User talk:OwenBrooke

Welcome!

 * }

Just a note about talk pages - when you add a new section to a talk page, you should always do so at the end of the page. Good luck! --NSH001 (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ward Marston
Hi Owen - Thanks for your comment on my user page - I'll try to reply there to the points you raise about the Ivor Gurney article. Do feel free anyway to edit the Ward Marston draft in my sandbox. I feel less confident about the jazz section, partially because the information I currently have— interesting as it is—all seems to come from sources identifiable with Ward Marston himself (if you have any independent references that could be used, that would be really helpful). Anyway, I think I'll go ahead with what I have and publish... And hopefully not be damned. Best wishes--MistyMorn (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Gurney
Hi Owen, I am no expert on Gurney or the source in question but if you doubt the a strong reference given or the scholarship of a source it's best to discuss it on the article talk page, as you had been doing previously. It's also always useful to other editors if you use edit summaries so we can see why you make your edits. Just removing three references without giving a reason is probably going to result in a revert. As with everyone, I am just wanting the best for the article and have no axe to grind. I'd advise, then, adding a note on the talk page about your doubts re the source. Most regular contributors seem like a reasonable bunch. All best wishes Span (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Could I just jump in to say that—to my knowledge—in anyone, irrespective of any underlying psychiatric condition, experiences in the trenches such as being gassed could lead to post traumatic stress disorder (cp. "delayed shellshock")? So, I think it's good not to exclude an effect, whether incremental or not. Note: it seems simpler right now to post here rather than on the Gurney talk page. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello - I still haven't had an opportunity to recast the Gurney entry but I will get around to it eventually -- I just don't know when eventually will be at this point. In the meantime, I can assure you that Gurney did not suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome. There was no delayed shell shock. If you have studied the trajectory of Gurney's life as closely as possible, as I have done, you will see definite cyclic patterns at work throughout the years, particularly in the spring and autumn. One of the major points about Gurney that is vitally important is what happened to him when he experienced periods of high-energy activity that moved into periods when he was idle or relatively inactive when he experienced what he termed as "lethargy". During these times he became increasingly introspective and plunged into depression. Right after he inhaled the gas, Gurney wrote that he was 'still in the line, but not having at all a bad time of it. My throat is still sore from gas; it is just (or was) as if I had bad catarrh, but only an occasional explosion of coughing is left now.' Then five days later he writes "Thanks be to goodness I am out of it for a day or two, gassed in the throat 5 days ago -- but not thinking to get anything out of it [his hope for blighty].' But it is what happens in his personal life, physically removed from the battlefields, safely in hospital, when the trouble begins. The inactivity begins to get to him: '...staying in bed makes me unfit in no time -- a bundle of oppressed nerves'. Or on another occasion he writes 'I am not quite [his italics] sure whether the gas has not slightly aggravated my ordinary thickheadedness and indigestion. If this is so, then there is hope for the Wangler...' that hope of escaping a return to France, of being 'cast into outer darkness again'. And it goes from there with the good moods and darker moods so characteristic of his illness. There is another possibility about what happened after Gurney was gassed and it is far from heroic. It has been suggested that Gurney, who was weary of war, angling for his blighty saw the gas as an opportunity to get out of the war and that he milked it to his benefit. This is a possibility that cannot be dismissed. Gurney suggests as much in an asylum poem -- see Michael Hurd's biography. If the reference to the controversy over the gas stays then this point will need to be included. The bottom line is that Gurney was fed up with the war and did not want to go back and he didn't. OwenBrooke (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting the depth of your reading or the plausibility of your general interpretation, and I agree it may be reasonable to exclude that wartime experiences were the cause of the underlying disorder. What I was trying to say was just that, in the context of a necessarily speculative retrospective diagnosis, it is difficult positively to rule out the additional possibility of concurrent PTSD (in an age of the "stiff upper lip", Gurney's bluff comments downplaying of the incidents must be interpreted with caution). So I applaud this change. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. The problem with the Gurney entry is that it needs to be completely redone. I think that part of the problem rests in the fact that it has been falling into place bit by bit with too many different but sincere and well-intentioned people adding various information that is sometimes drawn from outdated sources or old scholarship. While the entry might be adequate, it is not what it should be so to that end and needs to reflect continuity and more depth about Gurney's life and his work as both a poet and composer. This is no small task but I am going to be working with another Gurney authority to recast the entire piece as soon as possible although we cannot say how soon that will be. What we can say is that we will definitely need assistance in formatting it to make it conform to Wiki guidelines for references and such (something of a nightmare for the uninitiated). We will also need guidance in how to add photographs to it. This should help make the entry as accurate and balanced as it can be and will take into consideration suggestions made by those who have been actively involved in trying to improve it. I hope that this will resolve some of the going back and forth that has been taking place. Many thanks to all who are concerned and who are trying to make the entry the best it can be. We do appreciate your efforts.OwenBrooke (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A few thoughts on editing: it may be worth bearing in mind that Wikipedia entirely relies on the strength of sourcing and verifiability so that what is presented is as transparently checkable as we can get by any lay person. There is no academic hierarchy of experts. One editor's word holds no more weight than another's. We aim to present neutrally and without editorial commentary. Different sources, old and new, may argue different ways. We do not reach conclusions ourselves, which may constitute original research. Some sources may be regarded as unreliable and these discussions may be worked out on the article talk page. More often we would state different scholars' points of view and leave it there. The articles are not essays that pitch a particular viewpoint or advance a position. I have been around for a few years and, while I am no Gurney expert, I have experience of polishing poetry articles and am happy to help with markup, photos, ref'g etc. Sharing the text of good online sources (if they exist and can be shared) can be a helpful place to start. Best wishes Span (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)