Talk:Izaak Walton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

1911 Britannica Sneering needs removal[edit]

Walton's Life of Hooker was not humorous, light, or casual. He used first-hand informants, consulted all the scholarly works then-extant, referenced the sermons, went through the letters, and collected everything possible. It was hardly leisurely or the lark that the 1911 Britannica sneer lets on. If I had to choose between first draft biographers, I'd take him over Boswell, for example (but so would have Johnson). It's irresponsible to allow that vicar-gentleman positivist prose from 1911 to allow Angler to color all of Walton's life. Consider, for example, the way that the 1974 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church writes up Walton: "A high churchman all of his life, he retired from his post after the battle of...." I.e. to a non-1911 point of view that isn't concerned with Angler, Walton is an arch high churchman who was an ecclesiastic who was drawn to writing lives of other high churchmen. His affinity for Wotton is thus not so hard to understand. (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No point ranting about it, if you want to use other sources, go right ahead and cite them - and quote them too. The EB may be right or wrong: it's an old source and can reasonably be ignored if more recent sources disagree; otherwise, it may represent one point of view which may well need to be mentioned, and then contradicted by reference to other sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I used to do all sorts of fixing around here. However, I'm not inclined to do a substantive edit when what's needed here is a removal of POV. By the way, "cite them" by what method? I understand that citation is entirely by little codes only at Wikipedia, since the guides all said that parenthetical was as good as code but, in reality the script kids had to have their pop star and football pages win featured status with code references that can be easily broken. Citations of books are unheard of. Citations of primary text are unimaginable. As for whether the 1911 Brittanica's opinion is worthy of inclusion or not, this is not a matter of opinion. It is easy enough for anyone to go and read Walton's Life of Richard Hooker. It's at Project Gutenberg, after all. Further, the lifelong church politics of Walton sure help explain the man's actions and access during the Civil War. In this case, I'm asking that a 19th century Whig history ("Whig history" is a term of art in this case) POV be clipped. I know that it's too much to ask that people go off and read things. Reading things leads to having one's parenthetical citations being removed and having a "citation needed" tag put up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're being much too oblique for me. The article has already been edited to remove what seemed to be an obsolete point of view from the EB; if there is anything left of that point of view, you may go right ahead and remove it, with a suitable edit comment. The current text however says little of Walton or Hooker, and what it does say seems innocent enough. I've simply no idea what you want the text to say, that's the truth. Please either fix the text uncontroversially, or propose exactly what you want to change (say, with a draft replacement text). Finally, if you wish to say anything in the article that might be challenged, then indeed a citation is needed (essentially author, title, publisher, date, page: the format is NOT important, and I'm very happy to do the formatting to match the rest of the article if you feel lacking in confidence on that trivial issue). Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)