Talk:Roger Fenton

Anon question

Why does a link for "Valley of the shadow of death" in this article link to a punk band? 67.110.49.135

Well spotted. In the absence of an obvious target (unless I've missed one) for any wikilinks, I have removed them. Sorry it took so long.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

origins

According to his blue plaque on the Crimble hotel, which is in Heywood, Fenton was born in Heywood, and not "Heap, Bury". Anyone care to confirm that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.71.221 (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a direct lift from ODNB, but its distorted by two fat-finger typos: "near Bury" becomes "Heap, Bury"—see what I did there? I'll fix this, to take into account modern boundary changes. Whatever, this is a good catch—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Retracting my fanciful theory: Heap was a "chapelry" within the parish of Bury—nothing to do with typos at all. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Confused valleys near Balaklava

The version in the article at present shouldn't be the last word, as there has been a lot of confusion in the previous history of the topic on Wikipedia and further illumination would be useful. What is here is now referenced from books, and this shouldn't be overturned without proper sources.

I've looked at contemporary maps, in particular the French military map of the terrain, and compared it with this panorama; it's instructive, but "comparing" is itself a bit like WP:NOR, and needs to be used judiciously. I'll probably get round to uploading the panorama somewhen or other.

I haven't found anything definitive, but I'm still hoping. New suggestions welcome!

--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Location of road depicted in Fenton's photograph called Valley of the Shadow of Death.

Old Moonraker, thanks for the advice on my change, but I believe you've been confused by the fact that I didn't embed my citation for the edits properly. First, I wasn't inserting my own original research. My source for the correct information is part two of the same Erroll Morris article already cited by someone else further down in the piece. I did insert that reference in the text. I just couldn't figure out how to embed it properly. If you read what Morris says, you'll see there's no doubt he's correct about this. He actually went to the Crimea and found the other valley, named the Valley of the Shadow of Death, which is not the same valley as the one in Tennyson's poem. He found the very spot Fenton photographed. And he discusses the mistaken assertion that Fenton photographed the Valley of Death mentioned in the Tennyson poem, and the mistaken story about Fenton's having added "shadow of" to the title of his photograph for dramatic effect. Morris even has a contemporaneous map with both valleys labelled. If anybody's a careful researcher, it's Erroll Morris. So if you know how to embed the citation properly, that's all that I believe would be needed to make the change conform to sourcing guidelines.

Also, I did not "combine two quotes" or "change the meaning" of the previous assertion--the assertion that Fenton added "shadow of" for dramatic effect and so forth. What I did, rather, was change what the Wikipedia discussion SAID ABOUT that assertion. That's not the same thing as changing the meaning of the assertion itself. The source cited for the incorrect assertion still takes you to a source for that assertion, so the citation for that assertion is still accurate. If I clumsily gave the impression that that the source cited for the incorrect assertion itself also says that that assertion is incorrect, that's my bad. I embedded my citations clumsily, which led you to misunderstand. But that was just a copy-edit level clumsiness on my part-- a reason to copy-edit my correction, not to remove it. The Morris article is the source, not only of the correct information about where the photograph was taken and about its title, but also of the information that the claim made by the other source that's cited in the Wikipeda article is incorrect. The Morris citation is meant to be positioned so as to make this clear, but obviously in this I failed. Again, the problem is my placement of the citation, not the other guideline breaches you mention. If you wouldn't mind verifying my claim for your own satisfaction by checking the Morris article Part Two, and then reinstating my correction, but positioning the citations more clearly, I would appreciate it greatly.

Please let me know if I have misunderstood or my explanation has failed to clarify this for you. Caroline1981 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've now had a chance to read part two of Morris's article (not originally referenced), including the maps you mention, and it should go some way towards sorting this out. (I may even be able to locate the viewpoint of the Simpson engraving now.) I'm going to have another go at this; watch this space, to borrow an over-worn phrase. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm mystified tht you didn't see the reference to Morris's part two. I did put it in. Can't explain that. In any event, I forgive you for your less than gracious acknowledgement of my contribution, including my correction of wrong information on a topic you evidently care about, and for your disrespectful approach of jumping to mistaken conclusions that assumed I'd violated guidelines I had not, summarily removing my correction, messaging me to "notify" me I'd "violated" those guidelines, and then posting to ask the whole community for the information (without even crediting me for calling the issue to your attention), rather than simply emailing me first to say you don't see a citation, and asking me if I have one. Caroline1981 (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You deleted information cited from a book in favor of a gossip piece ("Opinionator exclusive online commentary" — is that the same as a blog? “…went all the way to the Crimea because of one sentence written by Susan Sontag”) from a newspaper. Deleting cited information from Wikipedia is not good—it's not an issue of "correcting wrong information" as you put it. The gossip piece appeared over several editions of the paper; the later parts reference a reliable source (Sontag) which can probably be used, but this needs a bit of research. I'm sorry my "summary" action isn't fast enough for you: I hope to be able to study Sontag's maps today. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Progress, in case anybody was taking my "today", above, too literally: Morris's three articles are available as a single .pdf, which will make referencing easier. The originals of the two contemporary maps he cites are available at good resolutions and will be uploaded soon; one, at least, will be included on the page as it specifically labels the charge and, separately, the valley. A picture will be worth a thousand words! One of the article statements referenced to Morris is not supported and this will be tweaked.

I see that User:Caroline1981 feels that my acknowledgement of her contribution is "less than gracious". Personally, I have long since accepted that any demonstration of "grace" in this community is rare, so may I attempt an exception now? Her intervention will bring about a useful improvement.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded both maps: see here and here; the second one is now in the article and referenced in the text. The three serialized accounts of Morris's trip now referenced as one. A further WP:RS added, explaining how the "ravine" (so described in one of the maps) in Fenton's picture cannot possible be the valley where the Charge took place; it's a bit small for five regiments of cavalry at full tilt. Now: what's missing—have I left anything out?--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm mystified. Old Moonraker, are you talking to someone else here? I deleted no content from the article. I would NEVER do such an outrageous thing. I certainly didn't cite any "gossip pieces." Are you saying the Erroll Morris research that was my source is "gossip"? But at the same time you cite the same Morris's research approvingly, and say you'll be uploading the maps and that I made a useful contribution. I don't recognize any of my actions in the description you give. I'm completely confused. By the way, just because an assertion appears in a book doesn't make it a more reliable source than a report published elsewhere. But you know that. Caroline1981 (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If anyone else is still following this thread, which I doubt, the content deleted was Green-Lewis's account of the naming for the exhibition, which you replaced with "Some claim, incorrectly, that Fenton's photo was actually taken in the Valley of Death"; you removed cited material and replaced it with WP:NOR. Pointing out here, as justification, that the book may be unreliable is also WP:NOR, and is explained in more detail at verifiability not truth; read this quickly, as the policy's under review.

Now's the time for WP:DROP, I think.

—Old Moonraker (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ambush?

why is the word "ambush" used? as i recall the poem and the discussions, the charge was head-on into a clearly visible artillery emplacement. isn't an ambush a surprise and/or hidden attack?Kdammers (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Valley of the Shadow of Death.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)