article to FA. That means you (or whoever else wants to get it there) has to do the work. Your analogy of berating the dog for not doing the washing up doesn't hold: you're a reader and writer who's being asked to read and write. :) You can expect reviewers to add minor points or do some copy editing, along the lines of sofixit, but you can't ask them to do a rewrite, or read the major scholarly works for you. Any good article (as opposed to Good Article) about Larkin is going to have to approach his work from a scholarly perspective, which will inevitably involve the dead white poet issue, and the man versus the art issue. There's no escaping it. You don't have to write a PhD thesis; just a summary of the key arguments and who makes them. Google books will help you a lot by showing you what's out there, then you can order the books from a library, or if there are academic papers, Awadewit has offered to help get copies.
 * I'm sorry this isn't going down well, but the issues aren't being raised frivolously. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To be quite clear: personally I couldn't care less if the page is FA or not. People who I am grateful to would like it (what with the anniversary looming) so I've been doing my best. Its becoming clear that my best won't take it all the way there. To repeat (1): I am not an academic, I have no academic qualifications in this field, so as per WP:DONTFUCKITUP I'm leaving well alone. I thought Allriskinrev made some telling points. (I think there could probably be quite a good page entitled something like Twentieth-century controversy in academic circles in reaction about Philip Larkin's privately expressed opinions) To repeat (2): many important points from the good, thorough Peer Review remain unattended. If you're qualified to look at some of these, the most useful thing you could do is attend to them. For example: "The "Critical opinion" section is almost a list of opinions rather than a coherent, topically-based section. There is even a one-sentence paragraph. This section needs to be restructed so that the reader is led through the different ideas rather than through the different critics. The names of the critics are not so important as the ideas. Also, the critics should be grouped together better, to indicate broad trends in Larkin scholarship. The paragraph that begins "The view that Larkin is not a nihilist or pessimist, but actually displays optimism in his works, is certainly not universally endorsed, but Chatterjee's lengthy study suggests the degree to which old stereotypes of Larkin are now being transcended" is the best example of the kind of topical coherence that the rest of the section should have." Or is it just more fun to squabble about the positioning of photos?  almost - instinct 23:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, to be blunt, the article needs a rewrite, but it's unlikely that anyone else will want to do that, given that much of the input here is either reverted or criticized. You don't need to have studied this academically to do it, but you do need to read what academics have written. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excepting the final paragraph I don't believe a word of the Critical Opinion section has been touched in any way since User:Macphysto wrote it.
 * Please don't tell me what I need to do. I don't need to do anything. Not being in academia I don't have access to what academics have written; irritatingly my local Brent Council library insists on filling its shelves with chick-lit and books on the Battle of the Somme
 * We are in the middle of a Peer Review. Individual items have been addressed. Naturally the flow has suffered. Once all these points have been looked, then we can take a step back. We're not trying to get this done in a day. Are you really surprised that coming in with guns blazing and asking questions that could be answered just by reading the article and/or the talk page gets people tetchy?
 * Most of the issues raised by Peer Reviewers have been dealt with placidly and straightforwardly, so to damn the contributors here with "much of the input here is either reverted or criticized" is, in simple fact, inaccurate  almost - instinct 00:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's take a step back, everyone. I think all of us participating in this conversation want the article to be an excellent one and emotions are running high. Perhaps we could all take a three-day break and come back? Awadewit (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With the exception that Allriskinrev should be encouraged to continue his excellent content-generating work  almost - instinct 00:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec to Almost-instinct) You can go to any public library and order books via an inter-library loan. You can use Google books to tell you what to look for. If you live near a university library, you could contact the library, explain the situation, and ask if you can have a day pass, or whatever their arrangements for external readers/borrowers are. That will allow you to scan the shelves, even if they don't allow borrowing, then you can arrange an inter-library loan through your public library. If you're in London, you may have access to the British Library.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Slim, you're disagreeing with no one when you say you "disagree about the father's Nazi sympathies not being particularly relevant." Who is it that you believe said that? It is relevant, but no more than the fact that Larkin's mother had no Nazi sympathies: she raised the poet also.


 * If I can give a couple of quotations taken from John Osborne's Larkin, Ideology and Critical Violence: A Case of Wrongful Conviction:
 * "The worst that anyone has discovered about Larkin are some crass letters and a taste for porn softer than what passes for mainstream entertainment in contemporary cinema or television (let alone the internet). In their prosecutorial zeal, critics forgot the Larkin who a young Indian pupil at King Henry VIII, Coventry found the most solicitous of schoolmates; who as the Holocaust raged cocked a snook at his father's Fascist sympathies by putting a Star of David next to his signature in war-time letters to his pal Jim Sutton..." etc., etc.(15-16)
 * "the function of criticism is to facilitate appreciation of literature, not depreciation of its creators." (16-17)
 * The dead white poet issue is intellectually barren, and always has been: it's a racist and vacuous issue. The man versus the art issue is a little more meaningful, but (in my own view) only to those with little interest in the art. There is "getting away from it"...
 * However, I don't think anyone actually disagrees with you when you say the article needs a re-write. People seem very keen to make improvements as best they can, and progress is being made. But trying to force a particular bias upon the article, which is what you're doing (and I won't believe you don't know that's what you're doing) is not very helpful. Allriskinrev (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: the father. The view I was opposing is the one expressed above: "I'd love to hear why Larkin's father's Nazi tendencies are 'far more important' than what kind of house he lived in..."


 * Re: bias. I'm not trying to force any bias into the article. I'm asking that the views of reliable sources be properly covered, and not minimized because not liked by some of the current editors. It is your opinion that the "dead white male" issue is intellectually barren. If that's also the view of the scholarly sources, and if that view has been expressed in relation to Larkin, by all means add it. The fact remains that the amount of coverage of the letters issue in this article (one paragraph) does not reflect the coverage given to it by the sources, and the paragraph devoted to it is unclear. Views are summarized without being explained, and this is a problem throughout the article. What would a reader not familiar with the source material understand from this? "This idea is developed in Richard Bradford's biography: he compares the style Larkin used in his correspondence with the author Barbara Pym with that he adopted with his old schoolfriend Colin Gunner." Can this not be expanded so that a reader doesn't have to read the sources to understand it? If readers have to read something else before they can understand this article, they may as well go straight to the sources. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I really do think that taking at least a day off from this talk page would benefit everyone. Awadewit (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I hope it's okay that I quickly add this link, in case it's helpful for Almost-instinct; I know it can be difficult having to rely on local libraries and inter-library loans can be slow. Here is the Brent catalogue on Larkin. It covers libraries in the whole Brent area, but I believe you can reserve things online and ask that they be held at the library closest to you. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation style query
Which citation style is it that uses all commas e.g. Ingelbien, Raphael (2002), Misreading England: Poetry and Nationhood Since the Second World War, Amsterdam: Rodopi, ISBN 9-0420-1123-8 ? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Length of page
Just thinking aloud here: is this page reaching its limit in length? Are there sections that need consideable expansion? Could/should some sections be spun off into seperate articles? If so, should this happen before the expansion is done, or after it, ie should we have a stage when the article is little over-long, and then carefully spin sections off, replacing the text here with summaries? See latter parts Samuel Johnson for the example that prompted this thinking  almost - instinct 10:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if you want to spin off articles, you should do so now and think carefully about what you want those articles to be. For example, I'm working with some other editors on a set of articles about Jane Austen. We decided to do a set of daughter articles and slowly add summaries of them to the main Austen article (see Reception history of Jane Austen and Styles and themes of Jane Austen (incomplete)). On the other hand, with Mary Shelley, we decided it was possible to write a long, yet inclusive article about Shelley and her works. We worked very hard at keeping that article around 50kB of readable prose. Either style works. Awadewit (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still thinking aloud. I was wondering:
 * Poetry of Philip Larkin, which could track the general theme of Larkin's work through the various volumes and also contain the Literary Criticism. And also the Reception History?
 * A Girl in Winter
 * Controversy about the personal correspondence of Philip Larkin (or similar title) - its clear that there's plenty to be said on this topic
 * This would free up space to make the contributions to fill the gaps that the Peer Review identified. As I say, just thinking aloud here  almost - instinct 19:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The first two seem like a good idea to me, but the last one seems like it could end up being a POV fork. Just how much has been written about these letters? Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot, though I've not read much of it. I think there's a lot out there. There definitely was a huge reaction to the publication of the letters, which continued after the very candid biography came out (Unfortunately I was too young to be aware of it at the time) There were people who thought that the damage to his reputation was so great that his standing as a poet would suffer. Its now looking like that's not the case. In a way the controversy is more intesting in itself than what it is says about Larkin. The benefit of a seperate article for it would be that we here would only have to summarise it ;-) Maybe these are just thoughts for the future development of this page, but I thought it would be worthwhile mentioning them. Maybe other people will have other ideas at a later date. The size of the article is not a pressing issue at this very moment, I presume? I figure you would have mentioned it at the PR otherwise  almost - instinct 20:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The size of the article is fine as it is now - it is 43kB of readable prose. I would call the spin off article about the letters Philip Larkin Letters or something like that. The letters and their controversy could be discussed in the article. Awadewit (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh that's a very good idea. The title I suppose should be the exact name of the published book? (Selected Letters of Philip Larkin, 1940–1985) Excellent. That's easily done, I can do that get the framework ready for others (eg SlimVirgin, Brianboulton, Macphysto, Allriskinrev, GuillaumeTell) to write about the aftermath  almost - instinct 15:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's perfect! Awadewit (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re. John Osborne
Sorry everyone - I keep forgetting to log in. Anyway, my most recent edit sounds a bit clumsy and I'm not sure what to do about it. I wanted to write: "John Osborne, who was co-founder of the Philip Larkin Society and is Director of American Studies at the University of Hull", but obviously he might not be Director of AS next year, or in 5 years time. So I felt I had to write: "John Osborne, who was co-founder of the Philip Larkin Society and at the time of his book's publication was Director of American Studies at the University of Hull". Can anyone rephrase this in a less clumsy way? Thanks. Allriskinrev (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Maybe just getting rid of the "is" would make it ok...? Or maybe even shorter?! eg "John Osborne, co-founder of the PLS and Dir of AS at the Uni of Hull, wrote that..."
 * 2. Perhaps this explanation of who he is would be better in the main body of the text, rather than the lead? I think that if something is in the lead then it needs to be dealt with more deeply in the main text, but I might be wrong there  almost - instinct 17:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, I thought we were taking a break today? Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it reads fine now. There's no explanation about who any of the other critics mentioned are, at that point in the article. So perhaps if an explanation is needed (of who John Osborne is) it can come further on.

On another matter, what happenned to the Goodman reference listed in References. There are references to Goodman page numbers in the Notes, linked to from the main page, but the reference to his article in About Larkin, from which the quotations come, is no longer there. (Or am I missing something obvious?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allriskinrev (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Was it caught in friendly fire in this edit?  almost - instinct 21:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now returned that reference  almost - instinct 15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs
The insights recently provided by the critic John Osborne may seem useful in the lead as a means of rebutting the comments of Jardine and Paulin, but the implication is that until Osborne came along no one thought there was any counterargument to Jardine and Paulin. The truth is that while the views of Jardine and Paulin were influential, they hardly represented the mainstream understanding of Larkin in the 1990s, let alone the present decade. Larkin is widely taught in schools in the UK, and students' experience of Larkin - like that of most people who have read a single one of his poems - is far removed from the ideological debates played out in academia and in the newspapers and magazines that sometimes broadcast these debates. The Jardine/Paulin content should not appear in the lead, and its relocation would remove the need for the premature reference to Osborne's engagement with their claims.

Fundamentally, the treatment in the lead of the dispute over Larkin's reputation skews the impression given by the article. Are the controversial attitudes and behaviours of James Joyce and Charles Dickens mentioned at the start of their Wikipedia entries? No. Why not? Not because they were ideologically superior to Larkin, but because these concerns are not central to the work, but only to its reception. Neither is the ideological battle over Larkin's alleged racism and sexism a central plank of his work.

The article should be about Larkin's writings first and foremost; arguments about his politics and values should be dealt with in a discrete section. Look at the article on Richard Nixon and note the way the Watergate scandal is dealt with. Watergate is more significant in the context of Nixon than the controversy over the letters is in the context of Larkin. However, clear-sighted and dispassionate editing means that it is not immediately emphasized and is instead properly contextualized.

As things stand, the early emphasis here on the controversy over the Larkin letters is misleading, because it suggests that this is what Larkin is known for. The lead should be making a succinct case for the significance of the subject and should be furnishing a lucid account of salient facts. Opinions - and the conflict of opinions that is a recurrent feature of the culture wars - should not be allowed to encroach on the lead. Macphysto (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok Macphysto, that seems very sensible to me on reading the lead again. But, why aren't we all singing from the same hymn book here? The references to Paulin, Jardine, and Cooper in the lead (that the Osborne information was added to balance) were added by SlimVirgin ( see: Revision as of 22:56, 12 November 2009), who's been trying to give us the benefit of some unbiased advice on the subject with the assumed voice of authority of a seasoned professional. Who's lead do we follow. If we follow the authoratative advice of 'A', will 'B' come along and say "Actually, no... 'A' was wrong, this is how it should appear." It's a little like a farce really, isn't it.


 * But being serious for a moment, I really think that almost-instinct and the others who have put in such a vast amount of work on the Larkin article deserve some kind of explanation about how the authoratative SlimVirgin with such incredible acheivements listed on her Wiki page (I see) can advise one thing and actually contribute the material she did in the place she did, while you yourself (quite correctly, as far as I can see), advise that actually it shouldn't be there at all, with it's balancing information in the form of quotations from Osborne. I'm sure you have the decency to give the necessary explanation. Allriskinrev (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what I have said is self-explanatory. I'm afraid I have nothing to contribute to the article at this time, though I have made significant contributions to it previously. I merely stopped by and noticed some unwelcome developments, and felt I had to pass comment on them. In my experience, prolific Wikipedians are not always subtle or tactful in the way they involve themselves in articles that others have created. Good work has been done on this article recently, but certain contributions, while technically secure, seem to be seeking to position Larkin in a context of ideological dispute rather than in a literary context. Macphysto (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comments, and what you choose to pass comment on, are very revealing. Thank you. Allriskinrev (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand Macphysto's point of view, but there is another angle to take, which I personally have taken in articles such as as Mary Wollstonecraft and Mary Shelley. The lead of these articles discusses the reception of both authors because the reason they have been increasingly included in the undergraduate curriculum, for example, is because of the changing value granted to women writers and feminist texts. I'm not sure that this is a cut-and-dried issue. I'm going to have look into the Larkin material in some depth to develop my own view on the matter. Awadewit (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs 2
I've reverted the third paragraph of the lead to the version prior to 22:56, 12 November 2009. As Macphysto commented "The Jardine/Paulin content should not appear in the lead, and its relocation would remove the need for the premature reference to Osborne's engagement with their claims." However, it's my view that some of the most recent edits to the third paragraph have been motivated by ideological biased views in an attempt to "skew facts to their own agenda". I will continue to keep an eye the article and in future undo any edits that I feel to be ideolocically biased. To save me having to explain these on the discussion page. I will call each of these undos a "Mac edit". I, and I'm sure the vast majoirity of the people working on this article want it to be as good as it can be: intellectually rigorous, and coveriing the *full range* of critical views on Larkin. I'm relishing the thought of the work ahead Allriskinrev (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What agenda is this? What ideology? SlimVirgin has outlined material that she feels should be more extensively covered in the article (material that is, without a doubt, covered in the sources). We now have to negotiate her views with your views. Not everyone envisions an article the same way and when there is such an abundance of material to include, there is going to be some give and take. Awadewit (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead
I'm having a problem with a new user who seems to be editing as, , and. He has announced his intention to revert&mdash;with the edit summary "Mac edit"&mdash;any edit I make to the third paragraph of the lead, and has started doing it. The purpose seems to be to keep out the quote from Lisa Jardine, and previously also one from Tom Paulin. I can replace this with a quote from someone else if preferred, e.g. Germaine Greer, but it's important to give an example of the kind of criticism people were making, and who was making it.

I'm posting below the current lead that I wrote, next to the previous lead I wrote part of, the third paragraph of which Allriskinrev is reverting to, and below them the one I encountered when I first started editing the article. It seems self-evident to me that the current version is the best of the three. It is more detailed, it describes his poetry better in my view, and it places the publication of the letters within some of the context, also making clear that, as bad as they are, they're also quite funny. Input would be appreciated. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And below is the pre-Nov 12 version:

Philip Arthur Larkin, CH, CBE, FRSL (9 August 1922 – 2 December 1985) is commonly regarded as one of the greatest English poets of the latter half of the twentieth century. He was also a novelist and a jazz critic. He first came to prominence with the publication in 1955 of his second collection of poems, The Less Deceived, which was followed by The Whitsun Weddings in 1964 and High Windows in 1974. He was offered but declined the Poet Laureateship following the death of John Betjeman in 1984.

Larkin was born in the city of Coventry. From 1930 to 1940 he was educated at King Henry VIII School in Coventry and, in October 1940, in the midst of the Second World War, he went up to St John's College, Oxford to read English language and literature. Having been rejected for military service because of his poor eyesight, he was able, unlike many of his contemporaries, to follow the traditional full-length degree course and attained a first-class honours degree in 1943. While at Oxford he met the writer Kingsley Amis, who became a lifelong friend and frequent correspondent. Shortly after graduating from Oxford, Larkin was appointed Librarian of the public library in Wellington, Shropshire. In 1946 he became assistant librarian at University College, Leicester and, in 1950, sub-librarian at Queen's University Belfast. By this time he had published two novels and his first collection of poetry. In March 1955, Larkin was appointed Librarian at the University of Hull, a position he retained until his death.

It was during the thirty years he spent in Hull that he wrote the greater part of his published output. His poetry, influenced by W. H. Auden, W. B. Yeats and Thomas Hardy, is usually written in "highly-structured but flexible verse forms". His first publisher, Jean Hartley, characterised it as a "piquant mixture of lyricism and discontent". In 2001 anthologist Keith Tuma found it "more various than its reputation for dour pessimism and anecdotes of a disappointed middle class suggests", a sentiment echoed in 2006 by critic S. K. Chatterjee: "It is under the defeatist veneer of his poetry that the positive side of Larkin's vision of life is hidden".

After Larkin's death the publication of his letters and his official biography initiated intense controversy about his political opinions, perceived as right-wing, and his personal life, which included simultaneous affairs with three women. Despite this, in 2003, almost two decades after his death, Larkin was chosen as "the nation's best-loved poet" in a survey by the Poetry Book Society, and in 2008 The Times named Larkin as the greatest British post-war writer.

arbitary break

 * A few desultory thoughts on some of the discussions. I'm not quite sure where things stand; the article seems to be in something of a flux and there's plenty of blood on the carpet, so it's all good. I think it's worth restating that this is a really good article; everyone who commented said so, and everyone agreed that it's not that far away from FA. The folk who brought it this far have done a great job.


 * Looking at the third paragraph I'm not sure that I'd agree with "...no-nonsense, solitary...". I think the public persona thing was originally attached to the Monitor section. I'd guess the majority of the Monitor audience would have cheerfully described him as a miserable old bugger as they switched over to MOTD. If we can't go with miserable old bugger, I'd go with saturnine or melancholy, but I'm not convinced that we should be attempting to define his public persona at all. Which public are we speaking of? his readership? people who've seen him on the telly? the British public? the English-speaking world? readers of this article? And in which period? before the letters or after? If we don't have a reliable source describing his public persona, it's perhaps better to drop that phrase rather than have a handful of Wikipedeans try to define it.


 * On the broader issue of due weight for the poet and his views I agree with MacP that the article should be first and foremost about his work, but disagree that Larkin the man should be discreetly shoved into a corner. Philistine that I am, I'm at least as interested in people as in Art. I do understand and can empathise with the desire to concentrate on the  poetry and not dwell on the more unsavoury characteristics of the poet, but this article is Philip Larkin, not Philip Larkin's Poetry, and even it were just about the poetry one could make  a strong case for covering his formative years and his weltanschauung.  And we need to keep sight of the fact that this is an encyclopaedia. While most of us are probably here because of his poetry, readers researching, say, racism in the establishment, or the development of multiculturalism might stop by this article precisely because they've heard something of his alleged racism. I think we have to offer at least a reasonable degree of coverage to those readers, some of whom might have little interest in the poetry.


 * FWIW (not much), my personal view is that his racism is akin to that of Prince Philip--it's as much a kind of right-wing snobbishness as it is racism. I think it comes from the same part of him that could write "Their unspeakable wives/Are skinny as whippets" Politically I'd place him closer to Enoch Powell than Nick Griffin, and at the time Powell made his Rivers of Blood speech most of the country agreed with him. But it doesn't really matter what we think, it's the RS that count and for me Motion nails it with this:


 * "We know the worst and the best of his personal life, and each of us can make our own estimate of how it does and does not connect with his work. Or to put this another way: we can see the beauty and truth of the poems in spite and because of what lay behind them.".


 * That's exactly the tack I'd like the article to take. We can't unknow what we know of Larkin, nor should we try to hide it. So, that's a long-winded way of saying I mostly prefer SlimVirgin's latest lead and support the direction in which she is taking the article.


 * On the council house: while it's no doubt accurate to call it that, I think it does add some confusion. That's not what most people think of as a council house, and Larkin is not really a lad from the back-streets. Perhaps we could just drop the word council from the caption.


 * On splitting the article: as I mentioned in the PR, I really enjoyed the article when I read it. It didn't seem to me to be too long and the structure was okay. If anyone does come along to expand specific sections then it might be worth splitting it up, but until that happens I don't really see a need. I agree with SV that some sections have ended up as an accretion of facts and quotations, but I don't think I see the problem as as pervasive as she does. Everyone seems agreed that it needs a polish. I agree too, but I think it needs a gentle one rather than a full-on sand-blasting. (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Persuasive stuff above from MoreThings about the public persona. I wonder if, to redress the balance (if needed), a bit of space could be created somewhere for the private person - a few quotes from people who knew/met him? I've already volunteered to mine some stuff from Larkin at Sixty (won't have time to do this before next Monday at the earliest, I'm afraid), and there are other sources, such as this engaging encounter (scroll down to Philip Larkin).  --GuillaumeTell 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's a nice story. I like the description of him in the penultimate paragraph--it's too easy to represent him as dour and death-obsessed. Ideally we would show all sides of his character. In the letters it's interesting to compare the Larkin who speaks to Betjeman with the one who speaks to Amis. The one horrible nettle that we do need to decide how to grasp is this one:

MoreThings (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I shall try to write a paragraph including these things (plus perhaps "The Negro did not have the blues because he was naturally melancholy. He had them because he was cheated and bullied and starved.") and post it here for approval/discussion/total rewrite. Then we can decide where to put it!  almost - instinct 13:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A word of caution when giving examples. We're supposed to be careful when using primary sources (in this case, the letters), in case we end up cherry-picking, so ideally we should rely on material that secondary sources (books, papers, newspapers) have published. I don't see a need to stick to that very rigidly in this case, but on the other hand I wouldn't want to see the primary-source material relied on entirely. See No original research for the discussion about primary and secondary sources. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Offered as a bare start:

and, suggesting a possible place for in could be between the first and second paragraphs of the "Posthumous reputation" section  almost - instinct 15:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead 2
The user SlimVIrgin has used a partial quotation from John Osborne that reduces significantly, if not neutralizes, its opposition to the views of the other quotations included. The full quotation from John Osborn is:


 * "the worst that anyone has discovered about Larkin are some crass letters and a taste for porn softer than what passes for mainstream entertainment in contemporary cinema or television (let alone the internet)" Larkin, Ideology and Critical Violence: A Case of Wrongful Conviction (Palgrave Macmillan 2008)

The new edits clearly skew the bias of the article. If SlimVirgin had incuded the full quotation from John Osborne, which I think is not an unreasonable thing to expect, I would not have questioned the edit.

I would prefer the following version, the only difference being the inclusion of the full quotation from John Osborne

Cut down letters paragraph a bit


 * Can this work as a compromise? Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, I think this good. I like that it has more about his poems than his letters :-) I think its worth mentioning he was Librarian of Hull University: no mere filing clerk he, but a manager with many staff. "...during the 30 years he spent as the Librarian of the University of Hull..."  almost - instinct 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It works for me. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As there seems to be agreement, I've gone ahead and added it. I also removed one of the links you restored, AI, though I don't know whether you intended to, the silverlarkin one. It's a personal website that seems to have little content. I've been removing these per EL. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And I've added the word "Librarian" as I mentioned above.
 * SV: when that link was first added I removed it; it later re-appeared when that site had more detail. We had a short discussion here whether or not it should stay; we were unsure exactly (despite reading WP:EL) where the boundary line lay for inclusion/exclusion, and gave it the benefit of the doubt. For future reference, it would be helpful if you could tell us where that line lies. Thank you  almost - instinct 12:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Personal websites shouldn't be added, as a rule of thumb. The other two are okay: one is from the Philip Larkin Society, and the second is run by a number of groups, including the Society and the local council, as I recall, for the anniversary, so they're fine. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Librarian of the University of Hull," all caps, isn't right, unless that was a special title (the whole phrase), and he was that particular thing for 30 years. It was better before. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But that's the thing: Yes, that was the "special title" of his job. He was "Librarian" with a capital L - that was the title of the University's head librarian, he was "that particular thing" all of his 30 years in Hull. See the exhaustive discussion in the latter stages of this: Talk:Philip_Larkin/Archive_4 GuillaumeTell was a university librarian and was very helpful unknotting this issue. Hence my saying: "no mere filing clerk he, but a manager with many staff"  almost - instinct 12:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So "he holds the position of Garbage Collector with the local council? I fail to see the distinction between "special" title and just a plain position. We're all Editors at WP, or Admins. Tony   (talk)  13:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't shoot the messenger :-) I'm just using one editor's words to pass on the knowledge bestowed on us by another! In the main text we have "a sub-librarian at", "an assistant librarian at" but "the Librarian of"  almost - instinct 14:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That discussion you linked to agrees that upper-case is wrong, AI. If you want to stress that he was head librarian, you can say that, or chief librarian, or whatever, though in the context of that particular sentence, there's really no need. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that was the neatest way of mentioning in the lead that he was Librarian, not just a little squirrel. Ok. How about "...during the 30 years he spent running the library of University of Hull..."?  almost - instinct 14:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mac edit
A Mac edit reverts a paragraph (or set of paragraphs) to a previous version after it has been edited in such a way as to introduce a bias into the article that skews the facts to the previous editor's own agenda, no matter how subtly attempted.

The Mac editor does not add any new material to try to equalize this bias or skew it with an opposing bias. The paragraph is simply reverted to a previous version. Allriskinrev (talk)

Request
SlimVirgin - I would like to see you address the points Macphysto, who has been an important contributor to this page, made above  almost - instinct 11:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Downgrading the Osborne quote - which was added after being brought to the talk page for approval - was pretty shabby behaviour  almost - instinct 11:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit that downgraded the Osborne quote, despite its having been discussed here, seems to me to skew the presentation of the debate  almost - instinct 13:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Librarian
I was wondering if anyone could point me to the discusstion that agreed that Larkin's career as a librarian should not have its own section?  almost - instinct 11:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem
Slimvirgin's suggestion "He had wanted his private papers to be destroyed when he died, but a great deal was retained, and the posthumous publication by Anthony Thwaite in 1992 of his letters triggered controversy about his personal life and reactionary political views" seems to imply that he had wanted his letters to be destoyed. Since they were in the possesion of the recipients, this is of course nonsense.  almost - instinct 11:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the edited version of the lead I've presented above, I just cut this part out - gordian knot. Awadewit (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues still outstanding from Peer Review
Although we were able to put done tags on a lot of the issues from the Peer Review the following are still outstanding:  almost - instinct 13:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * BB says: "It seems that too little use is made in the article of the collected letters, which could be used to flesh out more details of his private life, including some quite significant incidents. Among things not mentioned in the article are his being made a Companion of Honour in summer 1985 (letter to Anthony Powell 7 August 1985) and his being too ill to receive it from the Queen (letter 18 October 1985 to Colin Gunner). Also, we learn that Larkin was made a Companion of Literature (C.Litt) by the RSL, a more singular honour than a Fellowship (letter to Robert Conquest, 4 July 1978), and we can read what he thought about this ("Down among the dead men")" Does anyone have with access to this book? If so, could they dredge up the information being pointed to by BB?
 * I own the Letters, so could do this. Macphysto (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

2.1 Juvenilia &c.


 * BB says: "Booth's collection of the Coleman fiction and other early writing has a lengthy introduction discussing these works. It would be good to see this used as a source. In particular there is discussion of two unfinished novels No For An Answer and A New World Symphony, dated as between 1948 and 1954. These are not mentioned in the article, and I believe they should be, particularly as Booth's book has long (80+ pages) extracts from both." I don't have this book. Does anyone else?


 * "In what way did [The North Ship] show the influence of Yeats?"

2.2 Mature works


 * "I feel like the analysis of Larkin's writing is a bit thin. The "Creative output" section doesn't contain any analysis of his novels, for example."

2.3 Poetic style


 * M3 says: "I'm not getting a sense in the Creative output section of how Larkin's poetry style or themes resounded with his generation, whether he was revolutionary or not, whether he was as plain as any poet who gets into a magazine" and "I am also wishing for a statement or paragraph in this section ... that roundly states what his poems were about, what essence they captured, and how critics have since described his career"


 * "Larkin's earliest work showed the influence of Eliot, Auden and Yeats, and the development of his mature poetic identity in the early 1950s coincided with the growing influence on him of Thomas Hardy. - In what specific ways did these other poets influence Larkin's work?"


 * "The "Poetic style" section is almost entirley made up of quotations. Could some of these be removed and paraphrases used instead? It is jarring for the reader to read so many quotes."

2.4 Prose non-fiction


 * BB says: "we should be told whose view it is that in Required Writing his scepticism is at its most "nuanced and illuminating" (and preferably what this means), and at its most inflamed and polemical in the Daily Telegraph reviews. The sentence beginning "His scepticism...." is much too long and needs dividing" This, IIRC was written a long time ago. It would be good if someone could rewrite the whole section, IMO


 * More wanted on Larkin at Sixty
 * I'll see what I can do (but not until after I've supplied alt text for another 10 images in Leeds). --GuillaumeTell 16:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you :-) (and I think a leisurely pace has been proved to be de rigeur round here)  almost - instinct 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "The "Critical opinion" section is almost a list of opinions rather than a coherent, topically-based section. There is even a one-sentence paragraph. This section needs to be restructed so that the reader is led through the different ideas rather than through the different critics. The names of the critics are not so important as the ideas. Also, the critics should be grouped together better, to indicate broad trends in Larkin scholarship. The paragraph that begins "The view that Larkin is not a nihilist or pessimist, but actually displays optimism in his works, is certainly not universally endorsed, but Chatterjee's lengthy study suggests the degree to which old stereotypes of Larkin are now being transcended" is the best example of the kind of topical coherence that the rest of the section should have."

References section
I asked this above but it got no response, so trying again&mdash;it's just a minor MoS issue, not a big deal at all.

Does anyone know whether the citation style we use in the References section is a legitimate one?


 * Bowen, Phil (2008), A Gallery to Play To: The Story of the Mersey Poets, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, ISBN 1-8463-1125-X

I've not seen commas used quite like this in a bibliography section before, though I may be showing my ignorance. But it's not APA, MLA, or Chicago. If it's not a recognized style, I think we should fix it because it looks a little untidy in read mode, and the templates make it hard to read in edit mode. There's no rush do to this and I'm willing to do it myself, but it would involve removing the templates (if I do it). Or if you're wedded to templates, finding one that uses another style.

But if it is a recognized style, my apologies for mentioning it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a recognized style. The people who make the templates do not seem to care that their templates do not mimic a recognized style (I find this very frustrating and it is one of the reasons I do not use templates). However, there is no requirement anywhere on Wikipedia that a recognized citation style be used, only a consistent one. That is the sad truth. Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I avoid them partly for the same reason. I think they keeping change them too, because I often see styles I don't recognize, but not always the same ones, but there are so many templates now, I could be confused. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking purely as someone who doesn't use citations in his life beyond WP, I find the cite templates helpful to use as I don't know any styles. I deliberately chose one that seemed capable of citing the various different media that this page needed (and, I admit, one that I found easy on the eye) Keith D has tended to keep an eye on these things on this page, but I believe he's on a short wikibreak atm. Perhaps the issue of this template not using a recognised style could be taken to the talk page of the template? Also speaking purely on a personal level, I find it easier editing with these templates, as I know there's a big bundle of text to avoid; perhaps this is because merely I've got used to them  almost - instinct 18:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I went to Template talk:Citation but found the chat so scary and grown up I ran back home again  almost - instinct 19:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very wise. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not know if it is a recognised format or not, I just use the templates and it is up to the template maintainers to output the citations in a consistent format within wikipedia. It should not really be up to the individual editors to worry about the format for the citations. Keith D (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Update?
How is work on the issues raised by the peer review going? Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not responding to this. I took this page off my watchlist for a while, but I see that some work has been done since then. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Website
I'm wondering what the reason is for removing this site from FR. It seems to have institutional and corporate partners, so it's not just someone's personal website. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 13:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They have lifted their biog section virtually word-for-word from the WP page as it was in Nov '09, and claim copyright for it. I wrote to the company who created the website querying this and got zero response  almost - instinct 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I sent an email about this to the woman whose name is given as the PR contact. It happens a lot, unfortunately. I've had entire chunks lifted from a couple of articles I wrote, and reproduced by journalists, one of them quite a well-known columnist in the UK, which made it even more annoying. I've never challenged them, because once it's done in a newspaper, it's done, but here, you're right, it's worth pursuing. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The contact email given changed, so I tried again and a response from the Director of Larkin25 who said: "Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The text was written by contractors who produced a holding site for Larkin25 before my post started, and I have asked for clarification on how the text was developed and will make necessary amendments to the site". Which seems to me thoroughly charming. In the interests of assuming good faith I'm going to return the Larkin25 link to the External Links section, and will keep an eye on their site. Anyone disagree?  almost - instinct 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer that we leave it out until they remove the plagiarism or credit WP. I went through exactly the same correspondence you're describing&mdash;"thank you, we're sorry, we'll fix it." That was months ago and nothing has changed. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 20:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

They've rewritten their page so that its not a slavish rip-off of our page any longer. Furthermore they've included a link to our page. See here.  almost - instinct 21:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

quotes
those quotes belong on wikiquote. They are arranged incoherently and are not encyclopedic.174.3.113.245 (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When this article went to Peer Review some of the commentators requested that a smattering of quotations for illustrative purposes would be useful. As I recall there was consensus about this. As for the charge of being incoherently arranged, I would dispute that for the first four quotations which appear in the four biographical sub-sections. The rest were chosen (a) for being representative illustrations of Larkin's work (b) for making sense as independent quotations. Pls cite the rule which prohibits the presentation of short quotations from a poet's work on a page such as this  almost - instinct 10:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no such rule but there is an essay which describes one view of how quotations should be treated. 174 has opened an RfC suggesting that the essay be promoted to guideline. --MoreThings (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support the view that quotes would be useful if they were explained. There is no introduction to these quotes, and frankly the reader is to guess why they are there.  That is why they are incoherently arranged.


 * If they were representative, why isn't this described? Where is your citation that these are representative illustrations?  This is original research and by rights I should tag it so.
 * Why are they independent quotations? What does that mean?  I recommend moving them to wikiquote.  Anyhow, I am tagging this article for original research.174.3.113.245 (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the OR tag. Adding parts of his poetry isn't OR except in the sense that the choice of which ones to use is OR, but that's true of everything in the article. If there's nothing contentious there's no problem. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 12:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It violates NPOV. It is a problem.174.3.113.245 (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just what violates NPOV? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the tag as it is not appropriate, you appear to have problems with the use of quotations in the wiki in general, not specifically on this page, the article is at GA status and had the quotations present then so there is no problem with the quotations as they stand at the moment. The use of quotes to illustrate articles is fine and something you would expect for articles on poets. Keith D (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm bemused  almost - instinct 22:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

N.B. IP [ = User:100110100 ] is not quoting from any existing WP rule or guideline, but, rather, forcibly expressing its opinion. When these quotations were added it was done with consensus and consultation, and entirely upon the suggestion of PR reviewers. If anyone with a half-decent knowledge of PL's poetry would like to start a polite conversation about which quotes might be better than those I chose and how the page might be improved by the manner of their presentation, I'm all ears. Eyes.  almost - instinct 10:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would you thrust quotes there? Are those quotes more godly then others, and if so, how are they more "godly".  There should be an explanation as to why you should choose those quotes.  Why are they there?  They aren't explained.  That's the job of wikiquote and that is why this is not neutral174.3.113.245 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Thrust"?! And I don't understand your use of "Godly": Larkin was an atheist, a position clearly expressed in several of his poems. Are you suggesting that the quotations have some kind of warning? Quotations from poem provided solely for illustrative purposes. The received opinion of this poem may go down as well as up. Not suitable for children under 36 months.  almost - instinct 07:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are those quotes used? How are they specifically better than others?  That's the POV.  You can be sure if you don't explain these quotes, most of the rest of the world doesn't either.174.3.113.245 (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal Of Ref Template
I want to notify slim virgin but her talk is blocked.

The list of works is not references. They should not be organized as references.174.3.113.245 (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just the name of the formatting template. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 12:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Continued Opposition
almost-instinct is full aware of wp:quote:.

Your practices are not inline with the comments you make. We can conclude by your actions that you endorse the concepts on wp:quote.

Your continued opposition is the result of one person's promotion to GA of apparently you and a bunch of other editors article.174.3.113.245 (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If IP 174 wishes to discuss my attempts to keep the page about the highly contraversial Douglas Murray (author) free of political antagonisms, this is not the place to do it. The quotes from Larkin poems were added under consensus, and do not contravene any guidelines or rules. IP 174 is, as far as I can see from contributions to this talk page, and within the context of this page, a lone voice crying in the wilderness. If IP 174 thinks I and other editors of this page make up a snug back-slapping coterie then it hasn't read far back in the discussions.  almost - instinct 12:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no longer any consensus.174.3.113.245 (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

rfc
Are the quote boxes appropriate?174.3.123.220 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

almost-instinct says on Wikipedia_talk:Quotations: "For the biogs sections I chose quotes that had some relevence to that section of Larkin's life. The other quotes are from popular poems and can stand alone."

This "relevence" must be based on reliable sourcing. Otherwise this is POV.174.3.123.220 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They're fine. There's no point of contention, no POV issues, and it would be odd to have an article about a major poet without examples of his work. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It might have been kind of IP to have quoted in full what I wrote on the talk page it mentions: "When this article went to PR people pointed that the many photos were by and large as dull as hell. Someone suggested quotations. After consulting I removed some of the photos and - again consulting as I went - added some quotations. People might notice that most sections of the Larkins page now have a quotation at the top-left and a photo at the bottom-right. For the biogs sections I chose quotes that had some relevence to that section of Larkin's life. The other quotes are from popular poems and can stand alone. I was surprised to find that many famous Larkin passages don't make sufficient sense when detached from the rest of the poem. Larkin's poems are, of course, still under copyright so the proportion of the poem quoted is an issue." None of the editors of this page who are familiar with Larkin's poetry have quibbled with the choices, thus far.
 * On IP finding quotations from the work of a poet on the page about that poet confusing, I find I have nothing to say. Putting a quote from a poem about work next to the section of his biography which deals with his work isn't POV, nor is putting a quote from a poem about childhood next to the section of his biography which deals with his childhood, nor is putting a quote about death next to the section of his biography which deals with the last years of his life; it is on a par with the placing of a photograph of Thomas Hardy next to the section about the influence of Thomas Hardy's poetry on the Larkin's own.
 * The quotations from poems are illustrative; in previous discussions it has not been able to quote from a rule or guideline which prohibits this. A discussion about whether there would be better choices to be made would be valid. IP has declined to join that discussion.  almost - instinct 08:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which discussion?174.3.123.220 (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * [I am assuming that 174.3.123.220 is the same as 174.3.113.245 is the same as 96.52.92.106 is the same as User talk:100110100. IP/s has raised this issue (a) here (b) here (c) here and, oddly, (d) here, too  almost - instinct 09:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)]
 * The quotes are fine, you've been told that repeatedly. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As per previous the quotes are fine for this article on a poet. Please do not keep trying various different forums to get the quotes removed. Discuss individual selection of quote if you think there is a problem with a particular one and suggest alternatives that can be used rather than continue to attack the use of quotes and a user selection of those quotes. Keith D (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the sentiments of Andy Dingly and Keith D after reviewing this article. Matt Ballard (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Memorial section and Larkin 25
I have added a Larkin memorial section and placed the Larkin 25 section as a subset in this. As the festival is current and relates very strongly to Larkin's life and career, I hope the Larkin 25 information will remain as far as appropriate. Please correct any errors and I shall keep most of the additions to Larkin 25 entry. PS Re edit of 17 June, I think Motion's visit to Humber Mouth is relevant to this page as he was his biographer!LarkinToad2010 (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I just removed this from the bibliography, where it definitely doesn't belong:

“Here” was created to promote Larkin25, a 6-month long series of events taking place in Hull and East Yorkshire commemorating the 25th anniversary of Larkin’s death. “Here”, which is based on Philip Larkin’s poem of the same name and features Sir Tom Courtenay, was premiered at The Hull Film Festival. It also earned classlane Media a Royal Television Society Award nomination in the Best Promotional Film category. "Here" has been entered in competition at the Holmfirth Film Festival and The Strawberry Shorts Film Marquee @ Fordham Fest 2010. You can view "Here"...here http://vimeo.com/9857156

Does anyone think it should be re-worked and put into the main text? I'm not sure its exactly notable, but others may disagree.  almost - instinct 21:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * no Spanglej (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I do. That's definitely going to be of interest to anyone who comes to read the Larkin article. --MoreThings (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why?Spanglej (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mainly, just because it's an interesting take on one of one of his poems. I'd think most people interested in Larkin would want a link like that to appear in an encyclopedia entry about it him, regardless of what they think of the film itself. There's also the Hull context—the poem is about Hull, the article features Hull, Larkin is closely associated with Hull, and the film gives those of his readers who haven't had the pleasure of visiting his adoptive city a glimpse of its  unrivalled beauty :) --MoreThings (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a short sentence to the Larkin 25 para of the Memorial section, with the link in the ref. Talking about it in greater length I think should be on the Larkin 25 page  almost - instinct 13:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Quotations
I agree that some of the quotations could be in slightly more apt positions, but please don't destroy the visual format in the process (by and large: quotations at the top left of each section, pictures at the bottom right) Thank you,  almost - instinct 21:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Larkin statue, you may add a photo but not remove detail
I have now updated and archived detail on the unveiling of the new statue of Larkin in Hull. It deserves a detailed entry as this is not only a major piece of public space art but also the first representing Larkin. Suggest that one the regulars downloads a photograph to illustrate it in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.33.23 - AKA: LarkinToad2010 (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Do not remove detail"? Excuse me? Span (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As in "do not vandalise." "Come again?"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.150.97 - AKA: LarkinToad2010 (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight
This good article is in danger of giving undue weight to Larkin 25 and the statue. It is all covered at the blue links.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But as the the usual suspects keep removing detail from the "blue links", the detail belongs here and you shouldn't have removed it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.167.5 - AKA: LarkinToad2010 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect the article is about Larkin and though the memorials are important, not so much as Larkin and his work. It was badly worded and repetitive and needed removing, sorry.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have no "respect". It was word perfect and the usual bunch of suspects have removed essential detail again.  I doubt you're "sorry" at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.167.5 - AKA: LarkinToad2010 (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest the Larkin Toad image be removed, two images in that section is one too many.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to Larkin memorial section
The usual pattern of disruptive edits and nasty comments have ruined this excellent section. A picture of a Larkin toad has been moved to look as if it's the Larkin statue, well it isn't! Insulting language about superb copy and informative text is beneath comment. I won't rise to the bait as on here, it isnt' worth it. And since when was Greater Manchester the great expert on Hull? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.167.5 - AKA: LarkinToad2010 (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * LarkinToad are you dyslexic? The 'Toad' image has a caption stating it's a "Sculpture of Larkin as a toad, Kingston upon Hull displayed during the Larkin 25 Festival", not at the conclusion of it. It certainly does not fit the articles description of the statue IE:- life size, bronze, costing £100,000 and located at Hull Paragon Interchange. Perhaps your inability to correctly read an article is an indication of the reason why you persist in making disruptive edits to this and other articles; so they fit in with your personal perception, rather than with a Wikipedian Neutral Point of View, and using multiple sockpuppets to mask your identity, then abuse those editors who are actually trying to improve Wikipedia by amending your edits to remove irrelevant details. Note your comment "And since when was Greater Manchester the great expert on Hull?" quite blatently refers to the edits done by J3Mrs. If you cannot accept other 'good editors' work, and be civil to them, then Wikipedia is not the place you should be active in! Your continued disruption and abuse of editors will only result in a quicker request, by those editors, for a block on your editing access than it took for your last block to be issued, perhaps even with an autoblock of your IP range, to prevent access to any article! Richard Harvey (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are beneath contempt. ::You are the disruptive one and extremely rude and slanderous! Hiding behind a keyboard and making childish insults seems to be your main hobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarkinToad2010 (talk • contribs)

Civility, have you heard of the word? Or can you spell it? Disgusting comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarkinToad2010 (talk • contribs)


 * I quote the following from the above user:


 * I was thinking of removong that image this morning, as it does not inprove the article and can be easily seen on the linked Philip Larkin article. So I will remove it now, seeing as others feel the same way. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Hah! Looks as if you could be "dyslexic" one!  Have decided the above was beneath contempt and therefore, beneath the honour of a reply.21:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.65.123 (talk • contribs) (AKA LarkinToad2010)


 * I agree that there is too much weight being given to the memorials. I would be careful of claimed page ownership here. This is a collaborative effort. Editors being "word perfect" or "expert" is not what Wikipedia aims at; we are about shared continuous improvement and development. This isn't personal, no need to make it so. Span (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole festival was a memorial and its constituent parts are necessary to coverage. Larkin Toad has put an enormous amount of info into the Larkin festival and I for one, do, despite LT's opinion of me, appreciate it. It just needed making more encyclopedic which is what I tried to do. LT is of course entitled to his/her opinion but I won't be seeking to block anybody from editing. LT is not easy to step back and see your edits summarised but I have tried not to lose anything vital and this article wouldn't be here without your input. I'm not an expert on anything but I am getting better at Wikipedia's neutral, summary style.I genuinely am sorry you have taken good faith edits so personally.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, because Richard Harvey, D and his mob are out to ruin everyting to do with the Larkin article and are also extremely rude and insulting and should be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarkinToad2010 (talk • contribs)

This is about what is best for the article. I note the Larkin 25 festival does have its own page. LarkinToad2010, I see you are coming off multiple recent blocks for abuse. I would tread carefully. Span (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use?
Is the full quoting of numerous poems here fair use, or copyright violation? i know that we can excerpt poems, and the general consensus is 4 lines or so (often a stanza), but these are quotes of the complete (if short) poems. i know they are properly attributed, and help show the subject, per Non-free content, but are we crossing the line?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, I put all these quotes in, on advice from other editors when it was at the Peer Review. After I had done them I asked if they were ok and no one mentioned their length/s as a problem. On the other hand, I don't recall trying to follow a guideline in terms of proportion. Please note: none of the quotes is a whole poem. Here are the proportions of all of them:
 * "I remember, I remember": 4 lines quoted from the poem's 36 (a ratio of 1:9)
 * "Toads": 4 lines from 36 (1:9)
 * "This Be The Verse": 4 lines from 12 (1:3)
 * "Aubade" (1st quote): 2.2 lines from 50 (1:22)
 * "Aubade" (2nd quote): 7 lines from 50 (1:7)
 * "The Life With A Hole In It": 4.8 lines from 24 (1:5)
 * "Love Again": 4 lines from 18 (1:4.5)
 * "Faith Healing": 4.5 lines from 30 (1:6)
 * Are any of these over a clearly marked line? (I found while making them that Larkin is hard to quote: his sentences tend to be longer than I realised) It would be harder, for example, to make a shorter and yet meaningful quote from "This Be The Verse", I think  almost - instinct 16:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As they are not whole poems, I think the quotes are fine. No specific limit is given in policy. Span (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are fair use, and thanks for showing they are fragments quoted (and, i really like the effect of their placement). however, i wonder how we would indicate that in the article. the quotes come with statements "name of poem", from collection. would slipping in the word (excerpt) the explanatory copy for each quote make sense to others? it does to me. A reader wouldnt know they are fragments, unless they checked the talk page. Readers familiar with Larkin probably know these are fragments, but since im not that familiar, i didnt know.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I usually would write "from "This Be The Verse", High Windows (1974)" The date is really useful. Span (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll add "from" to all of them - and will add the year of composition, which is given in the Collected Poems for virtually everything he wrote. Thanks for advice  almost - instinct 10:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done  almost - instinct 11:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." From Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rationale: "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." From Non-free content. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone could enquire at Media copyright questions. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The FA "Like a Rolling Stone" uses as much or more quoted song text. Songs and poems may be a bit different from usual primary text as one stanza, verse, poem or song does not generally "convey equivalent significant information" to another in that the example is unique. May be worth checking. Span (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed some box quotes that served no informative function and seem to have been added as a kind of window dressing. If others users disagree and believe that the removed quotes were informative, by all means, feel free to add them back to the article. But it looks like someone added one box quote to every section of articlce, whether it was really warranted or not.Jpcohen (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think given examples of Larkin's work are useful and informative in themselves. Span (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How so?Jpcohen (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * [after edit conflict] The box quotes were added after consensus advice given at the Peer Review, to replace some of the low-quality illustrations. Extracts of poetry written by the subject of the page, chosen specifically to fit the sections in which they are placed, are far from "a kind of window-dressing". This discussion is about whether or not they constitute a copyvio  almost - instinct 15:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Aptness of certain quoted poems
In the interests of keeping the text of the article stable I have undone the wholesale revisions made overnight. Nonetheless the criticism of one of the quotations in particular I thought fair. Could we discuss specific problems here and then make consensus changes to the article please? There is much autobiographical material in Larkin's output - I'm sure we can find improvements to the selections made if that was deemed necessary. Yours,  almost - instinct 15:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To me the extracts of poems clearly add, much as images do, and does not violate policy. That's enough. Span (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The extracts add if they bear some relevancy to the section that they are added to. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, they're really just window dressing. Like having a quote from "Aubade," one of Larkin's last poems, in the section on "Juvenelia and Early Work" doesn't make any sense (unless I'm missing something). For that example, it looks like someone added a random box quote there just for the sake of adding it (or perhaps, for the sake of symmetry, since there's a box quote in every section). Jpcohen (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that that one quote doesn't seem to fit with that particular section - I guess that at the time I thought it one of the more important ones from his output. (FWIW, "Aubade" may be a late poem, but it doesn't only apply to Larkin in his later years: he was like that most of his life) I will (a) look to see if that could be more appropriately placed elsewhere (b) see if I can find something that fits the "juvenelia" section. Larkin's early poetry is less suited to be quoted (because of more opaque grammar) but I will do my best. I must point out that there is not a box quote in every section; on the other hand, I did attempt to keep the page attactively designed by putting the quotes on the left and the pictures on the right. I'd like to reiterate that the addition of the quotes was after a consensus decision at what was a pretty robust Peer Review  almost - instinct 09:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Aubade is not right in that section at all - how about something from 'come then to prayers' an early poem (1946) I think,that Kingsley Amis admired, in that section. Personally I'd rather a bit of 'Dockery' as well, maybe instead of  the 'this be the verse' bit , but thats just because I really like Dockery probably. Sayerslle (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I must admit I'd never read "Come then to prayers" until now. (tut tut) Very long sentences again! Which bit do you think we ought extract? On their own the individual parts might seem difficult to untangle. I've been thinking about the final lines of the first section of "The North Ship" (1944): "East and west the ships came back/Happily or unhappily:/But the third went wide and far/Into an unforgiving sea/Under a fire-spilling star,/And it was rigged for a long journey." Presumably the bit from Dockery (1963) to quote would be: "Dockery, now:/Only nineteen, he must have taken stock/Of what he wanted, and been capable/Of . . . No, that's not the difference: rather, how/Convinced he was he should be added to!/Why did he think adding meant increase?/To me it was dilution."  almost - instinct 09:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything pretty much from Dockery, I'd probably choose from 'Yawning, I suppose [- to] unhindered moon." I haven't actually read 'come then to prayers'  - I know it from Alan Bennett reading it on the audiocassette 'Dear Philip, Dear Kingsley' and  I thought maybe a bit starting from 'and kneel upon the stone' - would do o.k. Sayerslle (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for opinions
(1) I think no one would mind the quotation from "Aubade" being replaced in the section "Juvenilia &c." Down the right hand side are two suggestions

(2) It's suggested that the quotation from "This Be The Verse" be replaced with something from "Dockery and Son" Down the left hand side we have the current quotation and two suggestions from Dockery. What do people think these alternatives? (Many apologies for the slapdash formatting of this section!)  almost - instinct 20:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would still vote for 'kneel upon the stone' and 'yawning', having seen them set out , but I think any combination, 1 of the three on the left, 1 of the two on the right would be fine.Sayerslle (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with you that one of the Dockery ones would be better than the "This be the verse" one - they cover the same ground but in a more sophisticated on. My preference is for "Only nineteen...." - but I think that's because I prefer Larkin at his most direct [which is why I supposed I prefer "The North Ship" to "Come then to prayers" - I must be a lazy reader ;-) ] The "Yawning, I suppose..." quote contains my favourite line in all Larkin: Sheffield, where I changed, and ate an awful pie. But now, enough from us, lets hear other opinions....  almost - instinct 07:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No one want to express a preference?!  almost - instinct 23:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)