Talk:W. H. R. Rivers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
W. H. R. Rivers was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 27, 2007

Contents

[edit] Torres Straits expedition

Was the expedition to the Torres Strait Islands? John Vandenberg 22:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

--Yes, it was :-) --Pudupudu 16:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilson

It appears that the J.M Wilson is Jean Moorcroft Wilson, however the article text implies that Wilson is a male: "...J.M Wilson picks up on in his Biography of Sassoon...". John Vandenberg 05:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

-- sorry about that *blushes* there were too many 'hims' and I wrote the wrong word *oops*--Pudupudu 21:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rating

I'm rating this a B because I can't go higher without a Good Article review, but I'd say this is definitely a GA and quite possibly a featured article. Fascinating subject. --Bookworm857158367 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

-- excuse my ignorance but what's a 'Good Article review'? --Pudupudu 10:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Good article review" is a peer review process for an article to become classified as a Wikipedia:Good articles and go on to become Wikipedia:Featured articles. The review will bring a lot of additional idea's to the editing table really quickly in order to determine what needs to be done before the article can be considered one of our finest. Like Bookworm857158367, I think this article is pretty darn good. If you like, I would be happy to kick off the review process. On the other hand, if you want to keep tweaking the article by yourself, that's fine too. John Vandenberg 11:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

-- that's fine- please do- but I can keep on adding things, can't I? Thank you --Pudupudu 12:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Im glad to hear you want to have the article reviewed. You definitely can keep adding things while it is being reviewed, however people will be more critical of any new contributions; everyone will be endeavouring to making sure the article moves forwards towards the "good article" status. Also it will change quite a bit, very quickly. Before I put it up for review, I'll do a light review myself so you can get a feel for how the review will go, and so you start focusing on the aspects that will ensure the reviewers get a good first impression.

The most important aspect to the review will be "attribution" (you need to read that document; feel free to ask me questions), and then we need to provide citations for each statement so that it is obvious that the article does not contain any "original research". To begin with, I have added four {{cn}} tags in the article. That tag indicates the sentence or segment states a fact, but doesnt provide a source, which would mean the sentence or statement really needs a source otherwise some enterprising person will decide the fact is bogus and needs to be removed. I found those four pretty quickly, so you can imagine that if 100 people all come and review the article, there would be lots and lots of {{cn}} tags on the article. You probably know where to find the sources for these statements, but if too many {{cn}} tags are added, you wont be able to keep up. That is why I suggest that we work on providing sources for the facts before encouraging everyone to come and critique the article. That way the review will be able to focus on other important issues as well. John Vandenberg 12:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Thanks for the heads up- I'll start work on that tonight if I can. I know where the information comes from so HOPEFULLY it shouldn't be too hard --Pudupudu 12:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

John, I am an idiot. I can't for the life of me remember how to do references and I know if I try then I'll, to use the pidgin, 'bagarup' it. I've put the source details in brackets where you've stated citation is needed- if you could format for me that would be wonderful. Also, if there are any more that need to be put in can you point me in their direction- thank you --Pudupudu 23:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tidied up the references [1] and added a few more {{cn}} tags. Enjoy. John Vandenberg 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

-- This is worse than coursework- I thought the references needed there were bad! Good thing I admire the man... --Pudupudu 00:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

--- told you I'd mess it up if I tried to do anything with it... still, all the references are cited, I just did it in an... interesting... way. Sorry about that. Any more facts that need validating? --Pudupudu 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologise ... seriously, you have been doing a great job of making the prose interesting; now you need to make the content irrefutable. How you do the citing isnt too important (I can clean it up); the purpose of citing is so that the reader can verify that it isnt wikt:cod's wallop. Every fact needs validating :-) I will mark out a few more, but any sentence that says something interesting needs to have a source. This is much tougher than coursework; the intent is to write an encycopedia article that is as good as or better than any other encycopedia article on this topic. John Vandenberg 11:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

--- thank you for all your help. I'm ok at the writing side but my computer and I don't always see eye to eye. I've taken to editing this in my school library (as I am now) so I think I can officially class myself as 'obsessed'. I'll get on with more exciting citing now --Pudupudu 12:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

--- I've put the references that I couldn't format properly in bold so that they're easier to find. I managed to do some properly (I think) --Pudupudu 14:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the ones that were ungainly; the other few that are still in bold are fine the way they are as the bold bit belongs in the prose. I've added a few more {{cn}} but there is another set that need work: all of the quotes in the section "Others' Opinions of Rivers" have give clues as to who said what, but more information about each quote is needed in order for the average reader to be able to figure it out. John Vandenberg 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

--- I'm on it :-D --Pudupudu 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

--- this might take a while as I can't remember where all of them are from *fantastic* but I will get them done. Please excuse my moronic tendencies --Pudupudu 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to panic; just keep having fun and learning. Keep in mind that Rivers wrote his encyclopaedic article on psycho-therapeutics when he was 54, yet you are learning the write to the same level of quality in your late teens. You might like to read this BBC article about a UK university where where "Students have to edit eight articles on the online encyclopedia and then write their own article for the site." You are already doing that now! John Vandenberg 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

--- thank you so much. I am having fun with this and learning a great deal- Rivers is such an interesting and endearing person and he never did get the credit he deserved; I might be writing this eighty years too late but at least it's something. I really have to thank you for all the work you've put in too, the page looks really good and that's not down to me, I just wax lyrically --Pudupudu 11:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

--- right, cited all the references I could find (in a very haphazard way). Most of them just need tidying up but there are some 'others' opinions' that just say '(name) in (such and such book)' is that enough information for you to go on? There are a few that I couldn't locate such as T.G Platten and The Times but I'm sure the sources must be SOMEWHERE --Pudupudu 12:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That was enough. I think you have sufficiently demonstrated that the information in the article is verifiable, so I've gone ahead and nominated the article to be reviewed under the category "Medicine" for want of a better category; "Military" could have worked just as well but I could only pick one. We can still improve the article with more citations and tidbits however one of the criteria is that the article must remain "stable". i.e. we cant drastically re-arrange things now. John Vandenberg 14:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WorldCat

If you dont know about it already, WorldCat is one of the worlds largest repositories of meta data for published items. All of the citation data that I have added so far has come straight from there using the clues you have given :-). John Vandenberg 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics

Here is a more hairy and interesting case:

Entry on psycho-therapeutics in volume 10 of the 'Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics' (1918)

Take a look at http://worldcat.org/search?q=Encyclopedia+of+Religion+and+Ethics . As you can see, there are a few listed items that are similar; if you click on the first entry, and click "Editions", you should arrive at this page http://worldcat.org/oclc/11054502?tab=editions. I havent been able to find any edition that was published in 1918. My initial guess is that it was published as per the details in OCLC 16672883 (1917), but this is probably a question best raised with a librarian so you can actually pull out the book and check the entry is in there. Also note that ISBN 0567065014 is a recent publication of this title, so it will be much more accessible to people, and would probably have a page at the front of the book providing details about the previous publications. Now if you head over to http://books.google.com/ and type in "Encyclopedia of religion and ethics" "psycho-therapeutics" rivers you can see the book [2] lists Rivers as the author of the "psycho-therapeutics" entry:

RIVERS, (W.H.R.) M.A., M.D., F.R.S., F.R.C.P.,
Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge;
President of the Anthropological Section
of the British Association, 1911, author of
....

So, now we know for certain that we have found the right book. We still dont know when his entry was first published :-) John Vandenberg 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William 'False' Rivers Rivers

I was looking through the birth register for Rivers' date and place of birth. The only person registered is a certain 'William False Rivers Rivers' and I fear that's the man and that they made YET ANOTHER clerical error with his name. I will upload the page of the register onto my photobucket account and then put a link on this page. I can't imagine that it would be anyone other than him but I also can't think how they could get it so drastically wrong- all of his siblings and his parents are regisitered correctly. Also found out some interesting information about Rivers' living arrangements in 1881:

Household:

Henry F. RIVERS Head M Male 51 Deptford, Kent, England, Curate In Charge Of Offham And Chaplain Malling Union
Elizabeth RIVERS Wife M Female 41 Swanage, Dorset, England
Wm. H. R. RIVERS Son U Male 17 Chatham, Kent, England, Scholar
Alexander MONKASTER Boarder U Male 17 New Zealand, Scholar
Edwd.A. GAYER Boarder U Male 16 East Indies Scholar
Hugh MURDOCK, Boarder, U Male 16 Highgate, Middlesex, England, Scholar
Sarah AUSTIN Serv U Female 19 East Peckham, Kent, England, Domestic Serv Cook
Emma PARRIS Serv U Female 19 Offham, Kent, England, Domestic Serv Housmd

Source Information:

 Dwelling   Offham Rectory 
 Census Place Offham, Kent, England 
 Family History Library Film   1341215 
 Public Records Office Reference   RG11 
 Piece / Folio   0903 / 10 
 Page Number   14

No idea why his brother and sisters aren't on this list but I assure you, they DID exist :-p --Pudupudu 13:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is surprising. This is getting more curious the further you dig into the matter. Who would have thought that the name of someone so widely referred to (in a book and movie no less) could be a matter of intrigue.
Put the link to the photo on this talk page (not the main article) as I would love to see it, but I have reservations about putting the photograph of a legal document on Wikipedia as evidence. Dont worry to much about this; I'll track down the policies and legalities on this matter to work out if it usable. John Vandenberg 13:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

--- here's a link to both the register and another picture of Rivers that I obtained from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Hope this works--Pudupudu 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've grabbed a copy of those images; thank you. Did you obtain those from the online version of the ODNB, or from the published book ? If it was online, can you give the URLs of the pages you obtained the pictures from; if it was published, can you find the ISBN and any other details about the copy of the book that you have access to, specifically its publication year. John Vandenberg 23:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

--- oh heck- right, the ODNM picture is from the website: http://www.oxforddnb.com/ but I think you have to be a member to view it. As for register... well, that's self-explanatory- it's from the British Birth Register, 1864- as far as I know it hasn't been featured in any other book --Pudupudu 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial War Museum

I'm venturing to the museum and to Cambridge in the next few months to search out some more Rivers-related material. I will, of course, put the information I find on here but what is the policy for citing primary sources such as these?--Pudupudu 09:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem including primary sources once the article has been primarily backed up by secondary sources. Just keep a record of any way you can identify the material. For the museum, take photographs of any item that is relevant if they permit camera's and be sure to take notes on the dates of the items exhibited. Most of the items of this period with either not be under copyright, or the copyright will be expiring soon. We can tackle them one by one.

In Cambridge, the best thing to do will be talk to the librarian about what you are doing, and why you want the information and images. I suggest that you print out this article and take it with you so they can see the quality of the article to demonstrate that this isnt a silly request. Mention that you want to release the image under the GNU Free Documentation License for use on Wikipedia. They love hairy questions like that and will do far better at answering them then I could. If in the strange event that they are unhelpful, grab anything you can and we can worry about the legalese on a case by case basis. John Vandenberg 12:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rivers information

Hi Pudupudu,

Great to see your work on this page. I worked on an early version and wrote the Spanish language article, so it's fantastic to see it grow so comprehensively, especially with all the research you've been doing. I work at the Institute of Psychiatry (Maudsley Hospital) in London, so if I can be of help providing any information, do let me know.

- Vaughan 11:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

-- wow *is in awe* any information at all that you can find would be great to see. I'm researching as much as I can but I'm not in a position to get as much information as I might like to. Thank you --Pudupudu 12:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TOO MANY quotes.. too long?

I'm very interested in the topic, don't get me wrong, but just scrolling the article initially, there's a LOT of quotes in it, and it's very long. Isn't there any chance you can surmise his points or others into an article, and add a note to what was meant?

I'm not being nasty, i'm just saying.. not everything, or the majority of what a person says needs to be quoted! James.Spudeman 00:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

-- I was somewhat reluctant to condense the quotes in any way for fear of getting rid of something that the person considered to be important. However, I see the ever helpful John has added the majority of the quotes to Wikiquote. Shall I delete the ones that are in the article? Would this be better? --Pudupudu 10:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This man is too big for one article. :-) I've copied or moved quotes and poems across to q:W. H. R. Rivers, q:Siegfried Sassoon and s:Author:Siegfried Sassoon and s:Author:W.H.R.Rivers. Feel free to condense away. John Vandenberg 10:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Some of the quotes seem to be absent from wikiquote and I fear it will take me several years to figure out how to do it myself. If I leave the missing ones on the main article, can you move them? Unless there was a reason you didn't put them on there to begin with? Thank you. And yes, I agree that he's too big for one article. He deserves a book- a BIG book --Pudupudu 11:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Panic over, I've worked out how to put them on there *phew*--Pudupudu 11:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for copying them across, and removing them from here. I was originally planning on moving the quotes but instead decided to copy them so you could choose which ones you wanted to leave here. John Vandenberg 11:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Still, TOO MANY QUOTES. For instance, take a look at the Richard Feynman article; despite the fact a lot of the things he has said are extremely interesting and resemble his character well, they don't need to be quoted verbatim, so long as what he was saying, and it's importance is quoted. For instance, instead of writing out his entire monologue in which he describes motion and it's relevance through a joke, can easily be surmised by "also used humorous methods of relating material to the real-world [ref]". When i was in university, i was told an important fact, even when quoting small texts; "Don't just dump a quote into a text" -- which seems to be going on here.
If you see the article, for instance, there is -- "Pat Barker, in the third novel in her Regeneration Trilogy, The Ghost Road suggests a reason for these problems but Rivers himself, although he may have had some idea of the causes, does not appear to cite them fully in his writings. However, in 'Instinct and the Unconscious' he also states that he had at least begun to realise the cause: <long quote>". Now, it can easily be said "Suchandsuch noted that blahblahblah [ref], due to his tone [ref] blahblah [ref]", rather than quoting exactly what he has said in a long drawn out fashion. Also, isnt there a chance of the quotes that are almost a page long being something that represents a POV, as well as non-wiki grammar? No offence intended. James.Spudeman 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
no offence taken but I'm afraid I can't edit his work. Anyone else can condense if they wish to but, although it may seem strange, I really just can't bring myself to do it. I know the importance of keeping short quotes in things such as essays where there's a word limit but that isn't the case here... if pushed, I will edit, but I'd really rather not as there's no way I can do him justice --Pudupudu 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I can understand your reluctance to delete these quotes from the article; I'll take a crack at streamlining the quotes over the next few days. To begin with, the Pat Barker quotes can probably be worked into Regeneration Trilogy and/or Pat Barker. John Vandenberg 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind editing Pat Barker quotes- which one is too long? I know I put in two REALLY long Rivers quotes but they're from Instinct and the Unconscious --Pudupudu 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Umm, my apology, there are no long quotes from Pat Barker. We can put the full works of Instinct and Unconscious onto Wikisource. Then those quotes here can be summarised with a link to the relevant portion where the full text can be found. John Vandenberg 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
that would be good. There's a link to the book on published works. Thank you again :-D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pudupudu (talk • contribs) 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
I've cut out the large quotes from the book, as that chapter is now in Wikisource at s:Instinct and the Unconscious/The Unconscious. Feel free to tighten up the prose about his lack of visual memory.
With those two large quotes out of the way, I have now asked the Biography team to peer review the article. John Vandenberg 22:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To a Very Wise Man

Where's this poem run off to? I would put it onto Wikiquote myself but I fear you've probably put it somewhere already, I just can't find it --Pudupudu 10:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's on Wikisource, where it now has its own article: s:To a Very Wise Man John Vandenberg 10:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

--- ooo, that's rather exciting- is there a link on the main article page? I fear I missed it *oops* --Pudupudu 11:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I forgot to link to it. I've done that now. "Revisitation" is a bit more complicated, as I think there are copyright issues. Do you recall where you found that poem? A bit of discussion about this poem can be found at s:Talk:Siegfried Sassoon. John Vandenberg 11:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

--- The link to the poem doesn't seem to be working. Shall I throw my computer out of the window now or later? :-P Yes, I do know where I got the poem from and will put the details of the book on the other talk page. I really hope it can be used- it's such a wonderful poem --Pudupudu 11:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I've added a redirect over on wikisource to fix the problem. John Vandenberg 11:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

--- Can't find the details online so I'll have to put the book information up tomorrow when I can get hold of the book. Talking about tomorrow... it's Rivers' birthday :-D --Pudupudu 11:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You should add him to March 12#Births; he is already on June 4#Deaths John Vandenberg 11:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

- I'll give it a go --Pudupudu 11:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a redlink to Revisitation, as even if the poem cant be included in wikisource due to copyright, you can write a new encyclopaedic article about the poem. See They (poem) as a template to follow. John Vandenberg 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obituaries

In my travels, I ran into another obituary that may be of use. John Vandenberg 12:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't view it. There is supposed to be a 'brilliant' one (if indeed you can describe an obituary thus) in 'Man' magazine by Barlett and Haddon- unfortunately, I can't access JSTOR files when not at Oxford so this might prove a problem at the moment. If you, or anyone, CAN access these files and would like to put the information on the site (or send it to me... or whatever) then PLEASE do. Merci --Pudupudu 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont have JSTOR access set up, but the first page of the obituary is visible. John Vandenberg 21:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource

I have put 'On The Repression of War Experience' on Wikisource and also added links to all the other published works that I know of for us to add to whenever we can. Hope I did it right! --Pudupudu 15:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. It is probably worth your while to create a "Pudupudu" account on wikisource and wikiquote so other people can identify your modifications. We need to be careful over on wikisource to not upload copyright material. I have posted a question about Bartlet's obituary. The same issues apply to s:On The Repression of War Experience, because it was published by a journal/magazine. John Vandenberg 21:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday!

Yes, I know I'm insane but I just had to wish Will a very happy 143 birthday (it seems he's still around to be wished happy birthday to- there are reports of his 'spirit'- it seems he prefers this term to 'ghost'- haunting St. John's College; I will have to test this theory out in the summer). Anyway, I feel I've got to know this man very well in the past few months and would like to thank him for being so interesting and inspirational. There we go *blushes*--Pudupudu 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

The prose needs a major overhaul. As I look at it initially, the cquote template is overused way too much. Makes it very difficult to read.

The organization seems ok, but I'd add a section on 'early life' before 'pre-war', and move some of the early stuff there. It seems like the 'pre-war' section is just too long. The 'Others' Opinions of Rivers' doesn't seem to make much sense, as (again) it's mostly quotes. I think this section could be eliminated and parts moved into the main biography section.

I'd move 'published works' to just before the 'references' section, since it's mainly just a list of what he wrote. It would help if more of these books/sources had ISBN numbers attached to them, for easier finding in libraries. Some of the material in the 'in fiction' section should probably be moved to the wikipedia articles on his books and eliminated from this article (see the article on Ann Coulter for how wikipedia treats her books).

There seems to be a tad too many external links at the end. Some of these should become references to material in the article, some could be eliminated, and the whole section would be better organized. Also, as many quotes as there are in the article, it's surprising that the wikiquote link here only refers to quotes related to one of his books!

As a minor issue, editors might also find it helpful to review WP:CITE for information on how to format references. Several citations only include URLs and titles. These citations should ideally contain author information, who published the source, when it was published, when the URL was last retrieved, etc. This is to insure that the citation is still useful if the URL is no longer accessible.

Hope this helps! Good luck! Dr. Cash 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-cultural psychology

I decided to create an article which Wikipedia sorely needed - one on cross-cultural psychology - and put in reference to Rivers in this article. ACEOREVIVED 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experiments with Henry Head

I have never understood why two nerves were severed. An explanation would be a worthwhile addition to this article.RayJohnstone (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) And the statement "Although Rivers was the investigator in this experiment, he was survived by Head who came to publish their work and is, therefore, given a great deal of the credit that is, perhaps, due to Rivers" is, I think, misleading. So far as I know, all their work was published years before Rivers died.RayJohnstone (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)