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?

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

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@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: 14 Oct 2007 by Deor (probably until 26 June 2010, didn't check all in between) 29 Sep 2010 by SlimVirgin, again 5 October, self-reverted immediately 25 Feb 2011 by Ksnow 24 Mar 2011 by MrLJM 12 Feb 2012 by Tuckerresearch 17 Mar 2012 by Curly Turkey 29 Jun 2012 by Soerfm 1 Oct 2012 by Rrburke (self-reverted after look at talk) 9 Oct 2012 by Betempte 10 Jun 2013 by Bubka42 19 Jun 2013 by Faustus37 25 Jun 2014 by Xenxax 5 Feb 2016 by Fireflyfanboy 4 Oct 2016 by Victoriaearle 19 Apr 2017 by Elisa.rolle 30 Mar 2018 by Etzedek24 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) Oh, awesome—more infobox drahmah at the very page that introduced me to infobox drahmah—and the nasty-nastiness that it ineluctably devolves to. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Stop fucking with the talk page, Ceoil, especially when you can't even tell who in the flying fuck you're trying to insult (it was Victoriaearle who {{atop}}ed it, for fuck's sake). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Pot, kettle, black. You have read the tread right, and why we were disappointed that Gerda choose to summons the likes of you, swearing like a puffed up second rate King George. Ceoil (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Break

Proposal: add a Pound/canto typo box: put in everything + the kitchen sink. Because there's little black & white in his life it's not the easiest box, but if we have to have a box then we should include all the gray. I'll try to make a mock up. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you clarify what exactly is being proposed?

• I agree, please explain Work permit (talk)

• Exactly. I believe that an infobox should be an extension of the content and this article, in many ways more than others I've worked on, exemplifies collaborative editing at its best. Those who have pitched will understand the proposal. I can't get to a mock up immediately, but the central issue here has always been how to box the person who was caged for treason, while in a cage wrote award winning poetry on toilet paper, got caged for 12 years after, did horrible horrible things, was a bastard in many ways, yet mentored the best and brightest of his generation of modernist writers? The simplicity of In a Station of the Metro (i.,e no box), hasn't worked, or rather invites discord. Instead, should we consider the complexity of The Cantos? I'm willing to give it shot, will post a mock up here when it's finished (it won't be immediately because I have little time for wikipedia), and we could take it from there. Or we could continue to fight over a bog standard box on an article where people admit that they know nothing about the subject but show up to fight for the sake of the fight. I'm tired of the latter and am willing to try to make a box that will fit. It's easier to make a box for a plant, than for a man whose life was a series of intense creativity and serious disasters, but we should at least try. No? Clearly if consensus is that we can't do justice to the subject with a box (which is entirely possible), then that's the consensus. If everyone is ok with it, I'd like to try. But if consensus goes against me, I'm fine with that too. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Victoriaearle, thank you. I only watch this Ezra Pound article because of his writing; could care less about his personal life. I support you in creating the mock up, whenever you have time. Not having an infobox makes the article look substandard. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, but you raise the central problem. Because the infobox is content, focusing only on his writing is NPOV; we have to address both his writing and that he was a convicted anti-semitic traitor. This is the biography so the infobox has to give the bare bones biographical details, i.,e place of birth, though I think that's misleading because his parents left Idaho Territory when he was not yet two and he was raised in Main Line Philadelphia. There's a big difference between a western poet and an eastern one. We need to fill in "Resting place" (is he at rest?), then there are all the fields infobox writer wants, i.,e languages he wrote in. Some of the languages Ezra wrote in are English, Langue d'Oc, Greek, Latin, and some he probably made up, and, personally I prefer not to have a box that falls down below the lead into the first section. Anyway, I'll see what I can do, but it will have to include biographical details and be done correctly, because once installed it goes to Wikidata and from there any field can and will be filled and magically show up here, whether accurate, verifiable, or not. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• I liked your 2016 version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Victoriaearle, Thank you for your explanation. I appreciate your patience, kindness and help. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• I see where you are going. Looking forward to your mock-up. And thank you for doing this, sounds like alot of work. Work permit (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• "we have to address both his writing and that he was a convicted anti-semitic traitor ..."—non sequitur, and just more of the bad-faith drahmah. Victoriaearle's about to give us an infobox of absurd length to "prove" it's inappropriate. For the record, I've stopped using infoboxes on the articles I've edited for the last couple years, but I find the bad faith in these ridiculous "discussions" utterly disgusting. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• I liked the 2016 version as well. My good-faith assumption is that this is a case of overthinking the infobox. It's not meant to be a summary of the article and there's no need to include all of the intricacies or fill every parameter. The article as a whole must be NPOV, but there is no need for every part of the article to cover every aspect of the topic. My suggestion would be to start with the basics (year of birth and death, schools attended, etc) and then have a conversation about which additional items to add. –dlthewave ☎ 03:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  dlthewave: Please take a dive into the talk-page archives. You're not the first to make the suggestion and won't be the last to be shit on for doing so. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  Curly, please stop assuming bad faith and for a moment believe that I'm tired of the fighting. Can someone please link to the 2016 box? I remember adding one once, is that the one you'all are referring to? Can't remember, haven't been very active for the past two years. Thanks. I do think we should have more than "poet" for this box. I tried to experiment, but immediately ran into edit conflicts, so it's gone to my sandbox. I think with child modules a lot can be done. This isn't a case of making an absurdly long box, as Curly accuses, but wanting to get it right. Please give me the opportunity to try. Victoriaearle (tk) 12:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you. The 2016 version - as all the others tried - can easily be seen, following the links above. I support the call to assume good faith (just for moment believe I wanted to show the versions that have been tried, and by whom, no more). The link to his Wikidata record is on the left when in his article, and I don't think it will be changed much by our infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Please let Victoria work in her own time in her sandbox. There's no rush. SarahSV ^(talk) 13:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• No. When we're told an infobox is impossible unless "we ... address ... that he was a convicted anti-semitic traitor [etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.]", the proposal is obviously in bad faith. This is part of the game: assume all those proposing an infobox are working in bad faith (or are insufferably stupid), while insisting that the anti-infoboxers are working strictly in good faith, no matter the evidence to the contrary. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll go for insufferably stupid, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I thought I'd try to design an infobox that might mention political essays, etc., b/c he wasn't only a poet. This was done in good faith, and as a bridge building exercise, rather than a bridge tearing down exercise. Incredibly impressed Curly, with using terms like "spazzing" out, and Martin, jumping in within minutes so I was met with edit conflicts during the few moments I had earlier in the day, and now your youtube link. It's all yours, gentlemen. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"Incredibly impressed" with the inevitable parting snark in lieu of discussion, but none of it's mine—I've already stating I'm not supporting an infobox, only calling you all out. Glad to see at least you didn't dump this WP:POINT-y, drahmahtic thing in ("Citizenship: ex-pat, US traitor"?). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Curly, you should be blocked for your tone here. I use sandboxes to brainstorm & play, and as the last in a long list of editors to tell this to, have been sick as a dog recently. Stop. talking. to. me. like. that. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I will continue to call out these games as long as the participants continue to play them. You'd see less "tone" if you didn't stoop to sniping people as in your previous comment. If blocks are to be handed out, they'd start with this, and would get to some of your comments before mine. I'd normally sympathize with your condition, but it's hard with someone who's shown you six years of disrespect—right up to this very day. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you, Victoria! - I made a few changes but just revert if you don't like. I'd not need nationality, - rather obvious from birth and education. if you want more items added to poet you can say "plainlist| * poet * second * third" within the curly brackets, and all * at the beginning of the next line. - I love your version with the kitchen sink ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, on the scale of things that are important in my life right now, this is extremely low. I resent being pinged into this conversation and shouldn't have jumped in. Stupidly, I thought I could try to build a bridge. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been told to chill for a moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Unfortunately, I'm now frozen.

Sincere apologies for Robbie & Nicole. (No public domain versions of Frank & Nancy). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought that part of the point of the recent ArbCom case was to stop this kind of needling and swarming. One of the findings was: "Multiple editors, including IPs, have engaged in baiting and goading behavior surrounding the addition of infoboxes." To take action, someone would have to issue DS alerts as soon as it starts, which in itself tends to escalate. But fail to do it in time and you get this.

KrakatoaKatie and Worm That Turned, as the drafting Arbs in that case, please examine what transpired here, and see how the case has made no difference. The background is that the authors of this featured article decided years ago not to add an infobox, because of complexities in Pound's life and work, and there has been regular needling every since. And now again, post-case, including from some of the usual suspects, including (of course) Gerda. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

A recent edit removed the infobox with the summary "rmv boxclutter". In my opinion, the infobox was a useful element which was added after discussion by several editors. Are there any specific concerns that we can work to address? –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A discussion certainly took place, yet consensus there came none; is about the size was the end result of it I'm afraid. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I used a—slang?—term. As you all say, size has nothing to do with it  :) and I widn't want this to confuse things even more. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

How should we address the size concerns? –dlthewave ☎ 16:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

In the discussion above, I don’t see a conversation about size. If there is a disagreement about size, I would be happy to make the infobox collapsible. Work permit (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Collapsible is a rather unwanted option (for someone who has physical problems hitting the show-button), - we could also drop parameters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Please leave it as it is and please let's all back away from this discussion. The infobox that's been called mine and linked as such in this edit and later in the discussion referred to as mine multiple times, is not mine. It was added here on 17 September, 2016, followed by this long, bruising discussion and finally in a fit of frustration I put it back. But I did not design it, I oppose a box, and I do not see any reason at all to continue these discussions. I might, someday, when things calm down, consider creating a box instead of simply slapping back one that someone else created and then years later attributes to me, but this is not the time for it. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you added now what you built in your sandbox, as announced above, and didn't (mean to) say the former one was "yours", just that you added it. Forgive me for not checking the content of the 16 infoboxes that have been tried in the past. - Leave it as it is/was when I wrote that sounds like a good idea. Can someone write that in a hidden notice in the article? I tried once for Beethoven, but don't feel in the position to do it here, having never edited the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No need to make something go and on and on. No need to reply at all. If an admin could add a DS edit notice to the article, that would be helpful. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

For those who are watching the Ezra Pound article for a long time, the deletion of the infobox and remaking of it again and again must be annoying. Someone who just started watching it does not know that it has been there and removed many times. Is there a way to lock the info box so that new editors won't be able to do so?CryMeAnOcean (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi CryMeAnOcean, in fact the sequence is the opposite of your telling. In complex bios such as this, out of the blue passive aggressive accounts rarely have a grasp of the more subtle reasons against box inclusion.[2] By the way, in my day if I knew nothing I would have the self awareness to watch and learn.) Typically these accounts lack enough edit history to earn suffrage, but typically as socks, certainly seem to know the well trodden ropes of this "dispute" and which buttons to press.

Contentious articles are a tiny fraction (perhaps some 0.00000006 of the overall article population; some 20 or 30 out of 6 million?), and of course all written by targets of, or persons of interest to, Gerda, who has evidently has chosen to otherwise build up personal ammour by being, litterally in Pumkinsyk's rather disturbing foot steps, the.most.engractring.person.ever.[3], and who views this a zero sum popularity contest. Anyway, for the sake of theatre, and as if you are not a sock, the game broadly plays out this: article development / incumbent discussion / consensus / FAC / two or three years happiness and a main page spot / arrival of a new stalking horse account like you / revert wars & civility blocks / Gerda swoop / usual arguments trotted out / hands over heads / Gerda aw shucks defense / incumbents pushed under a bus / Arbcom recognise patterns of abuse but cannot legislate and so kick to ANI / ANI only has hammers / escalating blocks / repeat rinse.

Personally I find the pro Infobox warriors modus operandus of 'localised wars of attrition well worn and distasteful; their use of sock puppets to lead attacks and demand that incumbents are forced to repeat the same argument over and over, page by page, until they break, in an approach that is clearly reliant on grind, and hopes for mental breakdown and editor attrition, sucks on many levels. I have expressed my disappointment on Gerda's page[4] how she would treat me this way, as if a pawn in her greater game, after so many years of supposed friendship, as well as the technical matter of blatent canvassing, of which Collugilia would have blushed. But of course none of this matters, and we are seemingly still as a community tolerating the blame those targeted game, and its all about CIV, because that's the easiest to understand. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Placeholder: please allow me to type and gather diffs before making me run into yet another edit conflict. A post is on its way. Victoriaearle (tk) 03:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Facts:

• Gerda placed this article, the subject of which she admits she knows nothing about, on her watchlist during a discussion at ARCA as seen here.
• Gerda said she likes my 2016 version. As I've demonstrated it wasn't mine but rather an IPs.
• Others then took up the meme of liking the 2016 version, before consensus developed.
• CurlyTurkey casts aspersions without a single comment back from any page watchers, here, here, here, and here. Apparently there's nothing wrong with those comments and neither drafting arb (calling out you, KrakatoaKatie and Worm That Turned along with the rest of the committee), cares a whit.
• Gerda leaves me a very odd message about a bridge and then apparently punishes me for not doing well enough, and again updates a personal infobox log.

Not a single one of these actions are complained about. Nothing. Nada. The consensus on this page is not to have an infobox. I tried to work against consensus and was attacked for it, which is fine, because I'd prefer not to see a box here. But you all can't complain about some things and turn a blind eye to others. This article can't go to TFA, a piece of sourced information was removed today that needs to be reinstated, and you're all just playing your games. In the meantime you're dealing with an editor who's bending not only backwards but into pretzel shape trying to solve a problem that will never be solved. The infobox wars started here with Jack Merridew and his socks & his buddies. It moved here from another page and it's been ongoing since. This is ground zero of the infobox wars. I can give chapter & verse of the infobox wars since the day they started but have tried to stay out. Tonight, I have had enough. I don't care if I get blocked, I really don't, I'm asking the arbs to take a good look at this situation and decide whether it's healthy. Victoriaearle (tk) 03:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle Thank you for your efforts. Sorry for your medical issue. Ceoil has called people names and talks about incumbent like he owns this talk page and the article itself since he has more edits than anyone. I am no longer interested in having an infobox for this article because of bullying, being called a sock puppet and other names, as it has caused too much vitriol. I would like someone to reply to my question above: Can the infobox be locked while the article itself can be edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryMeAnOcean (talk • contribs) 04:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

CryMeAnOcean, no, it can't be. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No he doesn't, I do, and no it can't. Victoriaearle (tk) 04:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, you are surely heading to AE soon; this edit alone is creepy harassment when you already know people are upset. The committee said something about the baiting in its decision; the article talk page has a DS notice on it, and you were alerted in March. Why is this page even on your watchlist if not that you know it has been a flashpoint? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is baiting and I dislike the messages on my page. I dislike all of this. In case it's not been clear. Victoriaearle (tk) 04:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I would remind all editors to stay on topic. Article talk pages are for discussing article improvments, not general editor conduct. I started this thread to discuss what was meant by the "remove boxclutter" edit summary and what can be done to improve the infobox. Please discuss editor behavior on user talk pages or noticeboards and if arbitration enforcement is needed, please file a report at WP:AE. –dlthewave ☎ 04:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The irony of your "warning" is that it focuses entirely on editors and serves, perhaps intentionally, to distract from substantive issues. These kind of "reminders" are really 'wind them up and see what happens' plays at it best, and least you forget you integral part in all of this [5] Ceoil (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• The discussion was finished and there was zero reason to start it again. In the past editors such as Mattisse have been particularly good at manipulating these types of situations. And, I have to ask, why is it that CurlyTurkey's conduct elicted no comments or condemnation from you, yet other's comments have, particularly those three who brought the article through FAC? Victoriaearle (tk) 04:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above concluded with the addition of an infobox. After that, an editor removed the infobox with an unclear explanation. I'm trying to understand what the specific reason was for removal and whether we can work to improve the box instead of removing it. –dlthewave ☎ 15:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Good luck

Ezra Pound
Ezra Pound photographed on 22 October 1913 in Kensington, London, by Alvin Langdon Coburn Ezra Pound photographed on 22 October 1913 in Kensington, London, by Alvin Langdon Coburn
Born	Ezra Weston Loomis Pound (1885-10-30)30 October 1885 Hailey, Idaho
Died	1 November 1972(1972-11-01) (aged 87) Venice, Italy
Occupation	Poet, literary critic

Ezra Pound
(Option 2) Pound in 1913 (Option 2) Pound in 1913
Born	Ezra Weston Loomis Pound (1885-10-30)30 October 1885 Hailey, Idaho Territory
Died	1 November 1972(1972-11-01) (aged 87) Venice, Italy
Occupation	Poet, literary critic

Good luck pro-infobox editors. There is a set of well-meaning editors who are dead set against any kind of infobox for whatever reason. (And, yes, some others exhibit clear ownership behavior.) Wikipedia is what it is, so I'm not too keen to jump into this battle again. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Which is a shame Tucker, but its such drive by non-thinking for "whatever reason" line of reasoning that brings us to this point. If the box could remain so trimmed and thus non-contentious, fine. But you know, read up before casting "opinion"; it aint so. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Would you be comfortable with the infobox to the right, as long as it stays that length? This seems to be a good starting point for a workable solution. –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: If you look at Talk:Ezra Pound/Archive 2, you'll see I'm quite "read up." But, keep casting aspersions at people you disagree with. TuckerResearch (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Tucker, I like infoboxes, but this one really would be difficult to get right, given the complexities of Pound's life. Even his place of birth is a bit misleading, so the simplest of boxes would give the wrong impression. This argument isn't going to change, because the details of his life aren't going to change, so I can't see the point of raising the issue year after year. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Place of birth is typically noncontroversial even when the subject only spent a few months there, but a simple solution would be to remove that line from the infobox. We could also add "alma mater" with a note saying which school he graduated from. –dlthewave ☎ 15:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

SV, I realize Idaho meant little to Pound, but it is where he was born. That's a fact. How is a fact misleading? I've never understood that argument against a birthplace. And I personally haven't raised this issue in years. I am warning the present editor, who pinged me, that a set of dedicated editors to this page is dead set against an infobox. Anti-infoboxers should recognize the fact that every few months a random Wikipedia reader/editor puts an infobox on the page or asks about an infobox because people like them, expect them, and/or want them. The simplest of infoboxes, with the bare facts of his life should end (or deter) such edit wars and knock down drag outs on this talkpage. (And, SV, I'd like to say your comments were far kinder and reasoned than Ceocil's.) TuckerResearch (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose adding the version of the infobox shown in this section. –dlthewave ☎ 16:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Agree The SHORT infobox would be additive to this article, as it is to many others. I have read the past discussions and don't think they should prevent us from attempting to find a consensus.Work permit (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per the discussion and input above. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Which input, specifically? –dlthewave ☎ 18:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree, it would he helpful to say why. Work permit (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I oppose the first box and support-as-compromise the one I added below it ("Box 2"). (I am traditionally anti-box on such articles but am trying to meet half-way so that these time sinks come to an end.) The first box makes the mistake of providing unnecessary detail in the caption; it has "Idaho" rather than "Idaho Territory" for his birthplace; it specifies an image size for no reason that I can see. It's this kind of cumulative lack of care that makes us skeptical in the first place. I also support the second box only if it is not expanded "by attrition" later. If it's expanded, this "support" becomes "oppose" for the purpose of gauging historical infobox sentiment (ha!). Outriggr (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully support your box if that leads to consensus. No matter the outcome of this discussion, I strongly support a comment referencing this discussion on the talk page. Work permit (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we can certainly establish consensus for a certain version of the infobox, making it clear that there is no consesnsus for a longer version at this time. Of course we can't prevent future editors from reopening the discussion and agreeing on a different version.

If material is added against consensus, the solution would be to revert back to the consensus version, not remove it entirely. I agree that we should have a hidden note mentioning that empty categories are intentionally left blank. –dlthewave ☎ 12:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Agree to a short infobox (either option 1 or 2) although I agree with Outriggr that option 2 is preferred for the reasons mentioned. I rescind this vote. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please remember WP:NOTAVOTE. Votes without a rationale as to specific points on this particular article (as they all are so far) will be ignored by Arbs when they close this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.163 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. this is a content discussion. We are seeking a consensus. Arbs are not involved. Work permit (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Nah - you are voting. No one has said why this particular article needs an infobox. You're trying to discuss what goes into it, without saying why there should be one. As you are not bothering following the rules you should, I have no doubt Arbs will step in to point out your errors.

• Support version 2 This puts a few basic facts in one place where readers can quickly find them. Wiki articles aren't always read from start to finish; some readers who are familiar with the subject might use it to check basics such as the birthplace or year of death, neither of which appear in the lead. There is no need to fill in all of the empty fields, especially for things that can't be summed up accurately in a few words, but I would support carefully adding a few more simple items such as education after appropriate discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• A few points and questions:
  • In my view calling out editors as binary "pro-infobox" vs. "anti-infobox" is counterproductive and doesn't help in fostering good will. We are all Wikipedia editors, neither good nor bad, and don't need to be slapping labels on others.
  • Do we have consensus to add a box? If not, that would be the first place to start.
  • Is there a rush? Personally, I'm having difficulty keeping up, not every editor is here every day, and the discussion has been heated. Recently discussion on Stanley Kubrick was shut down to reconvene in a few months. I'm not suggesting we do that, but there does seem to be some pressure to get this resolved right away that I don't quite understand. Is there a reason for it?
  • Re the various boxes: thanks to Tuckerresearch for including "literary critic" in his version. Outriggr gets close to what I've been trying to articulate in terms of accuracy. "Idaho Territory" is right, "Idaho" is not. Slight tangent here: there's an anecdote associated with the image which didn't make the cut in the article itself: when Elkin Mathews was preparing Lustra for publication he hired a talented young photographer to photograph the author for frontispiece. Pound was ill with the flu or some such jaundice when one morning Alvin Langdon Coburn showed up at his flat. Pound had a high fever, but he put on his dressing gown and sat for the photograph, which is a nice example of early-20th photography. Because of size issues that's not in the article, but as it is now, the photo in the lead mentions the date, (Pound was only about 27, Coburn a few years older) and the caption gives credit to the photographer. I would like to see those details kept.
  • In my view, "Resting place" is an odd term. Regardless, Pound is buried in the cemetery on Isola di San Michele, for the sake of accuracy.
  • It would be difficult to keep the box from getting larger, fwiw. Any featured article requires some ongoing and sustained stewardship, (Outriggr's recent edits show how much this has degraded and it needs work), and having more discussions about which fields to keep or not to keep isn't terribly productive, fwiw. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for voicing these concerns, it really helps us understand the objections and ways to move forward.

• It's common practice to propose a specific version of content so that editors may understand exactly what it is that they're supporting/opposing. This helps prevent an "include" !vote from being misconstrued to support whatever infobox the proposer decides to add. In the past it seems that many editors have objected to inclusion due to quality or content concerns. While these concerns are valid, the "include/exclude" format prevents us from moving forward and discussing ways to address those concerns. Of course editors may support "no infobox" in their "oppose" !votes. –dlthewave ☎ 16:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• There's no rush. I plan to keep this open for at least a week or longer until discussion dies down, to give less frequent editors time to respond. You will have plenty of time to give your input.
• The proposed version doesn't include "resting place." In the event that there is consensus to add this, we could use the "person" infobox which includes a "burial place" option.
• Discussion is part of maintaining Wikipedia and consensus can change in the future. We can't permanently prevent the infobox from growing, but we can make it clear that current consensus supports a particular version. –dlthewave ☎ 16:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not really a new editor, nor am I even new to writing featured content (and, by default, having it featured), so the concepts of how to discuss don't necessarily need to be explained to me. I edit infrequently; Ceoil edits only on weekends, others perhaps also infrequently. A week is about three weeks short of the standard RfC time of 30 days, so, in my view, that's quite short and does seem rushed. The most important part, though, is that we have not reached current consensus to have a box at all. I've struck the bit about "resting place", he did die in the hospital in Venice, so that is correct. But again, this underscores how willing you appear to quickly substitute "person" infobox to accommodate a comment made in error, and seems to support Outriggr's fear of expansion by attrition only. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The dates, that he died in Italy, and that he was a poet and literary critic are in the lead. The place of birth isn't, but it's misleading because he was there for only 18 months, so the area had no influence on him. Option 2 leaves out the image caption, arguably the most interesting thing about the image. If you click on the photographer's name, you see which other figures he photographed at that time, which gives you an idea of Pound's notability. And the idea that the box won't grow is unrealistic. It will become the focus of endless discussion about which fields to fill in and why not and consensus can change, and on and on. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wholly agree about the caption, although I'd just use surname "Pound". Not sure I agree that any box would necessarily become "the focus of endless discussion". Certainly disagree about place of birth - a fact is a fact, and I suspect this would be no more "misleading" than the place of birth of very many other BLP subjects who soon "moved away" for whatever reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I would support the first option because the caption is important, as has been noted, but place of birth should be Idaho Territory. Jonathunder (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I assume you mean "place of birth should be Hailey, Idaho Territory"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• That would be fine. Jonathunder (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Apparently I wasn't clear about the caption. Outriggr is correct that for the box the image is over captioned. Either we have the image with the caption, which tells the smallest part of a larger story, or the box. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Some of the detail is unnecessary in the caption, such as the full date and exact place, but the name of the photographer is important. Jonathunder (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Agree. Although I don't see those two options as the only ones available. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've struck some of the info I wrote this morning, and there's a warning here in terms of why we provide citations, particularly throughout in featured articles. Pound hired Coburn himself; Pound had jaundice when Coburn showed up at his flat in 1913; Pound posed in his dressing gown. Pound liked the photograph enough to use it as a frontispiece when Lustra was published in 1917. The date is important because Pound was only 27; Coburn a few years older. The place is important, because how is the person who sees in the infobox that this poet born in Hailey, Idaho, was in London when the photo was taken? That he lived in London is very important. The discussion just about the caption is illustrative of a., the research and knowledge that goes into putting together an accurate box., and b., the amount of discussion that we can look forward to in the future as this tiny box gains new entries. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe we'd need a new lead image... and a new separate article named 1913 Coburn photograph of Pound? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Right, again your comment illustrates the familiarity that's required in stewardship. I took a swing through the article earlier and was somewhat aghast at the images that have been added. As you know, images in a featured articles need to be free and I won't bore you with the amount of ink that's been spilled, or rather the number of bytes racked up, trying to get permission to use images, correspondence I've had with the Getty, the Beinecke Library, various other libraries, New Directions, Pound's publishers, etc. the 1963 image is not free and can't be used in the lead, nor should it be in this article. I have doubts about the image of Henri Gaudier-Brzeska's sculpture, because it's a three dimensional object. We've had it in the article in the past and have had to remove it, as well as many other images. The images that were here when the article went through FAC are the images that passed FAC review, so really Nikkimaria should take a swing through and look at the licenses. Using the modernist photographer Coburn, who experimented on Cubism and Vorticism with Pound using mirrors for his photography, to illustrate the lead of a modernist poet makes sense. Using a non-free image taken in Venice in 1963, because we want a simple caption to fit a box, doesn't. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Oooh, it's like a minefield, isn't it. I see the sheet of toilet paper is also not free. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, hence the extensive FUR. I'm not sure the Coburn image is free either because all of Pound's copyrights have been renewed, but I might have sent in an OTRS for it from New Directions, or it's recently become free if it's now visible on archive.org. Or maybe we need to write a FUR for it. As you know, each featured article may have some number of non-free images. The editors who worked on this article for a number of years secured licenses etc., consulted, and made decisions in regards to which non-free content to use. If this is to be presented as a binary "anti-infobox" vs. "pro-infobox" issue, which it is, then you'd be wrong. The decision not to include the box was made before those wars started and now is a prize to be won, or points to be scored, in those wars, and screw the complexities. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, which images did you want me to look at? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Nikki, I'm about to go offline again for a few days and maybe it would be better to follow up separately in another thread, but we were discussing File:Ezra Pound 1963b.jpg as a possible lead image in the suggested new infobox. File:Hieratic Head of Ezra Pound 01 (brightened).jpg caught my eye too as one that might not be allowed and it looks like a few others have crept in too that might be questionable, but I can follow up on this another time, or you can remove anything that's not properly licensed or has been added since the FAC. Victoriaearle (tk) 01:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support at least any minimal infobox. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose either a full or minimised infobox.

• This was a particularly difficult bio to write, and although the main editors are now broadly in agreement with the article's textual presentation of various biographical events, dates, friendships, motivations, stylistic characteristics and what have you, these agreements were the result of a few years intensive research and extensive debate. The resulting text is not perfect but hopefully to the benefit of the reader and approaching a degree of nuance found in reliable tertiary sources.
• If the important aspects of Pound's life are to be reduced to metrics and predetermined fields in a box, with only single or a small group of words allowed as solutions, the shades of grey will be lost, and all is either black or white. We have seen the danger of this already with the seemingly trivial point of "Birthplace", which might at first appear as the simplest of fields to be filled.
• Regardless of the stated commitment by the supporting editors to keep the infobox at a reduced level post this discussion, that is not a realistic, sustainable, approach, and not reflective of how wiki works in real life, either short term or more to the point, over many years. The full template is well known, and it is natural for helpful passer-bys to fill up a bunch based on quick google searches. I do this myself, but the issue here is that the literature on Pound wildy disagreed on a variety of aspects of his life and work, on areas that would be uncontentious in 99.9% of bios. And therein lies the road to edit war hell.
• i.e. I see a slippery slope / wedge in the door issue looming here. The above mentioned edit wars will inevitably be founded on the basis that, well, in July 2018 there was consensus to add a box, but it is missing many features that have been slightly modified, "improved" or added since....so why can we have them.
• Having participated in earlier narrowly focused "infoboxes are good" vs. "Infoboxes are bad" type discussions in archives that did not address substanstive issues does not give non incumbent editors suffrage or authority in claiming understanding of the key underlying complexities of this bio.[6] The same editor, whoes net contributiion then was "In fact, I don't understand why it was removed from previous versions of the article", made this claim right after making accusations of "OWN" (see the irony), and should reflect. Similarly, I don't get the feeling that many agitating here have read the page and are quite aware of how complex (thats one word) this bio is.
• I apologise if I was otherwise curt above. I am certainly invested in maintaining article integrity, ie rather than watching entropy. It's a pity that it became apparent that Outriggr's compromise solution (which I was at first enthusiastic for) was unworkable given some entrenched views.
• To say again, I am broadly in favour of infoboxes, and use them quite often, but there are instances where the reader is unserved by being offered reductive bulleted fields to summarise a particularly complex and difficult life. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose either a full or minimised infobox. I have been persuaded by Ceoil in what he wrote above this post of mine. If we let the infobox be a photo of Ezra Pound it will force the reader to read the complicated but informative article which took years to write by dedicated editors. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you CryMeAnOcean. Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, by these arguments, every infobox on every person's page should be removed. How can you simplify T. S. Eliot or Jorge Luis Borges, or Dwight D. Eisenhower or Martin Luther King, etc., etc.? (And categories at the bottom of all articles should be removed too. Look at this one: "People from Hailey, Idaho" and "Writers from Idaho"! How shocking!) Ezra Pound can't be the only person on Wikipedia who is so complex and complicated that he can't have an infobox. (But, it's okay if we don't have an infobox on this Wiki article. That's how Wikipedia works.) TuckerResearch (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

With respect, you are missing the point, and not for the first time. I and others have specifically said that we generally support and use infoboxes, but this bio is fraught with difficulties, on top of which we dont believe a reduced box is tenable in the long term. Read above and see here for the specific difficulties. A you do not seem to realise the difference between a Pound box and one on Martin Luther King, (how random), I believe this is my second time in as many (cumulative) posts in calling you out on professing knowledge in areas which you clearly have none. Ceoil (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

So, your contention is, if someone doesn't agree with you, they are ignorant at best, stupid at worst. You know, but "with respect." TuckerResearch (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I read through the archives and found this excellent rationale against an infobox. The arguments there are as germane and relevant here. 213.205.194.163 (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

That comment is in response to a proposal for a much longer infobox, and most of the points concern items such as spouse, natoinality, alma mater, 1963 photo, etc. wich do not appear in the currently proposed version. In fact "place of birth" is the only part of the comment that could conceivably be applied to this discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The arguments against the infobox are so elitist and paternalistic. How do you know which facts are going to mislead people? Who made you the thought police, protecting the great unwashed against facts? And the whole mythologizing of Pound that he was too complex for an infobox is snobbish nonsense – he was a man who was born in a place and died in a place and did things in his life, just like everyone else. If anyone wants the shades of grey they can read the article. A person is not diminished by the bare facts of their lives. So let’s not be elitist or paternalistic and trust that people can think for themselves. Epinoia (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral. I like the box Outriggr proposes and expected to support but some of the comments in the past few days concern me. Suggesting infobox person, not part of the initial proposal, and suggesting that a free image be swapped for a non-free one aren't encouraging. And, keeping the context in the image caption would be nice.
  We should adhere to FoF 2 of the original 2013 case. I'm not convinced consensus exists to add a box, let alone which fields should be added. But the comment directly above is indicative of many such over the years and generally they're soul-destroying; these types of comments speak to FoF 6 in the 20018 case.
  Today, I took a look at the article history; apparently I removed the box in 2010. I don't remember an edit I made eight years ago, but do remember discussion about the box somewhere. I must have believed agreement existed, but searching for eight year old discussions isn't a good use of volunteer time.
  The various discussions in the past 8 years have either ended in no consensus or a consensus against the box, but in the end the push to have a box feels like a point scoring exercise that won't end until one is in place (or rather, won). It's exhausting, disruptive, eats into the small amount of time that could be spent working on the project in a more collegial and constructive manner (i.,e building content) so, I'm neutral. Whatever happens, happens.
  I reject the OWN argument, if it were true every edit to the article would be scrutinized and reverted, but that's not a pattern on this article. The only pattern is that infobox discussions are opened periodically, and editors pick up pitchforks, which again, isn't productive.
  Huge apologies it this comes across as emotional - I'm tired, and have had enough. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Victoriaearle - I am sorry if you found my comment "soul-destroying" - I have found you to be intelligent, thoughtful and caring and I think we are very fortunate to have your balanced input on this page. Perhaps Wikipedia needs to take a stand on infoboxes and either make them part of all bio pages or ban them altogether as they seem to be a contentious issue on other pages besides this one. Epinoia (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Epinoia, (1) You have 434 edits to date, yet seem to know (a) the workings of arbcom (b) the vagueness of its rulings to date (c) the proposed choices presented to them over the years. (2) The wording and tone of your throw the toys out of the pram "either make them part of all bio pages or ban them altogether" approach is very familiar to me from, concidently new accounts of similar history and tenure who agitate on this topic. Funny how you showed up after the CryMeaRiver account apparently conceded (3) Words have meaning and consequence "so elitist and paternalistic. How do you know which facts are going to mislead people? Who made you the thought police" vs. "I have found you to be intelligent, thoughtful and caring". You cannot have it both ways. Please. Ceoil (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Epinoia! Don't have a different opinion than Ceoil! Otherwise you are "professing knowledge in areas which you clearly have none"! TuckerResearch (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Images

• File:Ezra_Pound_1963b.jpg: to use this, we'd need to know when and where this was first published - the Getty page for that collection indicates that its contents were largely unpublished, and if that's the case for this specific image it almost certainly wouldn't be free in the US

• Yes, I agree. Removed. Victoriaearle (tk) 03:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:Hieratic_Head_of_Ezra_Pound_01_(brightened).jpg: per Commons:Commons:Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_US, we would need to know when the sculpture was legally published

• The sculptor died in World War I and the sculpture was

• File:DorothyPound.jpg would need a US PD tag and better source

• File:Olga_Rudge_advertisement.jpg currently doesn't fulfill the "reasonable evidence" requirement

• File:Homer_Pound_Grave.png: as Italy doesn't have freedom of panorama, this would need a tag for the sculptural work

• File:Toilet_paper,_Pisan_Cantos.JPG: this is a bit complicated. My understanding of US law would be that the reproduction of this image would garner no new copyright on top of that of The Cantos itself. When were the words on this paper first published?

• File:Ernest_Hemingway_1950_w.jpg: not seeing a publication date at source site. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikkimaria - this brings up lots of memories. I have notes on old computers, but it's best I try to get the books. I'll have to research File:Hieratic_Head_of_Ezra_Pound_01_(brightened).jpg - the sculptor Henri Gaudier-Brzeska died in WWI and I can't say when the sculpture was first exhibited. Might take some time to find. File:DorothyPound.jpg is in from Noel Stock's Poet in Exile where he identifies the photographer & date. Dorothy lent him papers etc for the book, so perhaps it came from her? If it's not free, we'd want to write a FUR to keep it. The words on the toilet paper were published in 1946 - it has a FUR. I don't remember off the top of my head about File:Ernest_Hemingway_1950_w.jpg, so have removed for now. Ruhrfisch created a template for the Hemingway images that were donated to the JFK Library, and if I can determine the image is free will fix the file. Have removed the others and it will take a bit of time to research & fix licenses. Victoriaearle (tk) 03:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)