Talk:Harry Graham (poet)

	Biography portal 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Musical Theatre

Harry Graham (poet) is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Graham's Intended Audience

I believe that Graham was writing primarily for adults. That is suggested by the content of some of his poems, for example Leonie. Also he makes it explicit in his Preface to Ruthless Rhymes:

First Verse

With guilty, conscience-stricken tears,
I offer up these rhymes of mine
To children of maturer years
(From Seventeen to Ninety-nine).
A special solace they may be
In days of second infancy.

For the complete Preface see: http://www.ruthlessrhymes.com/ruthless_rhymes/b_authors_preface.html

Quotes

Would it be as well to garner most of the Ruthless Rhymes quotes in this article and move them to Wikiquote, with just one or two included here for illustrative purposes? That would be the usual arrangement, I think. Tim riley (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. JH (talk page) 17:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonym

Should the artcle mention that "Col. D Streamer" was derived from "Coldstreamer", or would that be insulting the intelligence of our readers? JH (talk page) 10:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Coldstreamer is. Is it a reference to the Coldstream Guards? Seems like a footnote or link would be helpful. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that, but concluded that Graham would have hated a joke to be explained, and that anyone to whom the pun was not obvious would not be greatly deprived. But perfectly willing to be told I'm wrong. Tim riley (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back on 12 July 2007, User:Jhall1 added "(Hence his Col D Streamer pseudonym.)" to the mention of the Coldstream Guards. The next edit, by one Ssilvers (ahem!) was quite a comprehensive one, and the pseudonym reference became just a factoid, detached from its origin. Why not reunite them? --GuillaumeTell 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now sort of done that, without (I hope) labouring the point. --GuillaumeTell 17:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation needed?

As it currently exists, the article seems rather unfocused. I'd be inclined to put all the biographical stuff into one section and have a separate section for the light verse. Telling us three times that he is probably best remembered for Ruthless Rhymes seems a bit much. I might have a go at this later today if no-one objects. --GuillaumeTell 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me - dive in! Tim riley (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation done

And much improved. Pray open a can of applause. Tim riley (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but I moved the marriage and later years section to the end of the "Life" section, OK? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious about the above, but it's past my bedtime, when it's too easy to misjudge things. I'll comment further tomorrow a.m. --GuillaumeTell 01:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may bung in my two penn'orth I vote with Guillaume Tell on this one.Tim riley (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're 2 to 1, which is a strong working majority. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it back but retained one of SS's subheads, plus added a ref for "Goodbye". My aim was to separate the life (birth, marriage, death, plus career, mostly military) from the poems and lyrics, along the lines of the article on William Shakespeare, if small things to great things may be compared. --GuillaumeTell 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. (Was the reference to foreign stamps an echo of Michael Flanders?) Tim riley (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harry Graham (poet). 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/20071013213240/http://www.ruthlessrhymes.com/harry_graham/facts/ to http://www.ruthlessrhymes.com/harry_graham/facts/

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) 22:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Willie

IMHO this article fails to appropriately emphasize Graham's contributions to the continuing popularity of the Little Willie genre of poetry. I have twice attempted to add such emphasis and both attempts have been reverted or de-emphasized by the same editor. Despite official discouragement of WP:OWN, I recognize the value of responsible curation in this era of a declining ratio of active editors to articles. I merely wish to open a discussion (potentially including other editors) as whether it would be preferable to appropriately recognize the significance of the Little Willie genre among Graham's achievements within this article or to create a separate article on the genre. Thewellman (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your references are not WP:Reliable sources. They are random people's personal websites. If you were able to cite acceptable, then you would have an argument to make. As it is, any editor would be justified in removing all the "Little Willlie" information, and a separate article with such weak sourcing would almost certainly be deleted. Please read WP:RS and try to supply acceptable sources. If this is of encyclopedic importance, there should be lots of coverage of it in reliable sources. I should also point out that what you added to the article was repetitive; in fact, I left most of the material that you added and merely deleted repetition, instead of deleting all the material for lack of reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have waited to respond in the hope other editors might contribute, because I truly wish to avoid any implication of criticizing individual opinions in this discussion. Those who have studied WP:Reliable sources recognize there is latitude in the definition depending upon the subject of the article. Articles about living persons require the most rigorous application, and similar diligence is required for articles about very technical or contentious subjects. Individual interpretations are more acceptable for articles regarding merit and popularity of arts or entertainment. I certainly wish to use the most appropriate sources, but individual editors may have differing opinions as to reliability of any given source. Since I had received thanks from a Wikipedia administrator for my original edit which was subsequently reverted, it seems there may be legitimate differences of opinion about the sources under discussion.

Can we step back from the issue of sources to discuss the original question of where to put this emphasis on the Little Willie genre? The present article text has chosen a non-Willie verse to illustrate the widely recognized Little Willie format appropriately associated with Ruthless Rhymes. This choice may have been made because of the excellent illustration available to accompany that verse. I suggest also including a Little Willie verse (preferably in a separate section, or at least above the present non-Willie verse to appropriately reflect comparative popular recognition); and I am open to whichever verse may be preferred and whatever source is regarded as the most reliable for the text of that verse. Thewellman (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:RS is quite detailed and clear. The sources you provided do not come close to passing muster. If you researched reliable sources that would permit you to put the Little Willie materials in context as part of the Ruthless Rhymes, then I'd be all ears. See WP:BALASP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]