Talk:We Are Seven

Reversion

I just reverted the article to an earlier version by another author because a user removed cited information from highly notable sources and added in things from lesser sources that definitely did not seem right and seem to push a fringe view that didn't help the reader understand the poem. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I just undid the reversion as the last "undo" encouraged a highly personal view of the poem that does not allow visitors to the site to see a multiplicity of responses to the poem. Mahoney is just one of many many commentators on the poem. Perhaps the previous editor should consider adding rather than excising. There are many Wordsworth scholars not listed here who perhaps should be -- Ferguson only has one mention, for example. David Simpson has lots to say. Readers should not get just one viewpoint. Critic11 (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that but you are the one removing material instead of adding differing viewpoints. Let's just revert back to an earlier version and then just add back in material together instead of removing it and just keeping it away. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, I've added several more publications. I deleted the commentary that forces readers to read the poem in a certain way, positioned as those footnotes were amidst the poem itself. Commentary belongs in the scholarship section afterward. Otherwise you could be accused of imposing your own viewpoint rather than being encyclopedic.Critic11 (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Critic, it isn't up to you to interpret the way which this article should be read. The fact that you are modifying a viewpoint that was pretty well accepted by other editors shows that you are the one pushing the viewpoint onto other people. Furthermore, the page was created by a respected user who used respected and notable sources is quite concerning. Besides, most of the material that you use comes from a non-notable journal. Additionally, there are no "scholarship" sections nor is your tone or approach to this subject matter appropriate for this site. Look at our featured literature articles to see what the standards and reliable sourcing look like for this site and I think that it will help you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no views; that is the point of an encyclopedia editor. Any student interested in this poem should be directed toward scholars; the student should not quote what is on the site. That is how an encyclopedia works. I added several sources that will direct students toward scholars with viewpoints. As an editor, I have no viewpoint.Critic11 (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Also, you are incorrect about other poems. Look at Rime of the Ancient Mariner, for example. I have changed the header to "interpretation and critical response," if that helps calm things down.Critic11 (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC) On the title of the poem alone, and having familiarity with 17th century literature, and especially that from Lancashire county, wherein Wordsworth attended grammar school (Hawkshead, ancient Lancashire), it should be recognized that at least one copy of Minister John Darrell's book - A TRUE NARRATION OF THE STRANGE AND GREVOUS VEXATION BY THE DEVIL, OF 7 PERSONS IN LANCASHIRE - appears in Coleridge's library, albeit an 1810 reprint of the 1600 original. If the title is a play-on-words of King James Bible's account of demon possession "My name is Legion, for We are Many." (Mark 5:9), then the seven possessed at Lancashire could be thought of as saying "We are Seven". Darrell's history begins with the odd wording "At Cleworth in Lancashire within the parish of Leigh, ther dweleth one Nicholas Starchie gentleman who having only two children it went thus with them in the beginning of februari 1594 first Anne his daughter being 9 Yeares olde." Of the seven documented, one is "Jane Ashton a maid servant in the house [who] began to bark and houle when she shold have gon to bear witnes against Edmund Hartley. wherupon one of them in her fit said ah Edmond dost thou trouble her nowe when she shold testify against thee?" Another was 9-year-old Anne's brother "John Starchie ... of the age of 10 yeares, as he was going to the schoole was compelled to shout, neither was able to staie himselfe." The children did not die, but the names of John and Jane, although common, match, and the age is off by one year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.94.174 (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)