Talk:Childe Harold's Pilgrimage
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Just wrong
[edit]I don't have time to actually go through and mess with this nonsense at the moment, but somebody needs to point out that Childe Harold is only autobiographical in the loosest sense. Byron had a habit of playing on the possibility that his work was true in *wink wink nudge nudge* sort of way, but his works could never be described as "quite autobiographical." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.248.113 (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, but the quote man's greatest tragedy is that he can conceive of a perfection which he cannot attain is unattributable to McCann; certainly no page citation is given. As a result, this quote has been repeated verbatim over a number of other reference sites and erroneously attributed to either Byron or McCann. I think the quote is possibly coined by Reinhold Niebuhr - certainly an obit of him seems to think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.6.19 (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
missing text in link
[edit]"to hold thee lightly on a gentle knee and print on thy soft cheek a parent's kiss" is a a quote from this text the article "lolita" claims contains, but the link here shows no such line anywhere in sight.
'Childe Harold became a vehicle for Byron's own beliefs and ideas; indeed in the preface to book three Byron acknowledges the fact that his hero is just an extension of himself. According to Jerome McGann, by masking himself behind a literary artifice, Byron was able to express his view that "man's greatest tragedy is that he can conceive of a perfection which he cannot attain" '
As far as I am aware, there is no preface to Canto III, and Byron explicitly states in the preface to Cantos I and II that Childe Harold should not be read as a version of himself. "It has been suggested to me by my friends, on whose opinion I set a high value, that in this fictitious character, 'Childe Harold', I may incur the suspicion of having intended some real personage: this I beg leave, once for all, to disclaim - Harold is the child of imagination.' This is not to say that Harold is not merely an extension of himself, as in Canto IV he drops the disguise and speaks in the first person, but this is not true of the earlier cantos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.41.50 (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC) I removed a lot of info that can not be verified. I also made other changes to sentence to remove POV and OR, but my edits may themselves need editing. Mrathel (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I do not follow your remarks above. The material quoted by Nabokov in Lolita appears in Canto III, CXV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill.pollard (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
File:Lord Byron - Childe Harold's Pilgimage - Dugdale edition.jpg to appear as POTD soon
[edit]Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lord Byron - Childe Harold's Pilgimage - Dugdale edition.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 3, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-04-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 20:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Childe Harold's Pilgrimage. 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/20120318074038/http://www.nzz.ch/2006/07/01/li/articleDP4LH.html to http://www.nzz.ch/2006/07/01/li/articleDP4LH.html
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 20:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Template and proper page sourcing for verifiability
[edit]I observe that you have just deleted the text of the cultural references section of Childe Harold's Pilgrimage with the note that no references were cited. Let me point out that ever ssingle entry there, was a reference in itself, that gave the name of the book (or whatever) and author.
You chose to delete. You could have inserted a banner that stated that references were needed. Or, better still, if you are sitting at home at your computer, like almost everyone who has one, with time on your hands, you could have referenced every one of the references by extracting the information that was in the text.
Not everybody that contributes to Wikipedia has the skills to do so, and that is why some people do not, but if you do, then it would be a much better than just deleting. Amandajm (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Amandajm: has been on WP long enough to know very well that WP:VERIFY is a matter, not of choice but a particular policy, which is further discussed at WP:SOURCE. The template added simply does not work; I have come across similar lists with a template dating back to 2012 to which irresponsible editors have continued to add without taking the slightest notice. In addition it is also policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, again commented on in WP:MISC, with a special warning against such lists becoming “trivia magnets”. I am therefore removing the list. If editors really care, they can search out proper sources and also do what is further recommended, namely pointing out in what way knowledge of the article’s subject is furthered by inclusion of this information. I hardly think lines from Childe Harold appearing as a epigraph count as a valid example. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I find it quite remarkable that an early 19th century work of Romantic poetry should be used and quoted by such a very wide range of literary and other works. It says something about the nature of the work and its author.
- I don't know who added the information, but I do think it has a place in the article.
- Under the circumstance, I put it back, along with the banner.
- Deleting seems to be your major occupation.
- I suppose that somebody has to take it upon themseles to do it.
- But maybe checking the sources and adding the references might give you joy aand occupy your time, if you are not a doctor, an over-wrought home-schooling parent, an ambulance driver, or a shelf-stacker at the supermarket.
- Amandajm (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest you follow your own advice and set a good example. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Rather busy. Amandajm (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)