Talk:Paul Revere's Ride

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul Revere's Ride is part of WikiProject Poetry, a WikiProject related to Poetry.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

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

Contents

[edit] Merge

I don't think this article is neceary. 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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 gamg 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)