|WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated B-class)|
|This article has been reviewed by The Guardian on October 24, 2005.
Comments: The review rated it 6 out of 10 and was probably based on this version of the article. The errors noted in the review are listed below and were corrected in the article.
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on May 31, 2006, May 31, 2007, May 31, 2008, May 31, 2009, May 31, 2010, May 31, 2012, and May 31, 2013.|
|Threads older than 100 days may be archived by.|
|This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Pepys' alleged "puritan" view of life.
Especially due to the historical period, I view this description as at best misleading, and have changed it accordingly. Still, I'm open to argument.
gabriel 13:24, 24 August 2006 (PST)
Newton's Principia Mathematica
In the section on the Royal Society it states that Pepys was President of the Royal Society from 1684 to 1686 and that Newton's Principia Mathematica was published during this period. The page illustrated clearly shows that the book was printed in 1687. How can this be considered published during his Presidency? PetroGeoff (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Geoff Sturges
- If you read the title page of Principia displayed in the article you will see that it was granted Imprimatur on July 5 1686 by Pepys as President of the Royal Society. That is Pepys approved it to be published by the Royal Society as the President. The 1687 date is the date that it was type set and printed. Dabbler (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Pepys's father and uncle
In the section "Early Life" it mentions that Pepys's father was John Pepys, a tailor. It also mentions that Pepys's uncle was John Pepys, a fellow at Trinity Hall. This reminds me of the TV series "Newhart" where Larry says "this is my brother Darryl and this is my other brother Darryl." I can't work out a relationship where a father and uncle have the same name. PetroGeoff (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- The two John Pepys were first cousins rather than brothers. This is from Latham and Matthews Vol X (Companion). The sentence in the article has been taken literally (lifted, even) with attribution from ODNB. I shall remove the claim since it seems to be incorrect (strictly), plagiarised (arguably) and not so important. Thincat (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Link to the twitter diary
We all know that External links classifies links to social networks as links to be avoided.
There is a daily twitter covering the entries of Samule Pepys' diary of same date, in 1668. The owner of the twitter account, and the related website is an individual, so it can't be said this is an 'official website'.
However more than 20,000 people are currently following the diary in this format, and many of them wouldn't probably read the book on one of the website listed here. For instance the book has been downloaded only 528 times from Gutenberg.
So, is it acceptable in this case to have an external link to the twitter ? --Jardeheu (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Let's discuss it in the External links Notice board.--Jardeheu (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- As Jardeheu has moved the discussion back here, let me point out that there are already sites containing the whole Diary listed in
See alsoExternal links section, one of which already provides daily extracts. I cannot understand how a small truncated section of a daily entry provided by Twitter is better unless it is to argue that it is a push medium so the excerpt arrives automatically rather than one where people go and seek out the daily dose. Either way does the Twitter feed not give a very insufficient indication of the actual content of the Diary? Dabbler (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I can see 2 reasons why the diary's twitter attracts currently more than 20 000 followers while the original diary has not even beeen downloaded a thousand times on Gutenberg (sources: twitter and Gutenberg sites): The first, as mentioned by Dabbler is the attractiveness of a push medium. The second could be the much written about shortening of the attention span of readers. Simply, for many people twitter is 'better' because they wouldn't read pages after pages of XVIIth c. English. Pepys is not an exception: Samuel Johnson has 30 000 followers. Jardeheu (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- But what are the statistics for the other Pepys Diary sites listed? Just to compare Gutenberg and Twitter is hardly reasonable as the other sites are more attractive than Gutenberg's presentation. I am probably prejudiced against Twitter because of the shortened nature of the postings. Is it really presenting Pepys and his diary to ignore the full impact of his prose, Pepys wrote in the 17th century not the 21st and even in shorthand he wrote more than 140 characters per day. Dabbler (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You are really increasing the burden of proof by asking me to find the viewership of the other sites ! It seems to me that we get back to the question of in-principle acceptability of links to twitter, which was accepted in the External links Notice board. Anyway I found that the first link, and the most prominent, is by the author of the twitter. I wrote so, which I hope is OK with you. My attempt at a link was blocked with a 'lockpad' icon. Does it mean that any attempt at linking to a twitter account is doomed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jardeheu (talk • contribs) 03:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Iwasn't really demanding that you produce the statistics, just that what you had produced to date were incomplete and therefore could not be used as a reliable guide to the relatively popularity of Twitter to complete Diary websites. I have no clue as to why or how various sites may or may not be linked to Wikipedia, or whethwer you could link the Twitter feed here. I just don't believe that the Twitter link would really be a useful addition, but as it is only the two of us debating, I wonder if we will ever come to a conclusion! Dabbler (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Since nobody else is entering this discussion and I am convinced of the usefulness of the link I put it back and let the redactors opposed to it delete it. Thanks for your comments. Jardeheu (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)