Talk:Edgar Allan Poe/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Horror vs macabre

On June 1,2008 An internal link to Horror fiction was put in the intro; however it was taken out by another editor siting the use of Macabre in the title. Horror fiction is distict from stating that someone is known for tale of macabre. Does anyone have any ways this can be reconciled? Nice or in evil (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This article links to Macabre, horror fiction and even Gothic fiction. I think it's all covered in Poe's genres. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I wasn't looking at the info box. I just noted the June 1st change and the reason sited for it which didn't actually add up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice or in evil (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! Let me know if you think this can be improved or if we messed up the distinction between the genres. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Was Poe A Government Agent And Did He Really Die In Baltimore In 1849?

Though it has been accepted that in his life, Edgar Poe had some personal issues, and that he had an unfortunate death in Baltimore in 1849, over the years there have been some unanswered questions about "The Real Edgar Allen Poe"?

In 1934 "Israfel" The Life and Times of Edgar Allen Poe, By Hervey Allen, published by Farrar & Rinehart Inc. 1926, tells a more extended story of the poet master. The poems, tales, and stories he wrote and in some cases published, were far more deeper and profound that most of us ever imagine. Hervey Allen breaks the taboo, and brings to the surface an Edgar Poe that was involved in real intrigue, mystery, cloak and dagger encounters. The real Poe makes the fictious superspy, James Bond a mere cartoon. If we are to take seriously this biography as a more accurate telling, then we must accept him from a whole new perspective... Real.

When I was spending the summer in Virginia Beach, Virginia, I mentioned my living in Old Fordham Village, in The Bronx, near Poe's Cottage, and how in Fordham, many a rumor of Poe's real life story still echo's to this day. We got into the subject of Poe. I mentioned my speculation of Poe's death in 1849... the room went silent, and the host went to his bookshelf, and pulled out a book of poetry, written by "anonimous". To my surprise... it read like Poe, and said that he didn't die in Baltimore afterall? When I read the publishing date of the poem, it was 1853!

In 1875, another earlier published book on Poe "In Defence of Poe", By Dr. Robert Moran, opens a real can of worms to ponder over. Dr. Moran claims that in 1849, he was the residing physician at Washington Hospital in Baltimore, when the practically half-dead Poe was brought into the hospital ward. In his own words, he tells as a witness the last moments of Poe's life... but wait a minute... if you read between the lines, Dr. Moran's telling is even more profound! He opens the door just enough to try to tell you the true story. When you finally grasp the real story of what really happened to Poe in Baltimore, and why certain queer moments don't add up... it makes you think that Dr. Moran knew something else about Poe, and secretly tells us in bits and pieces. If you read both Allen and Moran's books back to back, you will begin to question if Poe was living a secret double life... and that he survived his ordeal, to live under an assumed name. Poe's present myth will need to be debunked. Oh Yes... Nevermore!

Aedwardmoch (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. John Moran (not Robert) was a quack who was trying to add more than 5 minutes to his fame when he was approaching senility; he made the story interesting in order to make more money off of it. Even so, he never asserts anything about Poe being a secret agent (nor did you, in your post here, other than in the title). Hervey Allen, as far as I know, does not make that note either. Once you publish your conspiracy theory (preferably in coherent English) in a scholarly journal or the like, we can consider adding it here. Until then, this is just water cooler gossip. PS: Poe's "unfortunate death in Baltimore" was in 1849, not 1949... unless you're saying he lived to be 140 years old while a secret government agent? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to contact The Bronx County Society regarding "Dr. Robert Moran's Book" that is part of their BCHS reference library... sorry but I was a member of The BSHS and was shown a 1st. edition of "The Book" by Professor Lloyd Ultan, who is one of the official historians for The City of New York. Also I had a copy myself, till I lent it to a NASA contracted scientist working at JPL in California who is a Edgar Allen Poe fan.

Aedwardmoch (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theory. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Who is this Edgar Allen Poe and why mention him in the talk pages on Edgar Allan Poe?Naaman Brown (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe Ciphers solved

• Of Interest-see [[1]]

This is a reliable enough source isn't it? I can remember reading about this in 2000. In any case it prompted me to revise the entry tonight. There are plenty of other internet sources that corroborate this story. In any case, does anyone think that Poe's authorship of these ciphers is too iffy? I don't have access to peer reviewed periodicals that might provide reference, but I think it will be easy enough for the editors on this page to chime in and verify. So the change is essentially to re-characterize Poe as a talented cryptanalyst versus just someone who knew a simple way to encrypt text.

Definitely not a reliable source; it's a self-published web site. And I think the editor who originally left this link was just noting it was "of interest," not saying it belonged in the article. Honestly, I'm having trouble finding any Poe scholars who say that Poe was truly adept at secret writing rather than just working on simple substitution ciphers. I'll keep digging. (Also, for future reference, it's best to bring new discussions to the bottom of a talk page, and don't forget to sign your posts.) Any other thoughts out there? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't think of a title

someone might add that Edgar and his wife were a happier couple than most... I found that in another biography
VFD642 (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a violation to point of view policy. Even so, Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe's article makes a mention of their happy marriage (though it doesn't say they were better than most). --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

oh ok
VFD642 (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Military Career & West Point

I recently came across this interesting and rather strange piece of information, Edgar Allen Poe never completed west point academy because he turned up to a public parade wearing only his white belt and gloves! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.219.185 (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that rumor has been going around for decades. It's interesting, but it's also completely untrue. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some obvious problems with this section. (1) Enlisted May 27, 1827. OK. (2) "After serving for two years and attaining the rank of Sergeant Major for Artillery (the highest rank a noncommissioned officer can achieve), Poe sought to end his five-year enlistment early." In modern thinking, it is completely impossible for a soldier (especially an 18-20 year old!) to go from private to sergeant major in only two years. On the other hand, the army was no doubt different in those days. BUT ... what about that 'after serving for two years'??? That directly conflicts with what comes later. (3) "...his commanding officer, Lieutenant Howard, would only allow Poe to be discharged if he reconciled with John Allan..." (4) "Several months passed and pleas to Allan were ignored..." (5) "Frances Allan died on February 28, 1829." If Frances Allan died in Feb. '29, and 'several months' had already passed in correspondence between Poe and J. Allan, then Poe must have made his request to Lt Howard some time in late 1828, at which point he would have been in the army for only a year and a half. A 1 1/2 year sergeant major? What a guy! BUT ... no-- (6) "Poe finally was discharged on April 15, 1829.' He wasn't even in the army two years altogether!!! As I said, something is very dodgy about this chronology. HenryLarsen (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have a few things to add because I had trouble believing the documentation myself. I examined all of the documents that are left at the museum near West Point, NY (USMA). Poe worked for the Adjutant General as an enlisted man. AG's are in charge of promotion orders. So perhaps an early promotion could have been arranged. Or perhaps, like the practice today, a senior NCO who's also in charge of a section is sometimes referred to as the Sergeant Major. Maybe he was just the senior sergeant. By the way, AG's are in charge of a great deal of a headquarters' correspondence, so maybe this is where Poe learned to cypher. In any case, I read that Poe had to purchase his way out of the enlistment. I think it was customary to hire someone to take your place. So, he would have been forced to ask for money in order to do so. I'll also add that he was ranked 2nd in his class at West Point in French and 3rd in mathematics. --Mthibode (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article already notes that Poe had someone fulfill the rest of his enlistment term. However, I don't believe Poe asked for money to do so and, instead, only paid Bully Graves with an I.O.U. As far as the other military details, I'm not sure how to respond but I can double-check those dates. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

When at West Point, was he going by Edgar A. Poe or his old Edgar A. Perry pseudonym? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.236.163 (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

About how John Allan received his fortune

The English Wikipedia states that a William Galt was a "friend and business benefactor", but the German Wikipedia says that Allan inherited the fortune from an uncle named James Galt (1820 beendete John Allan erfolglos seinen Englandaufenthalt und kehrte mit der Familie nach Richmond zurück, wo er die nächsten Jahre bis zum Tod seines Onkels James Galt relativ bescheiden lebte.) The E. A. Poe Society of Baltimore website has a detailed timeline of Poe's life[2], which says "1825 (March 26) - John Allan's uncle William Galt dies in Richmond. John Allan is named in Galt's will and inherits a comfortable fortune." I had assumed this information to be correct, and since both this and the English Wikipedia gives the name as William Galt, I went about and edited the German Wikipedia. However, the English one is both starred and locked, so I can't make sure whether Galt was a "friend" or an "uncle." Can anyone provide further verification? Piatigorsky (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's funny you should ask that. I have seen sources that refer to Galt as an uncle, but I have not confirmed that they were really relatives, rather than "uncle" just being a nickname. The source that I used for this article only refers to him as a friend. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Death of Edgar Allan Poe

His death is one of the most controversial deaths in history. He may have died from any number of things, rabies, alchohal, opium, and many more. The world may never know what caused it, any ideas? I mean no disrespect from this comment, and I do not wish to offend anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girhawk (talk • contribs) 02:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No one is offended... but keep in mind this page is not to discuss the subject of the article, but to discuss improvements to the article itself. See at the very top, it says: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edgar Allan Poe article... This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of scholars that have researched Poe and found that Poe was not an alcoholic, rather he had a disease or condition that created health issues when Poe consumed alcohol. Scholars found that one of Poe's rivals actually started the rumor that Poe was an alcoholic after Poe died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.211.95 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Errr... thanks. See Death of Edgar Allan Poe and Rufus Wilmot Griswold. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I happen to agree, after seeing a copy of a letter by a Jesuit Priest that personally knew Poe, that he was not a drunkard (having some sensitivity to Alcohol and other substances). This letter was shown to me back in the late 1960's early 1970's at The Bronx County Historical Society Research Library by then BCHS President, Prof. of History, Lloyd Ultan, of Farley Dickinson University, and he is now one of the "Five" recognized official historians for The City of New York. I myself was raised in The Fordham section of The Bronx, a few blocks from "Poe's Cottage", and lived for a short time right next door to "The Clemm Cottage". I had various direct family cousins that lived in Fordham that go back to the late 1700's., and the stories I know and found out about Poe are much different and real. I am defending more than just Poe and his family, but also various people and Jesuit priests that lived in Fordham that knew them personally.

Aedwardmoch (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in to an old discussion. Did you already read these articles and notice that all of this stuff is already discussed in these articles? And, seriously, stop showing off about the Bronx Historical Society and dropping names or where you live; no one is impressed. These articles already talk about the controversy over Poe's drinking. I'm dumbfounded that anyone has difficulty finding it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On a more pressing point, I noticed that the list of proposed causes of death does not include Diabetes but the reference is page 256 of Jeffrey Meyers' biography. I pulled that book off my shelf and read page 256. Diabetes is Meyers' primary focus yet it doesn't make the list (unless we group it into the "other agents" category). It seems to me that we should specifically include Diabetes on the list (I would add it myself but once again the article is locked--presumably for "parapsychologic" reasons). Then again, perhaps we shouldn't be including Jeffrey Meyers work at all given that his conclusion is completely flawed because he clearly wrote it with no understanding of diabetes (sorry, med student typing here, I can't resist--it probably would be the "dreaded original research" to omit a reference based only on it's erroneous conclusions). Anywho, even if Jeffrey doesn't know a freaking thing about diabetes, it seems like it should be specifically itemized in the list if that is the main focus of the source cited! Thanks. 71.206.106.82 (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, MorbidAnatomy. Not to worry: this article only has a summary of Poe's death which is discussed more fully in Death of Edgar Allan Poe. That article does, in fact, have the mention of diabetes. If you feel strongly enough about it needing inclusion in this brief overview on this page, feel free to lump it in with the rest of that footnoted section. I know Meyers isn't the only one to mention diabetes (and his book is not the best Poe source to start with, even if he knew a thing or two about diabetes). --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about diabetes being on the list per se. I only think it should be included there because we are using page 256 from Meyers as our source! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidAnatomy (talk • contribs) 02:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone considered Hypoglycemia? Check it out--there are a lot of symtoms that apply to dear ol' Edgar. ---TrulyAllisonBlue 8:59PM January 14th 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrulyAllisonBlue (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure anyone has. Have you found scholarship on this or are you just chatting? --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has been considered and discussed in this thread. In Jeffrey Myers' biography on Poe it is considered it at length. However, he used diabetes and hypoglycemia interchangeably in his analysis--the two are NOT synonyms--when Myers mentions hypoglycemia, he means diabetes. He is not a medical man though and doesn't actually know what he is talking about (I am though, and I do). Myers is referenced in this article already even though his conclusion about diabetes is not in the article (last I checked anyway). I move that it be added--it's only one word.MorbidAnatomy (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

He died from complications related to a brain lesion, found in recent studies. I dont think anyone else but me knows this so if this could be edited into the page it would reveal the truth. Source: http://infotrac.galenet.com/itw/infomark/847/924/30899110w16/purl=rc1_CA_0_H1000078794&dyn=3!xrn_1_0_H1000078794&bkm_3_1?sw_aep=glen70185 MrDrumliner (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dark Romanticism

I notice that the article introduction links to the Romantic Movement and though it is true that he was a member of this movement, it seems insufficient to me. Poe is the archetype of the Dark Romanticists. Should we modify the article to point out that he was an author of Dark Romanticism and link to that article (which fortunately already links to this Poe article)? Seems like an important fact to me.

I should add that I realize the "genre" section mentions that he is considered part of the Dark Romanticism movement (and that Poe disliked it and it's ties to transcendentalism) but the fact remains that he did write Dark Romanticism and the article intro could perhaps be improved by incorporating this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.13.81.19 (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, It is untrue that "Poe's best known works of fiction are Gothic." His best know fiction works are Dark Romanticism utilizing many Gothic elements for Romantic effect! This is certainly a fact, can we find a source to substantiate it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.13.81.19 (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding his "best known works"... I think it depends on how people define Gothic tales. It seems to me that the general concensus both in the mainstream and in the academic world is that he was a Gothic writr. "Dark Romanticism" hasn't quite caught on as much. But, anyway, take another look: the article already does link to Dark Romanticism (which is a subgenre of Romanticism; appropriately, the lead just gives the general overview and then the rest of the article gets more specific, as in this case... in other words, look past the lead and you'll see the nitty-gritty details). --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that "Dark romanticism" means exactly the same thing as "Gothic horror". Vide the definition of the latter in the Gothic fiction article: "Gothic fiction (sometimes referred to as Gothic horror) is a genre of literature that combines elements of both horror and romance." As is rather obviously evident, Poe combined both romanticism and horror in his tales, thus making them 'Gothic' according to the above definition. Colin4C (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Genre (revisited)

The genre sections states, "Beyond horror, Poe also wrote satires, humor tales, and hoaxes." Perhaps we should also include a statement which points out that Poe's satires, hoaxes, and humorous tales actually significantly outnumber his horror writings. That fact seems important to me in defining the man himself. Thoughts (Midnightdreary)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.13.81.19 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be original research unless we can find a source that makes the claim. I know it's correct (I've done the math myself) but I have yet to see a published source make a note of it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The genre section also makes it sound as if Poe woke up one morning and thought 'I'm going to invent science fiction'. Which, although I am no Poe scholar, is highly unlikely. --129.11.198.174 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Early Life

The Early Life sections includes the following phrase "William Galt, said to be one of the wealthiest man in Richmond," Could someone change "man" to "men" please? Thanks. (You know, locking this article is rather insulting to those of us who have no intention of vandalizing. What authority is necessary to be able to contribute to this article by direct edits?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidAnatomy (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the lock-out; it's only temporary but this page is massively attacked with vandalism at the beginning of every school year. Please don't be insulted. I'll go ahead and make the change on your behalf - it was a good catch! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a claim that Thomas Jefferson founded University of Virginia's Honor System. That's not correct. The System was founded in 1842, long after Jefferson died and Poe left the University. The University was in chaos perhaps because of its absence, since it was introduced following the escalation of that chaos that culminated in the murder of a professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.220.125 (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right; Jefferson had nothing to do with the honor system... not sure why that link was added in. He did, however, enact a university based on student self-government, prior to the honor system of the 1840s. I've removed the link. Thanks!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality

My grandmother says that Edgar A. Poe was homosexual, Her source to say that is a book about brithish homosexuals, I told her that Edgar was american and not european (she claim he was brithish), I also told her that Poe was married to his cousin. But she say that her euro-gay book is right and Edgar was a Brithish Homosexual, can someone search for that or can some one tell me that she is completly wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.40.6 (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

She's wrong. Just plain wrong. I'll admit a number of 19th century writers had questionable sexuality (not just Walt Whitman but also Herman Melville and even Rufus Wilmot Griswold) but Poe is not and has never been on that list. Nor has he ever been British. I can't even entertain how silly that is. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...WHAT?!? I'm trying really hard to imagine what Virginia Poe, Annie Richmond, Sarah Helen Whitman, Fanny Osgood, Sarah Elmira Royster Shelton, and Elizabeth Barrett Browning would have to say regarding this matter...but I'm so frustrated by it all I can't even think straight! I will probably lose sleep over this tonight! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidAnatomy (talk • contribs) 03:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone find it strange that Poe married his 13 year old cousin? While I personally have no problem with this, does this show something about Poe that people don't realize? Was he perhaps a petaphile? But I agree, no WAY was he a homosexual. There are so many woman through out history to prove your Grandmother otherwise.--TrulyAllisonBlue

Way to respond to old comments! Keep in mind that this section is not for general discussion of Poe but how to improve the article. The suggestion of pedophilia is juvenile at worse, simply unaware at best. Marrying a cousin was not unusual in those days. 13 years old was a bit young, but even Emerson married a 15-year old. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny how when it comes to a famous person, the suggestion of pedophilia becomes "juvenile". The guy had a lot of problems. Marrying a 13 year old who is also your cousin is bizarre, in any age, regardless of what the "norm" was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.112.143 (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"A lot of problems"? Ugh. As far as wedding a 13-year old cousin, it's only bizarre in a modern mentality, 172.190.112.143. If the norm for a certain time period is marrying teenagers, then it's not unusual in that time period, is it? Same is true for marrying cousins, which happened well into the 20th century. It was somewhat abnormal to marry in your 30s in Poe's days; today, it's pretty typical. Culture changes over time. Welcome to history. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Early Parapsychology, Psychical Research, and Hypnotherapy

To whom it may;

I have done extensive research and study on E.A. Poe, where he once lived at the Cottage in Fordham and beyond. As a former member of The Bronx County Historical Society, and having been raised in Fordham, I have done my careful research on his association with early spiritualism, Metaphics, early forms of what would become the accepted above fields.

My personal background also speaks for itself... beside being involved in the professional study of Parapsychology and Psychical Research, I also studied Hypnosis. My personal observations over the years have been similar and similar-supportive of Poe, and other medical-scientific professionals in these and other related fields.

I was in the process of adding a section in the Edgar Allan Poe article, of Poe's direct and in-direct contributions to the field's of Parapsychology, Psychical Research, and Hypnothrapy. It is an accepted fact that most of Poe's original written articles and stories were based on actual reports and observations he made and/or came across in his life. Many of these articles are today deemed as "Genius", in his early "keen" case observations of these fields. I wish that this "addition" to the main "Wiki" article be accepted.

Thank You

A. Edward Moch

"Remote Viewing and The Genuis Of Edgar Allan Poe" By Patriotlad (aka: Investigative reporter, Richard Green) http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=63808

Aedwardmoch (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a conflict of interest if you would like to promote your own research or, at best, the dreaded original research. We also have to avoid adding undue weight to information that is not the most relevant to his legacy. And, I'll also note that the external link you are using as a source, based on its name alone ("rumor mill"), fails as a reliable source. I don't mean to serve as an obstacle to your legitimate edits, but I highly recommend you consider looking further into the policies here at Wikipedia. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My reserach was based on an earlier study on E.A. Poe by BCHS member, John piper, BCHS President, Prof. Lloyd Ultan, and Myself in the 1970's when Prof. Ultan presented to us in study two books, "Israfel" A Biography of E.A. Poe, by Hervey Allan, and "In Defence of Poe", by Dr. Robert Moran. We began to see a different side of Poe come to the surface. When Prof. Ultan showed a copy of a letter document, written by a Jesuit priest that was a friend of Poe that resideded and taught at St. John's College (aka: Fordham University), defending his character, a whole new Poe became obvious. My study in Parapsychology and Psychical Research is an extention of what I found Poe's contribution to those fields in his keen observation of reporting and/or downplaying what he saw and perhaps directly involved. From a professional point of view, some of his stories "Mesmeric Revelation" and "The Facts in the Case of M. Vandemar", are good examples of observations by Poe,seperating some of his personal speculation and colorful embellishments. Never the less, these and other stories have been verified as far back in the mid to late 1800's by Dr. Rufus Osgood Mason and other professionals that presented similar cases to The Society for Psychical Research, even today,in the study of what we call remote viewing from Project Stargate, we noted similar RV protocol that was contained in "Mesmerick Revelation", that is too close to resemble a "RV" Session. No way no how could Poe just make up such stories unless he was there or recieved reliable information from reliable sources during his day? This is why I (we) feel that Poe contributes much to this field, and shoud be recognized.

A. Edward Moch

Aedwardmoch (talk)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk)

I wish you would read my replies. Your research is still original research and, therefore, the dictionary definition of a violation of our policy on no original research (name-dropping makes no difference). I wish I could be clearer but I can't imagine how. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Midnight;

I have read your reply, and I don't consider my research as "Original" because it has existed for a long time. It is unfortunate that the character assasination from Rufus Griswold still clouds Poe's life, even after the fact that Griswold recanted. Most of this material has been already published-written, and all I want to do is bring it back to the attention of those that are still defending Poe to this day. I guess the myth and lore version of E.A. Poe is more interesting and entertaining than a more realistic human Poe, who had more on the ball than the limited version most of grew up on. I think he (Poe) deserves a better review. What's your take on it? Nothing personal here

Aedwardmoch (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Griswold never recanted anything.. ever. Where the hell did you hear that he did? Second of all, but most importantly, my "take on it" is irrelevant. These pages are not meant for discussion of the subject but for discussion of ways to improve the article. Let me make this clear: if you were the one that originated the research, it is original research; we do not publish original research here. Unless you already have a book out there, you are breaking the rules by publishing your own personal research on here (and, frankly, even if it were published, it's a conflict of interest to add it here; as a published Poe author myself, I leave my own thoughts aside). But, let's focus here: your arguments have yet to make any sense. The information we were discussing adding to this article had to do with Poe's influence on paranormal research. What does Griswold have to do with Poe's influence on parapsychology? What do "myth and lore of E.A. Poe" have to do with hypnotherapy? If, as you say, most of this material has been "published-written" (I'm not sure what you exactly meant here), it should show up all over the damn place. In other words, every major Poe work would discuss in-depth his influence on parapsychology, psychical research, and hypnotherapy. If it doesn't show up everywhere, it verges on being a fringe theory - and Wiki policy has a notice against that as well. I'm desperately trying to help you and I hope you are actually reading every word that I type for you and every link that I provide for you... otherwise I'm not so helpful. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should give you the benifit of the dought about Griswold's Recanting his defamination of Poe (I will recheck my sources again), but other viable sources defend Poe's character and reputation (see Edgar Poe Society Article). In the matter of Poe's involvement directly and indirectly in what would be early forms and development of what would be Parapsychology and Psychical Research (Not the laymans term Paranormal), is obvious by those professions in the field that regard Poe's keen ability of obserivation and reporting "A definate contribution to the field". During Poe's life, so called "Spiritualism" as well as "Mesmerism/Hypnosis" was in Vogue. The resounding exploits of "The Didier Brothers" was a topic in Poe's time http://www.answers.com/topic/didier-brother and he jumped into it with interest (ie: Mesmeric Revelation and The Factual Cases of M. Valdemar). Please note, the supporters of E.A. Poe mentioned from the Poe Society article, which includes a person named Eugine L. Didier (1877)

An article from The Edgar Allan Poe Society: "Edgar Allan Poe and (Rev.)Rufus Wilmot Griswold" http://www.eapoe.org/geninfo/poegrisw.htm

Aedwardmoch (talk)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If we are to add a section on Poe's involvement with parapsychology (particularly regarding the Mesmeric Revelation)it should be his words and his alone: "The Swedenborgians inform me that they have discovered all that I said in a magazine article, entitled "Mesmeric Revelation," to be absolutely true, although at first they were very strongly inclined to doubt my veracity--a thing which, in that particular instance, I never dreamed of not doubting myself. The story is a pure fiction from beginning to end." Taken from "Marginalia - Part III," Godey's Lady's Book, August 1845, pp. 49-51. (See: http://www.eapoe.org/works/misc/mar0845.htm). Thank you; that is all. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Griswold situation... the discussion of Griswold and his defamation of Poe's character and the lies he spread is already in these articles: Edgar Allan Poe, Death of Edgar Allan Poe, and Rufus Wilmot Griswold. Trust me: no one has done as much as I have in bringing to light the true story of Poe amidst the lies from Griswold. Once you've actually read these articles, let me know if any of Griswold's defamation of Poe is still not discussed clearly enough. As far as parapsychology, his influence does not seem abundant enough to warrant any mention of it in (I have confirmed this) in eleven different books on Poe. In other words, it's not a significant piece of Poe research. If he does have an influence (and I don't doubt that he did) it is not significant enough to merit inclusion unless we have substantial verifiable third party sources. When you show me, say, two or three published reliable sources which you or people you know personally had nothing to do with (due to conflict of interest), we can certainly add it back into the article (written with spell-check on, of course). By the way, I keep showing you these links and assuming you are actually reviewing these policies. The fact that I keep giving them to you is a sign that I am trying to help - and your refusal to acknowledge them is a sign that you are not interested in my help. Am I wrong here? (By the way, MorbidAnatomy, his words alone aren't as good as third-party sources; it shows that we are not making the connection but that reliable sources are.) --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Midnight, my comment was merely an attempt at humor. I guess I failed.MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Morbid for bringing up "Marginalia" in regards to Poe's comments on "Mesmeric Revelation". Though I am not into Swedenborgian consepts, in my professional opinion, "Mesmeric Revelation" comes too close to the real clinical study of Clairvoyance, Near Death Experience NDE and Astral Projection or Astral travel for Poe to say what he wrote was mere pure fiction, but the real basis of his article is perhaps accurate to the practice of a spiritualist or a patron of Swedenborgianism of Poe's day, and the various scientific study and clinical theories of early Parapsychology and Psychical Research in the days of Surgeon-Physician, Dr. Rufus Osgood Mason to the present light of Remote Viewing, and in Project Stargate. As far as your view Mightnight, of what you wrote about Rufus Griswold, I think there is no conflict here in my opinion as to the defaming damage he did to Poe.

Aedwardmoch (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just want to be clear: are you saying that you are satisfied with the information we already have on Griswold's attacks on Poe? If so, great! If not, let's keep working. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with what you wrote about Griswold's attack's on Poe. Once I can find "Griswold's Recant" again, I think this could be an additional kudo to what you already have presented.

Aedwardmoch (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(Just as a quick note: if you find any information that suggests that Griswold recanted, I will officially eat my hat, if my head didn't explode first. I pride myself as a Griswold scholar and expert and am currently working on his biography... I have never come across any suggestion that he ever felt any remorse for what he did to Poe. I think, once again, you are mistaken in your facts.) --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I also just want to be clear: are you, Aedwardmoch, saying that just because Poe said "Mesmeric Revelation" was a work of fiction doesn't actually mean that it was a work of fiction? Tell you what, if you manage to publish compelling proof of that in one or more scholarly Poe journals, then I will personally add your research to this wiki article on your behalf. Until the day comes--the day that you publish your work in the Poe Review, or Poe Studies/Dark Romanticism, etc., etc.--until that day, ask yourself this: "If Poe really was a skilled mesmerist in real life, why did he not ever put it to profitable use and thus save himself and his family from starvation?" Answer that, and I will update this article with your groundbreaking research!MorbidAnatomy (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes... I agree very much that Poe was a hoaxer, much less a debunker, when it came to lampooning various serious topics in his day, and in many ways, whether he personnally believed them or not? In my opinion, he would have had to have first hand information or known the subject of "Mesmerism", even as a novice non-practitioner to say the least, to write such an article as "Mesmeric Revelation" and related articles etc. I think his skill and genius at the art of "satire" needs to be addressed as well? Poe was such a wordsmith.

Aedwardmoch (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Aedwardmoch, if you want to continue this discussion about Poe's potential involvement in parapsychology, you might consider doing it on the Edgar Allan Poe group page on Facebook. There are lots of people there interested in alternative and supplemental theories about Poe. It seems that here on wikipedia you are hitting a wall because this page is intended to be about the article, not about the man--but at the group page on Facebook you could probably get some very interesting dialogs started and also advance your theories. Just a thought.--user:MorbidAnatomy (not presently signed-in because internet connection problems)

Here's a thought. Certainly a significant aspect of Poe's legacy is his series of published hoaxes. It might improve the article by adding a section about his hoaxes in the Literary Style or Genres portion (I realize that his hoaxes are breifly mentioned already in the article, but perhaps they deserve a paragraph all to themselves considering there were so many of them). The "Mesmeric Revelation, and "The Fact's in the Case of M. Valdemar" could be included along with his greater hoaxes such as "The Journal of Julius Rodman," and "The Balloon Hoax." Also, "The Narrative of A. Gordon Pym," "The Lighthouse," and "Hans Phaall" were all either written or published with intent of causing a hoax, or were received by the public as factual and thus were inadvertently hoaxes. Furthermore, Poe wrote an essay on hoaxes, "Diddling, considered as one of the exact sciences." Thomas Ollive Mabbott discusses most of these works in great detail and correlates them to Poe's trend of publishing hoaxes (other researchers have done the same). Thus, we have a third-party scholarly source to cite for a section on Poe's hoaxes and also, the notion of Poe's interest in mesmerism/hypnosis gets a place in the article under a more substantiated and important aspect of his life and career--hoaxes. Any thoughts on this, anybody....?MorbidAnatomy (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I do agree Morbid in the expansion of the Wiki article, and what is "Facebook"?

Aedwardmoch (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that this article is already above the recommended Wiki-article limit of 50k. These articles are not meant to be in-depth but to be broad enough to serve as an overview for readers to go learn more. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you agree and have in mind in expanding the article, but stay within the accepted criteria of Wiki's publishing?

Aedwardmoch (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe Story Now In Film Production

Finally after a number of years, Actor-Producer, Sylvester Stallone's script on the story of Edgar Allen Poe is going into film production. It is not clear at this time if The Story of E. A. Poe is based on previous or new material about the poet master. Having an interest in Poe Sly Stallone is seeking a balance to the real and myth of the man. Personally, I have sent him a personal message through the SAG office to contact me, in the hopes that the film can finally show a true human balance of Poe, and strip away the Griswold myth and lore that still surrounds him.

Aedwardmoch (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with this article? --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It means editors should keep an eye out for press releases on the topic of this article. Colin4C (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that Stallone's movie has been shelved. Either way, if it's a notable movie, it would have it's own article. It doesn't need to be here. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

I was wondering if this article should include Samuel Osgood's portrait of Poe. There's a fairly strong indication that Poe didn't grow his mustache until 1845 (or after). Perhaps the Osgood portrait is worth including as a more definitive image since it represents Poe as he looked for the majority of his adult life, not merely the last few years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidAnatomy (talk • contribs) 19:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad point (though I don't believe Poe had the 'stache until 1847); I love the Osgood portrait, even despite its massive idealism. However, this page is already picture heavy. I say we keep the main image (which is probably the most famous of Poe's images) and replace the one under Legacy. The Osgood portrait image is already upload to Wikimedia Commons. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Allen Poe Commemmorative Stamp

The U.S. Postal Service commemorated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Edgar Allan Poe. On January 16, 2009, in Richmond, Virginia, the Postal Service issued a 42–cent, Edgar Allan Poe commemorative stamp, designed by Carl T. Herrman, of Carlsbad, California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioflyer60 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for this?  AcroX  04:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely quite true; it was actually designed by Poe scholar and artist Michael J. Deas. Is this editor suggesting it be included in this article? I think his legacy is fairly well defined already here; a postage stamp mention isn't going to make it any better. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Linking of "American"

Please see WP:OVERLINK, with special attention to what should usually not be linked:

What generally should not be linked

It is generally not appropriate to link:

• plain English words.
• terms whose meaning (as relevant to the context of the article) would be understood by almost all readers.
• items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations....

Thanks, --Trovatore (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Birthday: Jan. 19 or Jan. 20?

The article's infobox lists Poe's birthday as January 20, 1809; the body of the article says his birthday was Jan. 19. Does anyone know which is correct? -- Narsil (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that recently, too. It's January 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukey7650 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The 19th!_MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, January 19. It somehow got changed in this revert. Gimmetrow 02:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for fun: Saw this, thought of you Poe fans... [3] ... and The Raven of course. ++Lar: t/c 05:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The birth date is most definitely January 19. Editors might be confused by his grave marker, which incorrectly lists January 20. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a section on his grave, the movement thereof, and the marker with its incorrect date is in order? There's a fair amount of backstory to how it ended up as it is today. [[4]] Arakunem^Talk 18:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen death of Edgar Allan Poe? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ackroyd book

Hi. Thanks for the correction to the Edgar Allan Poe article where I had added the Peter Ackroyd book

• Ackroyd, Peter (2008). Poe: a life cut short. London: Chatto & Windus. ISBN 9780701169886.

on Poe to references. You backed this out. So I added it to "Further reading". Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it definitely shouldn't be listed as a reference if it's not referenced. I've also removed it from further reading. I just don't think Wikipedia should be promoting books that were written with no intent to be accurate. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll have to take your word for it, I guess. Peter Ackroyd is a well-known biographer. The Times of London reviewed it and didn't say it was inaccurate, though.From The Times, February 1, 2008 "Poe: A Life Cut Short by Peter Ackroyd; Reviewed by Matthew Dennison" And the Christian Science Monitor reviewed it and didn't mention any inaccuracies as well."Book Reviews: Poe: A Life Cut Short. A concise new biography marks the 200th birthday of Edgar Allen Poe." By Heller McAlpin, Christian Science Monitor, January 21, 2009 edition. Having read these reviews and skimmed the book by Ackroyd last night, I'd ask you to provide scholarly citations or reviews showing the inaccuracie. Otherwise we must put this matter up for arbitration. Just for my edification, can you cite some literary reviews which demonstrate the inaccuracy of this book by Ackroyd on Poe? It's still seemingly a read book. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A book reviewer is an expert on writing and on if goods are written well or poorly. But, they are not subject matter experts. I'm sure it's well-written and very readable. However, I'm the token Poe expert so I'll offer my own review. First, I'm ignoring the controversial assertions that Poe was mad or crazy (which Ackroyd offers without challenge) and lived a perpetually-melancholy life. The first review you linked mentions that Poe was attracted to "fragile women on the brink of death" - which is sensationalism at its finest, and conveniently ignores the twice-fiancee Sarah Elmira Royster, who was always perfectly healthy, as well as Nancy "Annie" Richmond, who was also perfectly healthy (the only sickos seem to be Jane Stanard, who Poe knew as a pre-teen, I believe, his wife Virginia, and Frances Osgood, possibly Sarah Helen Whitman as well). A paragraph later, it says that Poe was adopted by the Allan family - which is patently false. The orphaned Poe was never adopted, and such is the crux of his development. The second review you link dares to say he was adopted by "doting" parents! That same review again notes that Poe was drawn towards "dark-haired consumptives" - overplaying the couple of TB-infected women in his life (what, two confirmed? That hardly makes it pathological!). Ackroyd also overplays the alcohol question, which recent scholarship is actually downplaying. Facts that are undeniable are also incorrect; he notes that Poe was in the hospital for two days (rather than the four days) before his death. In short, Poe: A Life Cut Short merely takes advantage of the Poe mythos: a dark, depressed, madman who happened to write a few decent works. The book is not considered worth attention by Poeists today. I speak, of course, as a published Poe scholar myself and a member of the Poe Studies Association and a coordinator of the Edgar Allan Poe 200 Project. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications. A reviewer is not an ideal touchstone, agreed. Points taken. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to come here after a message was left on my talk page about this matter, and I'm inclined to agree with Wikiklrsc on this one. As it is in a "further reading" section, it makes no claims to having been the source of any material in the article. I've always viewed further reading sections as something that provide information that the reader might find interesting or insightful beyond what the article provides, and this book appears to fit the bill on that front based on the reviews I read. I also did an Internet search on Google, and found nothing that indicates that the book is loaded with inaccuracies or anything of the sort. Unless you can find a reliable source indicating that the book is loaded with inaccuracies or the like, and thus not something that our readers might want to also look into after seeing our article, I see no harm in having the book listed in a further reading section, because further reading sections only serve to enhance the article by providing readers a jumping-off point to delve more deeply into a subject. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd argue that I'm the reliable source saying it's inaccurate. It is up to us, as users, to determine which works should be include (as under WP:FURTHERREADING, including a book here clearly implies recommendation). You may not see harm in leaving it in the further reading section, but I think it makes as much sense as having a "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" listed as a "further reading" section on orangutans - it's just not a good place to go for more info. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: This is not a reliable source. Nevertheless, it might give you an indication of the dispute. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Well, it's just a question of some kind of clear proof the book is inaccurate. Ackroyd's a known biographer and I found it odd that neither The Times of London nor the Christian Science Monitor in their reviews of the book mentioned gross inaccuracies. The Amazon "user comment" you referenced does show someone's taking issue with the book but not at all a solid scholarly forum as you admit. I'm not a Poe scholar. The book is being read and in the mainstream if you will, perhaps the popular mainstream. It was even cited by a person commenting on the Times article as a "must read" although the review didn't say that. Admittedly, a weak argument on my part. My point is that if there are so many gross inaccuracies, why didn't the Times of London or the Christian Science Monitor write that in their published reviews? Well, it's a talking point, but if you are insistent, and are convinced, I will likely just defer to you in the matter, somewhat reluctantly but in the interest of community peace. I must thank Ben Schumin for his opinion with which I would agree in principle with his sentiments. If the book is out there and being read and published by a respectable publishing house, which it was, then it would seem to merit attention of sorts. The "source" you reference is a user comment on Amazon on the book. I'm inclined to read it but discount it since I've seen other reader comments to the Times or Christian Science Monitor article saying it was a "must read" on Poe. But we shall reach a peaceful point soon on the matter. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, a review would only acknowledge inaccuracies if they were aware of it. I would assume that, like you, the reviewers were not Poe scholars. The problem with Poe is that the story of his life has been misreported and purposely altered since 1850; a short book like Ackroyd's couldn't possibly acknowledge all the controversies. Of course, his is not the only biography of concern; a discerning Poe scholar knows how to spot the good or the bad. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that Ackroyd's book is popular and can concede it be included in the "Further reading" section (though I'd love to hear other opinions) - so long as it is "watered down," if you will, with other biographies (which, you might notice, I've done) so it doesn't have as much impact if it were a stand-alone. I still, however, first and foremost support its removal. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion but isn't the "Notes" section at the end of the article essentially a guide to further reading? Why are we compiling a list of further readings in this article if said list is merely an aggregation of superfluous and inferior books? Also, as and aside, Midnight were you serious about Harry Lee Poe's book being the "best Poe book out there" or was that tongue-in-cheek? It's a decent book but certainly not the best! Anyhow, I'm babbling, what's the point of the Further Readings list? MorbidAnatomy (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I think a "Further reading" section is a list of useful books to amplify the material and enhance the topic of the article BUT were not referenced in the article proper, so don't belong in the Reference section. Many print encyclopedias have further reading sections as do scholarly papers. I'm sure one of our fellow editors can define it more precisely. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I think Harry Lee Poe's book is as good as you'll get to perfect, particularly based on his treatment of the Griswold issue (which Ackroyd doesn't really get into... another reason to damn the book). As far as the purpose of the section, there's a whole policy on it: WP:FURTHERREADING. Of course, you could argue that, considering this is a Featured Article, it is presumed to be comprehensive and anything under further reading is superfluous (or it implies a lack of comprehensiveness). --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree about Harry Lee Poe's book. It is a very good book but it is a far cry from perfect. But back to the main point here, I wasn't intending to question the purpose of a Further Reading section in general but specifically the list that was accumulating in the Poe article. It seems unnecessary, or at least insufficient. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points made above. In general, I'd agree that a well-written article is, in principle, self-sufficient, but I would still feel a "further reading" section would be useful as is the mandatory "references" section. It can get burdensome, though, sometimes, when the "Further reading" outweighs the proper intellectual symmetry of the article. I don't terribly much think that's really a problem in this case. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

new Poe exhibition

{{editsemiprotected}} Could information about this newest Edgar Allan Poe exhibition (both physical and online), be added to the article? The exhibition celebrates Poe's bicentennial.

Exhibition Title: "From Out That Shadow: The Life and Legacy of Edgar Allan Poe" Where: University of Virginia Library Link: http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/poe/ Moiezhik1 (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this would add to the article, to be honest. There at least four exhibitions relevant to Poe's bicentennial in addition to this one (I've been to three) and I think this article is fairly comprehensive without them. This is not a news article, after all. I should ask you to clarify: Are you saying this should be added under the External Links section? --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Per above response, editsemiprotected request rejected for failing to provide specific text that should be inserted into the article. Please feel free to propose specific text and reinstate the request! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ext. link more appropriate under "About Poe"

I concur wholeheartedly.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Government Agent?

Over the Christmas break my family and I went to Washington DC. We weren't able to go to as many places as we wanted in the three days that we stayed but one of the things we did was visit the Spy Museum. There was a section in museum about some writers who were also, or might have been spies. I was fairly surprised to see Poe in the museum. Under his picture it stated that he was also a possible spy. The only problem is, now I'm not 100% sure if his name was up there since it's been a while since I was in DC. Does anyone have a source to tell me whether I'm right or just imagining things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.64.72 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are a couple conspiracy theorists out there that place Poe as a spy. It never received any amount of respect or credibility - I'm quite surprised to see it in a museum as anything other than a joke. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

IDK, the sign might've said something like "many believe Poe to be a spy" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.64.72 (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds even more inaccurate. More like, "A couple people believe Poe was a spy." --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Popular literature and films - removed

Midnightdreary, I see that you removed the subsection added by Frank1829 titled Popular Literature and Films. I was wondering how you would feel about using this text as an add-on to the previous subsection, Literary influence, after I've spruced it up a bit? I found the information interesting and possibly an improvement to the article. Of course, after I spruce it up I will paste it here first for discussion before adding it to the article. If you and other involved editors are amenable to this, I will start on it soon.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are making this suggestion after determining that the articles Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture, Edgar Allan Poe and music, Edgar Allan Poe in television and film are not enough? Unless you can source to a reliable third-party source each and every alleged reference to Poe or his work (assuming none are trivial), adding this information will compromise the integrity of this featured article. Frankly, I don't see how it would add much and being "interesting" is not a good reason for inclusion. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If there are no other comments, then I won't bother. Personally, I think "interesting" is a damn good reason to include/exclude material (and here I speak of what interests the general reader, and not what interests myself or other editors); however, I heartily agree that other factors are equally important and therefore I must aquiesce to the words of wisdom found at WP:INTERESTING.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

See also the policy that says WP is not a complete exposition of all possible details (just because it exists doesn't meant it belongs here), as well as the complicated info in the guideline at WP:TRIVIA (loosely affiliated information) and the interesting essay on WP:CRUFT. If anyone else supports adding further info here on this topic, I'd note that such a move undermines a project-wide effort to remove these sorts of things from high-quality important articles on Wikipedia. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote subbing

I notice, Midnightdreary, that you recently subbed the 2nd hatnote. And I wonder (1) why this is needed, and (2) why you would sub all the way to the last two letters of Massachusetts?
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I did what? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Did he really die in Baltimore

In the 1960's and 70's several teachers in the Union City, New Jersey school system taught that Poe died at the bottom of the concrete and stone stairs that link Hoboken, New Jersey which is a port city at sea level on the Hudson River up to Union City which is atop the Palisades which range from 350 to 550 feet above the river. In the 1960's and 1970's the stairs were barricaded off limits, but earlier they had been a common way to go between the two cities. As the story went Poe was found dead near the bottom of the stairs, presumably from a heroin overdose, and transported to Baltimore where the story of a more politically correct (for the times) bar room fight was fabricated.

Okay. The answer to your subject line: Yes, Poe really did die in Baltimore. It was definitely not in New Jersey. Poe, of course, was not a regular drug user, so the heroine overdose idea is incorrect as well. I'm not sure about this "politically correct" bar room fight fabrication came from; I've never heard that one before. In other words, there are four problems with this comment. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Link error in Cryptography

Would someone able to edit the article please correct the link to 'PURPLE' in the cryptography section to point to Purple_(cipher_machine) and not the color purple. Thanks. Ryojin314159 (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. The article was apparently moved since the link was added. Thanks for catching it! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The notion that Poe helped dechipher Japanese code in world war 2 is completly wrong considering he died a full 100 years before world war 2 even started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.185.175.234 (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Learn to read. Syrthiss (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cooping?

Can someone explain to me how "cooping" can be a cause of death? That is what it says in the article. Please clean up this sentence since it currently makes no sense. --1000Faces (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cooping is pretty dang violent; it works for me as a potential cause of death. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't call that cause of death per se, fact is poe was bitten by mad dog, main reason (as were side effects) for his death was rabbies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMasta (talk • contribs) 03:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're not just trolling but there definitely is no "fact" that Poe died of anything proven. Cooping, in case you're curious, involves being beaten, drugged, dragged to exhaustion, and forced into small containers (or "coops"); someone could certainly die as a result of the act of cooping or, as happened, the victim could have been purposely killed by the scammers. Maybe it's not a medical diagnosis, but it works here, I think.. --Midnightdreary (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, if one day you'll learn how to read i said, per se, NOTHING PROVEN, if you enter into search engine poe died from rabbies, you'll get many results! Most of the medical community would agree the symptoms poe presented were those of mad dog, his brain was infected, at the beginning he was normal, later when disease progressed there was no chance to heal him, but in the meantime he returned to his former self, but he did not remember anything what happened or how was he found in such deplorable condition, then infection took over his immune system for good, his thirst was always present, he was delirious.

This is a disease primarily of animals but it affects both wild and domestic and human beings, he was in agony for few days, it would be good to expand on his final days!

Not to be too pedantic but, actually, you did say: "fact is poe was bitten by a mad dog." You didn't say it wasn't proven, you called it a "fact." In fact, this is just a theory - one of many, in fact. The medical community, including the person who originally postulated the rabies theory, admits that the evidence is not conclusive. Until there is a final, definitive conclusion to Poe's death, we can't present any conclusions of our own on Wikipedia. I hope I fully answered the original question about how can cooping result in death. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned, the fact counts for specific groups, for those who see no other cause of death, it's mostly accepted but can never be certain, I doubt his body will be unearthed. But rabbies is most probable cause! It's no longer hypothesis but strong theory! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMasta (talk • contribs) 21:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've known some rabbis, and although most of them have been concerned with Heaven, none of them were responsible for causing anyone's death. Back in the 19th century, they might have been unappreciative of Poe's weak support of traditional religion, but not enough to kill him. aruffo (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Poor spelling aside, you admit that it's just a theory? Good. Moving on, "the fact counts for specific groups" makes no sense - a fact is a fact, regardless of perspective. "For those who see no other cause of death" also makes little sense, considering how many theories are out there. However, noting that you're not suggesting any specific change to the article, I will no longer pursue this discussion; this talk page is not meant for chit-chat. Please review WP:OR, WP:CITE, and WP:RS at your own pace. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No poor spellin pal, you are not concentrating again, i mentioned fact by majority in the scientific community agrees with me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMasta (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I moved this to the section I believe you were trying to respond to. Yes, in fact, there was a fairly egregious spelling error (not to mention poor grammar and sentence structure) in every one of your responses, particularly the spelling of "rabies" (I dare suggest some might find your theory less credible if you can't even spell it). Again, you have not proven a thing; just saying the "majority in the scientific community" does not prove anything. Please read some Wikipolicies (I've offered several links; I'm guessing you haven't clicked any of them). Until you do, it's not worth posting here, is it? --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

keyboard im using has been used by 100 other people over the years, so before being judgemental idiot, think about the reasons, this is discussion, so i have the right to write without checking for any errors, grammatical, punctuational or anything nor do i owe you any explanation, i did not use bad spelling in the article, did i, only then gives you the right to be rude, otherwise you are breaking wikipedia civility rules, so i suggest you brush up on them!

I took the low road in pointing out the spelling error that had been so politely ignored. Nonetheless, I completely agree that this point is not worth discussing further. Opinion is not evidence. aruffo (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Kindly read once, this is scientific opinion pal~!

"ChessMasta" is a banned user; I've blocked him, and will shut down his IP ranges if he continues. Sorry for the waste of time; I should have done this a couple weeks ago. Typically I let him alone if he's just dinking around, but once he becomes abusive I block his socks and ranges. You can see the last noticeboard post about him here if you're curious. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in on an old discussion but the initial question (whether or not cooping is a cause of death) is a valid one. We may be getting hyper-technical here but cooping is perhaps more accurately a mechanism of death. In pathology cause and mechanism are two very different things. For example, in the case of a modern forensic autopsy report on an individual who died in a car accident, the cause of death would read something like, "multiple traumatic injuries secondary to motor vehicle collision." The traumatic injuries are the cause of death and the motor vehicle collision was the mechanism of trauma. If Poe did actually die from cooping, his cause of death could have been many things (trauma, or poison, or overdose, or whatever) but the mechanism would have been cooping and the manner of death would have been homicide. I don't know if correcting this technicality actually improves the article, but the question was a valid one. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)