Talk:Paul Revere's Ride

Initial text

should the full text of the poem really be in the article in its entirety? isn't that something that belongs more in wikisource? Billy Shears 19:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised that wikipedia doesn't have an article on Israel Bissell who rode for a total of 345 miles in five days, averaging 69 miles a day. He should be mentioned in this artcle as his ride was the longest, despite the most unrecognized. Santavez 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be good for this article to have highlights of the difference's between Longfellow's poem and the actual ride. Uvapip

Necessity

I don't think this article is nessary. Under Paul Revere there is already a section, almost of this length, written. This should either be merged or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djarnum1 (talk • contribs)

This article is not about Paul Revere though. Despite how poorly written it is, it is about the poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow called "Paul Revere's Ride". — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. It needs to be made clearer. I was confused because in the Paul Revere introduction it states, Revere's name and his Midnight Ride are well-known in the United States. It links the Midnight ride to the article about the poem. I'll remove the link from the Revere article. The article looks much better than earlier, nice job. .Djarnum1

You need to have more important details.

--Luv in indiana 15:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)I was trying to do a report on the american revolution and you didn't even have the paul revere's qoute. Next time make sure that you have more info. Thank You.--Luv in indiana 15:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) -Paige Moore

Under References, "A Letter From Paul Revere" links to a web page that quotes the story of the ride in Revere's own words. Other links quote Longfellow's poem and other quotes. Greensburger 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pedancy

do we realy need to have the thing about the literal meaning of Paul Revere's ride? I mean, most people that would know about the story of Paul Revere would know that he rode on a horse, so do we realy need to be pedantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphamone (talk • contribs) 11:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Improving this article

A couple things - According to Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, the full text of the poem shouldn't be included here (it's just too long). Instead, maybe a summary of the "plot" of the poem is more reasonable. Check out what I did at The Raven as an example. I'd also suggest there be a substantial cut-down of the section on the historical event - this article, after all, is not about that event but the poem that Longfellow wrote. The section on Historical criticisms and inaccuracies could probably even stand as its own section, without the Historic event section. After that, the Historic impact section can be expanded. Then throw in some info on analyzing the poetic structure, meter, any symbolism, etc. Just some suggestions though, feel free to ignore them. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Although the original article was about the poem and not the event, the historical event is now and should remain the main focus. If any attempt were made to split off the historical event into a separate article, there would immediately be calls for a merge. The historical section should remain uncut. Including the entire text of the poem is too long, I agree, but an article analyzing the poetic structure would also be too long and would detract from the main interst which is what Revere and his associates did. Several books have been written about the historical event and that reflects the fact that to most people the event and the circumstances around the event are more interesting than the poem. Greensburger (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... your response defies logic. The lead of this article clearly states that the article is about the poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. The article can't sit on the fence - is it about the poem or is it about the historical event? The article says it's about the poem (though its content confuses the issue) so some work definitely needs to be done. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That problem is now corrected. I also think the first stanza of the poem should be restored in the "The poem" section with line breaks so that non-Americans will know what poem is being referenced. Greensburger (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this solution (and remember I'm just trying to help). I would point out that the original intent of this article, according to the edit history, was always to have an article about the poem itself - and there have been some great articles written about poems here on Wikipedia, including some that have made their way to featured status. At this point, I would really urge having a separate article just for the poem, maybe Paul Revere's Ride (poem). From there, I can aid in boosting the quality and format of that article. Are there other thoughts on this? --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Although, on second thought, I fail to see the benefit of having a separate article on Revere's historic ride - is this article treating the subject more in-depth than what's on Paul Revere's main article? Does it really justify a forked article? --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is unnecessary duplication. All of the historical matter and debunking of the poem should be in one article with a historical summary in the other article. If most of the historic material were moved from the ride article to the Revere article, the Revere article would be too large. If much new poetry analysis were added to the ride article, it would make the ride article too large. Maybe three articles: a shortened Revere article, a new poetry article, and an enlarged history article? Greensburger (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The main Paul Revere article isn't even close to being too long just yet (I wouldn't even consider it "long" until it approaches 50k; it's currently under 20k), so I wouldn't worry about it too much. In fact, I would think such an important historical figure should have a long article. What seems to make the most sense to me, with only a cursory knowledge of the history (as a former Bostonian), is to have an article on the history of the ride (including Revere, Dawes, et al) and a separate article just on the poem. I would foresee that the former article would have a summary style mention of not the poem but the inaccuracy of it and its impact, sort of a misconceptions section with Longfellow as the source. The latter would have the more in-depth information about the same, with very little on the historical ride besides what is relevant to seeing the poem's historical inaccuracy. Does that make sense? Really, a full, in-depth, and broad article on the poem is necessary due to its importance. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are suggesting making a new article "Paul Revere's Ride (poem)" with the misconceptions material, I agree. If you are suggesting merging the present historic event material into the Revere article, I don't agree because the Dawes, Prescott, Luddington, etc material is not suitable for the Revere biography. When the dust settles, one of the articles should have all of the material on who did what on the night of 18 April 1775, but omitting the misconceptions material and the general biography. Greensburger (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You're repeating what I was suggesting: two separate articles, one for historical event, the other for the poem. Not sure how I wasn't clear but, nonetheless, does that sound reasonable? As an aside, though, because this article is and was specifically for the poem, I might withdraw my suggestion for "Paul Revere's Ride (poem)" and offer a new article title that, as you point out, encompasses not just Revere but the rest of the gang. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Two separate articles is what exists now. There should be three separate articles: (1) Paul Revere biography with a shortened summary of April 18/19 without Dawes and the gang, (2) Paul Revere's Ride (poem) with the misconceptions exposed, and (3) historic details about the night of April 18/19 with Revere and the gang but not the poem and not the rest of Revere's life. Greensburger (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't discussing the Paul Revere article. In reference to this article, I was saying it should be split into two separate articles... it's currently ONE article, not two. But, yes, if you want to be fundamental, you are referring to three articles. Though, with that said, you did mention that there's very little in this article referring to the historic event that's not in Paul Revere's main article. I can see someone requesting a merge pretty quickly. Either way, I'd still go back to my original point: this article is supposed to be about the poem, wherever the rest of it ends up. :) Nonetheless, we should wait a couple days so we can see if there are further responses here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should have two separate articles. There is enough out there about Paul's Ride to merit a historical article about it. The poem should have an article of it's own called Paul Revere's Ride (poem), since it also has a lot of merit. In any case, if this article doesn't choose sides clearly, it will suffer. Wrad (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this whole argument has become senseless. The information on the Paul Revere article has almost verbatim the information that is here. The argument that adding more info about Revere's ride making the article too long is therefore illogical because it's already there. Additionally, there is no need for a separate article that repeats what is already said in his main article. Frankly, the argument is also irrelevant: not having a full bit of information on Revere's ride in his article (the thing that has made him historically notable) would be a travesty - that would include the information about other riders. Again, I would like to reclaim this article on "Paul Revere's Ride" for the poem by Longfellow, as the article's original author intended. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy

I'm going to try this again. The majority of the information under the section on the historic event is already in the article on Paul Revere. This article was originally intended to be (and still should be) an article on a poem by Longfellow (hence the capital "R" in "Ride" in the article name). I propose removing the majority of the information on the historic ride, renaming that section "Historical accuracy" and including a See also template tag to the appropriate section in Paul Revere's article. I think this is a reasonable solution to avoid redundancy between the two articles, to be true to the original intention of this article's creation, recognize the importance of the poem enough that it needs to stand alone in its article, and to encourage further improvement in the important article on Revere rather than making good faith editors confused as to which article they should work on. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Although there is some redundancy between the two articles, that is inevitable when the subject matter overlaps. There is necessary overlap between automobiles and engines and transportation. There is necessary overlap between Alexander Graham Bell and Telephone and Bell Telephone Company. Any attempt to replace such redundancy with links to the related articles would result in an unreadable article that would require numerous jumps back and forth between the two or three articles. To revert the poem article back to its roots, a literary commentary on a old poem, might please poetry buffs, but destroy the historical analysis of interest to history buffs. To merge the historical analysis with the biography article would give too much weight to one notable event in Revere's life at the expense of historical background and activities of the others who participated in the events of April 18-19, 1775. What makes the poem interesting to most people is the history, not whether Longfellow used proper scansion and rhyme. That said, I agree that the midnight ride section in the Paul Revere article is too long and could be shortened by two or three paragraphs. But only if the historical treatment survives in this Paul Revere's Ride article. Greensburger (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This argument still makes no sense to me. Saying that having a lengthy discussion of Revere's famous ride should not be in the article on Paul Revere makes as much sense as saying that a lengthy discussion of Longfellow's poetry should not be in an article on Longfellow (which it has). If you really feel a full article should be created to discuss the historical event, create one. "Paul Revere's Ride" is the name of a poem by Longfellow and the article that bears the matching title should be about that. I never suggested the discussion of the ride in Revere's article was too long, so I'm not sure who you're agreeing with. I'm thinking that an article on Revere should discuss the entirety of his relevance. I'm not trying to appeal to history buffs or poetry buffs, but to reach an understanding that this Frankenstein job is completely inappropriate. If you feel that Paul Revere's article needs a forked article, fork from there. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Paul Revere article already links to the Paul Revere's Ride article and so no fork is needed. Most people looking at the Ride article do not want a discussion of the poem as poetry - whether Longfellow used anapestic or dactyl tetrameter or which publications published the poem. They want the history which the Ride article already provides. A discussion of the historical errors and poetic license Longfellow used in the poem is the only thing of interest in the poem as popularized history, and the Ride article provides that. The Ride article is fine the way it is. When I said "I agree" I was referring to the fact that there is duplication of the history material. If anything at all is done to the Paul Revere article it can be slightly shortened by two paragraphs. But there is no harm done by leaving the Paul Revere article as is. Eliminating duplication is only a serious concern for paper publishers who have printing costs that are measured by the column inch. Gigabyte harddrives will not run out of space because of a few duplicated paragraphs. Greensburger (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes you make these presumptions. I presume that people looking up "Paul Revere's Ride" are looking for "Paul Revere's Ride", which is, in fact, a poem. Why would someone go to a proper title of a poem to learn about a historical event? And you keep talking about what is of interest... "The only thing of interest" is not necessarily what makes an encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia article on a poem (such as this article) will be broad and discuss everything including its publication, its poetic merit, its critical response and, in this case, its historical inaccuracy, just to name a few. This article is the title of a poem, not a historical event. Perhaps you should consider making something that is on "Paul Revere's ride"? By the way, there is some harm in leaving the Paul Revere article as it is because of its incredibly poor quality and nearly complete lack of sourcing. I'm not concerned about space but of having information in multiple spots: to learn about Paul Revere, go there. To learn about his ride, also go to Paul Revere (or, if you feel it is appropriate, fork an article on it). To learn about the poem, go to the article on the poem, which is this page. Here is what I am suggesting, just to be clear: 1) the article on Paul Revere should fully discuss Paul Revere and 2) the article on the poem should fully discuss the poem, which will certainly include references to the historical Paul Revere. I believe this article can stand on its own as an article on a poem, as it was intended. It will be hard to bring this up to recognized quality if it can't choose what it is about. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just compared the history sections of the two articles and was surprised to find them almost identical, except that the Paul Revere's Ride (poem) version has many links to references that the Paul Revere (bio) article lacked. I just added them to the bio article so that the history section in the poem article can be shortened without losing the references. I am now in agreement with you that the poem article can focus on the poem. I propose the following:

Move the article "Paul Revere's Ride" to "Paul Revere's Ride (poem)".

Change the old "Paul Revere's Ride" page to a short disambiguation page that would point to the two articles:

Paul Revere's Ride (poem)

Paul Revere's ride (historical event) which would point to the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere section in the Paul Revere article.

Shorten the history section of Paul Revere's Ride (poem)

What do you think of this idea? Greensburger (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise, and I thoroughly respect your entertaining this idea and considering it seriously. I'd recommend, considering it's only been the two of us, we wait a day or two and see if there is any disagreement from other editors. Again, thanks for the discussion! --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've created the article Paul Revere's Ride (poem) - I'll allow you to pick what you believe is most relevent for the Paul Revere's Ride (historical event) article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I preserved the discussion and short "Historical event" 2 paragraphs in this (poem) article and changed the Paul Revere's Ride article to a disambiguation page. The detailed history with references is already in the main Paul Revere article. Some (but not all) of the poem could be restored to this (poem) article to show the lines of the poem being criticised. But I leave that to others. Greensburger (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Green. I think I have a couple sources I can pull from that talk about specific lines and how they are inaccurate; I'll be sure to quote them as well as provide the arguments against them as this article builds. This will also allow a contextual discussion of the historic event in relation to the poem so that will be relevant. I agree that the full text of the poem is fine on Wikisource and not here. Thanks for all your help on this. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Modern criticism

The third paragraph under "Modern" is just a rewording of the first. 21:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.86.156 (talk)

I combined the two paragraphs as you suggested. Greensburger (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"The majority of criticism, however, notes that Longfellow gave sole credit to Revere for the collective achievements of three riders (as well as other riders, whose names do not survive to history)." This is misleading. The names did "survive to history" (an awkward phrasing). They may not be well-known, but David Hackett Fischer's book Paul Revere's Ride lists the names and the routes they traveled. 174.242.75.196 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe more like "have not survived in collective memory"? Or how would you recommend it be worded? --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment on the historical setting of the writing of the poem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Lepore.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=ab1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.156 (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Poem

Errr . . . Oughtn't there at least to be a full copy of the poem in this article? --87.147.32.129 (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Not according to the WP:Poetry project guidelines. Because it's a fairly lengthy poem, it would take up too much space, so it is relegated to Wikisource (which you'll see linked at the end of the article, in addition to another link to the full text). --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)