Talk:Patrick Carnegie Simpson

From article.

The following was a hidden comment in the article; i am moving it here, as the Talk page is the more usual place for conversations and suggestions for improvement ~ indeed, that is its purpose: " comment by fazbear7891: not a lot of people know what ecclesiastical means. maybe change to a synonym like "clerical"? also there may be a bit too much detail here, maybe cleanup a bit? " Other than removing the wikiformatting, i have not changed it.

As far as the comment itself goes, i think that ecclesiastical is exactly the correct term and should be left where it is. There may be more detail than necessary; i would urge fazbear7891 to begin a little clean up and see what response he gets. As a further, minor, point to fazbear, i would suggest you not leave hidden comments like this in future, but use the talk page in this way. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 11:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

== @ Lindsay ==

Thanks Lindsay - Glad to find your message, as frankly, being new to this, I was totally lost. Now, I know where to discuss. I had had help, warm support and one-to-one exchange with Happysquirrel and fazbear7891 – Thanks. But I was needing discussion. (I had no idea that fazbear7891 had left hidden comments - which doubtless reveals the abyss of my ignorance) Things are clearer now.

Best to start with just one practical point. Happysquirrel did fine work cleaning up the text.  :(Sorry that I hadn't realised that external links were not allowed.) However, in one case this poses a problem. In her revision of 16:06, 20 June 2015 ( Patrick Carnegie Simpson - text history) of the following text:

"The years at Renfield were a period of intense ecclesiastical and creative activity. He arrived at the time of the Scottish Church Crisis and inevitably found himself engaged in the turmoil of ecclesiastical politics".

She suppresses the external link to Britannica (quite rightly) which explained the Scottish Church Crisis. However, it is fair to say that hardly anyone knows what the "Scottish Church Crisis" of 1904 was. (two months ago, neither did I). That's why, it seems to me that for many wikipedians, to understand and to be able to continue to read the subject, having potential access to a "thumbnail" explanation is necessary. (I fear that explaining it in the text will make the text laborious.)

The Britannica link (which was in the original version) had the advantage of giving a a coherent, short overview. (approx 7 lines)

I suggest as a solution, inserting a footnote instead of the external link to Scottish Church Crisis: (e.g.

Does that seem acceptable?

P.S. It is true that at the beginning of the text there is a wikilink to Scottish Church Crisis - but this seemes to me a more general, historical overview.

Thanks Kpobi2 (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@LindsayH, Kpobi was creating a draft and i left the comments there, and somehow these comments made it to the real article. I would have moved it to the talk page if i had time. --Fazbear7891 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Orphan article

I have inserted a link/ (from "Robert Rainy".) which works. It does not appear to have registered.
Kpobi2 (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As of now, the link appears in "What links here" (in the tools section on the left). You can remove the orphan tag, although usually it is left until there are 2 links or more from articles. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Happy Squirrel

OK, I see. Thanks.

I'll try to see If I can put in at least 2 more links - from "Renfield church" and "William Robertson Nichol." But just 3 is pretty flimsy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpobi2 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision problem

There is a problem in the following: (section "A question of style" para 2 which was revised at 16:14, 20 June 2015 (edit)

"At the same time, however, in the words of Professor Healy, "Above all, Simpson was a profoundly religious man"[130] as is reflected in his writings by his preoccupation with the eternal questions of the suffering of the innocent,[131] of despair. Above Carnegie Simpson's desk hung a plaster cast of "L'inconnue de la Seine" (The unknown woman of the Seine), a young girl believed to have committed suicide at the turn of the century. The girl's smile was so haunting that a death mask had been made in the morgue. On the back of the mask, Carnegie Simpson had written a poem on the theme of betrayed innocence. This mask became a major object of interest at the time in, inspiring many writers, including Camus, Rilke and Nabokov, and of social injustice.[132]"

a) In the revision, "social injustice" got separated from the other 2 aspects demonstrating the claim that Simpson was "profoundly religious". I propose it would be better to reformulate the phrase as follows:

"Above all, Simpson was a profoundly religious man"[130] as is reflected in his writings by his preoccupation with the eternal questions of the suffering of the innocent,[131] of social injustice.[132] and of despair. (I have made a slight change in word order.)

b) In my opinion, that death mask episode is too big a diversion in the thread of the text - it prevents it moving foreword. On the other hand, I would argue that it is a sufficiently interesting cultural fact for inclusion – illuminating both Simpson and the times he lived in. That is why I propose that it would be better to retain it as a footnote.

c) Most readers will read through the phrase and then pass on to the next bit. But those intrigued by this (at first sight, rather surprising) claim that a minister is "profoundly religious" – after all, one might think it is part of the job - will stop, explore the footnotes, and maybe discover food for thought. Kpobi2 (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could start a "Social views" section and put all that information there. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Happysquirrel

I had thought of that from the start - but felt there wasn't enough meat to develop anything - it's mostly anaecdotal (often intresting nevertheless). I'll have another think.

Kpobi2 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Whichever you decide, you can find all the text in the revision history. Nothing is lost. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Syntax lost

Syntax was lost in last modifcation. Line 52. I have reformulated the phrase. Kpobi2 (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)