Talk:Ezra Pound: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 72: Line 72:


I'm re-opening this debate, and would like outside viewpoints on this. [[User:Harizotoh9|Harizotoh9]] ([[User talk:Harizotoh9|talk]]) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm re-opening this debate, and would like outside viewpoints on this. [[User:Harizotoh9|Harizotoh9]] ([[User talk:Harizotoh9|talk]]) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
:More correctly you are reopening this debate following a self instigated edit war. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 09:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
:More correctly you are reopening this debate following a self instigated edit war. Your arguments, such as they are, are generalist, shallow, and wholly lacking any reading or understanding of previous debates on this talk. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 09:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:18, 15 July 2018

Template:Vital article

Featured articleEzra Pound 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 5, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 13, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
February 22, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
March 13, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

the Ginsberg bit at the end

I'm surprised there wasn't a bit where Ginsberg said Pound told him the only way to heal the world was to breed out the white race. Ginsberg was clearly making that up to viciously and nastily bury an 'anti-semite' and try to destroy his literary reputation by falsely claiming he himself thought his work was shit. That this is included here at all is ridiculous - that Ginsberg's obvious lies are quoted as if Pound said them directly somewhere is obscene.

Infobox?

Why is there no infobox? Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Harizotoh9 That is a very good question! It probably means that nobody ever made one. Somebody should take on the task to do it! CryMeAnOcean (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Undid revision 850340885 by Ceoil (talk) How can you say there is consensus not to have an info box when the talk page clearly shows that two people agree to have it and nobody disagreed?" - CryMeAnOcean
Two and a half hours, during the middle of the night in the Americas, is not enough time for consensus to form, and CryMeAnOcean, with all due respect you have 179 edits. As such I have reverted, twice now. Note this has been discussed at length on this talk, as I mentioned in the first revert, with a broad consensus not to include a box. For my own part, these days I am inclined towards boxes, but given the fraught and complicated nature of this bio, cannot see one working one here. Ceoil (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) to all: If you look at the article history, you'll see that several made one. A more general discussion is here, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#ArbCom wants there to be an RfC and the drafting of infobox inclusion criteria. It's as long as the title suggests ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gerda, from one battle weary trooper to another :), although "that several made one" is a weird sentence. I do appreciate CryMeAnOcean's energy however. Ceoil (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that argument and consensus are not so important to some.[1]. Expalin your thinking Harizotoh9. Ceoil (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are to just have quick references instead of having to scan the lede or articles. They're boring, and on every other page uncontroversial. Literally all that's been added so far is his birth name, date of birth, and dead. That's controversial? If Erza Pound's life is "complicated", then it just means the infobox should be smaller and stick to areas that aren't up for debate.

I'm re-opening this debate, and would like outside viewpoints on this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More correctly you are reopening this debate following a self instigated edit war. Your arguments, such as they are, are generalist, shallow, and wholly lacking any reading or understanding of previous debates on this talk. Ceoil (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]