Talk:Ezra Pound

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?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

@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)

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)

(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)

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)

(After church, had no time for history before, sorry:) "Several made one" means:

1. 14 Oct 2007 by Deor (probably until 26 June 2010, didn't check all in between)
2. 29 Sep 2010 by SlimVirgin, again 5 October, self-reverted immediately
3. 25 Feb 2011 by Ksnow
4. 24 Mar 2011 by MrLJM
5. 12 Feb 2012 by Tuckerresearch
6. 17 Mar 2012 by Curly Turkey
7. 29 Jun 2012 by Soerfm
8. 1 Oct 2012 by Rrburke (self-reverted after look at talk)
9. 9 Oct 2012 by Betempte
10. 10 Jun 2013 by Bubka42
11. 19 Jun 2013 by Faustus37
12. 25 Jun 2014 by Xenxax
13. 5 Feb 2016 by Fireflyfanboy
14. 4 Oct 2016 by Victoriaearle
15. 19 Apr 2017 by Elisa.rolle
16. 30 Mar 2018 by Etzedek24
17. and today. - To all: please discuss, also at the general place about inclusion criteria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep on stoking the fires Gerda. Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Fires? Facts. I didn't even know what an infobox is until 2012, and am completely cold regarding this one. Just observing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Noting that argument and consensus are not so important to some.[1]. Explain your thinking Harizotoh9. Ceoil (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, all those people just got pinged, myself included (and still on my first cup or coffee). That's called stacking the decks and not helpful. I just saw this discussion, haven't read through, but would like to think about it carefully and slowly and decide about what and when to post in a rational way before it gets out of control. Bringing in all the people who have added infoboxes might not have been the way to go. To me this article represents the pinnacle of collaborative editing on Wikipedia, where compromises were suggested, discussed and implemented throughout, from issues such as what text to include, sourcing, images, formatting throughout (including infobox or not), down to the smallest details such as background colors for the quote boxes, how to format the bundled refs and so on. All the many people who were involved are justifiably protective of our achievement, not in a "own the article" sense, but in the a "this is how Wikipedia works at its best" sense. Victoriaearle (tk) 12:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

All those people just got pinged? Exactly. Gerda is an agitator, and aw shucks doesn't cut it. "Just observing" is an insult, after all these years Gerda, and you treat me like a fool. To say nothing of these multi accounts below where In consider silence as consent. Ceoil (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Victoria and Ceoil, - no link would have been talking behind these people's backs, I decided against that. Please copy what you said just above to the MoS discussion about inclusion criteria, linked above, for a better future. - Ceoil, your question above ("several made one") provoked me, I confess that sin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Butter and mouth. Talking behind Fireflyfanboy's (for example) back? Give me a break. You are transparent as they come and again you try and fool me, now with utter nonsense. I should open a SPI re you and CryMeAnOcean, the MO is remarkably similar, as I said below. Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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. "If Erza Pound's life is "complicated" then...infoboxes then to be expansionist. Ceoil (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Your tone is a bit defensive, and you seem to act like you WP:OWN this page. And what's up with the phrase "battle weary trooper", and attacking a user for making 179 edits?

Also, I have made one revert. You have made two. WP:BRD applies.

Debates can be re-opened at any time. Looking at the archives, it looks like this issue hasn't been looked at since 2016. That's 2 years. A fairly long time. A lot can change on Wikipedia, in both it's content, software, philosophy, and userbase. Nothing is made in stone and can't be debate.

For my stance on infoboxes, I believe they should be required for biography pages. If various elements are up for debate, simply stick to the non-debatable facts. Date of birth, death, locations, spouses, etc. Don't over think this. People will open up a WP article to just check for some quick basic facts, like when someone died. With an infobox, that's easy. Without one, someone has to start digging through the text or read the entire lead. Also it's a bit silly to have 99% of bio articles have infoboxes, yet a few don't. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Harizotoh9, didnt mean to sound defensive, and I certainly don't "own" this page but, this all seems so sudden, an established editor and a new account tag teaming and edit waring after a talk notice and interval of some two hours. Perhaps I am used to a more collegial and inclusive approach. Nor do I find your arguments ("boring") convincing. Ceoil (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, thank you. I briefly searched the history of the page but did not have time to search every page to see that Ezra Pound had an info box and someone reverted it to nothing.

@Ceoil I don't know why you mentioned how many edits I have. Is that relevant at all? Frankly not having an info box makes the Ezra Pound article look like it's substandard when it is one of the most important and best articles at Wikipedia. We are not in an edit war at all, I just wanted you to experience the feeling that Harizotoh9 must have felt when you deleted the work that he did! Have you considered that readers might think that the info box was deleted by a vandal? CryMeAnOcean (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Well there are rumours of sock puppeting and sleeper accounts all using your type of faux naive speaking voice (the self pitying "aw shucks" username is a dead giveaway), which are used to form false consensus and drive in boxes, so I was being cautious. Per AGF, I wouldn't call for check user or anything. Gerda, you have condoned this behaviour for years. Ceoil (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I condone the behaviour to miss something and add it. I pointed out (above, go to that discussion please, all!) that in a few cases, it has proved controversial. AGF, - why shouldn't that be a user new to the topic (of the alleged infobox wars dating back to 2005)? - Did the article have a hidden message warning someone new? Is there a link to a consensus discussion on this talk? - I don't know. I don't remember to have participated in this article (but have a bad memory). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil Who are you calling a new user? I registered my account in 2011 and Harizotoh9 is not a new user either. Thank you for being an established editor. I had no idea that when I registered in 2011 that there is some magic number of edits that would make my edits at Wikipedia worthy or not. Also I don't know where you live but mentioning that I am in the Americas has nothing to do with the info box discussion. My username is from PTSD and you don't need to make fun of my username. You are a rude person today. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil Per AGF, you should not use words like "sock puppeting and sleeper accounts" on this talk page because that is not assuming good faith and your asking Gerda to back you up that I have somehow demonstrated "this behavior" ("form false consensus and drive in boxes") is insulting to me. I am certainly not faux naive and I am not malicious; just a normal person who thinks you have been on your high horse. By your leave. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

When I said that the common tactic is for new accounts to adopt a faux naive guise, you encapsulate it beautifully with the phrase "just a normal person". I now also have a read of the intelligence level and the lack of skill in adopting personas. Thanks! Ceoil (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil Can you stop the personal attack? I am sure that personally attacking me is not allowed. Bringing up my intelligence level is rude. Please stay on topic: info box for Ezra Pound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryMeAnOcean (talk • contribs) 12:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.