Jump to content

User talk:Tim riley/Archive-Jan-2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earliest recordings, Prokofiev's Lieutenant Kijé suite

[edit]

I don't know if your archival sources can help, but I am looking for details of any early recordings of this little piece. At present I can't find anything prior to Adrian Boult on Decca in 1955, but as the work was first performed in December 1934 and was very popular, I am sure there are earlier recordings. Can you help in any way? Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ever-enterprising Koussevitzky recorded it in or about 1938 on 78s with his Boston SO. HMV DB 3655-6 and DBS 3657. The 1942 review in The Musical Times (here) reads very much as though that was the first recording. It seems from this 1949 omnium gatherum of Prokofiev recordings that it was still the only one released by the end of the 1940s. By March 1952 there was another one: Hermann Scherchen and the Vienna Symphony Orchestra on Westminster, listed here. By Autumn of that year there are mentions here of sets by Roger Désormière and the French National SO and Efrem Kurtz and the RPO. In 1955 Vox put out a set by Jascha Horenstein with the Paris Philharmonic Orchestra advertised here, and only then did Sir Adrian enter the lists with, of all unlikely orchestras, the Paris Conservatoire, recorded at La Maison de la Mutualité, Paris, on 9 June 1955. Made in early stereo, I see. I'm going to the BL sometime this week, and will have a thumb through the Gramophone catalogues for the 1930s and 40s and report back if there are any other runners. – Tim riley talk 17:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the exceedingly fast reply. I had just unearthed the Koussevitzky/Boston SO version, which he recorded on 22 December 1937 (having given the US premiere a couple of months earlier). I've also found traces of some the early 1950s recordings you mention. Reiner and the Cleveland Orchestra recorded it in January 1945, but I don't think it was issued until some time after that. I've probably got enough now for my purposes, though obviously if something truly early, e.g. pre-1937, turns up I'd like to know. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another PR request!

[edit]

Hi Tim, I've been working for a spell on Isabella Beeton, who is now at PR for comments and consideration. If you could add me to the end of your review list I'd be much obliged. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a particular pleasure, and I look forward to it. Tim riley talk 20:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

[edit]
Women in Music
  • 10 to 31 January 2016
  • Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jules Massenet by Eugène Pirou.jpg

[edit]

Think this is a better image than any we had of Massenet, no? =) can {{CSS image crop}} it if you don't like the carte de visite look. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a most agreeable surprise – thank you, Adam. I think I'd probably be inclined to opt for a crop, but you know better about images than I do and I'll be happy with whichever you decide on. Tim riley talk 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There can be use in including the original context - I mean, this is a typical type of image (a carte de visite) that was handed out and collected by people in the late Victorian era. That said, if you think it's distracting, a crop won't hurt anything. I went through every Massenet image on the Bibliothèque National de France, and this was by far the best combination of quality and pose, so we should probably do whatever makes it look best as a lead image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on a very similar subject, what do you think of [1]? Thought I'd poke around and see what else the photographer did. Some interesting people, some of whom failed to button their fly, which amuses me far, far more than it should. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd seen that one of Saint-Saëns before, and comparing it with the many others of him I don't think it catches him very well. Looks a bit bland and gormless, which he most definitely wasn't. Searching my memory I find we had a cropped copy of that picture in the article at one time (here) but someone – me, probably – replaced it. As to the fly buttons, perhaps this was a saucy French equivalent of the English custom that gentlemen don't fasten the bottom waistcoat button. Tim riley talk 08:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never been entirely happy with Saint-Saëns images. The good ones are terrible quality, and the bad ones are pristine. That said... I've never really gone through Gallica... Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camille

[edit]

Okay, here's the ones that look doable, very roughly from easiest to most difficult. I've included only photos, not engraved reproductions, since... why wouldn't we choose photos?

Easy

Medium

Hard

If you think that more than one helps the article, that's doable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think all except the first (which makes him look uncharacteristically vacant) are excellent, and for my part I'm happy to leave an overhaul of the images to you. I must admit, though, that to me the present lead image captures him better than any other, though the photographic quality may not be all that good. Tim riley talk 10:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we had the original, I'd agree, but it's one of those looks-good-at-thumbnail sort of things. I prefer to set a standard early on that images are worth clicking on. =) I think http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8424645h/f1.item.r=Camille%20Saint-Sa%C3%ABns.zoom may be best? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't quarrel with that. Tim riley talk 10:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, I found the original of the Gounod lead. It's almost pristine. Just have to removethe stamps and do some light cleanup. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'd better overhaul that very meagre article one of these days. Not yet awhile. Tim riley talk 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's Charlie done. Back to Camille (who's already about 2/3rds done). Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And Camille is in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rossini

[edit]

Let's get another notable composer. As an aside, I checked Fromental Halèvy, but didn't see any better than the current lead, which is too small to be an FP, but not so small to justify replacement.

Here's what I see as the options!

  1. File:Composer Rossini G 1865 by Carjat.jpg
  2. File:Nadar - (Gioacchino Rossini) - Google Art Project.jpg
    1. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b53104453s/f1.item.r=Rossini,%20Gioachino.zoom
    2. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b531044547/f1.item.r=Rossini,%20Gioachino.zoom or
  3. [2]
  4. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8424409z.r=Rossini%2C%20Gioachino
  5. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8424410m.r=Rossini%2C%20Gioachino
  6. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8424408j.r=Rossini%2C%20Gioachino

Thoughts? I'm inclined towards the first. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offenbach

[edit]

I think we can probably agree the current lead is amazingly awful. I've looked at the Offenbach images, and think http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b530922314/f1.item.r=Offenbach.zoom is clearly the best, with http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b53082127q/f1.item.r=Offenbach.zoom in second place. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something odd has happened to the lead image. It looks as though someone has sat on it, but it was all right last time I looked in. I was never wild about it and I much prefer your alternative, which, looking at the camera, seems to capture more of Offenbach's amused detachment. It would definitely want cropping, though. I think perhaps the topic would be more appropriate to the article talk page than to mine. Other substantial contributors may have Views. Likewise for Rossini, though I haven't dabbled there enough to know if it has a main editor or editors. Tim riley talk 13:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plan to crop (and, indeed, threw up a crop for use). Just... witht he image as bad as tit had got, thought it best to rush it in. Also, checking both the articles, so far as they have a main editor, it's... you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other composers?

[edit]

Who next? =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Might do Ethel Smyth, actually) Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

[edit]

Handel's lost Hamburg operas

[edit]

No further losses reported, I'm afraid. But the article is now at peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oct - Dec 15 Quarterly Article Reviews

[edit]
 Military history service award 
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 5 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's most pleasing – thank you, Rupert! I can't remember reviewing any military articles lately, but your award will be gratefully placed in my trophy cabinet nonetheless. Tim riley talk 15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review request

[edit]

Hi Tim. Hope this finds you well. I've been really busy this past year (new baby, translating, etc.), so I haven't been on much. If you've got the time, could you do a source review for Panggilan Darah? There aren't many sources cited, so it shouldn't be all too difficult. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a pleasure. It might pay off a tithe of the debt I owe you for help over the years. I'll go and stake my claim at once. Tim riley talk 18:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: December 2015

[edit]
[[


File:This month in GLAM logo.png|350px|center|link=outreach:GLAM/Newsletter]]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.


Soprano

[edit]

Could you help me finding out what this subscription review says about Yvonne Ciannella who was the first coloratura soprano I ever heard? (And which recording?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent timing. I have to go to the British Library tomorrow to look up several things and will add this to my list. Tim riley talk 12:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In January 1968 Stanley Sadie wrote in The Gramophone (p. 393), reviewing Telemann's Ino, "Yvonne Cianella on this new version isn't as sheerly beautiful a singer as Miss Janowitz, but her performance is a lot more colourful and dramatic. … I am surprised I have not heard of Miss Cianella before – it's a musical voice, intelligently used, warm and soft in timbre for the most part but capable of firm attack and a good deal of dramatic colouring." In June of the same year Roger Fiske, reviewing Telemann's Pimpinone, wrote (p. 60), "Yvonne Cianella makes an uncertain start, and though her voice is pretty at the top it has rather too much vibrato in the middle of the compass." That's all I could find about this singer in The Gramophone. Hope this is useful, Tim riley talk 12:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, very helpful! Will use, after a new woman today, - my goal to create a Woman in Music every day of the month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All used, do you also happen to have a title for the review by Sadie. Will use "Telemann's Ino" if not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The standard form in The Gramophone was and is "Telemann, Ino" (no possessive apostrophe). Tim riley talk 20:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like that. I read somewhere that Rilling's recording was the first of the piece, but maybe wo said that didn't know. Sadie got the soprano's name wrong twice, should that be marked somehow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can be entirely confident that Sadie got the name right and Riley scribbled it down wrong when transcribing into my notebook. Tim riley talk 21:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Gerd Rubahn"

[edit]

This was a conducting pseudonym used by Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt in the 1950s for reasons I'm unsure of. This fact is attested in numerous internet sites but none that I consider truly reliable. Is there any chance you can locate, say, a Gramophone article that will nail it? "Rubahn" recorded a famous Bruckner Third in 1952. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely astonish me! I'm going to the BL tomorrow, and will put Herr Rubahn on my list. I went to a couple of Schmidt-Isserstedt's concerts at the RFH in the early 1970s and thought him very fine in an unshowy sort of way. Tim riley talk 23:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no mentions of Gerd Rubahn in the pages of The Gramophone. As far as I can see, a dodgy American record label was in the habit of pirating legit recordings from real companies and issuing them under pseudonyms. As well as a Bruckner 3rd, this here Gerd Rubahn seems to have been credited with recordings of Cav and Pag, Chausson's Poème, and Madame Butterfly, which aren't really Schmidt-Isserstedt territory. My tentative conclusion is that Gerd Rubahn was not a pseudonym for just Schmidt-Isserstedt but for a variety of conductors whose recordings the Allegro Royale company pirated. Sorry I haven't found anything more substantive, Tim riley talk 12:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this information. I was first drawn to "Rubahn" when, on the link you gave me above re. Désormière and Kurtz, he popped up as supposed conductor of a recording of the Kijé suite (no mention in this link of Désormière and Kurtz, incidentally). I had never heard of "Rubhan"; no mentions in any of the regular texts, and the idea of a non-existent conductor recording a work about a non-existent lieutenant had natural appeal. My superficial internet searches suggested the Schmidt-Isserstedt connection (see here) but this seems unlikely – the truth is more likely as you say. No matter; for the purposes of my Kije discography, though, would it be possible to provide the link that does give details of the Désormière and Kurtz recordings? Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rummage and find the right link! I quite see that a mythical conductor's recording of a work about a mythical lieutenant would appeal to Bellman Boulton. Tim riley talk 21:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a reply on your talk page, nearer to home, as it were. Tim riley talk 13:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Ciannella has been nominated for Did You Know

[edit]

But 'twas a famous victory

[edit]

Could you take a look at Lexington-Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar? I'm afraid it is languishing rather at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. Be there anon. Tim riley talk 20:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart Requiem

[edit]

That article has a lot of myth, facts only very late, nothing substantial on the music, so sad. Would you help improving? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly, but not for some weeks yet. I have two large projects IRL to complete, or at least work seriously on, before I can devote much time to WP. Tim riley talk 14:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On Mozart's birthday, I formatted the recordings a bit in the way of Schiml, remember? I realized that many lack a year, - could you look those up? I don't know what to do with the strange ones at the end, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Proms

[edit]

Hi Tim, I have been fiddling again with the wartime bit of the Proms article, the gist of which is better expressed in the Sir Henry Wood article which you so admirably improved some years ago. Among other things I have referenced Reginald Pound's Biography of Wood, which isn't mentioned in the Wood article, but which seems to contain quite a lot about his relations with the BBC etc. Maybe there's a reason why Pound is omitted from Wood? Superseded, perhaps? Would you mind just glancing at Proms to see if I have muddled things up? Thanks! All the best, and Happy New Year, Eebahgum (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me – indeed, it seems to me one of the best parts of a rather variable article. I'd like to help improve the whole thing, but alas I can't spare the time at the moment. If you're taking an interest in the article as a whole it would be as well to look at one sentence that caught my eye: "Newman arranged the first series of indoor promenade concerts...", which is untrue: there had been regular indoor promenade concerts at Drury Lane and Covent Garden since the 1830s, conducted by Louis-Antoine Jullien, Arthur Sullivan and others (a citation for which is in the Wood article). I can't now remember why I didn't draw on Pound when I overhauled the article (five years ago, I am amazed to see!); it may have been because reviewers thought Jacobs's book had superseded it, but equally it might just have been that I didn't have a copy of Pound on my shelves. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I have re-tweaked, and expunged the untruth. The article does need a general overhaul but like you I am too occupied for that effort right now. Regards, Eebahgum (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eebahgum: if at some point from, say, mid-2016 onwards you have time and inclination to start on a thorough overhaul of the article I'd be v. pleased to collaborate with you, diaries permitting. Do please ping me if and when you are minded to give it a go. Tim riley talk 01:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Beeton

[edit]

Many thanks for your comments at the recent PR for Isabella Beeton. I have dropped the good lady into FAC for comments and thoughts. If you have time for any, I'd be delighted to hear with them. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

[edit]

GA review

[edit]

Hey Tim, if you have some free time these days, can you review the GA nomination of Ride the Lightning? I think you've got an eye for those minor grammatical errors and double linked terms I often don't see. Appreciate your help.--Retrohead (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to my (rather lengthy) to-do list. Tim riley talk 09:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lost operas

[edit]

Handel's lost Hamburg operas has found its way to FAC, where further wise observations will be welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom in short supply here, but will look in nonetheless. Tim riley talk 09:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw

[edit]

Here, you will find the draft of my 1200-word essay on Shaw's political activities between 1882 and 1900. As yet the text is unbedizened with citations, though that will follow. Some of the detail might find its way into footnotes, or may be eliminated by representation elsewhere. I have not yet thought about how to assimilate this material into the main text.

I have a couple more paragraphs to write in this section, bringing things up to 1907 when Shaw became less politically active. There will then be two somewhat shorter pieces, dealing respectively with Shaw's attitude to the Irish issue, 1913–23, and his geriatric admiration for Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s. I might save a critical word or two to comment on Everybody's Political What's What in the Works section.

As things stand I reckon that when complete my contributions will come to around 2,000 to 2,200 words, perhaps accounting for 25 to 30 per cent of the "Life" section. Is that a fair proportion? I am quite a good cutter of my own text, so I won't mind wielding the knife if necessary. Let me have some thoughts, please. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have been wonderfully concise, and crammed a helluva lot about GBS's politics into remarkably few words. Bags of room for every one of them, me judice. On the general life and theatre side, the biog for 1920–50, yet to be written, won't take a huge number of words, so we're looking at something in the order of 6,000 words for the life section. We shall have to apply our minds to condensing all the Works and a Legacy/reputation section into 4,000 words or so, if we are to bring the article in at under 10,000 words, but as, e.g., Disraeli got through FAC with a hefty 14,300 words I think we can allow ourselves a pretty generous margin of error, even though 10,000 is one's preferred upper limit whenever possible. Tim riley talk 20:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now attempted to merge my text with yours. To avoid us possibly conflicting each other, I have done the work in my own sandbox, here. The varied elements in Shaw's career make it impossible to observe a strict chronology; I've done my best, but you're welcome to adjust. Possibly the "Stage success 1900–14" and "Late Fabian" sections could swap places:
A couple of brief points: your text implies that Cashel Byron was written after An Unsocial Socialist. According to ODNB, Cashel Byron was finished in February 1883, serialised in 1885–86 and published as a book in 1886. An Unsocial Socialist was finished in December 1883, serialised in 1884 and appeared as a book in 1887. Perhaps that could be made clearer. When you suggest a line on the socialist element, I assume you mean in An Unsocial Socialist, as there's much more socialism in that than in the other book. Secondly, do you want me to provide the brief commentary on Common Sense about the War? I'll happily do it, but it won't be as long as your Latin efflux. I'd like to fit in a short "Irish" section (300w?) between the First War and the 1920s.
Ping me when you've read this so I know. I'm a bit engaged on other things temporarily. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: – Brian, I am astonished (and of course v. pleased indeed) at how seamless the augmented text looks. I defer to you on the Cashel B/Unsocial S point: please amend ad lib. And yes, I was rather hoping for the Boulton touch in the para about the war pamphlet. I'd gladly do it, but you'll do it better. Looking ahead to the Works section, I have just taken delivery of a battered second-hand copy (5p + p&p) of this, which in terms of organising our text I think may offer us a useful skeleton that we can flesh out. More on this when I have read it. Meanwhile, don't let GBS draw you away from anything that may require your current attention. We have time enough. I propose to blank my sandbox and work in yours in the immediate future, for the sake of firm version control. Tim riley talk 19:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PR request

[edit]

Hello Tim, a certain old thespian is currently waiting in the wings here for any comments or criticisms. I would be much appreciative for any thoughts offered, if you have the time. Many thanks. CassiantoTalk 00:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a particular pleasure. More tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 20:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

[edit]

Alec Douglas-Home

[edit]

You keep removing the section heading 'Marriage and children' without explanation.

I think the article benefits from further articulation. Most biography pages in Wikipedia have a section on family and personal life. Probably because readers are often more likely to be in search of such details than they are in the minutiae of the professional life. I refer you by way of example to the articles on Douglas-Home's predecessor and successor as Prime Minister (Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson. Dichtung (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are naturally entitled to your view, but I invite you to consider that an article that has been through the PR and FAC processes has been carefully weighed by numerous experienced reviewers, and there is the possibility that their combined experience and judgement may just possibly outweigh your own opinion. Tim riley talk 21:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, you're one of them. Your comments remind me of why I gave up serious editing more than ten years ago. So long.Dichtung (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you feel everyone but you is out of step, but heigh-ho. Tim riley talk 22:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) If, by "one of them", you mean Tim riley is one who would rather discuss civilly than edit war: yes you're right. Or perhaps you meant "one who takes the concept of discussion to reach a consensus" seriously. In which case you're again right. Either way, there is little justification in edit warring to force your single opinion against the several community processes just to get your own way. If you still think there should be a separate section, you've been advised on several points to use the article talk page – something that I believe was as active ten years ago as it is now. – SchroCat (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

[edit]

Edward Elgar

[edit]

Thanks for your help with the Edward Elgar citation. I noticed that there was an older edition of Moore's book, but I didn't know if the page numbers would match. I was going to check Google Books tonight, and you beat me to it. Thanks. BTW, what is a "Duff citation?"Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 01:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Duff" as in "not right" (perhaps old fashioned word). Duff there because (i) (as I am very old and technically inept) the article citations don't use templates and your added templated one rather stuck out in the list and (ii) there was an existing ref to the same page, differently formatted. I ought to have thought ages ago to add the bit about EE's deathbed view of the afterlife (pace Gerontius), and I'm v. glad you did. For some unexplained reason this article seems to attract all sorts of eccentric and tangential additions, and it is a joy to come across a relevant and important one such as yours. Tim riley talk 01:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was my pleasure. I was listening to a podcast and heard the quote. I thought, "That's an interesting factoid. Wonder if it's on WP?" Tim D. Williamson yak-yak —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_riley/Archive-Jan-2016&oldid=1136132303"