Talk:Poetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Poetry is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 27, 2004.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
WikiProject Poetry (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Literature (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Poems & songs[edit]

Hi. Nowhere in this article can I find a mention that poems (typically) do not have a melody - one of the basic characteristics that distinguishes them from (most) songs. This seems a fairly big omission. What do other editors think? SP-KP (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Auld lang syne, by Robert Burns, was apparently both poem and song from the first.
Quite a few other poems have been set to music.
A fair number of musical compositions have been retrofitted with words, e.g. Stranger in Paradise.
Are all songs otherwise poems? Nihil novi (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Worthy of discussion, but I'd be wary of the idea that there is not a melody to many poems, especially when you consider poetry in tonal languages and historic forms (remember, the idea of "lyric" poetry is derived from poetic forms that were accompanied by a lyre). I think it may be hard to define a concept of a "melody" that would exclude poetic forms common to any number of places and times. Do you have any academic discussion or citation for the proposition? (By the way, I do think the relationship between poetry and music is a complex and very intereting one, worthy of discussion - I just don't want to jump to conclusions on it based on what has become habitual in the most common poetry in English language cultures today).

I feel that poetry is a useless way to torture students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.135.12.34 (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: Hip hop? Is it contemporary English language poetry that is inseparable from its musical elements? A Musing (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What a great question.I do think is a form of poetry.Thank you.--Thispoems (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I read with interest this section.126.43.236.107 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

love[edit]

love means that you want to make you and love the person so another person if i want a person female and male what the love —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.239.101 (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Theopoetics?[edit]

Is the topic of theopoetics so important as to merit a link from the main poetry article? I could think of several "see also" articles that would be more relevant. Even better, I think that the link to theopoetics should be removed and the list of "see also" links thereafter left alone: perfection isn't achieved when everything that can be added has been added, but when everything that can be taken away has been taken away. 63.96.62.31 (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Languages and redirects[edit]

I am adding a link to the same article in Danish, but there seems to be some confusion about the titles of the articles because of rdirects. The articles redirect as follows:

For the case that anything changes, I link to the redirecting da:Poesi. Change it if you find something different better, I just explain the redirects here so that you know why I link to a redirect. 87.60.70.121 (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Metre[edit]

The very first 'corrections' I made a year or so ago to any Wiki article were, I admit, writing the words in English, as opposed to American. OK, I accepted the subsequent admonishment... and have not sinned again... but, it is impossible to read, without cringing, an article about poetry with references to meter, i.e. something that records the volume of electricity I use, and which does not mention 'metre', that which is essential to poetry. How can we reach some compromise in Wiki. Tony in Devon (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A section on Poet Laurates?[edit]

Wondering if a section could be made added or a link to the various Poet Laurates of the US(if there were any!) England I know has had a Poet Laurate for ????Thanks!PMEVAug13,200921stcent."X"EAJ.EDSONNTESLATSWIFTSR (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tu Fu and Beowulf???[edit]

The article contained the following sentence

While readers accustomed to identifying poetry with Dante, Goethe, Mickiewicz and Rumi may think of it as being written in rhyming lines and regular meter, there are traditions, such as those of Du Fu and Beowulf, that use other approaches to achieve rhythm and euphony.

This is not strictly accurate. Du Fu's poetry is rhymed and metrical. Beowulf likewise follows a (fairly rigorous) meter, so I replaced these examples with Biblical poetry. Szfski (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Derivation[edit]

Okay, this has been bugging me for a while. The derivation of poetry is not the greek poesis. I can't tell you what exactly it is, but I think the latin for it is poetas, which would be closer. Or maybe it comes through French poesie? Either way the current etymology is innaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.120.144 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

English, Latin and French all come from the Greek. The OED has that etymology, which should probably be restored to the article. Mcewan (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Categorical Effectiveness[edit]

Why aren't there more effective categories specifically on possible subdivisions of poetry? I tried to find 20th century poets and was redirected to here. Again, I tried "American poets" and was similarly redirected here. Why wouldn't there be a category for "20th century poets" or "american poets"? It shouldn't be presumptive of me to think that something has fallen through the cracks of thought, if we can't categorize "poets" by century or nationality... Does anyone else think likewise? Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Don Juan's meter?[edit]

I don't know why the "Metrical Patterns" section has Byron's Don Juan in anapestic tetrameter. Byron wrote it in iambic pentameter, as in "I want a hero, an uncommon want/When every year and month sends forth a new one". Would anyone mind if I removed the poem from the list, or at least put it in its proper place?--168.122.245.234 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


Origins of the Word "Poetry"[edit]

Are you sure that it originates from Helenica? I would have thought it originated from the Latin "poeta", meaning poet. --Draxacoffilus (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point. dictionary.com appears to support your position. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Image in ghazal section[edit]

A few hours ago, I made this edit, reverting the unexplained removal of an image from the ghazal section of this article, as the edit summary explained nothing ("Clean-up,not leveled to be mentioned here and also not proper relevant,image removed"). Subsequently, the editor posted to my my talk page as below. I have requested her to move the discussion here, as it is relevant to this article. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

== Your edit is Rv ==

  • Hi,You reverted my edit saying that,"Rv unexplained removal of image,Ehsan Sehgal,your edit summary was incomprehensible."

I did not act Rv,acctually your reverting edit is Rv and without giving reasons and explaining summary that why you think it must be reverted. As I am familair to that area of the subject,I know who is who?.There are hundreds of biographical articles of poets,it does not mean you add their names everywhere,you want.Wikipedia has a standard and for it requires classical entries,not just an entry.In the article Poetry section Ghazal,should be the image of any classical or prominent poet,not just a poet.And other thing removed subject of image is a comic poet,and section Ghazal requires images of classical and prominent poets of puur ghazal,as like Ghalib, Mir and etc.

Please take a look at Ghazal,then may you understand,why I removed the image.Please do not revert any edit without explaining properly.I have ask, about your Rv reverting,to User:LadyofShalott,her assistance in this regard,after this I will react accordingly.Cheers.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Started to cmt at my page, then decided to come to Bagworm's page, then saw his reply and am now here. I've been helping Ehsan out where I can (if you wish, you can say "mentor", although neither of us would), so he asked me to comment here. His point seems to be that Anwar Masood is not a good example of Ghazal poetry, due to Masood's being a "comic" poet. I'm somewhat inclined to agree with him - Masood's page doesn't even mention Ghazal, and you'd think that the image should be of someone well known for their use of that format - but I'm also not involved in this page at all, and would defer to more knowledgeable editors. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ::Thank you, Ehsan, for your explanation of why you removed the image. If you had explained it in your edit summary I might have been less quick to revert. I agree that ideally we should have a picture of a prominent poet for this section, but failing that, it is no harm to have a picture of a less prominent one. So if you wish to replace the current image with that of a more prominent poet, please do. But if you don't have one, there seems no reason to remove the photo that is in the article now. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
"Unexplained removal" was not quite accurate as Ehsan did attempt to make an explanation in his edit summary - it would have been more appropriate to ask on the talk page for a clarification of that explanation instead of reverting with that as an edit summary. That being said, the appropriate discussion is now being held here. Are there any photos of more prominent Ghazal poets available? LadyofShalott 19:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. "Unexplained" doesn't mean someone didn't try to explain; it just means they didn't succeed. Thanks for your constructive engagement, Nolelover. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
And thank you for your help. :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I assume good faith to make standards of the wiki.encyclopedia.I am busy to improve that part of area,I mean Urdu poets,poetry and etc.Thank you very much all of you.I will come to you always when I need your assistance and help.Cheers. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

FA concerns[edit]

This article needs improvement on its referencing and comprehensive. Throughout the entire article, there are multiple Citation Needed templates and unreferenced sections on the page. As well, there are sections in the article that need expanding, like the ones found in the Form section. There should also be some fixing of dab links. GamerPro64 22:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

public performance of poetry[edit]

This article apparently says nothing about the public recitation of poetry! It only mentions and links to performance poetry, and i now added the link to poetry reading. But both of those articles do not provide the missing information either. Performance poetry is a specific kind of poetry, whereas all poetry can be recited publicly. And the article on poetry reading only mentions public recitals by poets, not by others! But poetry doesn't even talk about and didn't even link to that!!

So the article also says nothing about how poetry is again increasingly being recited orally in public after a long period of being mostly read silently or being read or recited to oneself or others in private.

There must be organizations of poetry readers in English speaking countries such as this Finnish organization, which points out that the art of poetry recitation has its roots in ancient Greece, where professional itinerant poetry reciters, called rhapsodists accompanied their performances with the guitar (should read: kithara). And now i discovered that there is even WP article on that topic although this article also doesn't mention that and didn't even have a link! --Espoo (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition of poetry[edit]

This first sentence of the article defines poetry as "a form of literary art which uses the aesthetic qualities of language to evoke meanings in addition to, or in place of, the prosaic ostensible meaning." However, this seems to me both absurd and inaccurate in its usual English usage, since most prosaic writers (of, for example, novels) would consider their works crafted to evoke aesthetic qualities just as much as poetry and yet decidedly not poetry. The absurd part of this definition is that of course a form of "literary art" would have "aesthetic qualities"....All art does by definition. It seems to me that the much more accurate definition of poetry in modern English centers around its structural rather than aesthetic qualities. In particular, poetry is defined by its use (or deliberate disuse) of structural features, such as rhythm, meter, and (perhaps, the most defining) verse, i.e. its structuring of groups of words into lines. The Book of Literary Terms by Lewis Turco (1999) states: "Prose, that is, unmetered language, and verse, that is, metered" (9). So often, I see the dichotomy of "prose vs. verse" and "prose vs. poetry." Why are poetry and verse so often both regarded as the opposite of prose? I suspect it is because verse is a fundamental feature of poetry. Although beauty or art are often are associated with poetry, they do not define it. That, it seems to me, is done by a particular poetical structure (and often, in modern times, a hybridizing of that structure with prosaic elements or a conscious breakdown of, or moving away from, that structure. But in any case, a conscious attention paid to the structure by the poem's creator). Other thoughts? Wolfdog (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-active[edit]

I removed the transclusion tag for the "semi-active" template, since it does not appear to be particularly helpful in this case. Dcattell (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Forms[edit]

Can someone please include death poems (Jisei) and/or threnodies? --MightySaiyan (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Why don't you try your hand at adding it to the "Genres" section, maybe after "Elegy"? Nihil novi (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Graphic Poetry[edit]

Did I miss it, or is there no section on graphic poetry? BelindaPereira (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)BelindaPereira

Per usual, Wikipaeida buries the "lead" in the sixth sentence where EVEN THEN it "caveats" (1) the obvious: that "poetry has sometimes been more generally regarded as a fundamental creative act employing language"...when the plain, obvious FACT is that

      • POETRY***
      • IS***
      • IS, IS, IS***
      • ALWAYS IS***
      • A***
      • FUNDAMENTAL***
      • CREATIVE***
      • ACT***
      • EMPLOYING***
      • LANGUAGE***

(1) "caveats" is an obscene syntactical creation of Gen. Alexander Haig, who was in charge of the American government in the Watergate transition/handover of power from Richard Nixon to Gerald Ford.

Later Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan and Commanding General of NATO, Haig was the effective "president" or, if you will, behind-the-scenes Machiavelli for two presidents, one on the wax and one on the wane, for perhaps as many as two years.

Haig was a protege of Henry Kissinger -- who arranged the execution of democratically elected Chilean president Salvador Allende on 9/11 1971 in a military coup d'etat of the democratically elected government by Chilean fascist Gen. Augusto Pinochet who used actual escaped World War II Nazis to assist in "disappearing" Chilean dissidents, Hitler-style.

Haig is the kind of person who would agree that poetry is only all about rhyme and meter, nothing more, and besides it is useless because it doesn't train anyone to work at a real job in the American gulag and besides, poets and English teachers and professors are all subversive commiepinkos who need to be surveilled by the NSA because they are dangerous terrorists.Lethomme (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)