Talk:A. L. Rowse

Untitled

The "Political Right"

This article presents an interesting idea: that Rowse's increasing opposition to Nazis and their sympathizers makes him a "right-winger."

I would also note that Rowse campaigned against appeasement during the 1930's. I guess this would make him an ally of Winston Churchill, and therefore a "right-winger?"

Well, Rowse is a curious case, because he remained a Marxist all his life, but wound up with such misanthropic aphorisms as: "Knowing humans is a waste of time!" As a child, he once shouted down the staircase, "I'm the only one in this house with any brains!" Well, he was right, but he was certainly not polite about revealing this particular truth!

There seems to be little doubt that Rowse developed into a full-fledged curmudgeon. This happens to be one of my favorite literary flavors (at least you know where they stand!), but is obviously not for everyone. The crucial thing, in my opinion, is that these discussions of his personality should not distract us from the pursuit of the truth. What if he was right about the sonnets? What are the odds that he was wrong? 203.170.144.1 14:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that Rowse's anti-appeasement stance from the 30's onwards was neither "right wing" or "left wing" - as with Churchill, it placed him somewhat outside the mainstream of British political thought of the time. His enduring admiration of Ernest Bevin (see 'A Man of the Thirties"), and his oft-stated respect for Marxian political analysis combined with an absolute rejection of Stalinism and 'oppositionist' trades-unionism suggest a political position which cannot be categorized in traditional "left-right" terms. He often described himself as a "working-class aesthete", whose sympathies were with both the upper-classes and the honest working-class, and who reviled the middle-classes. A complex character in so many ways.DuncanHill 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"swatopotumus"?

What does this term mean? Google reveals no other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.125.38 (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I was also unable to find any definition, meaning or reference to the word "swatopotumus" and deleted the reference in article as a consequence. Even if the word isn't bogus, it still needs to be defined and reference given its obvious obscurity. A B Carter (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Changing Shakespearian to Shakespearean

I have changed Shakespearian to Shakespearean in the scholarship section of the article for consistency, as the lead has it as Shakespearean. The OED and Chambers dictionaries have both spellings as acceptable, but as Britannica and a number of peer-reviewed journal articles on Rowse use Shakespearean, I have used it here. I don't mind either way, as long as it is consistent. Poltair (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Original research

Lots of apparent original research in this article. Some likely examples:

• Highly readable, it contains some of his best prose, as does his book on Tudor Cornwall.
• He also published a number of short stories, mainly about Cornwall, of interest more for their thinly veiled autobiographical resonances than their literary merit.
• The full force of this industry has taken time to get up steam: extracts chosen from his diaries for posthumous publication in 2003 proved disappointing...
• It remains to be seen whether there is scope for a more lively (and possibly controversial) edition of diary extracts.

But there's plenty more...  —SMALLJIM  11:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A. L. Rowse. 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/20140728071725/http://www.rarelist.co.uk/book-show.php?book=1753 to http://www.rarelist.co.uk/book-show.php?book=1753

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) 18:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Leslie

He was known as Leslie Rowse as well as A. L., see for example Ferguson, James (5 October 1997). "Obituary: A. L. Rowse". The Independent. Retrieved 19 February 2018. With Leslie Rowse it was never the drink; that was one of the secrets of his clear- headedness, or the Proceeding of the British Academy paper on him here. He is also referred to as Leslie by some of his contemporaries in published memoirs, diaries, etc. It is unhelpful to the reader here to hide this, and it is ludicrous to claim that mentionin git is a breach of WP:NPOV. DuncanHill (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not hidden. The first three words of the article are his name. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And it is helpful to know what he was known as. Some people might read that and assume he would be known as "Alfred". DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And how do you know he was not? I guarantee you he is actually best known and referred to simply as Rowse because of the extent to which he has been cited but that too is original research in the sense that other possibilities exist. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That he was never known as Alfred is ne of the better known facts about him. DuncanHill (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This is regarding the following text in the lede: "Alfred Leslie Rowse …, known publicly as A. L. Rowse but to friends and family as Leslie, was a …", and the proposed alternative: "Alfred Leslie Rowse …, published as A. L. Rowse, was a …".

Specifically:

• My removal of it with the edit summary "What friends and family called him isn't relevant here"
• DuncanHill's revert with the edit summary "I think it is. Also called Leslie by eg the British Academy https://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/proc/files/105p537.pdf and in the Independent obit)"
• My revert with the edit summary "rv. Family and friends could call him "Barry" and it would be WP:UNDUE here. Both of the obits in The Indep., as well as the BA, call him "Rowse" or "A. L. Rowse". As should we, to maintain WP:NPOV. Full name is there, bold, as it should be."
• And, finally, DuncanHill's re-revert with the edit summary "Take it to the talk page. Your misleading edit summary is disruptive"

First of all: engaging in WP:BRD is not disruptive; that you do not understand an edit summary does not make it "misleading" (obtuse or inept, sure; but not misleading); and making accusations like that ("misleading", "disruptive") in itself constitutes a personal attack. Please take a moment to consider whether your conduct here is the approach best suited to constructive, collaborative, editing. Whatever it was that I did that (it seems) irritated you, it's usually more effective to deescalate than to make accusations.

That out of the way… The lead currently talks about which of Rowse's two first names was preferred by his friends and family. This is about as relevant as Barack "Barry" Obama's brother's uncle's pet name for him when he was little: that is, not at all. And as completely irrelevant it should not be in the article, much less in the first sentence of the lede. His full name, Alfred Leslie Rowse, is included in bold text at the start of the first sentence—where it belongs—so no information is being "hidden" from the reader.

Now if, instead, you want to argue that he was known professionally as both "A. L. Rowse" and "Leslie Rowse", then that is at least an apposite argument as it is, in fact, a policy-based argument (unlike the argument for the text that is actually in the article at the moment). However, you will have to produce better sources to back that up; as I already explained in the edit summary. The obituary from the British Academy refers to him as "Leslie Rowse" once in an introductory sentence, and once in an image caption, but calls him "Alfred Leslie Rowse" in the title (which is repeated on every page). It then consistently (except two instances of "Dr. Rowse" that are essentially quotations), no less than 49 times, refers to him as "Rowse". Which is only natural, of course, as this is how you refer to people in this sort of writing. The obituary in The Independent that you cite (and selectively quote a single instance from) above (Fergusson 1997) calls him "A. L. Rowse" twice, "Rowse" twice, and "Leslie Rowse" only once. It also calls him "A. L. Rowse" in the title that you cite above. However, the other obit in The Independent (Simmons 1997), to which I referred you in my edit summary, calls him "Alfred Leslie Rowse" twice, "A. L. Rowse" twice, and "Rowse" twice (no "Leslie" in sight). I could cite you twenty more (The Guardian, The New York Times, Oxford University Press, JSTOR, etc.) that all use "A. L. Rowse". But all of that is neither here nor there: referring to the subject by last name is the common convention, and a more or less random choice of first name or names to include in an obituary doesn't signify much.

The relevant datum, however, is what name he published under. And there we can consult bibliographic catalogs such as the HathiTrust: here. Or Open Library, which lists him twenty different ways; none of them "Leslie Rowse". And, as mentioned, OUP, JSTOR etc. use "A. L. Rowse". Which comports with my experience: he consistently published as "A. L. Rowse", and was consistently cited as such (or, of course, as "Rowse"). Thus, per MOS:FULLNAME and MOS:NICKNAME, we should give his full name and the name he was published under ("A. L. Rowse"), but not one of his given names that someone somewhere once referred to him by.

I remain entirely open to the possibility that he may have published, and been cited, as "Leslie Rowse"—and that therefore we might consider including that as a professional alias (but not as "to friends and family as Leslie")—and that I have simply not run across any instance of this. It wouldn't be the first time, and almost certainly not the last either, that I was entirely wrong about something like this. However, that argument would need to be supported by citation to a catalogue like HathiTrust, or a non-trivial number of individual books or articles published as "Leslie Rowse" (or that cite him as such, obviously). And if it were to be included it would need to be phrased in a way that made it clear we're referring to a professional alias and not his sister's pet name for him when they were young (or the equivalent). --Xover (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, to start with, BRD required you to open a discussion after I had reverted you. Instead you reverted me and I had to open the discussion.

To claim, as you did, that mentioning "Leslie" in the way that the article has done for some time is in some way a violation of NPOV is nonsense. Such nonsense is disruptive.

I am not claiming that he published as Leslie Rowse - it is odd that you should suggest that he did, as I never said anything of the sort.

"Leslie" is not something that "someone, somewhere once referred to him by", or just a sister's pet name, it was, as well as "AL", how he was addressed by those close enough not to call him "Dr Rowse". He was never known as Alfred, this is the stuff that anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of his life knows.

I have never suggested that "Leslie" was used a professional alias, it is frankly bizarre that you should introduce that suggestion - I am sure you are not deliberately misrepresenting what I have said, simply that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. He published as A L Rowse, he was called Leslie by those who knew him. It is perfectly proper for the article to mention this. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"… he was called Leslie by those who knew him." "It is perfectly proper for the article to mention this." Please cite a policy justification for this assertion. --Xover (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Lede is appropriate as it is. What a ridiculous edit war. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC).

I agree that it would be a ridiculous thing to edit-war about. However, I also find it quite telling that both you and DuncanHill appear to consider attempts to change this article "edit-warring" and "disruptive", and appear to rely on these kinds of accusations and bald assertions rather than reasoned and policy-based arguments. It is entirely possible that I am flat out wrong on this issue, but so far nobody has provided any policy-based argument that this is so.

For instance, is there any policy or guideline that suggests that "what his family and friends called him" is not trivial and irrelevant to the majority of readers (and thus in violation of WP:UNDUE), overly familiar and unencyclopedic language (and thus in violation of WP:NPOV)? Can anyone provide reliable secondary sources to support a) that friends and family called him "Leslie", and b) that this fact is significant enough (why?) that it merits the weight given by being included in the first sentence of the lede? Is this really one of the most important facts about Rowse? If this is so obvious that I "haven't got a clue what [I am] talking about", then it should be really simple to come up with actual arguments to that effect.

And I would really much rather be proved wrong—Really! It happens all the time—on this issue than to engage in a protracted "discussion" that mostly consists of unsubstantiated assertions and aspersions ("misleading", "disruptive", "haven't got a clue", "edit-war[ring]". Anything else I should add to the list of my sins?). Cite me a couple of biographies that discuss this specifically, to demonstrate that is is verifiably true. Or a journal article that addresses it. And add an argument based on what they say and related to WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and MOS:LEAD (or other policy or guideline as you think appropriate). My flaws are myriad, so if we're just going to be listing those we'll be at it until the heat death of the universe. The policy-based arguments pro or con this issue are finite and limited, so with those we might actually get somewhere in a time frame commensurate with the importance of the issue. --Xover (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarify, please

Rowse endured doubting comments about his paternity… Any such frustrations were channelled into academia…

What does this mean? Valetude (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

False Modesty

Rowse was untroubled by false modesty, as evinced by his self-description in a late work as "the leading historian of Shakespeare's Age."

Reflist NRPanikker (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

References