Talk:Walter Scott

Rarely read?

His novels may be less popular than they were, but it's stretching things a bit to say that he's rarely read. I've read some of his novels and I know other people who have too. If you want a best-selling Victorian novelist whose works are rarely read nowadays try someone like George Macdonald. I don't know anyone who's read his work lately. -- Derek Ross

Please pick some other Victorian -old George, the inspiration to C.S. Lewis and G.K Chesterton unread? I have Lillith and The Princess and the Goblin on my self now. Amazon has many of his works in print even illustrated by Maurice Sendak or on audiotape. "If you want a best-selling Victorian novelist whose works are rarely read nowadays try someone like" Louisa Muhlbach. ---rmhermen

Don't get me wrong, -- I like George Macdonald -- I just don't think that he's that widely read now. His fantasy is probably more popular than his other stuff but "Sir Gibbie"? Still, I suppose that compared to Louisa Muhlbach... -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC).

Well, I'm a reader of George MacDonald. I think that his children's books are still read, and certainly the Doric in his Aberdeenshire novels make them of a particular interest. But Eric Linklater? There's an example of bad neglect, and Alistair Maclean is reportedly out of print now. --MacRusgail 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he is read by all people inclined to read Victorian novels and certainly by young people who love romantic ones. WHAT person who reads English [Scottish] novels hasn't read Ivanhoe or Waverley?? What teenager who enjoys Dumas, Verne or Cooper hasn't enjoyed Sir Walter?

Scott has also been translated into practically every literary language and widely read around the world: In France he is as often read as Alexandre Dumas Père. He had an enormous influence on European literature, from Spain to Russia.

Also, what is that nonsense about Scott also suffered from the rising star of Jane Austen ? What does one have to do with the other? They never had the same readership and nobody thinks of them in the same brath at all. What rubbish. Tantris —Preceding comment was added at 03:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about the line Scott suffered from a disastrous decline in popularity after the First World War. To whom was it a disaster? I don't think he'd have found it so as he was long dead. OK, perhaps his reputation, but I'm still not sure the 'disastrous' bit is necessary. With regards to jane Austn, no less a personage than Charlotte Bronte asked how anyone could find Austn more interesting than the Waverley novels.(83.13.39.98 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

People read less these days. Movies & television have usurped the place of books.

Dick Scalper (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

sir walter?

Why is he "Sir" Walter Scott instead of just "Walter Scott" in the article title, please? -- isis 24 Aug 2002

Presumably he was knighted.JimD 09:07, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

"Sir" (pronounced "cur" in the old jibe) came with the baronet bit - I've added the link following it by a Sir W. to explain this, also adding to the king's visit which was a pivotal moment in forming the scotch identity - dave souza 07:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning that his son was the second and last baronet. Seadowns (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Marmion

I (User:JimD) added the paragraph about Marmion and the quote:

Oh! what a tangled web we weave

When first we practise to deceive!

... after researching its origins to satisfy my curiosity. Hope that addition is useful. Hope someone will write up a bit about Marmion to fix the dead link.JimD 09:07, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

chrono order

I reversed the order of 2 phrases ;one of them was refering to the year 1799 and was placed before the one refering to the year 1797.I think they should be placed in chronological order.

I would like to say that I'm from Romania and I've read almost all of Walter Scott's novels, some of them in the 2nd or even 3rd edition of the translation (Ivanhoe and Quentin Durward;some translations were published before WWII), while in the mean time I've never heard of that George McDonald.

Stefan

Georg Lukács

The Hungarian literary critic Georg Lukács did some important work on Scott's innovative qualities, and is the one responsible for naming him the father of the historical novel. I think this should be included, I'll see what I can do, but if anyone know more about this subject, feel free. Eixo 10:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone more knowledgeable than I want to add a section about his permission from George, Prince Regent to 'rummage' in Edinburgh castle, and his supposed 'discovery' of the hidden Honours of Scotland?

You could write it up from here, a resource from the National Library of Scotland, or this, taken from the castle's own guide, or this. (Sorry, trying not to get into any new WP areas myself...) JackyR | Talk 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Abbotsford House

I added some information here which I fetched from 'The Book of Knowledge' by Harold F.B. Wheeler, publ. The Waverley Book Company, Ltd. London (undated but around 1931). Since I do not quite know how to make the citation correctly, I put the information here and maybe some kind soul will do this for me ProEdits 84.208.99.96 19:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Should the second break on Abbotsford House not be deleted? It contains nothing about Scott himself. One could also just say: "The house is now a museum".--Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The house is called "Abbotsford" (no "House") [see for example http://www.scottsabbotsford.co.uk/]. I have corrected this. Richard101696 (talk)

Birthday

Please correct me but I think his birthday is today, not the 14th as written in th article. --128.176.236.246 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Walter Scott

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Walter Scott in Huckleberry Finn

In Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, is the ship that was wrecked on the river named after this Walter Scott? And if so, could we possibly make a list of other places he comes up, either literally or by inference?All4One 14:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My highschool english teacher and one of my college english teachers all agree that it's an ironic reference to this Walter Scott. Scott writes about grand heroics and such in his novels and there on the sinking boat in Mark Twain's book there is nothing but a band of cut-throats there to kill one of their number. -Jo April 29, 2007

The ship was called Walter Scott. And you're right about making a list of places. I'm adding a references in other literature section.Leo-Isaurus-Rex (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Twain considered the works of Walter Scott to have had a pernicious influence in the antebellum U.S. South. Twain believed they were responsible for the sham chivalric culture that prevailed there, and thus were a cause of the U.S. Civil War! (However, he reserved his most vitriolic criticism for James Fenimore Cooper, whom he considered a poor writer.)Barnaby the Scrivener (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

how detailed is his research?

I'm reading Rob Roy. There's this huge rambling preface and introduction text complete with a few citations. Among other things, it relates an anecdote of Rob Roy MacGregor visiting his kinsman Dr James Gregory, inventor of the Gregorian telescope, and liking him so much he wants to do him a favor by taking his son off to learn Rob Roy's war-like ways. Is the anecdote likely to be true? -- Akb4 09:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Different info?????? tell me the truth

There's something that bothers me here in another web site it says a few different things like it says he entered the endinburgh high school in 1778 wich in imposible cause he would be 7 or 8????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!? Was he a guiness? Can someone please notifly me on that??????

Someone should edit the titles of Scott's books in the intro. At least two of them are incorrect. Was the writer joking? Mizelmouse (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Further Reading ???

I feel the specification of one book only is advertising, particularly for a brand new book (date according to the publisher: June 2007). Perhaps this may be of interest or maybe this section should be deleted (I'm certainly not about to fork out 60 quid to read the book!) 85.22.12.185 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of humor?

The assessment section lists, among Scott's "many flaws", a "lack of humor". There are many humorous passages in Scott's novels, and these are often laugh-out-loud. Try re-reading Cuddy Headrigg's crafty self-defence before the Privy Council in "Old Mortality", or Edie Ochiltree's mocking of Oldbuck's "Prætorian" remains in "The Antiquary". If no-one cares to add a section on humour in Scott's works, I'll attempt it myself.--Mabzilla (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have removed that remark. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, for instance, says of him that "He was selfish in the way that creative men are selfish: for all his sociability and his capacity to make other people laugh, he offered others very little intimacy." Lesgles (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wonderman 1946 Danny Kaye film

It took me a while but I have finally found out just what was exactly said as Danny Kaye walks away and utters 'Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to decieve' A stage hand/cleaner type man moves into a full frame view and said something (to me) like 'Sir Walter Scotts mummy in candlesticks stands us seventeen, how beautiful.'

Now, after looking up Sir Walter Scotts words I have finally found out the words to be 'Sir Walter Scotts Mamion in Canto VI Stanza 17. How beautiful.'

The right words, truely are.

Thanks for this great film, Danny! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa sargent (talk • contribs) 13:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Memorials and Commemoration

I added the Scott Monument to the list and deleted the "1896 American textbook" reference to the commemoration stone for Scott in Makar's Court as "acknowledged to be one of the finest monuments in the world." Makar's Court wasn't designated until 1999 and the commemoration is a simple engraved slab. I would presume that the 1896 book referred to the Scott Monument in Princes Street. Mabzilla (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Toryism

A recent addition "Scott was particularly associated with Toryism" has been made to the lead. It's true and, although uncited, could be referenced. However, the lead section should concentrate on what the subject was famous for, and contain nothing that isn't dealt with in the body of the work. If this is significant, it should be in the body of the article; if not, removed. I haven't the knowledge to assess this, or I would give it a try. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed from the lead:

Scott has been said to be particularly associated with Toryism, though several passages in Tales of a Grandfather display a liberal, progressive and Unionist outlook on Scotland's history.

Such discussion should be found in the body if it is to be mentioned in the lead. If his political views are discussed more thoroughly in the body it may be appropriate to add this back later. Lambanog (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Pictures

Moving some pictures here that in my view add clutter. If the article is further developed, perhaps they can be added back later. Lambanog (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Blacklock

Plaque to Walter Scott, Rome, Italy

Moving out some more pictures that clutter - that are not about Scott directly, are repeats or unclear portaits.

Robert Burns centre|100px|thumb|Walter Scott on a Scottish banknote Portrait of Sir Walter Scott, by Sir Edwin Henry Landseer Sir Walter Scott's statue at his memorial in Edinburgh

There are still seven evenly spaced and varied images for the fairly short text. Spanglej (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

poetry and prose collections

I'm wondering about the works listings. No poets' article (apart from Scott's) lists poems individually - they write so many of them. This list is very partial. I move that for essays, stories and poems we only include collections - as is standard. Spanglej (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Critical assessment - by Mark Twain.

I've added a clause left out of the quotation of Mark Twain's accusation that Scott was "in large measure" responsible for the American civil war, and changed the external link to one where Twain's original words can be found. The sentence following the one quoted reads: "It seems a little harsh toward a dead man to say that we never should have had any war but for Sir Walter; and yet something of a plausible argument might, perhaps, be made in support of that wild proposition." A wild proposition, indeed. Entertaining as Twain's over-the-top attack is, it's a pity that his position as an "early critic" gives his views undue prominence. More (cited) material from other critics is needed to give a better balance. --Mabzilla (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark Twain's disparagement of Scott is given prominence in both the "Later assessment" and "References in other literature" sections. This is unnecessary duplication. The "Later assessment" section would best be reserved for serious criticism of Scott's work as literature, and Twain's references could be tidied up somewhat and confined to the "References in other literature" section. Any arguments before I edit? --Mabzilla (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Now done. --Mabzilla (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why Melrose ?

Please correct me, russian tourist, but I think all the time sir W. died in his Abbotsford and his grave located at Dryburgh near his wife, where the family had "hereditary right of burial in Dryburgh Abbey". http://www.walterscott.lib.ed.ac.uk/biography/origins.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.81.131 (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott did indeed die at Abbotsford, and was buried at Dryburgh; "Abbotsford" was the name created by Scott for his house, which is situated in the parish of Melrose.--Mabzilla (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"Practice" as verb in Marmion

Is there a reference for Scott's use of practice as a verb in Marmion? OED uses exactly this quote as an illustration of to practise, for "to devise, … plan, scheme, intend". --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The only valid reference would be the first(1808) edition, I suppose. My copy is the 1896 Adam & Charles Black edition, which includes an editorial note dated 1st November, 1833: "Some alterations in the text of the Introduction to Marmion, and of the Poem itself, as well as various additions to the author's Notes, will be observed in this Edition. Sir Walter Scott's interleaved copy has been followed, as finally revised by him in the summer of 1831. The preservation of the original MS. of the Poem has enriched this volume with numerous various readings, which will be found curious and interesting." I've put a query on Scotliterary's talk page suggesting that Scott himself may possibly have changed the word in later editions. As Scotliterary apparently works for the Association for Scottish Literary studies, he should be in a good position for research. Mind you, his change of the Canto number from VI to IV makes me wonder...--Mabzilla (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The Canto IV/VI is my own stupid error, sorry, fixed now ... My reference for the 1808 (2nd) edition comes from a scan of it on Google Books, available at http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Marmion.html?id=XQYUAAAAQAAJ The relevant quote on p343 uses "practice", and my own copy of the Shorter OED has: "Practice 6. The action of scheming, esp. (now only) in an underhand way for an evil purpose; machination, treachery, artifice. arch. 1494." It also has: "Practise 11. To p. upon: To practise tricks or artifices upon; to act upon, by artifice, so as to induce to do or believe something; to impose upon, delude; to work upon (a person or his feelings, etc.) 1596." Which doesn't really help ... however the 1808 edition does use "practice". Again checking Google's scanned editions, the 5th edition of 1810 also has "practice", but by the time the 10th edition is published in 1821 the spelling has become "practise". Whether this is an original error by Scott and/or his original typesetter, later corrected, or a later error by a later typesetter, thereafter reproduced, I don't know ... both spellings are, frankly, reasonable: the only argument for favouring "practice" would be that it is (in the absence of a first edition to check) the original.--Scotliterary (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It's practice as a verb on p. 236 as well, so the same typesetter would have to have made the same mistake twice! If that is Scott's original usage, we need to stick with it, and that answers my question. Thanks for the research. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Scotliterary quotes the Shorter OED for "practice": "...6. The action of scheming..." i.e. a noun, not a verb. The suggestion that Scott deliberately used an archaic form, from an age when spelling was less standardised, is doubtful; the rest of the poem doesn't have any other obvious examples to support this. There are three uses of the verb in "Marmion", the editions from second to fifth have two "practice" to one "practise", so no consistency in a small sample. All three are "practise" in the sixth(1810) edition. If it's unlikely that a typesetter made the same mistake twice, it's equally unlikely unlikely that the the typesetter for the later edition was similarly mistaken. Looking at a facsimile, published by the National Library of Scotland, of a page from Scott's manuscript of "Waverley", Scott's handwriting was not particularly neat and there are numerous crossings out and corrections. According to Lockhart's "Memoirs of the Life of Sir Walter Scott", "Marmion" was "sold and published in an unfinished state", and Scott made "one or two alterations to the third edition", suggesting that proofreading was not particularly thorough. I still incline towards the view that the original spelling was a mistake by either Scott or the typesetter and that Scott later corrected this. But, short of asking the NLS for an look at Scott's original MS (original research?), all I can suggest at the moment is that it should be left with "practice" and a footnote added that this is how it appeared in early editions; it was later emended to "practise", and this is how it is normally quoted (at least by British English users!)--Mabzilla (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done some further investigation and I've discovered that the third edition was the last edition Scott worked on himself. As such, it's being used as the base text for a forthcoming edition of Scott's poetry to be published by Edinburgh University Press, and it reads "... practice to deceive". I don't think a change to "practise" by 1810 can be seen as a correction/move towards the modern British English standard spelling, though: if you look at the lines from Canto VI, 3, in the 1808 edition, which read "Fitz-Eustace, loitering with his bow, / To practise on the gull and crow,", that's clearly using "practise" as a verb, which would be correct in modern usage; by 1821 though these lines have been "corrected" to "Fitz-Eustace, loitering with his bow, / To practice on the gull and crow,". It all seems pretty random to me! However, I agree that the modern, corrected spelling of the quote should use "practise" ... it might be better to change the spelling back again to its modern standard form and just consign this can of worms to the bin! –Scotliterary (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice/practise to retrieve... (Sorry, couldn't resist it). Whichever, a footnote might be helpful to forestall a succession of reverts.--Mabzilla (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Footnote added: feel free to amend as necessary! —Scotliterary (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

New Section needed on influence of Scott on prestige of ballad and folksong collecting

glancingly referred to here. Also, I have read that Lochinvar was the most popular ballad in nineteenth century America. Several of Scott's versions of ballads passed into oral tradition, I believe.Mballen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a University of Edinburgh website on Scott. His first success was Minstresy of Scots Border. This contains 25 percent of the Scot's ballad corpus. Scott looked for historical ballads but ended up with a fair number of romances (tales of magic). Scott's editing of the ballads has been criticized because he is thought to have "improved them" but, many of the best known and most popular today are from Scott's versions: "Douglas Tragedy", "Thomas the Rhymer" "Twa Sisters". He also included some of his own original ballad imitations, which were less well received. Rene Wellek praises Scott's introductory essay on the ballads and calls it the best literary criticism Scott ever wrote. Scott's next book was an anthology of ballad imitations by himself and by other people. The Lay of the Last Minstrel was intended to go in this book but was too long and was issued as a separate book. It was hugely successful. Made the fortune of the publisher. Scott began to be noticed abroad and a tourist industry began growing up in Scotland as a result of his books. Amid the acclaim, Scott's defects as a poet were noticed -- he filled up lines with extra words for the sake of the rhyme and so on. However, critics were willing to overlook these faults because of his originality and his great popularity, which seemed "the voice of the people."

Ivanhoe was Scott's first international success. Was the first historical novel. Scott's novels typically showed the effect of historical change and events on ordinary people caught up in them against their will. Scott's is hero was typically a bystander, not an actor in the drama. This use of historical perspective was a novelty as was Scott's attempt at objectivity and his sympathy with humble and marginal figures. One critic remarks that Ivanhoe was the first book to show a Jewish woman, Rebecca, as an attractive figure and her money-lender father as a victim not a villain. Rebecca doesn't get to marry the hero who rescues her and whom she loves, but she remains faithful to her religion. (In most romance literature a non-Christian character would have to convert to Christianity to be seen as an acceptable heroine). Toleration of other Christian sects, including Catholics, is another theme in Scott's novels, although some Presbyterians feel he treated them with condescension. However it is ignorance and fanaticism that Scott deplored, whether in humble or highly placed characters. Scott's endorsement of the values of objectivity, tolerance, and humanity caused some contemporaries to compare him to Shakespeare. The Waverley novels were especially esteemed -- though from the first, there were critics who found his style lacking in distinction. "No quotable passages" was a frequent criticism. Because of its static plot, one critic called Ivanhoe, "a pageant" rather than a novel. I believe the article ought to convey this information somehow. Mark Twain famously condemned Ivanhoe for idealizing chivalry, but a modern critic points out that his is a serious misreading of Scott's message.Mballen (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Walter Scott Minstrelsy Project is a joint project run between the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and the University of Edinburgh. In related news, Illustrating the Brothers Grimm and their correspondence with Sir Walter Scott - Books - Scotsman.com . . . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Literary Period: Romanticism

Sir Walter Scott is classified [by Wikipedia and other sources] as a writer in the Romantic period, not the Victorian one. MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

"Scott was the first English-language author to have a truly international career in his lifetime" - I have removed this completely as it is a contentious assertion, the only source for which is a commercial one - His old house, which is now a day spa available for weddings and bar mitzvas. I'll keep removing this until a proper source is found by me or someone else. It is equivalent to the brochures ,made by London/Dubai brokerage houses, lauding London's status as a place of financial brokerage. It's a non-source.

In order to do this I had to reshape the opening from:

"Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet, FRSE (15 August 1771 – 21 September 1832) was a Scottish historical novelist, playwright, and poet.

Scott was the first modern English-language author to have a truly international career in his lifetime,[1] with many contemporary readers in Europe, Australia, and North America."

To:

"Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet FRSE (15 August 1771 – 21 September 1832) was a Scottish historical novelist, playwright and poet with many contemporary readers in Europe, Australia, and North America."

And made a new paragraph beginning:

"Scott's novels and poetry are still read...". I believe it reads better this way, that "contemporary" needed to be "highlighted" (kids doing their homework) & that I have removed an invalid speculation with good reason. Robin J Thomson (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Repetition of content

Most of the information here has already been said above. Check by using search string "south bank of". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 01 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Egsan Bacon summarizes the situation well. --BDD (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Walter Scott → Sir Walter Scott – The prefix Sir was legally part of his name, and he is always known as such rather than simply "Walter Scott" – Zacwill16 (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose this move. No sir! 216.8.170.184 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Seeing just 'Walter Scott' made me want to say 'Who?' If what Zacwill16 says is true, that it was part of his name, then common name and real name meet in a perfect storm of support. Randy Kryn 00:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose MOS:HONORIFIC, he was knighted in 1820 [1] so was not "Sir" until the end of his life. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, very simple MOS:HONORIFIC. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, WP:NCBRITPEER confirms 3. "Baronets should generally have their article located at the simple name", e.g. Walter Scott (rather than "Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet"). Since he was only awarded the title in 1818-1820, nearly all of his career predates the title, so moving the article would cause unnecessary confusion. . . dave souza, talk 10:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NCBRITPEER also states that the prenominal should be used if the name is ambiguous, and there are a vast number of people named Walter Scott (see here). Zacwill16 (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

With this one clearly the primary topic and the others disambiguated, several also "Sirs". Neither required nor useful. 12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutt Lunker (talk • contribs)

• Oppose, MOS:HONORIFIC is very clear. Not even sure why we are having this debate.--SabreBD (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by it being very clear? MOS:HONORIFIC makes no comment on the use of titles like Sir in article names. It only states that they should be included in the initial reference, and are optional after that. Zacwill16 (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's spelt out very clearly at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility, point 4:

* Titles of knighthood such as Sir and Dame are not normally included in the article title: e.g. Arthur Conan Doyle, not "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" (which is a redirect). However, Sir may be used in article titles as a disambiguator when a name is ambiguous and one of those who used it was knighted, e.g. Sir Arthur Dean.

The practice has been that Sir/Dame are included in article titles only when it's necessary to disambiguate and no other solution is available or appropriate. That clearly doesn't apply here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral He is commonly known as "Sir W..." and this is Britannica's usage. GregKaye 02:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

on second thoughts

• Support Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet, as per precise. As per Randy Kryn. As per topic clarification - see Walter Scott (disambiguation) and, for instance. Shooting of Walter Scott. As per not following stupid rules that lead to ridiculous, IMO, choices in what is meant to be a representative encyclopedia. GregKaye 02:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Over-precise, and a ridiculous over-complication which could involve changing upwards of 2,000 linked pages: to avoid supposed confusion with someone notable only for getting shot recently. Wikipedia policy requires due weight, not whatever "representative" may mean to you. . . . dave souza, talk 10:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting to see how useless Britannica is if you are trying to find their article on the subject of this article. Searching on the term "Walter Scott", brings up a Canadian politician as the first hit, then almost exclusively articles which make a mention of our Scott but after looking at the next hundred or so hits, still, bizarrely did not offer the article on him himself. Then I tried the term "Sir Walter Scott" with similar results (except it didn't offer the Canadian gadgie this time). You actually have to search on the full term Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet to cop a hit on the guy. It's certainly precise, to the near exclusion of any chance of finding the article. Who is actually going to be using that as a search term, even if they happen to know the number and type of gong he swung? I was amazed at how rubbish Britannica was in this regard - definitely not an example to follow. The idea that the poor dead guy might challenge as primary topic takes WP:RECENTISM to an extreme. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per WP:NCBRITPEER, the article should be at the simple name unless it is ambiguous, and it is only ambiguous if someone wants to make the claim that this Walter Scott should not be the primary topic, which noone appears to be doing. MOS:HONORIFIC also states that, "In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article." Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scott and education in the United States

I understand that study of Scott’s writings was stressed in American schools, and that some explanation of the cultural reasons for this is useful. However, most of this section is taken up by the lengthy quotation of Victor Rabinowitz, explaining why, as a ten year old schoolboy, he was dismayed by Scott’s lines on loyalty to the land of one’s birth, feeling that they were disrespectful to migrants such as his father. While this anecdote is interesting, and gives some insight into the nature of patriotism in the “new world” of the United States as opposed to the “old world” of countries such as Scotland, is it not given undue weight in this article?--Mabzilla (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Non-Fiction works

Did he not also write lives of Dryden and Swift? Seadowns (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Clear consensus against the move. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Walter Scott → Sir Walter Scott – I am perfectly aware that we shouldn't add honours in front of a person's name on Wikipedia. However, when Scotts books are republished, (particularly in the Penguin Classics series) the 'Sir' part is always there; the same goes for the Oxford World Classics series as well. The same also goes for newspapers; whose articles rarely leave out the 'Sir', Thus, renaming this to include the 'Sir' in his name would be beneficial. Thanks. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 21:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• WorldCat shows 17,621 book publications credited to Walter Scott, 876 credited to Sir Walter Scott. Dekimasuよ! 21:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• In the last 50 years, the numbers are 1311 for Walter Scott and 754 for Sir Walter Scott. Dekimasuよ! 21:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per nomination and per above. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the very reasons cited in the move proposal...and the numbers cited by Dekimasu. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and next editor speedy close per WP:HONORIFIC please. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:HONORIFIC. And I wish that we could remove the honorific from Mohandas Gandhi's page (Gandhi didn't want anyone calling him 'Mahatma' and opposed the use of that name. As it is an honorific, I don't know how it "passed" that barrier to become the page's name, even if it is the common name). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons stated above. We also have Amlaíb Conung for, I believe the same reasons as Gandhi i.e. that readers unfamiliar with the terms did not realise that an honorific was involved and so it became in time the common name. Ben MacDui 08:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. That's what redirects are for though. The Mahatma/Mohandas issue seems to have been bantered about for so long that it even has its own permanent subpage. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. You could say the same about many other people with titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Walter Scott novels a cause of the US Civil War

Sir Walter Scott's novels were wildly popular across the American antebellum South and some historians are now crediting them with helping to launch the US Civil War. --Rumjal ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

literature by other authors

Andrew Lycett's life of Kipling contains one or two interesting mentions of Kipling's view of Scott. I will try to document these at some time. Unfortunately Lycett's index is slovenly and inaccurate, and doesn't mention Scott. Kipling advised a young woman to read Scott once a year as "medicine". Seadowns (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You can use the Amazon "Search inside" function here. The medicine quote is on page 410. William Avery (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Children

How many did he have? --Infovarius (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Gothic novel

That Scott was influenced by gothic romance, and had collaborated in 1801 with 'Monk' Lewis on Tales of Wonder, is not mentioned here. Rwood128 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add then, with reference. Bmcln1 (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Belated reflist dump. — MaxEnt 16:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Cause of Lameness

The 1827 'Scotts Poetical Works' has "..[H]is lameness, occasioned by a fall from his nurse's arms at two years old.." [[2]] should I replace "As a result of his early polio infection, Scott had a pronounced limp. " with "Scott had a pronounced limp resulting from a fall as a child.." or do we need to explain the differing accounts? Where does "As a result of polio" come from and how reliable is it as a source? JeffUK (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Autobiographical account --Morinox (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear, thanks! JeffUK (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sir Walter Scott

The works that Sir Walter Scott wrote 2600:1007:B027:B320:BDCF:8A8B:9C8B:687C (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Exemplar of word salad

His knowledge of history and literary facility equipped him to establish the historical novel genre and [???] as an exemplar of European Romanticism.

I tried to guess the ???, but this morning it didn't come to me. — MaxEnt 16:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. It did come to me, at least for my own notes.

His knowledge of history and literary facility equipped him to establish the historical novel genre as a fruitcake of European Romanticism.

I guess I'm with Twain in his assertion that Scott did incalculable damage to the deep South. — MaxEnt 16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I forgot how to do the indent thing. My new part starts here.

I find that the above slightly gnarly sentence makes sense -- or at least parses -- if you just remove the "and." It's "the historical novel genre" that he "helped to establish" "as an exemplar of European Romanticism."

The sentence is trying to do two things at once and should maybe be split into

His knowledge of history and literary facility equipped him to establish the historical novel genre,

full stop, and

He was also an exemplar of European Romanticism.

if he was indeed meant to be the subject of the dangling simile clause, and not his writing.

But

His knowledge of history and literary facility equipped him to establish the historical novel genre as an exemplar of European Romanticism

without the "and" -- will probably do, since I just cut and pasted your (the previous poster's) "fruitcake" paragraph and re-replaced "fruitcake" with (a)"n exemplar."

2601:643:8B84:2940:0:0:0:828E (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

<{: )}>

Nomenclature: 1st Baronet of something?

Going by the traditional phraseology of feudal hono(u)rs (Duke, Earl, Viscount, Baron, etc.) shouldn't he be "styled" (just here, where full name and honors are listed) as "Sir Walter Scott, Baronet," or "Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet of . . . " of what? Abottsford? "Sir Walter of Scott"? Or maybe best,"Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet Scott"? Otherwise it sounds as if he were the the first person ever to be made a Baronet, not the first of his "line."

My understanding is that "baronetcy" was a way of honoring people without conferring military rank or any kind of feudal "scuttidge" but is inheritable. Not exactly a "fake" honor because you get seated before common folk at state dinners (precedence) and you and your progeny are "Sirs" for life and beyond. I only mentioned "fake" because I think in Georgian times money was often known to change hands. Now it's more a way of honoring people for the money (and other contributions) they've already made.

2601:643:8B84:2940:0:0:0:828E (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC) <{: )}>

replying to self: I notice that the baronetcy do-hicky seems to imply that he was indeed

"Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet of Abottsford."

Should one go ahead and make the change to the top paragraph?

2601:643:8B84:2940:0:0:0:828E (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

<{: )}>

I don't know if this is any help, but there is a book entitled Life of Sir Walter Scott, baronet, by George Gilfillan, published 1871, which might throw some light on this. I don't have the full bibliographic details, but I saw a copy in the National Library of Scotland. There is also an article by P. Garside, ‘Patriotism and patronage: new light on Scott's baronetcy’, in issue 77 of the Modern Language Review (1982). That might be you best source. I don't have access to it but it might be available in the National Library or elsewhere. Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A quick follow-up, the article I mentioned - ‘Patriotism and patronage: new light on Scott's baronetcy’ - is available in JStor. If you have access to the Wikipedia Library, go to JStor and search for the title of the article. It 13 pages long. I haven't read it, but at first glance it looks like it would be useful to you. (And I just noticed it is already listed in this article's references [item 57].) Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Manners, Customs and History of the Highlanders of Scotland, with an Historical Account of the Clan MacGregor

So, what exactly is this 1893 book [3]? Something falsely attributed to Scott? Something by him and published posthumously that we have missed? Previous writings by him repackaged under another name?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

His finances

I am surprised to fond no mention of his finances, ending in catastrophe. It is a complex story, needing an expert to tell it. Liscaraig (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)