Talk:Christopher Anstey

Untitled

Please forgive my ignorance, but could someone provide a transalation of the Latin? Epeeist smudge 16:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My rusty latin translates the start as "Doctors without doctrine, artless Masters of Arts". I think that the remainder is a similar pun between a bachelor (ie BA) and a walking stick (baculus). Bluap 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If we can get a complete translation, it would add something to the article. Epeeist smudge 14:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone had already provided the full version but really the English goes in the running text here and the Latin goes in the notes. — LlywelynII 15:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS

Just as a reminder, cites are better than lacks thereof. If the EB9 is actually wrong about something, make a note of it and have a better source to justify it. If there are newer sources to replace it, by all means do so. But we shouldn't leave things uncited or claim that the text comes from the EB11 when it's simply copied over from the earlier edition. — LlywelynII 15:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As noted, the EB9 does appear to have been mistaken in making him an MP, but it's worth bringing up that error since it might appear elsewhere & should be dealt with. (If anything, more thoroughly. Where'd they get the idea?) — LlywelynII 15:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Kindly take it to the talk page after reviewing WP:RS and WP:CITE. The EB9 more than qualifies as source for a 18th-century literary figure. They do seem to have been mistaken in naming him as an MP, but that mistake itself is worth noting. (There seems to be more to it: they go into the detail that his father-in-law purportedly bankrolled his campaign. That probably came from somewhere other than just the top of their heads.) If you have newer sources to replace the EB9 cites, by all means use them. But, no, you don't just revert 1k of sourced content without reason. Note some objections to the new content and have sources to replace them with; don't simply remove cites in favor of nothing or pretending the EB11 material was original. — LlywelynII 15:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

EB1911 often reprints earlier articles. The fact that the 1878 article was replaced in 1911 is evidence of its unsatisfactory nature in the opinion of the EB editors. In addition, you make several editing errors. Your quoted source said 'competent', not 'considerable'. The 'public school' that was insultingly addressed was a department within the university, not an English public school at all. The rustication followed this address, not Anstey's resignation of his fellowship. You destroy the sequence of Anstey's first visit to Bath as a consequence of his illness by intruding the publication of the Latin translation, which happened two years later. EB1878 does not say the Guide was overshadowed by Humphrey Clinker, nor does any later source. 19th century references, Betjeman's knowledge of the Guide, and a new edition of the Guide in 2010, coupled with regular mention of his translation of Gray's Elegy, are all evidence that Anstey was and is still remembered. I will edit out all this uncritical and uncomprehending use of a poor source and, as you suggest, will transfer this discussion to the talk page. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Like LlywelynII, I wondered where the idea that Anstey had stood for parliament came from and decided to look up the very full memoir of Anstey's son John that is included in the bibliography here. There is no suggestion there that Anstey meant to represent Hertford, as alleged in EB1878. Instead it emerges that it was his friend and brother in law John Calvert who was MP for that town. The EB editor not only got it wrong but shows himself guilty of thoroughly slipshod research and untrustworthy. I presume he misread John Anstey's memoir; there is verbal evidence that the editors of both EB1911 and the writer of the entry in the Dictionary of National Biography used it also as a source. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Anstey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518121944/https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/Media/CHC%20Images/Vol%2005%20-%2003.%20Bishop%20-%20The%20Sentence%20of%20Momus%20-%20Satirical%20Verse%20and%20Prints%20in%20Eighteenth-Century%20Bath.pdf to https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/Media/CHC%20Images/Vol%2005%20-%2003.%20Bishop%20-%20The%20Sentence%20of%20Momus%20-%20Satirical%20Verse%20and%20Prints%20in%20Eighteenth-Century%20Bath.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)