Talk:Robert Graves

The Golden Fleece

There is a red internal link under Golden Fleece. Indeed of telling me page does not exist it invited me to create a new page. As I understand it one must have a registered user account rather than simply an IP address to create a Wikipedia page. Might anyone know the reason for this error?

Early comments - no headings

This is the text by Dr Ian Firla, St John's College, Oxford, that appears at http://www.deepsky.com/~graves/bio.html . How do we know it's not a copyright violation to have it here, please? -- isis 05:55 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

It's quite explicitly copyrighted (1999), and contains no license that would allow our use here. If someone wants to contact the author for explicit permission, that would be nice, but until then we can't use it even in the talk page here (though we should of course retain the link above). --LDC

I'm the author of the Graves Trust pages. Explicit permission is, of course, granted. I will updated the copyright statement on the pages linked to above, but also point out that the link above has been updated on the new home for the Trust:

http://www.robertgraves.org/bio.php

--kubla

---

Can anyone speak of the 'degeneration' he suffered at the end of his life?--DennisDaniels 02:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Must have been Altzheimers or something akin to it, perhaps influenced by his war injuries. Evidently he visited the TV production of I, Claudius in the late 70s and the cast and crew were quite saddened by his mental condition. -- Cranston Lamont 16:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

His dementia evidently resulted from being too long under anesthesia during a prolonged operation in 1974 to correct ancient injuries to his nose. I believe this is documented in the Miranda Seymour biography. 2601:84:8A00:2860:99:2AC7:331B:2301 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

---

"At the Battle of the Somme in 1916 he received such serious injuries that his family were informed of his death. However, he recovered, at the cost of permanent damage to his lungs, and spent the remainder of the war in England, despite his efforts to return to the front." This isn't true. He did return to France, albeit for a short while. I shall edit it, when I get a moment Monk Bretton 02:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I changed the above thing. But it has become a bit of an unwieldy sentence. Ho-hum. Sources for this are:

Miranda Seymour's biography, Robert Graves, life on the edge.

&

http://www.robertgraves.org/bio.php

Monk Bretton

---

I'm editing the bibliography sections. The list prior today had some errors such as putting the novels "Antigua, Penny, Puce" and "No Decency Left" in the non-fiction list.

I also thought that the bibliography might benefit from, where known, first North American and UK publication and variances in titles.

--kubla

---

I haven't checked the bibliography really closely but it seems not to include Graves' translation eg. his popular translation of the Golden Ass by Apuleius. I am hesitant to alter anything to much because perhaps this is intentional and in any case I haven't immediate access to an exhaustive or even at all detailed list of Graves' publications -orizon 10:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversy: The Greek Myths

although i believe Robert Graves often sets up a dichotomy between the matriarchal and patriarchal which i do not see any evidence of, he certainly is thinking in terms of the imagery of the myth being symbolic. his knowledge about specific images and the importance of ancient greek earth goddess worship/matriarchal culture non-linear thought is extremely revelatory in light of classical greek study. the implications of such connections makes the bacchae a non-linear dionysian art piece. i have found significant resistance and even outright flat dismissal when attempting a discussion of such things as the sacrificial king role of pentheus, which i believe to be non-modern gender role, with individuals who have endorsed an insular view which dismisses mythocultural interpretations as "not in the play." their reaction is to say that pentheus is killed because of what they believe is a literal causality, which seems an idea completely out of place in archetypal myth, he is misfortunate enough to be "a 5th century athenian male educated by sophists." when criticized as ascribing modern gender role reconstructions upon a character which is mythological they merely say they are only understanding it by "what is in the play", and deny that they are projecting a gender based identity onto pentheus which is a fiction. the divide between readers of greek like myself who see an iconic interpretation of the dionysos pentheus myth, and those who deny this is so divisive that i personally feel that those who do not understand bacchae as archetypal do not understand greek at all. this will surely cause a major schism between an unfortunate philosophy among classicists which promotes an insular literal interpretation of myth and those who see greek drama as a non-linear art. dev

Bibiliography

A number of works now listed as "novels" (here and on the bibliography article) clearly are not--some are short story collections, some appear to be nonfiction. Nareek 21:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Stay

The remarkable details of their sojourn there and ultimate breakup have been told in several books...

This is lacking in any detail whatsoever, and is nonencyclopedic in style. If someone knows about this period in his life, could it be filled in, rather than simply referencing two books, one of which is a novel? --DrGaellon 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Suspicion?

"Edmund Blunden and Siegfried Sassoon, deeply suspicious of the work...." I don't know much about Graves but this isolated statement is intriguing. Could someone please elaborate on this. What do you mean by suspicion? Why were they suspicious? (Voloshinov 23:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

Pejorative critical comments

I have removed the pejorative wording lifted from the Times literary critic on the grounds of bias. I believe that it would be correct, if someone wants to, to point out that some modern scholars take issue with Graves, if such sources can be directly cited. But to simply describe his work in pejorative terms, when that is really just opinion, is not I beleive correct in a wikipedia article. Tashkop 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see multiple sources at Talk:The Greek Myths which reflect his poor reputation among classical scholars. For example, Robin Hard's appreciation (a fairly mild part of which I added to the article) characterizes his explanatory notes as "a farrago of cranky nonsense". --Macrakis 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is correct that Graves considered himself a poet first, but take alook at his bibliography. He was a classical scholar and an iconoclast. No 'classical scholars' take issue with his works as long as he doesn't stray from their own narrow guidelines. Of course (some or even the majority of) other classical scholars will disagree with him, just as they did during his lifetime, but how does that make your cited source's opinion relevant to the facts of the article. IMO - It is relevant to cite the disagreement, but not the criticism. Let's not forget that the mainstream of classical scholars poo-pooed Schliemann as well - until he stuck the proof beneath their noses. The quotation that you have added is simply an ad-hominem attack - where is the scholarship in that? Tashkop 01:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the opinions of these authors are being quoted I have quoted back Grave's opinion of them. Is that acceptable?Tashkop 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is "acceptable", but it is not very convincing. More convincing to find scholarly sources which support him. --Macrakis 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Macrakis - Graves was an iconoclast and the worldview that he challenges informs the very root of western patriarchial society - which is why it is so sensitive to people. By definition you are not going to find any mainstream scholars supporting him. He was (is) at war with them. That's why they put out all of this anti-Graves propaganda. Anyone that published showing themselves sympathetic to Graves would quickly be on the breadline. Like I keep saying - by all means let's report the disagreement - I am even in favour of it having its own section, but reporting the actual propagnada is another thing altogether in my view.Tashkop 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to report your views. We are not here to campaign against patriarchy. We are here to report the errors which presently possess humanity.

(And if that were the only reason that Graves' work is unendorsed, where is the criticism of Marija Gimbutas?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tashkop, thank you for agreeing that we will not find any mainstream scholars supporting him. This is certainly a notable fact, comparable to the Criticism of Noam Chomsky's political work by many "mainstream scholars" (note that both Chomsky's positions and his critics' are reported in some detail). I am not sure how you distinguish between "actual propaganda" and "disagreement". Are the (widespread) criticisms of Graves' etymologies "propaganda" or "disagreement"? --Macrakis 01:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Standard of scholarship

The standard of scholarship in this entry is not high and I'm afraid that attempts to improve it are being made difficult by someone who keeps reinstating the original text - which I see is claimed to be written by someone from St John's College in Oxford - but who I can not find listed on their website as a member of the academic staff. For example, to imply that Graves enlisted at the outbreak of WW1 because he didn't like 'the prospect of spending another four years studying Latin and Greek' is misleading and simplistic. The biographies make it clear that his motives for enlisting are complex - linked to the expectations of family and school, and the wave of patriotism and adventure that drove many others to do the same. It is true that Graves did not enjoy Charterhouse and worried that Oxford might have a similar atmosphere - but his love of Latin and Greek was unabated (this is Graves the great Classicist after all). The article tries to portray Graves as some sort of iconoclast or rebel but doesn't tell us what his philosophy or aesthetic was. How, precisely, was he 'an iconoclast in his poetry'? It does not make sense. Graves and Riding were not 'forced to leave Majorca in 1936 due to the Spoanish Civil War'. Again, all biographies, as well as Graves's own account, make it clear that their decision to join the evacuation of British subjects was their own. Many other writers were actually going to Spain at precisely that time. Graves could have stayed but again for a variety of complex reasons decided to depart. Many other elements of style could be improved - eg the description of Richard Graves's biography as 'non-fiction' and Miranda Seymour's account as a 'fictionalized novel'... It would be helpful if others were allowed to improve the article and make it more accurate and complete - rather than just reverting to an unsatisfactory text which is ok as a starting point but could be much improved. (unsigned comment by User:RG21 on 2007-04-13T10:55:01)

I'm very late to the discussion but then Graves is now far enough in the past for a repraisal. I agree that this article has flaws of content and priority.The article on his sexuality is interesting but relies on a biography by Miranda Seymour which has recieved criticism for it's accuracies. In 'Goodbye to All That' he states that he was a virgin on his wedding night (no mention). His wife who was eighteen was a feminist who insisted on wearing her hair short and keeping her maiden name. Pictures of her do not suggest a masculine looking woman as the article subjectively quotes. On a seperate matter Graves who was half German and half Irish left England in the 1920's (as did many of his siblings).. He was highly critical of the UK and as a consequence would not have been offered an award and likely would not have accepted it. I feel the article on Wikipedia doesn't really get this complex man possibly because the writer does not understand the ideas and philosopies that formed the man.--Dorkinglad (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Claudius.jpg

Image:Claudius.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Birth date

For a long time there was confusion about whether he was born on 24 or 26 July 1895. It's still out there - [1]. How did the wrong date get into the public record? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And while you're thinking about that, how do we know that 24 July is in fact the correct date? Take as long as you like, I've got the rest of my life to wait for an answer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have three print biographies which all cite 24 July: Miranda Seymour (1995), Martin Seymour-Smith (1983) & Richard Percival Graves (1987). Goodbye To All That itself also has 24 July. So I don't think there can be any doubt that 24 July is correct, assuming that Graves himself and his family knew when he was born. I suspect the dual dates are the result of 'info' sites on the web feeding off each other and in some cases duplicating transcription errors which then go viral. Somebody doing 'research' via Google sees two dates, and without bothering to verify, decides to split it fifty/fifty and leave both in. I've emailed Britannica, which also cites the dual date, asking them to explain it. Welham66 (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be keen to hear what they have to say. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Britannica have advised that they are revising the article and will have a birth date of 24 July 1995. They didn't explain why they had the dual date, but as they were good enough to reply very promptly (immediately after Easter) I didn't press them. The error is all over the web, as you indicate above, so I'm sticking with my theory about the viralisation of errors like that. Welham66 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope they don't have him being born in 1995. :)

Must have been pre-web viralisation, then, because I started taking an interest in Graves in the mid-80s, before the web existed (at least as far as ordinary folks were concerned), and the 2 dates were alive and well then. But I'm glad there's scholarly consensus on the matter these days. Thanks for your work on this, Welham66. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse my typo. Britannica advised 24 July 1895. Their first email had 24 July 2012, which they then corrected. Let's hope it's not the White Goddess being mischievious behind the scenes. Welham66 (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No mention of his hypotheses?

I find it strange that his views about matriarchy and the history of myths/religions are not mentioned at all. All that is said is that The White Goddess is difficult (POV, btw) and his unconventional interpretations and etymologies are dismissed by classicists. Of course his writings do not (and might not be meant to) stand up to scientific scrutiny, but he has been very influential in modern belief systems such as identitarian feminism and neopaganism, and this deserves some mention.--87.162.24.204 (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "difficult" is just silly. Last time I saw this article it was acompendium of attacks and I was looking to rrectify that....now it is sort of balnd and uninformative. I will return...Jeremy (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that the claim of much further research being provoked by The Greek Myths (rather than, say, Kerenyi or Rose) has stood unsourced for years. I don't think it adds much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of plagiarism

See [2] and [3] - shouldn't they be in the article? Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Education

The article states that Robert Graves was a classical scholar, but no details are given on the subject, besides: "Following his marriage and the end of the First World War, Graves belatedly took up his place at St John's College, Oxford." Well, but what did he study, how long, and what degree did he earn (if any? Did he write a dissertation? On what subject? Nothing of these is clear from the article.

Ben Jamin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.38.142 (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Name: Ranke/von Ranke

On p.38 of the Penguin Goodbye to All That Graves says: 'The most unfortunate disability of all was that my name appeared on the school list as 'R. von R. Graves'. I had hitherto believed my second name to be 'Ranke'; the 'von', encountered on my birth certificate, disconcerted me.'

If the name on the birth certificate is Robert von Ranke Graves, why are we here calling him Robert Ranke Graves?

He is given a pen-name here (boxed summary): Robert von Ranke Graves. What did he publish under this name? Nothing I have ever seen. Spicemix (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see now in the article that apparently Graves was published in Germany under this name. Is that enough to make it a pen-name? Spicemix (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

His mother was Amalie von Ranke Graves. It was / is a fairly common practice to anglofy a name, especially a German-sounding name in Britain around a time of war. Mr Weiss becomes Mr White, Mrs Müller becomes Mrs Miller, the Von is dropped etc. I wouldn't say Robert von Ranke Graves would count as a pen name but the whole question may be worth looking into. I suspect there is nothing odd about it. Span (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In Goodbye to All That Graves implies that while he preferred to go by his full family name, it had given rise to rumours against him. He writes (Penguin Modern Classics, p172) that in about August, 1916, an officer joined his unit who bore a grudge against him, and who spread the rumour that he was brother of a notorious captured spy who had unfortunately assumed the name Carl Graves. Both Ranke and von Ranke seem to have been a problem for him throughout the war and after. Rumiton (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these responses. It seems clear that Graves's legal name, as recorded on his birth certificate seen by him at some point during his time at Charterhouse, and recorded in Goodbye to All That (Penguin, p.38) was Robert von Ranke Graves. It's also clear that this was the name he was enrolled under, by his parents, at Charterhouse. It is the name ascribed to him in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which does not mention 'Robert Ranke Graves'. This latter name appears to have no status at all beyond the young boy Graves's impression that this was his name (again, Goodbye... p.38). All scholary opinion that I know of gives him the name Robert von Ranke Graves: see e.g. Frank Kermode in his section on Graves in the Oxford Anthology of English Literature. We should not even be mentioning the non-name 'Robert Ranke Graves' here in this entry, let alone indicating that it was his true or primary name.

It is true that he suffered persecution at school and in his regiment for having a German name, but there is no evidence that I know that he ever suppressed 'von Ranke' in favour of 'Ranke'. Even if he did, it would not make that his name for the purposes of this encyclopedia. Siegfried Sassoon signed his famous anti-war 'Soldier's declaration' 'S. Sassoon', presumably because of the inflammatory nature of his first name, but that has no bearing on how we know him.

I suggest the opening sentence of the entry should be: 'Robert von Ranke Graves (24 July 1895 – 7 December 1985) was an English poet, translator and novelist.' There is no need to say 'more commonly known as Robert Graves' because that is apparent from the headline of the entry. Spicemix (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me. Rumiton (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, It's Wikipedia practice to offer the alternative public names the subject may be known by, with the most commonly known name taking precedence (See Wikipedia:NAMEPEOPLE). So I have re-added the other alternative two names for clarity. Spicemix, "Robert Ranke Graves" may be, in some ways, a 'non-name' but it is often held to his title. Britannia gives only "Robert Graves" and no alternative, the Oxford Who's Who gives 'Robert Ranke Graves' ( Who's Who in the Twentieth Century. Oxford University Press, 1999) and The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Poetry in English gives "Graves, Robert (von Ranke)" (Hamilton. Oxford University Press, 1996). A Wikipedia search will find Graves under all three names. There is both a notable Irish Physician and a rugby player called Robert Graves, so it's good to be clear, I think. Ruminton, thanks for adding the ref and the back story. I hope we can continue to add refs to the article and strengthen it. All best wishes for the week. Span (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If both versions really are in use, then fine. As an aside, in my understanding when a minor noble marries outside of the German nobility, he must drop the von, so his children do not inherit it. In the maternal case, when the name is retained as a courtesy, I am not sure. The same might apply. Rumiton (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these. If Who's Who gives Ranke then that is a consideration I admit, and I think we've reached a good working compromise. Spicemix (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have cautiously edited the recent change 'during and after the war the name caused him difficulties' (Early life) to 'before and during...'. We have citations from Goodbye for these times, but nothing for after. I can't think of any reason why the name should have caused difficulty in later life, but should be interested to hear to the contrary.... Spicemix (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

He wrote of difficulties among his family and friends caused by his new socialist leanings and the acquired respect for the Germans which he shared with many of his colleagues. He stated that the Germans were the more efficient soldiers and were only beaten by the British naval blockade. He expressed his consternation with the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles, and predicted (correctly of course) that it would lead to another war. I am faily certain he referred to a lingering suspicion among the townsfolk caused by his name when he started shopkeeping, but I can't find it right now. Leave the revision as it stands and I will check more closely when I find time (unless someone else finds it.) Rumiton (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Still can't find it in the postwar section. That prejudice may well have been something he experienced while home on leave or recuperating, in which case you were correct to amend the sentence. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right about the pro-German feeling around the time of the Treaty of Versailles, which he mentions in the Oxford chapter. I've just read the bit about the shop and there's no mention there. Like you I'll keep looking out. Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I found what you must have had in mind: a rural policeman in the 2nd WW blocked his appointment as a special constable, partly though suspicion of his name, but also for other silly reasons. The account is in the Epilogue. Spicemix (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Good cooperation. Rumiton (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

To add to the sources listing his name as "Robert Ranke Graves", his baptism certificate and Oxford degree certificate, both on display at the Robert Graves House, Majorca. cagliost (talk)

Numerous early documents refer to him as "von". He may have dropped the "von" later in life. cagliost (talk)

Translations

I think translations should be broken out from "other".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is Who Was Who's list of translations: translations: The Golden Ass, 1949; Alarcón’s Infant with the Globe, 1956; Galvan’s The Cross and the Sword, 1956; George Sand’s Winter in Majorca, 1957; Suetonius’s Twelve Cæsars; Lucan’s Pharsalia; Homer’s Anger of Achilles, 1959; Terence’s Comedies, 1962; Rubaiyyat of Omar Khayaam (with Omar Ali-Shah), 1967

GRAVES, Robert Ranke’, Who Was Who, A & C Black, 1920–2008; online edn, Oxford University Press, Dec 2007 accessed 11 Jan 2011

'Other' needs a lot of differentiation. Are you able to make a start?

Spicemix (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Owl

Is it worth mentioning Graves' brief folly into journal creating/editing? (Percy Penniless 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC))
http://dl.lib.brown.edu/mjp/render.php?view=mjp_object&id=1174317402328125

Folly ? Do you mean, perhaps, ' foray'? A foray is by defintion, brief. 2001:44B8:3102:BB05:DC72:A803:F0F3:D839 (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

another To Do issue: basic facts - coherence

The page seems very fragmented. I - knowing nothing about the man- came to this page to get info on his life as a quick overview. -Not there. his work crushes everything (as so often on BLP), to me a weight issue. The following should be in at a minimum.

• His geographical movements are not mentioned, briefly mentioned if at all. I realize, he died in Spain - since when was he there?
• He had 8 children, mentioned like an afterword.
• He had 2 wifes and at least one lover, mentioned by name only.

The fragmentation of what is commonly one section, personal life, into death and children causes incoherence and is unwise.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External link? Speaking at MIT on the roles of science and art

Would this be an appropriate external link? http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/A_E2043B1A0FD144ED8E01795240C97CC2 (I've helped with the site, so it'd be a conflict of interest for me to add it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccallucc (talk • contribs) 17:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

why is it due?

"in due course " usually points to a foregone conclusion. If he had relatives who were boxing champions or this article pointed out how hard he worked, then it might be "in due course " that he became a boxing champion. 100.15.120.162 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Graves. 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/20110927024752/http://www.ed.ac.uk/about/people/tait-black/fiction to http://www.ed.ac.uk/about/people/tait-black/fiction

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) 00:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

in music

Lines from 'over a brazier' were set to music 1929 by Australian composer Canon Alfred Wheeler (composer)

References

WP:INTOTHEWOULDS

This article has a severe case and radical surgery may be required. EEng 06:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed all eight examples of wouldery from the Sexuality section, among a few other style changes. Preceding woulds were appropriate ~~ Erewhonian (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Good work! I'm awarding you the INTOTHEWOULDS Order of Merit First Class, with Oak Leaves and Teensy Sapphire Chips. You pay only postage and handling. EEng 08:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)