Talk:John Keats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Poetry (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as High-importance).

"Finishing his epic poem 'Endymion'..."[edit]

Though Keats intended to write Endymion as an epic, the critical consensus is that Keats did not succeed at epic poetry until Hyperion. At the very least, you might mention that Endymion's status as an epic poem is debatable (esp if we accept the categorical "boundaries" worked out by M. Bakhtin in the Dialogic Imagination)

" Oscar Wilde, the aestheticist non pareil was to later write: "[...]" this is split-infinitive and hurts my eyes greatly.

The following paragraph is ridiculous. The first part is irrelevant, and the last part inaccurate (he moved to the isle of wight...the reason for his criticial rejection is more complicated...)

"It should be remembered that the Romantic movement flowered during a period of major catharsis in world history: the American War of Independence and the French Revolution had cast long shadows across the existing world order; existing bourgeois values were being challenged as never before. Romanticism was the very cultural epitome of this rebellion, and its adherents work became the target of critical denigration. Keats' poetry was consequently not well received, and he moved to the Isle of Man."

Yeah, you're right. I don't think that the parts about the French revolution are irrelevant however. The Romantics were hopeful that the French revolution would spread to England. I know Keats was at the end of that era, but other people in the group like Mary Stone-Wool... whatever her name was, who wrote the Rights Of Women were doing so because of the unrest caused by the French and American revolutions. CGS 11:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC).

"the reason for his criticial rejection is more complicated" is true - most of his early work is unreadable. CGS 11:25, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC).

"The rejection of Keats' poetry, particularly the early work such as "Endymion" has very little to do with his position as a romantic. In fact Keats' panning was as said above because his early work is generally awful, but also because Keats, unlike many of his contempories did not deal with the politics of the day. It was his continual use of escapism and indulgence which riled his critics, not his politics." Cbs

Escapism and indulgence in Endymion yes, but also his politics to a degree: the Tory critics at Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine in 1818 associated Keats politically with the radical Leigh Hunt, the author of the Story of Rimini, a key poetic influence on Keats but also the editor of the oppositionalist Examiner. For Blackwood's, Keats was a politically 'seditious' voice: 'We had almost forgot to mention that Keats belongs to the Cockney School of Politics, as well as the Cockney School of Poetry. It is fit that he who holds Rimini to be the first poem should believe The Examiner to be the first politician of the day. We admire consistency, even in folly. Hear how their bantling has already learned to lisp sedition'. (Baviad)

It is fit that he who holds Rimini to be the first poem should believe The Examiner to be the first politician of the day

Fanny Brawne merge[edit]

The article for Fanny Brawne should be merged into this article, as it does not have enough information to stand on its own, and is only 3 sentences. BonsaiViking 20:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Fanny Brawne Merge[edit]

Fanny Brawne can stand just fine by herself. Perhaps her section should be expanded. Throw a picture of her on! Or maybe the famous lines that were written about her?

Not to mention the inaccuracy (or rather, the misleading nature) of "the romance was not successful"; She was also in love with him (I would have changed this but did not see the "edit" link on that article), and they did become engaged. The only reason the romance didn't work was because of Keats's health--he had to leave for warmer climes and died while abroad. Otherwise he would no doubt have married her. Douglas Bush cites Brawne's apparent reciprocation of love in his book "John Keats: His Life and Writings."

  • Is Fanny Brawne famous for anything except being being loved by Keats? I'd say merge.

Fanny Brawne Merge[edit]

Fanny Brawne can stand just fine by herself. Perhaps her section should be expanded. Throw a picture of her on! Or maybe the famous lines that were written about her?

It will soon be 1 year since someone suggested merging Fanny Brawne's entry, and during this time no one has added much to Brawne's own article in defense of its autonomy. I am sure there is a lot that could be said about Brawne, but during the past year no one has known what it is. So let's merge the two. Bigturtle 21:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge! The only reason why people know about this girl is because a famous poet was in love with her. It's not like she was a Laura or a Beatrice, inspiring his poetry in any way. Though I don't think having a picture of her on Keats' page would hurt anything.

I vote merge. There is only one link to her that is not connected to Keats. Jlittlet 16:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Link to WikiSource?[edit]

Should we have a link to WikiSource here, possibly instead of the one for Wikiquote, as that seems to have some works by him and not most like WikiSource does? Wikiquote has a better looking style than WikiSource, but isn't Wikiquote for quotations, things he said, and WikiSource for works by and about him? Feel free to change as you see appropriate. -- 20:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've always been astouded at how poets like Keats get smaller sections than lesser poets like Emily Dickinson

I agree, but part of it's probably how little we know of his life. Or maybe all the Keats fans out there just haven't gotten around to this page yet.

Keats's request regarding the inscription on his gravestone ("here lies one who's name was writ in water") was rather unfortunately disregarded by Severn, etc. The actual gravestone (based on a design by Severn) features a lyre with half the strings unstrung, and a bathetic blurb about a "young English poet" who had been driven to such misery by harsh reviews that he asked for the line "here lies..&c." to be carved on his headstone. Maybe dude was just cranky from..., umm..., *dying*? Random note: I hate this sentimentalized vision of Keats as this delicate, wilting little sensitive p-ssy, this loser who was indeed "snuffed out by an article". Keats was actually a courageous, pugnacious character, as the testimony of his friends and the evidence of his own poetry and letters prove.

I agree. He'd hate to see how everybody sentimentalizes his life and poetry today. He had a lot of that zest for life in him. In fact, he was often his own most harsh critic.

Interesting idea[edit]

I'm not suggesting it needs to be included in the article at all, but here's something to think about: An English professor of mine once said that if Keats had lived, he would undoubtedly be remembered as a Victorian poet. How strange!


I think about that sometimes too. Of the younger generation of major Romantics, it's likely that Byron would have turned political reactionary had he lived past 36; I can see him as a sardonic MP in old age, wryly savaging his social enemies over port at the club while men like Arnold and Dickens nod admiringly in assent. Keats and Shelley would have likewise aged into Grand Old Men of letters, and their continued presence in the Victorian era would have prevented the moronic establishment of that 'beautiful ineffectual angel' myth. Ah well, one can dream - think of all the lost poems!

Byron as an MP? Ha! When the British govt. would have had him dead if they could? Byron was too much the deviant politically, sexually, socially, to become his generation's Wordsworth. Now Keats and Shelley as Victorians? I dunno. Hemans is the only remaining figure before Browning and Tennyson come in. But they start from somewhere else then K and S. You know, I think the Modernists pick up where Keats and Shelley abruptly break off. Just read the Triumph of Life and the Fall of Hyperion. From those two poems you can make up all sorts of trajectories.-FM (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


In an episode of Star Trek: DS9 entitled "The Muse", there is a character named Onaya who can (vaguely, at least) be described as a type of psychic vampire. She befriends someone with artistic talents, and stimulates something in them which greatly enhances their talent and output, while providing her with some sort of energy. This "feeding" sustains her, but if it goes on for too long, kills her protoge. After she's confronted (because she almost killed the son of the station's commander) she lists some of the great names that she has touched in the past, and suggests that even though they died young due to her interference, it was worth it for them because they gained immortality through their works thanks to her. Of course, the reason I mention this is that Keats is among the victims she names. I thought that it might be a worthwhile trivia item to add somewhere (if nothing else, it's a sci-fi "theory" regarding his death), but I'm not good at summarizing, as evidenced by the above explanation, so I'm mentioning it here in hopes that someone can reduce it to a 2-sentence blurb and add it somewhere appropriate. - Ugliness Man 17:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed some vandalism[edit]

I removed some vandalism under Lord Byron's poem on Keats' death. I am commenting here to let others know and because I am new to wikipedia (as editing something). Moosehead Mike 12:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

John "Doctor" Keats (1795-1821)[edit]

John Keats was born on 31 October 1795 (probably), first child of Thomas Keats and Frances Jennings Keats, who had apparently eloped1. Everything was pretty ordinary for all concerned for a while--the Keatses had three more sons (George and Thomas, plus Edward who died as a baby) and one daughter, Frances, by 1803. That was also the year when John went away to school at Enfield. In 1804, John's father was killed in a fall from a horse. Just over two months later, for mysterious reasons, Frances remarried, to a London bank clerk named William Rawlings. Frances quickly decided she'd made some sort of terrible error and left, taking nothing with her since the laws of the time decreed that all her property and even her children belonged to her husband. Frances' mother, Alice, swept in and took custody of the children, but she could do nothing about the Swan and Hoop, which Rawlings sold immediately before disappearing. It was around this time that John became prone to fistfights, which he rarely lost even though he was small for his age2.

Frances reappeared suddenly in 1809, ill and depressed from many years of depending on the kindness of strangers3. John was overjoyed to see her and took care of her devotedly, but it was soon obvious that she had consumption4. She died in 1810, a year or so after her brother died of the same disease. John was crushed, and turned from fighting to studying. A year later, one of his financial guardians, a man named Abbey, sat him down and asked John what he'd like to do for a living. John had already considered the question, and replied that he'd like to be a surgeon5. So he was duly apprenticed to a surgeon named Hammond who lived in the neighborhood.

It was in 1813 that John first started reading lyric poetry6, most notably works by Sir Edmund Spenser like "The Faerie Queen." It was also around this time that John began to really rebel against Hammond7. The following year, Grandmother Jennings died, and the family was split up, it being improper at that time for younger sisters to live with older brothers without a parental type around. Frances was sent to live with the kids' other financial guardian and the two boys went to work. John just kept to himself and wrote really sad poems8. These poems still weren't very good, and he kept right on with learning to be a surgeon (in fact, he was doing so well, he'd jumped ahead of the curriculum) but over the next couple of years, poetry gradually became the overriding ambition of his life and medicine was left in the dust.

One of John's sonnets, called "To Solitude, " was printed in 1816, in the liberal newspaper, The Examiner9. This sonnet was good, but it wasn't until a little later in the year that he wrote "On First Looking Into Chapman's Homer," which proved that he was the man to watch. His first volume of poetry appeared on 3 March 1817, and it didn't sell very well at all. John was depressed, but kept writing. Shelley had challenged him to an epic poetry writing contest over the summer, and for that contest, John wrote Endymion, though he didn't finish it within the time limit, so I guess Shelley won. But John was the sought-after young poet in London, and he lived in a whirl of parties and dances, even though he didn't much like crowds.

In June of 1818, John apparently became convinced that he would have only three more years to live10. He'd already written many of his most famous poems, but he was still convinced that he hadn't yet done enough to leave his mark on the literary world. His brother George had announced plans to emigrate to Illinois with his new wife, and his brother Tom had just started showing signs of consumption and needed John to look after him. And to top it all off, John had just fallen madly in love with a young woman named Frances Brawne. All of this overwhelmed and depressed him11. He tried to lose himself in his latest poem, Hyperion, but that's hard to do when you're spending most of your time in a sickroom.

Tom died in December of 1818. Though John should have received £500 from Tom's estate, Abbey (the guardian) decreed that he couldn't have it until his sister Frances turned 21. It wasn't until a year or so after John's death that anyone realized that Abbey had misappropriated nearly £1000 from Alice Jennings' estate. To make matters worse, brother George had gone broke12 and was begging John to send him whatever he could scavenge from the family funds. Desparate, John convinced his publishers to issue another volume of his poetry, but this was not a stunning success. Dead broke, he still allowed George to have the remnants of the family estate. John was rapidly becoming dependant on the help of his friends, people like Leigh Hunt (who'd gotten married and settled down some) and Charles Brown. John was also developing consumption, coughing up blood in February of 1820.

It was around this time that, without consulting John, Charles began arrangements for sending John to Italy13. John didn't want to be so far away from his ladylove, but he felt incapable of arguing. He left in September of1820, accompanied by Joseph Severn, an up and coming portrait artist. Once in Rome, the two men moved into lodgings across the piazza from an English doctor named Clark14. John was not allowed to write poetry and only given the dullest books to read, as emotional excitement was considered very bad for consumptive patients. John was definitely in a state; he stopped opening letters, even from his beloved Frances, after a month or so. In December, he tried to commit suicide by taking laudanum, but Severn stopped him. Later, delirious from the disease and the starvation diet Clark prescribed, John would rant at Severn for stopping him and even went so far as to accuse his friends of having poisoned him back in London.

On 23 February 1821, John died. Frances, upon hearing the news, seemed all right for a few weeks, then fell ill, and after recovering began wearing widows' weeds15. John had requested that his tomstone read only "Here lies one whose name was writ in water." Charles Brown, feeling that was too brusque, had this carved on the stone instead: "This Grave contains all that was Mortal of a YOUNG ENGLISH POET Who on his Death Bed, in the Malicious Power of his Enemies, Desired these Words to be engraven on his Tomb Stone 'Here lies One Whose Name was writ in Water'"16.

Ward, Eileen. John Keats: The Making of a Poet. New York: Viking Press, 1963.

I hope that this helps... — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shyamini (talkcontribs) 14:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I believe the entire of section 2 Career and Criticism represents original research and ought to be removed. I also note that it appears to be a piece of post-modern criticism, with the obligatory reference to Walter Benjamin and a dense, obfuscatory prose that provides no useful information for the average reader who wants to find out about, well, Keat's Career and Criticism of it. Could someone who is interested in informing the public rather than furthering his own career rewrite this section? Please?

Ken M Quirici 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Influences[edit]

This does not only apply to Keats, but listing the range of literary influences to each of the literati would surely be beneficial?

To what end? Any poet who even finds him/herself on one of these wikipedias would necessarily be influenced by all Others before him/her.-FM (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lack of influences on others[edit]

The introduction states that he influenced others but there is nothing in the body of the article about this (although I acknowledge that I have not read the entire article). An intro is supposed to be a summary of the main content, according to what I know of Wikipedia policy. The stuff about his influence on the Argentinian poet Borges, is far too specific for an intro and should be moved to the main article. I don't feel inclined to do it myself because it would mean reading the whole article and I am only interested in Keats' poetry, his life interests me only incidentally. Mike Hayes (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your are right that the lead needed reworking, I haven't got to it yet. I'm wary of over-egging the claimed influences on others. As with other major writers/artists they influenced everyone who came after them, in one way or another. We don't need to peacock how important he was, as it's clear enough. The last half of the 'reception' section goes into his impact on Eliot, Tennyson, Swinburne, Owen, the Pre-Raphaelites and a selection of major literary critics. I'll bear this in mind in the rewrite. Span (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


I scream at the sight of the empty space at the beginning of Life. Shouldn't these images be moved to make the article more aesthetically pleasing?! (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. You had the right idea, it was just a few minutes work shifting images down the article - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks. Much improved. (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


I don't know which of "Keats's" and 'Keats'" is the more correct, but it seems that the article is inconsistent in its use of these terms. Can someone make a decision and edit it? Indy4ever (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The simple, traditional, correct form is Keats' . If there is an s, you just add an apostrophe ; if there is no s, you add 's. Unfortunately, someone, at some point, invented a complicated, newer set of alternative rules. Under the old rules, x's = correct ; s' = correct ( x being any non-s letter ). One apostrophe, one s. Under the complicated, newfangled, alternative rules, x's might be correct, or might not ; s' might be correct, or might not, & the new s's might be correct, or might not. You suddenly have to take into consideration singularity versus plurality. Plus, half the time, they will allow exceptions to their new rules, anyway, allowing Keats', Augustus', Dickens', for goodness' sake. I strongly advise adhering to the traditional, ONE s rule.

Don't worry.   I'm not going to start an edit war.   
I just want to reassure anyone using the traditional, simple rule (ONE s) 

that they are correct & should continue to stand up to any bullying on the subject. Peace. (talk)

That is not true. You always add apostraphe "s" unless there is an "s" signifying plural. That has always been the case. Otherwise, Keats becomes multiple people. That would be ridiculous. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that has not always been the case. The traditional (simple) rule produces Keats'. One apostrophe, one s. So much simpler than the new rule with singular no-s versus singular with s versus plural no-s versus plural with s plus exception after exception. The old rule ignored number completely : 2 forms ( old, traditional, simple way ) versus 5 forms ( new, complicated way ). Why re-invent the wheel? But, look, if you can seriously write or speak a sentence like : Jane Coss's supporters protested yesterday. ( invented name ), or speak or write something like : goodness's sake ; then, bless you, go ahead. But most of us are not lemmings wishing to throw ourselves off the cliffs to be drowned in such silly s-s-s seas. :0 :) But I'm going to be quiet & leave it at that. We're arguing about the letter S ! S-s-s so long ! (talk)

And yet 6296 books and 753 titles says you are 100% wrong. Apostraphe "s" after a name ending with an s has -always- been the rule in the UK and the US for hundreds of years. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This is style issue, not a right and wrong issue. Take the most successful work of fiction ever, The Bible. You will never see Jesus's in it, but you'll see Jesus' numerous times (as well as other examples). I think that book out dates your books on Keats. Alan16 (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Every major critic uses "Keats's". Lord Byron used Keats's. All of the others used "Keats's". This isn't a style or grammar issue. It is what is actual vs fantasy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you stop for a second, and please just search for evidence that xxxs' is acceptable as well, and not just stuff you want to back up your claim. This is not actual vs fantasy, it is actual vs actual. Alan16 (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
What does Harold Bloom use? What does Walter Jackson Bate use? What does MH Abrams use? What does Robert Gittings use? What does Helen Vendler use? Ever wonder why all of the major critics are in agreement against you? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Is that you admitting that I am right and it is acceptable, or have you still done no research? Alan16 (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
As I just pointed out, all uses of the possessive is "Keats's" by every major critic and even the people who were Keats's contemporaries. There is no possible way that you can be right. If you don't like it, please write to all of the major critics and convince them that they are wrong. You are verifiably incorrect and WP:FRINGE at the very least would be enough to dismiss your argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting new adverb there. Anyway, it is not a fringe theory. This is a pointless debate anyway for a couple of reasons. The primary one being that I don't care enough to argue with someone who is so repulsive. Alan16 (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Fringe says that we follow naming patterns based on verifiable sources, and every major Keats biography and study uses Keats's. Do you know who Walter Jackson Bate is? Or Robert Kittings? Or Helen Vendler? Or Andrew Motion? Or Harold Bloom? Or any of the others even are? You are acting as if you are some kind of expert with mystical truth supporting you yet you are rebelling against -the- works on the subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one acting like the expert? You're the one throwing around stupid block warnings, and listing names which really have nothing to do with the debate at the moment. Let's be honest - the argument very quickly became about whether xxxs' was wrong or not. Will you admit that it is acceptable, that doesn't mean we need to change the article, and then we can end this and the stupid threats. Alan16 (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying the Pulitzer prize winning biographer of Keats has nothing to do with the discussion of what is a proper spelling of his name? You are saying that one of the greatest modern critics has nothing to do with the discussion of what is a proper spelling of his name? You are saying that the British poet laureate and scholar on Keats has nothing to do with the discussion of what is a proper spelling of his name? I can go on, but the putting up of the link with over 6000 hits to it was more than enough evidence to reveal that you have no basis for argument here. Your statements are beyond ridiculous. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes that is what I'm saying, because we are no longer talking about his name. We went on to whether or not my way of doing it is acceptable or purely "fantasy", as you put it, a long time ago, and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. This would have ended a long time ago if you would only admit that it is an acceptable way of doing it. Alan16 (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a page about Keats. We are talking about Keats and only Keats. The sources are very clear that it is "Keats's". There is no other discussion to be had here. If you want to talk about others, I suggest you start up on their talk pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
We have not been talking about Keats. You can say "there is no other discussion to be had here" but that is clearly not the case. There should be not other discussion here, but there was/is. And I would raise it on your talk page, but then again you would just remove it. It's amazing how some people can be completely different in public and private. Alan16 (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
"We have not been talking about Keats." I have been talking about Keats. This is on a Keats talk page. The first post in the topic directly mentions Keats. If you don't want to talk about Keats, please follow the talk page guidelines which would suggest not putting such off topic commentary here. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about Keats, and you were engaged in a conversation with me - you responded to all my comments (none of which really talked about Keats). So the idea that this has been a conversation about Keats is rubbish. Now I'm both fed up with this discussion, and you, so don't bother replying. Alan16 (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
"I wasn't talking about Keats" WP:TALK - "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's be honest, rules aren't exactly your thing. This is over, finished, done. There is no need to continue this here. Alan16 (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you know how many of those admin were desysopped or later found to be acting inappropriately? If you want to be honest, you are here trolling and the last post is a trolling post. You were asked multiple times to stay on topic. You are here because your mother told you something and it turned out to be wrong. Wikipedia is not therapy, so please stop trying to treat it like so. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
2, and the score is 12 & 8 on block/unblock. But hey, of course the world is out to get you - that is the obvious answer. And there is no need to worry, I don't need therapy - or at least not because of this - so this is surely the end of things. Nobody can be trolling or going of topic if you don't respond to this, yes? Wait! Don't answer that! Alan16 (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Read again. I was blocked 6 times. 1 was CoI, 1 was by a desysopped admin, 1 was reversed as completely improper, and two were at the behest of a group of individuals in which one was revealed to be an admin with a sock puppet as part of a harassment campaign. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Either way, the fact that you have gotten into these situations says what exactly about how you handle yourself? Alan16 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Gotten myself into situations? You are trying to defy thousands of critics in pushing your own view against our policies. That is how I get into these situations - standing up against people who want to push their own strange claims in defiance of what Wikipedia stands for, and that is why I have always prevailed while such people were removed from power and pushed out. Your continual pursuit of the subject in defiance of WP:TALK is telling. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're just pathetic at following a conversation from start to finish, or are just trying to pretend that you are staying on topic, but this is not one of the situations we were talking about. I am not defying thousands of critics, I accepted your method ages ago in this conversation, yet you still defy every manual of style around (including the world famous Chicago MoS) by saying that my method is either "fantasy" or at best "fringe". It's odd that you continue to say "fantasy" and "fringe" when things like the Chicago MoS say it is simply a style issue, and that neither should be given preferential treatment - and something worth considering is a lot of the first English texts (like the Great Bible) use my method over yours. Alan16 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK says to talk about the article or say nothing at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Odd timing on that one seeing as if anything that last comment of mine was more on topic than any of mine before it. You know if you just shut up this would have ended a while ago. Look, this is done - you can go back to doing whatever it is you do on here, and I'll go back to doing whatever the hell it is I do. There is nothing left to say. In fact, to respond to this is just encouraging the breaking of WP:TALK, so let us please just call this an end - a very final post. This was at no point interesting enough for there to be such an argument over it. The end. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

My personal preference would be for " Keats' ", but I think Ottava Rima (talk) has proved his/her point. It ought to be " Keats's ". Farawaychris (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

NOT a Keats fan site[edit]

Please be aware of Wikipedia policy:

Nor is it a place for Keats fans to publish their POV. Nor does a pop figure's mention of Keats warrant inclusion. This is trivia:

Wikipedia is for articles, not school essays or personal reflections. If you wish to publish your insight and analysis, please find a blog. Thanks. — J M Rice (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my lack of wiki-editing, but I must admit: though the article is indeed informative, it paints a very dreadful past for Keats. Granted, its not to be like the previous praise/glory that the 'fans' were giving, but at this point it is a very negative toned article. I'd advise a shift into more of a neutral stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal Reflection Tag[edit]

Starting this section so alleged material can be identified (or not) and addressed. (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like must have already been removed, so removing tag also. (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Confused chronology?[edit]

Hi, I've been reading the biography and the timeline seems slightly confused:

Keats travelled to the Isle of Wight in the spring of 1819, where he spent a week. Later that year he stayed in Winchester. It was here that Keats wrote Isabella, St. Agnes' Eve and Lamia. Parts of Hyperion and the five-act poetic tragedy Otho The Great were also written in Winchester.

Following the death of his grandmother, he soon found his brother, Tom Keats, entrusted to his care. Tom was suffering, as his mother had, from tuberculosis. Finishing his epic poem "Endymion", Keats left to work in Scotland and Ireland with his friend Charles Armitage Brown. However, he too began to show signs of tuberculosis infection on that trip, and returned prematurely. When he did, he found that Tom's condition had deteriorated, and that Endymion had, as had Poems before it, been the target of much abuse from the critics. On 1 December 1818, Tom Keats died from his disease, and John Keats moved again, to live in Brown's house in Hampstead.

Not having things in chronological order hurts things. Was Keats already ill when he wrote Isabella, etc? Was his brother dead? Or is this just a case of one of the dates being wrong? I don't know exactly what the problem is, but the end result doesn't read well. Stories (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I will fix that when I have a chance. The whole biography lacks proper sourcing and thats on my to do list. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me know when you get started, and I will try to help as best I can. The "Life" section needs to be broken down into several categories, and I am pretty sure there should be at least one section of text on his works to supplement the list, which should play a much smaller role in the article as a whole. Mrathel (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Look chaps, I have little experience with editing Wikipedia and am myself not a dedicated student of Keats. However, I thought posting here might attract the attention of someone better qualified than I. Basically, the atricle on Keats' "Lamia" is offensively bad. It appears to be nothing more than a facile essay on the poem rather than an encyclopedia entry -no context, no real summary, and no mention of the subject matter's provenance (in this case the poem was inspired by a passage from Richard Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy). Anyone have the time or inclination to take a look? Afraid I'm both underqualified and overstretched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Need a Team to do an Audio on Keats[edit]


Lemme know how many of you agree on doing an Audio on the poems of John Keats! Thanks, Danger^Mouse (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

New file File:John Keats by Benjamin Robert Haydon.jpg[edit]

John Keats by Benjamin Robert Haydon.jpg

Recently the file File:John Keats by Benjamin Robert Haydon.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. This is a painting of this life-mask of Keats, said to resemble him quite closely. Dcoetzee 03:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added it. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Harlem Blues?[edit]

Hi all I claim no expertise in this field but it struck me that Harlem Blues was a very odd name for a Keats poem. Whilst it's repeated in several other lists on the internet, they all have exactly the same syntax (eg Fragment of an Ode to Maia is under F rather than O), which leads me to suspect they're all from the same source. There are no hits if you look for "John Keats" "Harlem Blues" in Google Scholar or if you limit the Google search to the domain. The Penguin complete works (which I don't have, but which you can search inside from Amazon to look at the contents and index) doesn't mention it. Can anyone find a authoritative source which mentions this work? Ozwaldowl (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Popular References[edit]

This is the trivia section from the article. Most of it is unsourced, and I think we need to weed out the insignificant bits, source them and build the section into a useful paragraph. The DominatorTalkEdits 16:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing below is useful. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Popular references[edit]

In written works[edit]

Portrait, Keats' grave in Rome
  • In Rudyard Kipling's story "Wireless", from his book Traffics and Discoveries (1904), a chemist (or "pharmacist", in American English) with tuberculosis, while dozing under the influence of drugs, reproduces almost perfectly about a dozen lines of Keats' poem "The Eve of St. Agnes", although he has never read Keats. The narrator believes that this remarkable near-perfect reproduction happens because of the combination of the chemist's drug-trance and his having the same illness and profession as Keats, causing him to "pick up" the same "universal spiritual vibrations" that Keats once did. The story at the same time makes fun of the infant science of radio-telegraphy: in the next room a "wireless telegraph" hobbyist is attempting to communicate with a friend, with little success.
  • P.G. Wodehouse in his review of the first Flashman novel that came to his attention used a phrase from "On First Looking into Chapman's Homer": "Now I understand what that ‘when a new planet swims into his ken’ excitement is all about."<ref>Quoted on current UK imprint of Flashman novels as cover blurb. </ref>
  • In the novella Seymour: An Introduction, J. D. Salinger incorporates a poem attributed an eight-year-old iteration of one of his most complex characters, Seymour Glass. The poem reads: "John Keats/ John Keats/ John/ Please put your scarf on", in reference to his fatal tuberculosis; a condition aggravated by cold weather.
  • Dan Simmons's science-fiction novels of the Hyperion Cantos feature two characters with the cloned body of John Keats, as well as his personality (reconstructed and programmed into an AI). Some of the main themes of these novels, as well as their names, draw upon "Hyperion" and "Endymion".
  • A quote from Keats appears in Phillip Pullman's novel The Subtle Knife, "...capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason -" (from a 21 December 1817 letter by Keats on his theory of negative capability).
  • The popular teen series Gossip Girl mention Keats throughout the novels as the male protagonist Daniel Humphrey's poetic hero and is referenced numerous times by the character.
  • Robert Frost, in his poem Choose Something Like a Star, alludes to John Keats' poem Bright Star. The eighteenth line reads as follows: "And steadfast as Keats' Eremite."
  • Ann Brashares named one of her chapters in The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants "Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on," from Ode to a Grecian Urn
  • In the introduction to Literary Theory, Terry Eagleton writes, "If you approach me at a bus stop and murmur 'Thou still unravished bride of quietness,' then I am instantly aware that I am in the presence of the literary." What is murmured by the hypothetical bus rider is the first line of Keats' "Ode to a Grecian Urn".

In performed works[edit]

  • Keats was mentioned in The Smiths' song "Cemetry Gates": "Keats and Yeats are on your side \ while Wilde is on mine".
  • In pop singer Natasha Bedingfield's 2005 single "These Words", Keats is mentioned along with Byron and Shelley.
  • Keats in Hampstead, a play written and directed by James Veitch and based on the poet's time at Wentworth Place, premiered in the garden of Keats House in July 2007.
  • A radio play The Mask Of Death on the final days of John Keats in Rome written by the Indian English poet Gopi Kottoor captures the last days of the young poet as revealed through his circle of friends (Severn), his poetry and letters.
  • Hammersmith rock band Tellison adapt J.D. Salinger's haiku in their song "Architects", with the lyric "John Keats, John Keats, John Keats, John, John Keats, John, Please put a scarf on".
  • On their 2005 album The Runners Four, the band Deerhoof included a song titled "Spirit Ditties Of No Tone," referencing a line in Keats' poem, "Ode on a Grecian Urn".
  • Films about Keats include:
    • A period drama about Keats's romance with Fanny Brawne entitled Bright Star,directed by Jane Campion, was released in May 2009. It stars Ben Whishaw and Abbie Cornish in the lead roles and in May 2009 it was tipped, though failed, to win the Palme D'Or at Cannes <ref name="guardianbrightstar">{{cite news|date=2009-05-19|title=Cannes film festival: Bright Star rising, Ben Whishaw|first=Catherine and Shehani|last=Shoard and Fernando|url=|publisher=[[The Guardian]]|work=[[The Guardian]]|accessdate=2009-05-19}}</ref>.
    • A mockumentary 'grunge' musical based on Keats's letters and set in Seattle at the beginning of the 1990s, titled Negative Capability, directed by Daniel Gildark.
  • Dawson Leery from Dawson's Creek quotes Keats's poem "Ode on A Grecian Urn"- "beauty is truth, truth beauty" in Season 2, Episode "The All-Nighter". The same Ode is quoted by Pacey in another episode of the same season, "To Be or Not to Be...".
  • Keats's line from Book 1 of Endymion is referenced in the film White Men Can't Jump (1992) when a character admires a shot and says "A thing of beauty is a joy forever. My man John Keats said that".
  • When I have fears that I may cease to be is mentioned in the film Brief Encounter (1945).
  • To Autumn is mentioned in the films The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969) and Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001).
  • The title of Ziggy Marley’s album Love Is My Religion (2006) is a quotation from Keats’s letter to Fanny Brawne of 13 October 1819.
  • On their 2008 album Trivmvirate, the band The Monolith Deathcult included a few lines from Keats's La Belle Dame sans Merci in a song titled Wrath of the Ba'ath.
  • The Love Letters written by Keats to his beloved, Fanny Brawne, are mentioned as part of the love letters that Mr. Big writes to Carrie in "Sex and the City - The Movie" (2008).


So you've just decided to cut all popular refs? I vote to put them back. There was no discussion on this page. I think all of it is useful and interesting. It'll be easy enough to source. I don't think you should cut a whole section of information just because you don't like it. Spanglej (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're gonna edit Wikipedia, you need to become familiar with its guidelines and policies. Do so. None of the info is significant in its own right; none can be meaningfully added to the article text. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I've worked on WP since 2002 so, from editing many thousands of articles, I know that Popular Culture sections are quite common. Howver this one is way too long so can I suggest either a prune or make it a separate article "John Keats in popular culture" and reference it from the main article. It would be sad if such a huge amount of interesting stuff was lost to the reader - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
They're often common 'cause Wikipedia is really, really huge, and so no one with any sense has yet gotten around to deleting that "interesting stuff". I'm not being a smart aleck; it's the truth. Geez, you're gonna force me to explain what everyone should know... arg... "Popular Culture" sections play two roles: legitimate and illegitimate. they are legitimate when they are notable in their own right. Forex, take a huge and famous military battle. Now, say that battle has been the subject of notable movies, of video games that were international smash best-sellers, etc. Personally, I would not add a word of that crap to the article. However, their addition has been legitimized by the leverage that consensus lends to the more mediocre elements of Wikipedia editorship. However, the illegitimate use of PopCulture sections is as a smokescreen for trivia. So some person mentioned Keats or one of his ideas or works in a song or a poem. That person may or may not be notable; the song or poem is not. [See forex "Dawson Leery from Dawson's Creek quotes Keats's poem "Ode on A Grecian Urn"- "beauty is truth, truth beauty" in Season 2, Episode "The All-Nighter". The same Ode is quoted by Pacey in another episode of the same season, "To Be or Not to Be..."."]. It's TRIVIA. And it should be killed on sight. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
So everyone knows, this is not an "in popular culture" section. The section is about his poetry and not him. Thus, it violates COATRACK. It is off topic trivia that has been inserted against multiple policies and guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Having read the Wikipedia guidelines - what Lingnut describes is not what I see. I see lots of discussion of what constitutes miscellany and trivia and lots of debate about what to do with " In popular culture sections". I see that lists are not encouraged. I see nothing about killing sections on sight and without discussion. If you can point me to a page where it says so, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Spanglej (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Astonished this is considered a "B-Class" article[edit]

Hate to be harsh here, but I have to say this is the most obviously deficient article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I can't believe it's considered "B-Class" if the definition of B-Class says that the article "is mostly complete and without major issues." Mostly complete?!? This is a major literary figure! This article completely lacks any substantive discussion of Keats's poetry! How is that possible? Compare the articles on Byron and Shelley, which are both significantly more substantial.

I have to imagine an interesting revision history here, where somewhere along the line a lot of content was deleted for some reason that somebody felt was appropriate and nobody wanted to countermand. I attempted to follow the revision history to see where that occurred, but no luck so far.

I know what the response will be: fix it yourself. Well, it's been 30 years since I studied Keats in college. I've just taken a side-trip to Amazon to order 3 books on the subject. But it will take me awhile to digest the material, and surely there are experts out there who can provide some content more quickly. In the meantime, this is a start-class article at best. -- sharpner (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  • OK, I'm learning something interesting about Wikipedia here. My last 2 edits to this page were an experiment to verify how the article class rating system works. WikiProject Biography has rated this a B-class article, while WikiProject Poetry has rightfully rated this as start-class (at best) because Keats's poetry really isn't covered. The problem appears to be that the article class rating mechanism takes the maximum of the project ratings rather than (as I think it should) the minimum -- i.e., if we've really failed to cover a major aspect of a subject's significance adequately, how can we call the entire article adequate? I contend that we can't and shouldn't. I don't feel qualified to demote WikiProject Biography's rating, since I'm not a part of that project, but I can object to the methodology for combining ratings and will have to take that up elsewhere. -- sharpner (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of articles about individual poems and groups of poems by Keats elsewhere on Wikipedia. However, I have added a section giving a brief overview and providing links to these articles.Guinevere50 (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is a horrible article for a very major figure. I imagine that it's awful that most editors figure it's too much work to have a go at reworking. It needs some serious attention. As does the wildly incorrect, partial and generally dreadful list of Keats' poems. Spanglej (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fanny Brawne's letters[edit]

I went on a tour of Keat's house today. The museum curator told us that Fanny Brawne's letters to Keats in Italy were never opened by him and were buried with him upon his death. This is not what is stated in your main article. Who is correct here? (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Keats' death[edit]

I added a paragraph based on a recent biography by Sue Brown of Joseph Severn - seemed interesting and relevant. Guinevere50 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The quotation about the opium is from Sue Brown, not Keats's friend Brown - I have edited accordingly, but someone seems to want to change it back. (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's been reverted again! Changed it back - apart from the reference itself identifying Sue Brown as the source of the quotation, Charles Armitage Brown or any other educated writer in the early nineteenth century would not have used contractions such as 'didn't'. (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

deleting List of Poems by John Keats[edit]

I suggest deleting the article List of Poems by John Keats which is partial, undetailed and misleading. Bibliography_of_John_Keats is full and detailed (though most of the links are dead). What do you think? Spanglej (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I added a link to the Bibliography article as well as the List of Poems until such time as either the List article is improved or the Bibliography links improved. Guinevere50 (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

NB: Grave Epitaph in "death" section[edit]

The epitaph on the gravestone was purposely laid out by Brown and Severn as a poem (they were poets. Keats was a poet). Please respect the poems lineation and line breaks for this reason. Every week at the moment someone changes it back to a prose format. Yes, there is a one day difference between the headstone's given date of death and the official date. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

ATTENTION!!!! take note that in the photo of the article is represented the grave of Shelley, NOT THE GRAVE OF KEATS!!!!!! Consequently the epitaph too rephers to Shelley. See in a photo of either the grave of Shelley (on left) and the grave of Keats (on right, with his name). The photo is mine, taken in March 2010 and I allows the use in Wikipedia. Paolo Bottoni — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
No, in your photo the grave on the left is that of Keats inscribed with the line 'Here lies One Whose Name was writ in Water,' the same in as the photo pictured in the article. The grave on the right in your picture is that of Severn, who wanted to be buried next to his friend. You can see that Keats's grave is engraved with a lyre (with a broken string) and Severn's pictures a palette, as he was a painter. You can see Shelley's grave stone at Percy_Bysshe_Shelley#Death. Span (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Bright Star poem added[edit]

As part of a year's ongoing adding of content to this article you'll notice that Bright star is the only poem quoted in its entirety. This is because it is a sonnet (a short 14 lines), it is well known, it has demonstrable links through Keats's letters to Isabella Jones and Fanny Brawne, it highlights his conflicted state and was one of the last poems that Keats revised before he died. This is why it is emphasised as an image as much as a poem. If anyone feels this is adding undue emphasis, please discuss. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this on the talk page; I hope you will not continue to make unliateral decisions about the article. I consider it undue emphasis. But I did not delete the poem itself because this can be a matter of discussion. You went further than quoting the entire poem, however. You set it apart by placing in within a box with a blue background. And now you have done it again (with a different color). I have never seen this done on the page of a writer who produced numerous notable works. Until some sort of consensus is reached about including the poem, please respect the consensus process and the fact that Wikipedia is group process (not your personal webpage) by not doing so again. And contrary to your statement on my talk page ("By the end of February 15 2010, if not, I will add colouration to the image"), you do not set deadlines for consensus on Wikipedia. And now that an opinion opposing your edits has been made, the default decision in the absence of a consensus is not your position.
Some of your arguments about the poem being the only one quoted in its entirety may have merit, but "it is well known" and "it highlights his conflicted state" are not acceptable rationales because these factors apply to more than this one poem.
Thank you. (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Last born/First to die[edit]

In the name of accuracy, I have changed the sentence that begins this page, "John Keats was the last born of the English Romantic poets and, at 25, the youngest to die" to "John Keats was an English Romantic poet." While the former statement is nicely poetic, it is simply not true. Keats was the last born of the Big Six (Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Shelley, Keats), but he was not the last born of all English Romantic poets, of whom there were dozens. Thomas Lovell Beddoes, for instance, was born in 1803--eight years after Keats. (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

had made several large loans that he could ill afford.[edit]

"had made several large loans that he could ill afford." begs the question, Who was he loaning money to and what were the consequences? In the context it might also be worth checking the sources in case this should actually have been " had taken on several large loans that he could ill afford to repay". ϢereSpielChequers 06:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I have added more detail about loans to Benjamin Haydon and George. Keats's financial straits and their impact are discussed at various points in the article. "Money was always a great concern and difficulty for him, as he struggled to stay out of debt and make his way in the world independently"; "Keats's long and expensive medical training with Hammond and at Guy's Hospital led his family to assume that medicine would be his lifelong career, assuring financial security"; "Sometime before the end of June [1819], he arrived at some sort of understanding with Brawne, far from a formal engagement as he still had too little to offer, with no prospects and financial stricture". I hope the burden of his financial situation comes across. Span (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that resolves that nicely. His financial straights were clear, but not that he was taking on such extra commitments. One detail that might help would be to resolve the loose ends of his own inheritances from relatives. Some legacies are mentioned and it is implied that he never saw them, what eventually happened to that money? ϢereSpielChequers 09:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

He had a significant influence on a diverse range of later poets and writers.[edit]

He had a significant influence on a diverse range of later poets and writers. Implies to me that he influenced subsequent but not current generations of writers. If he is still influencing writers today then perhaps He has had a significant influence on a diverse range of later poets and writers. would be more apt. ϢereSpielChequers 09:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarified. Span (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Keats' letters were first published in 1848 and 1878.[edit]

"Keats' letters were first published in 1848 and 1878." This reads oddly to me, and could perhaps be rephrased as "Some of Keats' letters were first published in 1848, with his letters to Fanny Brawne added in 1878. ϢereSpielChequers 23:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarified. The first publication date is fine. Span (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The Epitaph[edit]

This page previously read "His last request was to be placed under an unnamed tombstone which contained only the words (in pentameter), 'Here lies one whose name was writ in water.'" The problem here is not the highlighted word Pentameter (all that is seen on the page), but the link to the article on Iambic pentameter.

The most straightforward scansion of the intended epitaph as one line of pentameter is trochaic: "HERE lies ONE whose NAME was WRIT in WAter." It would be completely unnatural to try to pronounce it as a regular iambic line: "Here LIES one WHOSE name IS writ IN waTER." True, true, if we found this line at the beginning of an otherwise iambic poem, we could rationalize it by scanning it as a headless first foot (the missing unstressed first syllable) on a line with a feminine ending (the extra unstressed syllable at the end). But we have no reason to shoehorn the line into an iambic pattern because Keats gave us only one line. And it consists of five trochaic feet.

Although I have corrected "iambic" with "trochaic," other corrections are possible. We could leave it described only as pentameter, with no hyperlink. We could leave out "pentameter" (since Severn and Brown have broken the line) and use some other formula, such as "an unnamed tombstone marked only with the following metric line, 'Here lies one whose name was writ in water'", etc. But please don't revert it to "iambic pentameter," which simply makes no sense, at least not without discussing it here first. Thanks. Mandrakos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a minor point, as you say. I'm working the article up for a GA submission and I added the iambic pentameter mention to the article quite a while ago. I did add a ref the other day that supports the line as iambic. I personally think it could be read either way - trochaic or iambic. Nobody has suggested it is good iambic pentameter (with the stresses in the right places). How about leaving it as just 'pentameter'? Span (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
"I did add a ref the other day that supports the line as iambic." (?) I don't see this ref, or any source citation at all on the two paragraphs about the tombstone. (Regarding GA submission, this lack of source citations is a bigger problem than the lack of irrelevant hyperlinks to literary jargon, by the way.) "The stresses in the right places" are the very definition of the meter, and they aren't there, period. So let's agree that "iambic" is out. And "pentameter" isn't that meaningful for a single line by itself; as I noted, Severn and Brown didn't even choose to present it as a single line, so it isn't pentameter on the stone. The simplest version would also be the most accurate, and more eloquent: "a tombstone bearing no name or date, only the words, 'Here lies One whose Name was writ in Water.'" (Keeping the capitalized nouns of Keats's original, dropping the cap on Whose added by Severn and Brown when they broke the line; since here we are referring to what Keats wrote them about his wishes, not how they rewrote it.) I would be happy to make the change, it that's acceptable. Mandrakos (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
There's currently no ref because you reverted it. WP tends to work by what can be verified and sourced rather than by personal opinion. But I agree with the line of your argument. Span (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for not noticing the ref added during your undo. I am glad that you now see it won't sustain the argument: any trochaic line can be laid across two lines of an iambic poem (or vice versa) by breaking it in the middle of a foot; all it goes to show is that the stresses do in fact fall as I said. But we're in agreement now, and I certainly agree it's intrusive and unnecessary to insist on the trochaic pentameter nature of the line as first proposed by Keats. The line's metrical nature speaks more eloquently for itself, so that's the change I'll make. Thank you for setting a superior example of WP courtesy; I fear my own tone was testier than I intended. Mandrakos (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, WP can be a testy place sometimes. Thanks for flagging up the question. Best wishes Span (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of word "encroached", 3rd paragraph under "Early Career"[edit]

I don't know much about Keats, but I was reading this, and the following sentence seemed to me to not use the word "encroached" correctly:

However, Keats increasingly encroached on his writing time, and he grew ambivalent about his medical career.

I think it should maybe be changed to something like the following:

However, Keats increasingly felt that his study of medicine encroached on his writing time, and he grew ambivalent about his medical career.

Thank you.

Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Conversation with Coleridge[edit]

"On 11 April 1818, Keats and Coleridge had a long walk together on Hampstead Heath. In a letter to his brother George, Keats wrote that they talked about 'a thousand things,... nightingales, poetry, poetical sensation, metaphysics.' " This report is inaccurate. The letter it is cited from was a long one, more like a set of diary entries, written to George and Georgiana Keats (not just George), covering the period 14 Feb. to 3 May 1819 (not 1818). The quotation comes from the section covering 15 April 1819, and in the original letter it's quite clear that the two did not have a long walk together. Keats bumped into Coleridge and his companion, Joseph Green, the latter of whom he knew from Guy's Hospital (Green was a demonstrator there), and the three of them walked together for about two miles. Coleridge and Green then peeled off, and Keats continued on his way. The letter makes it quite clear that it was not a conversation. Coleridge, as was his wont, simply monologued, and neither expected nor really solicited any response from Keats or Green; the letter strongly implies that Coleridge didn't let either of them get a word in edgewise. Calling it a conversation, then, is somewhat misleading. They neither met nor talked as equals, that is, as both poets. Coleridge discoursed, the others listened, fascinated, no doubt by the range of his interests, but regarding him with some amusement and distance. Theonemacduff (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Will and testament?[edit]

I have heard someone on the radio mention that Keats had a "last will and testament", including an instruction to divide his books among his friends. I think it would be good if the article included mention of this document, which I could not find in the article or on Wikisource. Unfortunately, I have no good source at hand, so I am recording the need here. Ijon (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct info on Keats alma mater?[edit]

This is a question on possible inaccuracy, but I don't know the answer. John Keats's page says his alma mater was Kings College London, but the linked Wikipedia page for that college says it was founded in 1829, eight years after Keats died. I don't see anything on the Kings College page that suggests an explanation for this discrepancy in timing. Does the Keats page give an incorrect college name, and/or is the college's name linked to the wrong Wiki page? -- (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Lisa Lapp, 08 August 2016