Talk:Edgar Allan Poe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Edgar Allan Poe 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 January 19, 2009.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Core  This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Pennsylvania (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Horror (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
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 Virginia / Albemarle County / University of Virginia  (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Albemarle County (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject University of Virginia (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject United States / Massachusetts / Boston (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.
WikiProject Maryland / Baltimore  (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Baltimore task force
 
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 Philadelphia (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  Quality: FA-Class
 ???  Importance: not yet rated

Pedophile[edit]

Why has this fact been left out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhkhlhklhkj (talkcontribs) 06:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party, but I believe this was left out because the formal diagnosis for pedophilia originated in the late 19th Century, after Poe's death. Moreover, it adhered to a strict set of criteria (as it does now) and I doubt Poe would have applied. Since he was never diagnosed with pedophilia, it is not discussed. There are rumors of it—especially since he married his first cousin, Virginia Eliza Clemm, when she was only 13 years old—but not a single shred of evidence. Considering how there isn't even evidence of Poe's medical records (a problem in determining his exact death), I doubt there would be anything related to any sexual disorder or paraphilia, assuming such diagnoses even existed during his time. Anyway, pedophilia deals with prepubescent children, typically under the age of 13. If Poe had any sexual paraphilia, it was probably hebephilia. Even this assumes a general sexual attraction, however, for which there is no evidence. In all likelihood, he was attracted to Clemm for whatever reasons, but those reasons were specific to Clemm. Thus, Poe's sexuality is pretty much irrelevant.
In other words, no, Edgar Allen Poe was almost certainly not a pedophile, nor could we ever know. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 03:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

scientific errors?[edit]

What exactly are scientific errors? Today's wrongs are tomorrow's rights. Better change this to Poe said blah while Newton, on the other hand, said bleh.82.171.167.118 (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientific error occurs either when reasoned conclusions are drawn from flawed data or flawed conclusions are drawn from objective data. Eureka, published in a day of comparatively primitive astronomical knowledge, encompasses and evidences both. To claim that Eureka is full of "scientific errors" is not a knock against Poe; it is an observation that Poe's "truth" is based on then-current information which, in time, became either convincingly supported or definitively contradicted to Poe's detriment. It is not appropriate to say that "Poe said this and Newton said that" because, despite any intuition, what they each said are statements based on physical evidence, not mere opinion. aruffo (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is the place of an encyclopedia to, while looking backwards, cast into doubt the veracity of any claims as they pertain to historic understanding and contemporary information. Regardless of intent, the article as written, specifically; "Even so, Eureka is full of scientific errors." reads more as criticism and less as exposition. Accepting that a sentence of this novel sort is appropriate, wouldn't it be better to state "Even so, Eureka is full of what are now generally accepted to be scientific errors." or something of that nature. Perhaps it would be much better to not call into question the content of a particular work in an article dedicated to the author of said work? Regardless, I acknowledge that I must leave such decisions to those possessed of the authority to make them, but do consider making a better judgment that the one here evidenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.239.172 (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A list of works by Edgar Allan Poe.[edit]

Browsing through the wikipedia article for Edgar Allen Poe I found that the listed works by the writer were fewer in number compared to the book "The Complete Tales and Poems of Edgar Allen Poe" which I have currently in my possession. The list provided at the bottom of the wikipedia article provides 22 items accounting for both 'Tales' and 'Other works' and 14 items under 'Poetry'. The items in the aformentioned book amount to a total of 73 tales and 53 poems. There are three sections which divide the items. They are entitled; TALES, POEMS, and POEMS WRITTEN IN YOUTH.

I came by the book in one of the City of Swan Libraries located in Australia. The cover of the book depicts a piece of parchment with a human skull sitting on its upper-right corner. Also, at the bottom of the page, there are 3 interlocked keys, two of which are resting on the parchment, a third overlapping the point of a quill. The feathered part of the quill is lying on the lower-right corner of the parchment. To the left of the skull, starting at the upper-left corner of the parchment, a sentence reads; "Tales of terror and the supernatural, murder mysteries, science fiction, poetry and more in" with the books title residing directly beneath this. The illustration was done by Malcolm Chandler.

The back of the book provides the following text; (bold characters) "Classic stories and poems from the arch-priest of Gothic horror". Below this (normal characters) "The Fall of the House of Usher, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, The Pit and the Pendulum, The Gold-Bug - " and continuing on from the hyphen (smaller font size) "some of the most famous tales of terror, the most macabre detective stories ever written. Acknowledged master of suspense, Poe was also a poet and - as his stories of mesmerism and time travel prove - a pioneer of science fiction. In this collection, probing to the depths of the human psyche, Poe's haunted genius will chill and enthrall you."

The spine of the book provides the title and, situated beneath, is accompanied by another skull with a missing jaw. I believe enough visual description has been provided.

The following is a complete list of the tales and poems in the book:

           TALES

1. The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall . . . . Page 3
2. The Gold-Bug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 42
3. The Balloon-Hoax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 71
4. Von Kempelen and His Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . Page 82
5. Mesmeric Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 88
6. The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar . . . . . . . . Page 96
7. The Thousand-and-Second Tale of Scheherazade . . . . Page 104
8. MS. Found in a bottle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 118
9. A Descent into the Maelström . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 127
10. The Murder in the Rue Morgue . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 141
11. The Mystery of Marie Roget . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 169
12. The Purloined Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 208
13. The Black Cat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 223
14. The Fall of the House of Usher . . . . . . . . . . . Page 231
15. The Pit and the Pendulum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 246
16. The Premature Burial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 258
17. The Masque of the Red Death . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 269
18. The Cask of Amontillado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 274
19. The Imp of the Perverse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 280
20. The Island of Fay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 285
21. The Oval Portrait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 290
22. The Assignation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 293
23. The Tell-Tale Heart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 303
24. The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether . . . Page 307
25. The Literary Life of Thingum Bom, Esq . . . . . . . Page 322
26. How to Write a Blackwood Article . . . . . . . . . . Page 338
27. A Predicament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 346
28. Mystification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 354
29. X-ing a Paragrab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 361
30. Diddling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 367
31. The Angel of the Odd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 376
32. Mellonta Tauta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 384
33. Loss of Breath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 395
34. The Man that Was Used Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 405
35. The Business Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 413
36. Maelzel's Chess-Player . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 421
37. The Power of Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 440
38. The Colloquy of Monos and Una . . . . . . . . . . . Page 444
39. The Conversation of Eiros and Charmion . . . . . . . Page 452
40. Shadow-A Parable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 457
41. Silence- A Fable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 459
42. Philosophy of Furniture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 462
43. A Tale of Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 467
44. The Sphinx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 471
45. The Man of the Crowd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 475
46. Never Bet the Devil Your Head . . . . . . . . . . . Page 482
47. "Thou Art the Man" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 490
48. Hop-Frog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 502
49. Four Beasts in One: The Homo-Camelopard . . . . . . Page 510
50. Why the Little Frenchman Wears His Hand in a Sling . Page 517
51. Bon-Bon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 522
52. Some Words with a Mummy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 535
53. Review of Stephens' "Arabia Petræa" . . . . . . . . Page 549
54. Magazine-Writing--Peter Snook . . . . . . . . . . . Page 564
55. The Quacks of Helicon-A Satire . . . . . . . . . . . Page 574
56. Astoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 582
57. The Domain of Arnhei, or The Landscape Garden . . . Page 604
58. Landor's Cottage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 616
59. William Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 626
60. Berenice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 642
61. Eleonora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 649
62. Ligeia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 654
63. Morella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 667
64. Metzengstien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 672
65. A Tale of the Ragged Mountains . . . . . . . . . . . Page 679
66. The Spectacles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 688
67. The Duc De L Omelette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 708
68. The Oblong Box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 711
69. King Pest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 720
70. Three Sundays in a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 730
71. The Devil in the Belfry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 736
72. Lionizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 743
73. Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym . . . . . . . . . . . Page 748

           POEMS

1. The Raven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 943
2. Lenore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 946
3. Hymn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 947
4. A Valentine . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 947
5. The Coliseum . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 948
6. To Helen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 949
7. To - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 951
8. Ulalume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 954
9. The Bells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 957
10. An Enigma . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 957
11. Annabel Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 959
12. To My Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 959
13. The Haunted Palace . . . . . . . . . Page 960
14. The Conqueror Worm . . . . . . . . . Page 962
15. To F-S S.O-D . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 962
16. The One in Paradise . . . . . . . . Page 963
17. The Valley of Unrest . . . . . . . . Page 963
18. The City in the Sea . . . . . . . . Page 965
19. The Sleeper . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 966
20. Silence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 967
21. A Dream Within a Dream . . . . . . . Page 967
22. Dream-Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 969
23. Eulalie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 969
24. Eldorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 970
25. Israfel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 971
26. For Annie . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 972
27. To - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 975
28. Bridal Ballad . . . . . . . . . . . Page 975
29. To F- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 976
30. Scenes from "Politian" . . . . . . . Page 977

           POEMS WRITTEN IN YOUTH

31. Sonnet- To Science . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 992
32. Al Aaraaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 992
33. To the River - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1005
34. Tamerlane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1005
35. To - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1012
36. A Dream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1012
37. Romance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1013
38. Fairy-Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1013
39. The Lake-To- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1014
40. Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1015
41. To M. L. S- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1016
42. Spirits of the Dead . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1016
43. To Helen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1017
44. Evening Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1018
45. "The Happiest Day" . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1018
46. Imitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1019
47. Hymn to Aristogeiton and Harmodius . . . . Page 1020 (Translation from Greek)
48. Dreams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1020
49. "In Youth I Have Known One" . . . . . . . Page 1021
50. A Paean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1023
51. To Isadore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1024
52. Alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1026

I will allow myself to be slack and not indicate which of these poems and tales are already acknowledged in the wikipedia article. Some extra information; this edition first published as a Modern Library Edition by Random House, Inc., New York 1938. Published in Penguin Books 1982. This edition published by arrangement with Random House, Inc. 15 17 19 20 18 16 14. Printed in England by Clays Ltd, St Ives plc. Something has gone amiss with the formating; the "Page <number>'s" are out of alignment.

The rest I leave to you. Au revoir und auf wiedersehen.
-115.69.12.196 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure who this "Edgar Allen Poe" fellow is (apparently he's the "arch-priest of Gothic horror"... ugh), but if you're curious about the writer this article is about, see Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe for his list of works. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My narrow search field led me to believe that there was one article on Edgar Allen Poe, not several. Foolish of me to think the reknowned poet's works would elude recognition in the greatest encyclopedia ever assembled. From my misinformation arose my contribution. The works appear all to be listed and the list I typed has been of no use, apart from being a sleeping aid for myself. Having said this however, with some added detail, perhaps it could act as an extra source or reference of sorts.

If it is mentioned somewhere without my knowing I give an apology in advance and humbly request a point in the right direction. Alas, this method of enlightenment I find more appealing as apose to wandering around cyberspace. Allen v Allan. Verstanden. A quick slap on the head and we'll be on with deciding the fate of my hope-to-be contribution. 115.69.12.196 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I now understand that modern anothologies are not to be listed whilst my book is just that. Apology due and thus given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.12.196 (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Edgar a Necrophiliac[edit]

I heard from friends and a couple of history teachers of mine that Edgar Allan Poe was a Nerophiliac and that he kept his wife in the bed with him weeks after her death. I was wondering if anyone knew any facts pertaining to this or if it is a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.15.162 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The facts are these: this is ridiculously untrue. Tell your history teachers to learn history themselves before they attempt to teach it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe's Death[edit]

How come there are so many different assumptions of his death? How was he found and around what time? I also wanted to know how he looked when they found him. --76.101.45.233 (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Kimberly

See Death of Edgar Allan Poe for a good survey of all that is known. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

Why isn't the featured picture of Edgar Allan Poe not on his very own article? I personally find that one nicer then the cropped picture.99.241.220.157 (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. I know it used to be the main image here but I'm not sure when it was changed. I'm going to go ahead and switch it back. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.42.67.238, 30 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Change:

In Baltimore in 1835, he married Virginia Clemm, his 13-year-old cousin. In January 1845, Poe published his poem "The Raven" to instant success. His wife died of tuberculosis two years later.

To:

In Baltimore in 1835, he married Virginia Clemm, his 13-year-old cousin. In January 1845, Poe published his poem "The Raven" to instant success. His wife died of tuberculosis eleven years later.

Because: Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe died in 1847, not 1838, as would be the case if she died two years after her marriage to Poe.

68.42.67.238 (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. fetch·comms 01:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Memorial marker to Virginia Clemm, Maria Clemm, and Edgar Allan Poe in Baltimore, Maryland
Err, I think you may misunderstand the anon's request. There's no question of Virginia Eliza Clemm's death date -- nowhere does it imply it is 1837 (see her article) -- it's a question of wording. The anon sees the "two years later" as hinging on the 1835 marriage date, when in fact most readers will relate "two years later" to the date mentioned in the immediately preceding sentence, 1845 ("In January 1845, Poe published...") I don't think it's an ambiguous wording, but if we want, we can clarify to say "His wife died of tuberculosis in 1847." Antandrus (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
That's a strange assumption - that the "two years later" refers to two sentences prior, rather than the words just before. Even so, perceived ambiguity has been fixed. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ultima Thule[edit]

I've been thinking about the image used at the top of this article. It is the "Ultima Thule" of Poe (see: http://www.eapoe.org/geninfo/poepicud.htm). It is probably the most famous image of Mr. Poe but it is also generally regarded as the most unfair because it was captured shortly after his suicide attempt. He still looks ill-used in the image. I think the Osgood portrait of Poe would be a better image but it lacks the celebrity status that the "Ultima Thule" enjoys. So, in fairness to Poe and to encourage scholarship, I added the phrase "Ultima Thule" to the caption below the image. Hopefully this will provoke people to investigate the nature of the deguerrotype and also lead them to other portraits of the author. Just a thought. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The image is a featured picture and may lose its recognized status if not on the appropriate page (i.e. this one). Further, it's his most famous image. Using a different one because of personal concerns might imply bias rather than neutrality. For the record, I see few sources that support that it is regarded as an unfair image; provide some? --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Rob, it appears that you didn't read my post. I did not suggest that we change the image. I said that there are better images of Poe but I am well aware of the fact that the Ultima Thule is the most famous and, therefore; the most appropriate for this article. So rather than change it, I added a caption which points to the nature of the image. Thereby, hopefully, encouraging people to make their own inquiries regarding the Ultima Thule and other images of Poe.

I'm not sure what you mean by "personal concerns." I have no vested interest ("a special concern or stake in maintaining or influencing a condition, arrangement, or action especially for selfish ends"--merriam-webster.com) in the image or the article. I was merely observing that with a few seconds of research we find that the Ultima Thule carries with it some unfortunate baggage (the physical effects of Poe's suicide attempt). It is not a personal issue--it is a scholastic one. Furthermore, regarding your request for a source which supports the opinion that the image is "unfair," please follow the link which I provided in my first post. I provide it here again for your convenience: http://www.eapoe.org/geninfo/poepicud.htm. Later. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant is that you had an issue with the image being a bad representation, as if that was a personal assessment. eapoe.org, as awesome as it is, is not a good source because it's run by one person who (obviously) has a pro-Poe bias. But, again, the featured picture concern is still overriding. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I did read this a little too quickly. Ultimately, what you're basically saying here is, "Oh, hi, I changed the caption." Sounds good. ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I re-read some of my wording above and wanted to qualify a thing or two. When I suggest that eapoe.org has an obvious "pro-Poe" bias, I meant only that they are furthering a single subject/topic. I do not meant to suggest that they flub things up or sugar-coat Poe for the sake of cleaning him up, etc. I use the site quite often and it is, simply put, the greatest resource on Poe out there. Even so, a more removed source or, really, several sources that substantiate this concern, would be better in order to avoid "perceived" bias. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Quarles[edit]

I just created a link here from Quarles, but is does not appear here or at The Raven. The name was given for the author of the "first authorised publication" of the poem, s:The American Review, Volume 1, February/The Raven. Any one have an idea where this should go, I imagine here although I don't think he used the name again. Maybe next to the mention of the poem? cygnis insignis 09:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a huge omission! I think it's best in the article for "The Raven" because the name is really only associated with that single work by Poe. I better find a source so I can incorporate it there (and maybe here too, of course). --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I was afraid I'd forget so I've already incorporated the Quarles info into both this article and "The Raven". I also like how you added it to the Quarles disambig page so ignore my above comment... Do you think it works this way? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Perfectly I think. Does Silverman give contemporary evidence for that connection, or is it an educated guess; perhaps he cites an earlier ref. Just curious, its seems obvious and quite in keeping with Poe's phony ref's and toying with authorship. cygnis insignis 14:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Silverman says it as if it is definitive; Dawn Sova's book makes it more of a guess (but she also incorrectly attaches the pseudonym to the publication in Willis's paper, so...). From Silverman: [Quarles was] "a continuation of Poe's practice of sometimes taking over the names of other poets." I'm not sure I agree there, but he clearly connects it to Francis Quarles. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated! I knocked up a stub on his son, John Quarles, and it reminded to chase this up. cygnis insignis 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Information adding[edit]

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Allan_Poe — here is very good article about Edgar and it would be good if someone translates some infromation in english — Taro-Gabunia (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This English language version of the article is already a featured article... Is there something specific from the Spanish version that this one is missing? --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Just look at size of that Spanish article. It's bigger and is Featured article—Taro-Gabunia (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
So... nothing specific about it is better, it's just longer and in violation of recommended article length? This article is already a featured article, has a forked good article, and a forked featured list. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not hard to find but the info is already added. See Poe Toaster. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

list selection[edit]

Pardon if this seems like a trivial request, I like citations for lists. The selection probably resembles short lists given by good sources, but a few refs for the 'list of most notable ..." would give this some way of weighting inclusion. Anyone else have some thoughts on this? cygnis insignis 11:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, this is not necessarily a list of "notable" works but just "selected." I think the shorter the list, the better, but that's just me. It's worth talking about though. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Poe's father[edit]

I wrote a page about Poe's father, David Poe Jr. Can that be added as a link on this article, since it's currently a View Source only article? (BagInACampfire)

Done. Thank you for writing the new article! You may want to look at the manual of style to verify the naming (David Poe Jr., David Poe, Jr., or just David Poe) Antandrus (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
No, thank you! :-) The sources I used referred to him as David Poe, Jr. although I am not sure if that is correct. (BagInACampfire) —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC).
For a useless additional opinion, I'd keep the "Jr." "David Poe" could be a potential future article of its own, referring to Edgar's grandfather who was involved in the American Revolution. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ditto – what Midnightdreary said. David Poe is also an entertainer. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  13:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Maryland Sports Hall of Fame[edit]

I seem to recall a mention, possibly in The Sun, that Poe is a member of the Maryland Sports Hall of Fame, I guess for swimming. Despite having lived in Maryland for nearly thirty years, I cannot find a reference to this anywhere on the Web, and have never seen any memorabilia, such as a plaque or proclamation, referring to this. Can someone help? TIA. Bucinka (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If no reference is found it's possibly not true. I've never heard of it. Probably not deserving of mention in this article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's a list of members, 1982-2009. A search for "Poe" yields "no matches found". (The UM Athletic Hall Of Fame was founded in 1982) – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be confusing Edgar with John P. Poe, Jr., who I believe is in the College Hall of fame for football (at Princeton). The poem "Poe's Run" is about John Poe. Or, I may be confusing John Poe with his brother Arthur (there were several of the Poe clan at Princeton, and they all seem to have been football heroes), but you get the point. (Edgar was athletic in his youth, but I do not think he did anything worthy of a sports hall of fame.) Outis001 (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Poe as a young man was decidedly athletic, a noted swimmer and the holder of a record for the broad jump of twenty-one feet, six inches." --T. O. Mabbott, The Selected Poetry and Prose of Edgar Allan Poe, The Modern Library, 1951. Introduction. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Were some of Poe´s published works, in fact ´self publish´[edit]

we are talking of a time long before Print-On-Demand technology, but I wanted to ask here, because I get the impression that some of the early works Poe published were self publish. is this true?

This is not the place for general discussion about the topic. But, to answer your question, see Tamerlane and Other Poems. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Spanish translation[edit]

[1]

I'm sorry. I thought I put the note about the translation 3 years ago... --Sürrell (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Education[edit]

I am loathe to tamper with an FA without impeccable sources to hand. I would just note that the school he attended in Stoke Newington appears to be given more context in Newington_Academy_for_Girls#Location_and_neighbours. Manor House was also known as Abney House, which was next door to and shared significant grounds with Fleetwood House, location of the girls' school founded a handful of years after Poe left. Stoke Newington was a village (not really a suburb in the modern sense), with a significant number of Quakers, and thus Poe would have been exposed to their anti-slavery ideas. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Poe and democracy[edit]

Although I appreciate the idea that some of Poe's works may be interpreted as anti-democratic, I am completely ignorant of any evidence, outside of literary interpretation, that suggests Poe supported such a philosophy. Although I don't disagree that the information one editor has (repeatedly) attempted to insert into this article is a legitimate source, it seems to me that such an assertion belongs not in an article about the man himself, but in an article about whichever of his writing(s) may be so interpreted. aruffo (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing this on our respective talk pages as well. Feel free to join in. -Midnightdreary (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Poe's family[edit]

I tried to put in a sentence mentioning Poe's family origin, but this was deleted, ostensibly because questions over the sources reliability. To try and clear things up I subsequently put in a paragraph looking at the various published claims by family and friends over where the Poes came from, but this was also deleted. The matter revolves around Edgar's grandfather David Poe Sr. from County Cavan, Ireland. The sources are an 1860 book "Edgar Poe and his Critics" by Edgar's one-time fiancée Sarah Helen Whitman which say Edgar's great-grandfather was the Irish-born son-in-law of Admiral John MacBride MP. The second source is James A. Harrison's 1900 book "Life and Letters of Edgar Allan Poe" which contains a sizeable quote from Edgar Allan Poe's cousin, John P. Poe, Sr., who says that Edgar's great-grandfather (from who he descended himself) was actually Admiral MacBride's brother-in-law. Drawing on these sources the genealogist Sir Edmund Thomas Bewley, who deals with Edgar in his detailed 1906 study of the Poe families of Ireland, examines various church records of Ireland and locates Edgar's great-grandfather married to the sister of Admiral MacBride in Cavan. My own preference would be to include this information in two sentences rather than a detailed paragraph, for example:

Edgar's grandfather, David Poe, Sr., was born in the early 1740s in Dring, Kildallon, near the town of Killeshandra, County Cavan, Ireland. David Poe, Sr. was the nephew of Admiral John MacBride MP and emigrated with his parents and siblings to America in 1749 or 1750.[1]

As I say the sources are rather straightforward, and I prefer a shorter reference to the Poe's origins, but perhaps others might think it better to reference Sarah Helen Whitman and Edgar's cousin. Blippityblop (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

References

To clarify: the information was not a mere "sentence" but a substantial paragraph, which is why I brought up undue weight. For those interested, there's a brief correspondence on my talk page. Also, check edit history to see that the info uses weasel words ("it has been suggested..." and "felt it likely that..."). How do we trust S. Helen Whitman's story? Much of her info on Poe has been disputed or admittedly inaccurate. Most importantly, if it's so vital to this article, we'd see this info in a source that is more recent than 1860. I also question "freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com" as a reliable source for a featured article. I'm curious what others think of this information. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


To clarify further:

The first edit I made was, contrary to Midnightdreary's claims, one sentence. It read: "His grandfather David Poe, Snr. was born in Dring, Kildallon, near the town of Killeshandra, County Cavan, Ireland, before emigrating as a young child with his parents and siblings to Pennsylvania in 1749 or 1750." (17th April). He deleted this because he felt it was "not a good enough reliable source for a featured article". My response was to add a paragraph (18th April) dealing with the two statements of both Sarah Whitman and John P Poe respectively, before bringing in the genealogist Sir Edmund Thomas Bewley's study of the Poe family records on the Irish side; and in trying to compromise and meet with Midnightdreary's initial objections, I attempted to shift the emphasis of my edit to the fact that the stories of Poe's ancestry was indeed current amongst his family and friend. When Midnightdreary deleted this edit, he/she wrote "Tentatively removing; I question the reliability of these sources on such a high-profile featured article". No mention of the "undue weight" that Midnightdreary now is claiming is the reason he/she deleted it.

I thought it would be best to approach Midnightdreary on his/her talk page to discuss the matter - he or she obiously wasn't interested in discussing the matter, "Don't look at me" being the response I got to trying to open a polite and good mannered discussion.

As Midnightdreary points out with some merit, there has been questions over some of Sarah Whitman's work. However, this version of Poe's ancestry was indepently verified and slightly amended by Poe's own cousin John Prentiss Poe, who submitted an account of his own Poe ancestry to John Henry Ingram for his 1880 book "Edgar Allan Poe: his life, letters, and opinions". The original 6 page manuscript account of this ancestry, written in John P. Poe's own hand in 1876, is held in the University of Virginia's Special Collections Library in the "John Henry Ingram's Poe Collection", item 220. (http://ead.lib.virginia.edu/vivaxtf/view?docId=uva-sc/viu00220.xml)

Although Midnightdreary tries to write off the source because it comes from "freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com", he/she neglects to mention that the link on that site is to a PDF copy of Sir Edmund Thomas Bewley's 'The origin and early history of the family of Poe', published in Dublin in 1906, which as one can see is very detailed study of that family and which deals with all the above sources as well as all the local Church and other records available in Ireland.

For my part, I think with the information put here now, that one or two short sentences in the article succintly stating the facts of Poe's ancestry should suffice - if Midnightdreary is willing to cede his/her ownership of the article that is. Blippityblop (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If you take a look at Quinn's biography, which I believe is considered authoritative, you'll find "it seems certain that [EAPoe's] great-great-grandfather was David Poe, a tenant-farmer in Dring, in the parish of Kildallon and County Cavan, Ireland, who died in 1742. David’s son, John Poe, emigrated to Pennsylvania in 1749 or 1750,(29) having married Jane McBride, daughter, it is possible, though not certain, of a clergyman, Reverend Robert McBride, and sister of an admiral of the Blue, John McBride. After living for a time in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, John Poe moved to Baltimore, where he died in 1756." aruffo (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Quinn does make the same claim, though he still is only referencing the same Bewley source that I did. One would have thought that if it was good enough for him it would be good enough for Midnight dreary. Blippityblop (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I would recommend that adding more to this info is not helpful. Unless we can agree that Poe's ancestry is what makes him notable enough for Wikipedia, this info should be, at best, a blurb. It isn't: Poe's notability is based on his writing. Further, Wikipedia merely reflects what everyone else is already saying in their published reliable sources. Again, I would reiterate that if it was a common aspect of Poe studies, most of his recent biographies would dedicate space to it as well. If this info is so important to this article (and not merely interesting), I would recommend it be as simple as "Poe's father was of Irish ancestry." If that is done, however, it would also include "Poe's mother was British." --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, the article on Poe's father (who is only notable for his relationships), does not mention this info at all: David Poe, Jr.. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You see its very confusing Midnightdreary when you state twice that you're removing something because of doubts over the source and then you turn around afterwards and say its because of relevancy after you've been shown to be wrong. As regards recent studies, certainly Jeffrey Meyer draws attention to the County Cavan origins of Poe on page one of his biography. I might be wrong, but has there been a major biography of Poe since then? Certainly it is the most recent one used liberally as a source on this wikipedia article. As for David Poe, Jr., I can certainly add it to that article too if you like. And if "Poe's father was of Irish ancestry", that means Poe was of Irish ancestry too. That's how ancestry works. If you look through wikipedia there are hundreds of other biographies mentioning the ethnic backgrounds of other notable people: as well as a plethora of ancilliary information about their backgrounds not directly linked to their "notable" features, but which adds to the picture of them (certainly many full-lenght biographies on Poe seem to mention the fact). You could argue that Poe isn't notable as a cryptographer - but his work in the field is still mentioned in this article. As for Poe's mother and her ancestry: personally I only want to mention the Poe family name history itself, but if you want to add that information to the article I won't throw a hissy fit. Go for it. What I propose is adding the sentence "Edgar's grandfather David Poe, Sr., emigrated from County Cavan, Ireland to America around the year 1750." I've tried to chop and change and compromise, but all you do is move the goalposts because you're page is being edited without your permission. If you're not happy with that, its about time this went to some sort of dispute resolution. Blippityblop (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Please stop claiming that this article "belongs" to Midnightdreary. It's annoying and untrue. At least one reliable reference has been identified for Poe's ancestry; if you intend to use it, then do so, taking two items into consideration: first, Midnightdreary's legitimate concern regarding the purpose and quality of this article; and, as supplement to Midnightdreary's recommendation, the fact that other stuff exists does not automatically justify including information about Poe's lineage. (And if you sincerely believe that Poe's cryptography was not a significant element of his professional life, please read one or more of the biographies.) aruffo (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
[undenting] Blippity, I'm sorry that I'm offering multiple concerns, rather than just one. I am not reneging on any previous concern. And, as Aruffo stated, I do not own the article; his other points are helpful as well, so thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth discussing how the article suffers by adding Blippityblop's single sentence--rather than just trying to defend its inclusion. It seems that we are merely concerned about the articles length and focus. Blippityblop makes a valid point that the information is substantiated by modern biographies. If Poes published biographer's felt that such information did not hinder their work (and Quinn devotes a significant percentage of his biography to Poe's ancestry), does one sentence here on wiki really hinder the article? The focus of the article is entirely subjective and pseudodemocratic in that it becomes merely what the people make it. The recommendations for maximum length of featured articles are just that--recommendations. I don't see how the article truly suffers by one brief sentence which Bippitybop has compromised to. The article is a featured article and the majority of the credit probably is due to Midnightdreary so his concerns are valid--but it is also true that sometimes Rob seems to defend the Poe articles as though they were his own. But he knows (and we all know) they are not. He seems to be a good natured fellow who has only the integrity of the article in mind. In this case though I don't think his arguments are compelling enough to omit the information in question. I don't know what inclusion truly does to improve the article, but it doesn't really seem to lower the quality either. Aruffo, Blippity didn't say that cryptography was not a significant part of Poe's professional life, merely that some might argue that he is not notable as a cryptographer. It is good though that we got past the modern scholarship nonsense. Antiquity does not equate insignificance. Nor does the focus of modern scholarship make it right simply because it is modern. There are many minute details in the works of Copernicus and Kepler which modern scholars are likely to ignore but they are still significant to those who care to study such details. 19th century studies of Poe's life and works are fair resources for improving this article. So let's have no more of that silliness. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What I would recommend, then, (assuming all parties are in consensus to include this info) is that a quick sentence is inserted, without the "Sarah Helen Whitman said" stuff (that does not lend credence to the comment), and with the more recent source for a citation (no rootsweb stuff, no matter what it links to). But I would insist that it be added to the article on David Poe first; it's far more important there, as he is closer to that ancestry, and only notable for his relations. I would also suggest an equal amount of text on this article mention that EAP's mother was British-born. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the more-detailed ancestry information will do well to be placed on David Poe Jr's page, and I support Blippityblop's adding it there. I also agree that a mention of same is appropriate here. Quinn's biography does devote its entire first chapter to Edgar's parents, and to Elizabeth's mother, but this is not for the sake of tracing lineage. Rather, Quinn traces the professional acting careers of all three parties in exhaustive detail (the first such survey) to demonstrate that Edgar's creative spirit was his heritage. Other relatives are introduced, but briefly; Quinn also takes a moment to debunk certain other claims of royal ancestry, but only a moment. Relatives are discussed for their influence on Poe's career. Failing an influence, they are merely mentioned for their existence. aruffo (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am the chief editor of the article on Poe in the Spanish Wikipedia. I think you should not delete the contribution of Blippityblop because it completes, adds information to a very interesting item as is the ancestors of the writer. Among the sources, some are more reliable than others. But "all" should appear on an author as important as Poe. On the less reliable, you may, v. gr., add that they are less reliable: it’s easy to do. But almost "all" are valid, since no one possesses the absolute truth about anything or anybody, and nobody, except the consensus of historical criticism can establish which sources are valid and which are not valid or less valid, or which are "entirely" less valid, or "entirely" not valid. This is neutrality. Isn’t it? If you allow me to say, this article is manifestly poor in its content, especially regarding the work of the author. What the reader wants to know about an author like Poe? O sorry, but I think he mainly wants to know everything about the stories (horror, detective, sci.-fic. tales). And what about the views of other geniuses on him? I refer to the views of Lovecraft, Baudelaire, Stevenson, Eliot, Harry Levin (a great jew scholar)... Does it matter what Lovecraft said of Poe? Do not? I think the answer is YES. The section on his work is very poor, short, shallow and, in my opinion, it doesn’t deserve the status of featured. An encyclopedia is more to add than to remove (IF NOT GARBAGE). Time adds, and Wikipedia is still very young, do not forget it. If you want to remove, remove the Poe toaster, or homes, landmarks, and museums... People want to know what HE DID and not what WE did with his legacy. What is the question?: What should be the weight of an article or what people want to know about this subject. Thank you for your attention.--Sürrell (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sürrell, thanks for dropping by. Your main argument for including the info on Poe's ancestry is that you find it interesting, which is not a good argument. As for the other stuff, the info here is a bit of an overview, certainly. But further info on Poe's work and influence can be found in Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe, Poems by Edgar Allan Poe, Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture, Edgar Allan Poe and music and Edgar Allan Poe in television and film. Is that not enough? --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Midnightdreary. That is very interesting and, on the other hand, it must be in an encyclopedia article on Poe. People do not want to know about it? On the other, I think it is sufficient in any way, sorry. Time will prove me right. I must leave now. Later. ;)--Sürrell (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Interesting topics to describe an author's life: his family, his friends, his ancestors, his teachers. (Who were the Pilgrim Fathers? Bah, never mind.) Is also interesting, is necessary what those who knew him well said of him. For what reason. Because I'm 150 years away from him. What his girlfriend said about him is of great interest to know the person. She saw him, she knew his eyes colour, she heard his voice, even she kissed him. It is first hand information: therefore gold information. My information, on the contrary, now is only fourth or fifth or tenth hand. My job is to transmit simply this information of first-hand in the correct perspective (beware of the primary sources). 2. Articles about writers consist of two parts. Biography and work. I think, in terms of size, must be fifty / fifty, more or less. Your article is a great article (thanks for it, I translated it because I thought it was excellent), but not enough when it comes to his work (that is why I expanded it much). 3. I'm much more interested in Baudelaire's, T. S. Eliot’s, Borges’, Edmund Wilson’s view that of Sowa, Meyers, Silverman. Sorry. Don’t you have a policy of more or less authoritative sources, more or less important kind of sources? I have a problem: I want to know what Stevenson or Dostoievsky had to say about Poe. This is very important for me, excuse me. (But, for me only?) This is it and nothing more.;) --Sürrell (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No arguments? Let me tell you that your silence will not help improve the article and the blessed literary memory of the best writer of fantasy of all times and of the United States. It's simple. The article is not finished. (And ancestors must be in it, of course, and criptography is too long versus critic, poetry, and...) So long.--Sürrell (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No answers again? Oh my! Well, well, well. Maybe I'm a f. troll, but these are my last words, brothers. Through this article format, the figure of the writer is clearly unbalanced. In this article you are attending the life of a poor little man who always suffered serious problems and pain, although, indeed, was much talked about. Is this true? No. This is not Poe. You need to add a large section of his work, gender to gender, unspecified, no work by work, an overview, but in extenso, and also showing the views of other great writers. Then you attend to the true greatness of the writer, the true extent of Poe as a genius of humanity. Only this and nothing more. The choice is yours. A.M.D.G. --Sürrell (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what plan of action you are suggesting, Surrell - and your criticism for a lack of response is a bit unfair. I won't apologize because I have been less active here. In this particular case, I've also chosen to back away from this topic (Poe's ancestry) because I don't feel strongly enough about it and did not want to become a roadblock for others trying to improve the article. If you are more generally saying "the article is not finished," I would remind you that we are not under deadline. Again, you keep arguing that something is "interesting" - please stop saying that. As far as I understand, "interesting" or "I like it" is not a valid argument for inclusion. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, first I am not referring directly to you, Midnightdreary. The action plan I suggest is to suggest to the editors of the article that it be expanded into an essential part. But first you must recognize that this part really is essential. The works of Poe. I am mostly interested in the hero for what he did; mostly. Perhaps many readers as well... I'm not talking about the article "The Black Cat", I'm not talking about the article "The Fall of the House of Usher", Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture... These articles already exist. I'm talking about the article Edgar Allan Poe, because it is incomplete. I am not saying this only because I'm interested, but because the article itself is interested in it, compared to the Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, and everyone who knows what an encyclopedia is. An article is good only if it is complete, and more a featured article. I think this article is unfinished. However, alas, I may be wrong. You can set up a poll about it among other users in en:wik to find out for sure, if you consider appropriate. If my opinion does not apply to you, forget me and that's that, but I also am addressing others. You will be strongly enough about Poe's ancestry by visiting this: Arthur Hobson Quinn; it's just a suggestion. You say the truth: we are not under a deadline: Poe's work, Poe's ancestors, are not under a deadline. So you do not remove the contribution of Blippityblop! Right? Do you think that the Pilgrim Fathers (ancestors) are interesting in American history? Yes? Sorry, I think this article does not adequately respect the memory of Poe. You can do something about it or not. This is a free country. Thank you for your attention.--Sürrell (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to start by saying that I'm not sure I fully understand you. Here's what I think I'm reading: this article should not be a featured article because it does not mention Poe's ancestry. Like I said, if an editor wants to add that information, they are welcome to; I do not want to be an obstacle to that progress. Other than that, I'm not sure what being a "free country" has to do with anything. This isn't the United States - it's Wikipedia. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha, ha. Still confused? I will bring fire to thee. 1. Bad boy, you misrepresented my words. I say: This article should not be a featured article because it does not mention Poe's work enough, and other items, as Poe's ancestry. 2. If Blippityblop wants to add that information, is he welcome to? Then, restore his information. 3. The States is your country and this is the free encyclopedia, a free funny space, and that is why you, and others, can take my advice or not. 4. The section about Poe's work is not under a deadline, of course. I think it is primarily the responsibility of Midnightdreary (the main editor) to enlarge it (sorry, I think). Is it clearer now? You're welcome.;)--Sürrell (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm required to add info about Poe's ancestry - I'm not the one who expressed interest in it - nor do I see how it is my responsibility to expand a section just because you don't like it. If you have additional concerns, perhaps a new section on this talk page is required outside of this particular question about Poe's family. Further, if you dislike the article so much, you can bring it up for reassessment to remove its featured status, or you could consider helping to improve it yourself. I feel somewhat attacked here, and not merely because you called me a "bad boy". --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree-- I haven't been able to understand exactly what Sürrell is trying to say, either, although it does appear that Sürrell, like Blippityblop, is falsely attributing powers and responsibilities to Midnightdreary. aruffo (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Attacked? Attacked? I have studied the history of the article and I saw that Midnightdreary (mainly) handles a large amount of literature that he could use to expand the section of Poe’s work. As for me, I can not help, Midnightdreary, I’m too weak and weary from my work in the article in Spanish. Believe me, friends: you are in a moral and aesthetic obligation of expanding this section (and Poe’s ancestry, etc.). «I haven't been able to understand exactly what Sürrell is trying to say»: Oh my: Is this America? Well: Goodbye, Farewell, So long! Misery is manifold. The wretchedness of earth is multiform... --Sürrell (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Going by the fact that the Irish diaspora and Irish American wiki pages are both even longer than the Edgar Allan Poe page, one easily concludes that there are a large amount of people that consider Irish ancestry to be both significant and highly interesting. Not that his Irishness decides that: if he was German American or of the Spanish diaspora or Italian diaspora, then I would expect that fact to be listed. But you decide Midnightdreary, you obviously have ownership of the site and only you have the right to decide what is interesting or not. I'm grateful that there are paragons of objectivity such as yourself, veritable oracles who can proclaim these truths to the masses. Thankfully you also have your cronies that enforce your ownership of this page just in case any interlopers appear. Grand, leave the page as it is. It is yours after all. See ya around. Blippityblop (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you're so upset, Blippityblop. I did not claim to own this page, nor do I have any cronies at all. Further, whether I think it is interesting (or you, for that matter), is irrelevant; there's a very specific piece of inclusion criteria that says that WP:INTERESTING is irrelevant. I'm going to assume no personal attack was intended, and somehow you mis-worded your assumption of good faith. In fact, if you double-check, all I stated was that the addition of this info should be extremely brief, and be balanced with equal info about his mother. Thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If it isn't interesting, should the Irish American wiki page be deleted? Is it interesting for some individuals with wiki pages and not for others? No, it was never the case that "all [you] stated was that the addition of this info should be extremely brief, and be balanced with equal info about his mother". In the post to this discussion previous to my last I wrote 'What I propose is adding the sentence "Edgar's grandfather David Poe, Sr., emigrated from County Cavan, Ireland, to America around the year 1750.' I've tried to chop and change and compromise, but all you do is move the goalposts because you're page is being edited without your permission." I don't think you can construe this formulation as anything other than brief. I don't know what you are talking about balancing this information with more about English roots through his mother: the wiki page already makes this quite clear! So it there is an imbalance that needs redressing, it is to mention his Irish roots. I find it hard to believe you are trying to be an honest broker in all this, considering Sürrell (who seems to be one of the most prolific contributor to the Spanish language version, also a featured article) came on here talking about it from another angle but he was shot down by you too. So Poe's English ancestry is mentioned on the page, a brief mention of the emigration of the Poe family from Ireland has been formulated and offered for comment, but you still can only stand in the way? Or is only his English ancestry interesting? Certainly "interesting" that you never deleted that from EAP's wiki page, though you had no problem actively choosing to delete mention of his Irish ancestry and leaving other parts. Blippityblop (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I do hope you're clicking the links I offer. I can't help but feel you are still making a personal attack and are not assuming good faith. You sparked a discussion, in which I participated, and many sides and perspectives were offered. I changed my opinion to the above (that both sides of his heritage be represented, albeit extremely briefly, and utilizing reliable sources) based on what was offered. I am not standing in your way: do what you feel is best based on these informative discussions, bearing in mind the high demands and standards of a featured article. Sürrell's comments, I have to admit, were confusing, but had little at all to do with Poe's ancestry (he seemed to be more concerned with Poe's literary influence). I do not question his hard work on the Spanish language version of this article. I don't know how I can be any clearer. You have not attempted new changes, so I'm no longer the roadblock you are decrying. I promise. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Needless to say, I didn't offer any further edits becuase I wanted to avoid WP:Edit warring. That would be bold. But now that you've offered your imprimatur I shall proceed. I have no objections to you editing it to make it sit better within the article, I personally won't be reverting your edits thereon. Regards and farewell. Blippityblop (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It wouldn't be edit warring if discussion had taken place. I'm glad we worked this out. I'm truly sorry if I came across as an obstinate interference; it was not my intention (nor do I intend to hijack this article and make it my own). All the best --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 June 2012[edit]

Dear Wikipedia, I am writing to request permission to make edits to this page. The information found is very reliable and trustworthy,however, my group and I would like to add more details in reference to Poe's life as a person and a writer. This is a part of a college level Englsih course assignment. We are not looking to make any personal sugguestions or add misinformation. We are only interested in added more detail to your information about Edgar Allan Poe. For example, x: "Poe parted ways with the Allans." This should be changed to y: Poe cut all ties with the Allans because his adopted father did not support his failure at West Point and his general lifestyle. If this change was made, the reader would be provided more useful information regarding Poe and his paternal relationship. As far as sources go, the information I am planning to use came from Gale Virtual Reference Library and Google Scholar. Listed below are their specific citations:

Belbanco, Andrew. Stories for Young People: Edgar Allan Poe. China: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc, 2006. 4-5. eBook. <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JBv-bocMY9IC&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&dq=Edgar Allan Poe&ots=Vw2hO4Y5j8&sig=vRgteYA4X-5nKzMhznZcCVmB0yY

Hoffman, Daniel. "Poe, Edgar Allan (1809-1849)." World Poets. 2. (2000): 323-331. Web. 12 Jun. 2012. <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=RELEVANCE&inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=viva_lwc_main&tabID=T003&searchId=R3&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=2&contentSet=GALE%7CCX1386400083&&docId=GALE%7CCX1386400083&docType=GALE&role=>. Thank you for your time and I hope you consider our request. Taylor Seamster and group PoePower (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposed change; this makes us assume that John Allan disapproved of Poe's "general lifestyle", which we can not prove. It's also awkward: by saying "Poe call all ties" it implies that Poe made the decision, but saying Allan disapproved of him it implies that Allan made the decision.
Further, if I may add: If you're thinking of spending more time on Wikipedia on a class project, I'd recommend a different article - one that really needs help, and not an approved featured article like this one. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. If you post the edit you want here, and changed the2nd part of the template at the top to |answered=yes}}, I will review it Mdann52 (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, this sounds like a Conflict of Interest Mdann52 (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Influence or work?[edit]

Listen, folks. This is a very interesting topic. I think that this editor, Midnightdreary, should not distort the words of editor Sürrell anymore. Editor Sürrell does not say you have to extend the influence of Poe, but the work of Poe. You do not just say nothing of the work. And Poe is not just a drunk who married a girl of 13 years and went hungry, as shown in this article. This article is half article, as Sürrell says, and a bit ridiculous article for that reason. Poeseye--85.59.141.63 (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear... I'm not sure how I distorted Surrell's words. I never understood them, as I mentioned (more than once, if I recall). I worked hard to make sure this article was not just displaying Poe as a negative figure or living a negative life. I wish you could show how you came to the conclusion that it is "ridiculous". If there is a concern that there's a not enough information on his literary work, add it, bearing in mind there's a whole article Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe (which is also a featured list). --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh my... Lists? No, thanks. We already have the phone-book for lists. This article has a clear bias against Poe, and, in fact, some believe that is «displaying Poe as a negative figure or living a negative life» in the same line as Griswold, Krutch, Bonaparte, Yvor Winters, Huxley, and others. It is an old and sordid subject. For what reason? Because Poe's work does not have enough extension. And this decompensation, this omission is absolutely un-jus-ti-fi-a-ble. And it is a bi-as and it is ne-ga-ti-ve for Poe's memory and the truth. It is also ridiculous to keep distorting, dear friend of lists and Poe´s toasters. Poeseye--85.53.137.255 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused as to your concern. Could you please be more specific as to which parts of the article are anti-Poe? Could you please be more specific about what you think has been omitted? If you see something "absolutely un-jus-ti-fi-a-ble" or something which is distorted or, again, "ridiculous", have you attempted to fix it yet? --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You have worked the article (467 edits). You started it, somehow. You control all editions and, according to your subjective judgment, you deleted many of them, some of my own. Then, you morally must finish it. If you do not understand what we say, you should go to school to learn. Is it clear now, dear friend of Poe’s toasters? Pd.: By the way, do you know if H.P. (another American genius, isn't he) once wrote something about Poe? Poeseye--85.53.144.8 (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is only clear what you are saying in the sense that you are saying nothing. Please answer the question: What specifically do you recommend updating? I did not start the article, I do not control all additions (I assume you meant that, not "editions"), and I am not "morally" obligated to add something which I'm not aware is missing, nor remove something I am not aware needs removing. Please, either give more specific information, edit the article yourself, or stop trolling me. -Midnightdreary (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Organization[edit]

The information in the Wikipedia article seems to be accurate, and uses appropriate language for the viewer, but the layout of the article as a whole seems to be cluttered, unorganized, and ends up looking thrown together. Large gaps are present between paragraphs with a single picture in between. A simple condensing of space would make this article more attractive, and a rearranging of visuals to chronological sequence, or relevance would also improve overall appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JedJaren (talkcontribs) 20:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Although the Wikipedia article contains abundant information on influences of Poe’s work, additional information of his achievements would expand this article and provide a more sufficient list of writing, and poetry. Where the article lacks information is in the list of poems and stories, after only a few minutes of research I had found numerous titles that have not been listed on Wikipedia, poems such as, For Annie, or The Sleeper. Also the article’s links to a list of poems, and short stories only focuses on a few narrow themes of Edgar Allan Poe’s life work, although the article mentions several different themes Poe used, the article primarily focuses on Poe’s more well-known work of Gothic genre. Poe had written many stories outside of this category, such as Detective stories, stories of love, or tales of pirates.JedJaren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.81.73 (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding his works: See Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe for the complete bibliography, or Poems by Edgar Allan Poe for his poems specifically. Bear in mind all Wikipedia articles are merely an overview. Do you really think pirates are a major aspect of his writing enough to warrent mention in an overview? Detective stories are covered fairly well, I think (see literary influence section). I'm not sure it overemphasizes his Gothic stuff either. If you have more info to add about his love stories, you're right, as I think it's a bit weak here. As far as organization, sometimes the big white gaps are because of the user's browser or Wikipedia settings. For example, I don't see any gaps on my screen. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Location of hospital at death[edit]

The link for the hospital of Poe's death points to the wrong hospital. The link points to Washington College Hospital on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, likely over a day's journey from Baltimore back in Poe's day. The correct reference should be Washington Medical College, aka Church Home and Hospital, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Home_and_Hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:8:D1D:B95F:9ACF:404F:52E0 (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this error and mentioning it here. I've corrected it just as you've suggested. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your moderation of this page, and the quick response and update of the link. You might also want to consider changing "Washington College Hospital" to "Washington Medical College". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:8:D1D:B95F:9ACF:404F:52E0 (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I can do that as well. I'm not a moderator; just a humble editor. Most people can edit this page but it's been protected so only established users can edit due to inappropriate behavior. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

New Book on Poe[edit]

Zarei, Rouhollah (2013). Edgar Allan Poe: An Archetypal Reading. Amherst, New York: Cambria Press. ISBN 9781604978476. http://www.cambriapress.com/cambriapress.cfm?template=4&bid=551 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zareir (talkcontribs) 03:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 October 2013[edit]

Please add the following item to the "Futher readings" section: Pireddu, Nicoletta. “Poe spoetizzato: l’esotismo tarchettiano,” in _Fantastico Poe_, ed. by R. Cagliero (Ombre Corte, 2004): 157-176. Ichnussa2000 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This would appear to be more appropriate for the Poe article on the Italian Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits to intro (second graph)[edit]

I edited the second graph and twice the edits were reverted. Once because of purported 'grammatical errors" (there are few, if any, and should be edited and not wholesale deleted) and another time because, apparently, FA is to be confused with 'perfect'. It is not. This graph is an improvement and I will take it to arbitration if I have to. The previous version of the graph I edited had multiple issues and was misleading: not least of which it make it seem that Poe and the Allans (collectively) had tension. Not so. Poe and Frances Allan had an apparently very loving relationship right up until her death and it was with the parsimonious John Allan (and later his second wife) with whom Poe principally quarrelled. In addition the graph, which is supposed to be a summary, doesn't make note of the fact that Poe was a second child and confuses the death of his mother with the abandonment of the father when in fact those events occurred a year apart. The previous graph glosses over the death of Frances Allan. The previous graph also conflates his first stint in the army with his attempts at West Point. The previous graph also ends with the publication of Tamerlane... making it appear as though the book came out after he left West Point when in fact it was published during his first, abortive, attempt at army life, the success of which led him, while at West Point, to believe he could make a living as a writer. Petrsw (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

All good points, Petrsw, with the sole exception of your threat to go to arbitration. It's a little early for that, don't you think? Arbitration would frown on any attempt on your part to bring something to them that has not been thoroughly discussed on an article's talk page. So, I hope you don't mind if I, for one, maintain that the article's lead should continue to reflect the summary as it has stood the test of time and FA scrutiny. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The grammatical errors you call "purported" are there in the page history and can be seen by anyone who cares to look. I frequently correct such errors, rather than reverting, but I avoid doing so when I am less than confident that the substance of the edits I'm correcting would constitute an improvement to the article. Substantive changes should always be reliably sourced, and yours were not. Incidentally, arbitration does not deal in questions of content—only behavior. You're fine now, but if you make these changes again, you'll be edit warring, which is a behavioral issue (although not one typically requiring arbitration). Please see WP:BRD for the best way to proceed. Rivertorch (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration exists to resolve disputes. This is a dispute. I am not edit warring, you are. I have improved the graph and you have reverted my improvements: it is your behavior that requires justification and perhaps modification. You claim that the "test of time" and "FA scrutiny" is all that is needed. I say you are wrong. FA or not, the article can be improved and I attempted to do so. You have attempted to stymie me. You claim that 'substantive changes should always be reliably sourced' but I made no substantive change to the content and do no reference anything that is not source properly later in the article: I have made changes to the ordering of the graph to avoid obvious conflation and, therefore, confusion, I made changes to grammar and to syntax to further avoid the obvious confusion inherent to the previous graph. The previous graph was incomplete as a summary as well as misleading and incorrect as a timeline. In short, I edited it. Petrsw (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Petrsw, first, thank you for your edits. I was one of those who reverted your work and, for that, I apologize. I hope it does not dissuade you from continuing discussion here. I think some of your edits were somewhat misleading; for example, "Poe received all the attention, education and care the otherwise childless couple could offer." This is a bit of a personal reading, and not necessarily encyclopedic. I'm also concerned about, to nitpick, things like "Poes" instead of "Poe's" and the insertion of double spaces after periods. No one would suggest that an article that has reached "featured" status is automatically perfect but one should be extra careful at making any adjustments that might diminish its quality, as the aforementioned errors. Let's work on this together. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Midnightdreary for concrete and specific examples. I intend to make the changes you suggest and strike the sentence of which you make note, thus restoring, in part, my edits. I do believe that timeline of the present structure is confusing and misleading and overall clarity is improved. Are there objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrsw (talkcontribs) 16:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI: I learned to type in 1979, on a monospace manual typewriter, so double spaces after the period is an old habit drilled into me by my then instructor, an old crone with a sharp tongue and a bad attitude.. It was thought to be 'good' practice back then for readability and the overall look of the page and so deviation was not permitted. Of all the bad habits I've picked up that one seems to be the hardest to shake... Petrsw (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I, too, picked up that "bad" habit at an early age. Some of us do not consider it such a bad habit, especially when it does help the readability of the code, and yet makes no difference at all in the article. Whether you leave one space or two spaces after a full stop in the edit screen, the space after a full stop in the article remains the same. I sometimes use this to make dummy edits, when necessary. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
PS. Let me also suggest that if you ever want to use double spaces, for example on your user page, just use a "non-breaking space", like this:
...and another wad of ex-novel went straight into the trash can.{{nbsp}} Oh, how do I defeat this horrid Writer's Block?
...which renders: ...and another wad of ex-novel went straight into the trash can.  Oh, how do I defeat this horrid Writer's Block?
PS added by – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX!

Additions to 'Poe in Popular Culture'[edit]

Hello, I'm a new member and therefore apologies if I am going about this the wrong way. I just thought that an addition to the 'Poe in 'Popular Culture' section could mention the 2013 Fox Entertainment series called 'The Following' starring Kevin Bacon. The plot is about a University lecturer who goes on to recruit his students to help him on his killing spree. The recruitment generally begins with the teachings of Poe in poetry lessons. The main character (Joe Carrol) often quotes Poe's famous quote "The death of a beautiful woman...". There are also several scenes where the various killers wear 'Poe' masks whilst on the rampage.

For more information and for verification see

Http://WWW.imdb.com/title/tt2071645/?ref_=nv_St_1

And also

Http://WWW.fox.com/the-following/


I hope that this has been of some help.

Moonwalkerfairy (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! Most of the material related to Poe in popular culture is kept away from the main page so it's a more legitimate biographical article, rather than a round-up of tangential or trivial offshoots. Instead, look at Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture, Edgar Allan Poe and music and Edgar Allan Poe in television and film. I'm sure The Following is already covered. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

correct dead link "Hall, Wiley"[edit]

Dead link: Hall, Wiley (August 15, 2007). "Poe Fan Takes Credit for Grave Legend"

After search I found this: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-08-15-poe-fan_N.htm

The link on Poe Toaster (ref 13) is also dead, could be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceciliawolf (talkcontribs) 00:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! On my way out the door and may not get back to this today, but the AP article is archived here. That may be a more permanent link than the USA Today page. Rivertorch (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2014[edit]

In the beginning it is stated that Poe married his cousin in 1835, however, the line under her image states 1836. I believe 1836 is the correct year, I found most references to this year. Nietanoniem (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Nietanoniem (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Most places in the text of this article state 1835. Of note, on his cousin's article, it is stated that Poe filed for a marriage license in 1835 and had a marriage ceremony in 1836 Cannolis (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The date is confusing. There was a marriage license in 1835 but I'm not sure how much evidence exists that there was a ceremony until 1836. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Due to the discrepancy here, there will need to be a consensus achieved through discussion and presentation of RS to back up claims one way or the other. Until there is such a consensus to change (or make a permanent note that the date has been discussed and declared accurate so that we don't have to revisit this multiple times without new sources that would be needed to influence a change), I'm deactivating this request. Please feel free to reactivate when consensus is reached. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 20:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Poe and humor[edit]

I would recommend putting this source in when you mention Poe's writing of humor. The source, a professor who has written multiple books on Poe, argues that Poe wrote more humor than is commonly understood. To quote: "In Poe and the Subversion of American Literature: Satire, Fantasy, Critique, I argue that Poe is perhaps best viewed as a practical joker, a highly skilled literary prankster whose fundamental talent lay in putting one over on people. More frequently than we care to admit, the victims of these confidence games, these diddles, are us, the readers." http://humorinamerica.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/joker-poe-part-1-just-diddling/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.24.135 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to add more about Poe's comedies, which make up a substantial portion of his work; currently it's barely mentioned under "Genres". The source provided above, however, doesn't seem to pass inspection as it is a self-published Wordpress site. Any other sources? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Was the following edit ever discussed? Did I miss the discussion?

01:42, 21 February 2014‎ Scewing (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,287 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (image swap) (undo | thank)

If it was discussed can someone give me the link to the discussion because I seemed to have missed it. If it wasn't discussed, I think it should be. I don't have anything against the new image per se, but the prior (the Ultima Thule) has been defended by other editors in the past as the most appropriate image for the top of this article. What do others currently think? MorbidAnatomy (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The Ultima Thule photo is the most recognizable image of Poe, without question. If that factor is a requirement for a main image, I don't know. I was wondering if other folks thought the same, however. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Ultima Thule image is the most recognizable. It has sort of become the archetype of Poe. The "Annie" image is of similar quality, from a similar period in his life, and is almost as famous as the Ultima Thule. So I'm not sure how the article is improved by making the Annie the main image instead of the Ultima Thule. Both are images from late in Poe's life, both show him with a mustache (which is not how he looked for most of his life--only the last couple years), both images were known to contemporaries of Poe at that time in his life, both are referenced in historic documents, and both are well established as authentic by Poe scholars. So to me it seems like they are both qualitatively equal except the the Ultima Thule is more immediately recognizable. Now, it is generally the custom, with living celebrities, to use a contemporary photo rather than a perhaps more famous image from that celebrity's youth (see the Henry Winkler article as an example, the main image is from 2013, it's not a picture of him as the Fonz). So perhaps that was the logic for the change--the Annie image is a later image. But with dead celebrities, I don't think that is customary.

As long as we're on the topic, I have argued before, and still think that the Osgood portrait should be in the article since it more closely represents Poe as he looked for most of his adult life. There are only two arguments against it (that I can think of). 1, the article size and status may not readily permit adding the Osgood portrait. But wiki recommendations for article size are not immutable physical laws. 2, women who knew Poe commented that the Osgood portrait was not a good resemblance--but their objections to it were emotional, not analytical--so I don't think that is a valid reason for exclusion. Anyway, I think the Ultima Thule should be moved back up to the top of the article and the Annie can move down. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've asked the editor who made the image swap to stop by this page and join the conversation. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Great. In the meantime, how about swapping the Halling image with the Osgood portrait? On that point, too, it would be nice to have the color version of the Osgood portrait (readily accessible, more or less, at the National Portrait Gallery in DC). --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I definitely think the Halling image could be omitted and the Osgood portrait could take it's place. That being said, I have never made that type of edit to an article and don't actually know how. So even though I was the one arguing to include the Osgood portrait, I would need someone else to make this edit.

That leaves us with the matter of the Ultima Thule vs the Annie as the main image.... MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to the conversation. Restoring old images is a bit of a hobby of mine, and I couldn't help cropping & fixing up a Poe daguerreotype after Getty finally released a high resolution digital copy through it's Open Content Program. I know it's a bit taboo on Wikipedia to replace the infobox image of a Featured Article without discussion, but I took the advice of Midnightdreary's talk page: "I strongly encourage people to be bold and mercilessly edit [articles relating to Edgar Allan Poe]". I know that the Ultima Thule is considered Poe's most iconic likeness. Feel free to change the infobox image back if that's the group consensus. Personally, I think my cropped high resolution version of the Annie daguerreotype is a nice change of pace for the main image. I think it helps the value of the article to rotate the main image every once in a while. BTW, check out the Timothy Cole woodcut of the Ultima Thuile daguerreotype I recently uploaded. Cheers! Scewing (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for working on these images, Scewing. Sorry that it took me a while to respond, I don't really have any complaints with changing up the main image. It sounds like we all agree that the Ultima Thule is the best candidate as it is the most famous, but it also sounds like no one has any real objection to using the Annie. So probably your edit will stand as is. In time someone may swap it for the Ultima Thule again, but for now no one seems to care. Sounds like you've got group consensus--though, admittedly, only three people have joined the conversation. Thanks again. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I'll swap out the Halling portrait with a color version of the Osgood portrait. Scewing (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making that edit, Scewing. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2014[edit]

86.171.40.248 (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)edagr alan poe was born in Virginia Ireland and migrated to America at a very young age

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Unsure what change is requested, and seems contradictory to the sourced material already in the article. Cannolis (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014[edit]

I would like to add a book at the further reading section: Robert C. Marley, Tell-tale Twins, engl. edition, Luebbe, 2014 (Todesuhr, german Edition, Luebbe 2013) The novel describes the mystery surrounding Poes last days. Andrea Miebs (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an appropriate addition to this article. You could consider, however, adding to the article that discusses Poe as a character in fiction, if the book is notable enough. See Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture. The page isn't aiming for completism, however, but just for notable examples. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

David Poe Jr.[edit]

Hi, the fact about Edgar's father abandoning the family is incorrect. In early 1811 his father died of consumption.

Reference is page 6 of J.H Ingram's Edgar Allan Poe, His life, Letters, and Opinions

Thanks for the note. As you might know, information about David Poe is scarce. Ingram did not have much evidence to back up his claim. More sources now indicate that he left the family. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2014[edit]

90.222.112.66 (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC) I think jack the ripper was a edgaR A PO FAN SORRY I HAVE DYSLEXIA BUT LOOK AT THE FACTS THANK YOU

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

edgar allan poe[edit]

he donated sperm to women — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.78.206 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source claiming that? If so, please provide it. It may be included in the article. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 21:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This is obviously a joke edit. Pay no mind. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Serial commas: Yay or nay?[edit]

Per this suggestion, might be good to see who likes them here and who doesn't.

I don't. They make readers imagine an unnatural pause. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, April 25, 2015 (UTC)

I believe they are extremely useful for clarification, and for what I consider to be appropriate punctuation. It's logical and useful, and only creates ambiguity as a result of the structure of the sentence, or lack of other punctuation (such as the semicolon). I would counter that it is a natural pause. Read an ordered list aloud, or think up of one and say it, and most times you will pause exactly where the serial comma occurs. Regarding this specific instance, I think it's useful because section and subsection titles are meant to be brief; oftentimes, certain words like determiners are omitted for brevity of title. As a result, one might suspect that the title in question is not an ordered list, but a comparison of two groups—one with a single item, and the other with two. This is moreover exacerbated by the fact that serial commas are used consistently throughout the article (CTRL+F ", and"). The omission of one here will give the reader the impression that the omission was meaningful. Since it is not, we should retain the serial comma for no other reason than for consistency.
Needless to say, I'm in the "pro-serial comma" crowd. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 20:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
When I read an ordered list, the last "and" fills in for the comma and the pause in my head. With a comma and an "and", I get two pauses. If we're going for brevity, one break goes by quicker. Of course, yeah, we probably speak differently, too.
I know the serial comma is used throughout the article, not just the header. No need to CTRL+F (Command+F, in my language), it's in the first sentence. My question concerns all of them, for the same reason. If halving a pair of breaks speeds things up, halving many pairs makes for even faster reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pro-serial comma. I'm likely responsible for having them there to begin with. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, reading operates differently than spoken word. When one reads, one typically follows the logical structure of the sentence, whereas with listening to spoken word one typically follows the speech pattern and inflection of the speaker. (In the cases of inner monologue, the latter usually occurs because it is verbalized speech in your thoughts.) At least, that's my understanding of it. As for reading ordered lists, it really depends on the type of speech and dialect, as well as one's native language (I don't think serial commas are common in languages outside of English). In formal speech, there is usually a pause, but in common parlance many verbal contractions are used. It depends on whether you are pronouncing "and" or something like "'n'". In the latter scenario, it is a quick enough syllable that the comma seems to delay it. When "and" is fully pronounced, however, I notice that a pause usually precedes in in an list, ordered or unordered. You may be pronouncing it differently for any of the aforementioned reasons. That's my guess, anyhow.
I think the serial comma should remain for clarity and dispelling ambiguities. Like I said before, it is logical punctuation and better defines listed items. To me, a serial comma is to a list as a semicolon is to a series of lists: it helps clarify what is what and ensures that no misunderstanding occurs. I honestly see more reason to switch consistency in an article which lacks a serial comma than to do so in an article wherein it is already present. Do you have a specific and valid reason for omitting all serial commas? Verbal pauses are pretty much irrelevant during reading, so no need to worry about the serial commas impeding the speed of our readers. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 23:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I support the serial comma here. Whether something "sounds right" or not is too dependent on what one is used to hearing. The goal of clarity should outrank opinions about familiarity, and the serial comma here adds clarity. Reify-tech (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree and I generally hate commas and leave them out whenever possible (see? Face-smile.svg). I don't really see this as a case of pro or con serial commas. There are probably several in the article that are not needed for any clarification. However, I have to agree that in this case if a serial comma is not used in the header, then the confusion of a comparison between the first item and the last two items lumped together would be common among general readers. The serial comma should be left in for clarity. Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine  23:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Those who care for it seem to care more than I don't. I'll bow out. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, April 28, 2015 (UTC)

Baudelaire's short Biography of Poe[edit]

In his introduction to the french edition of Poe's "Histoires Extraordinaires" of 1856, Charles Baudelaire mentions Poe joining the greek army to fight the turks, ending up destitute in Russia and asking for assistance from an American official representative to return to the USA.

He also speaks of the very special relationship between Poe and his mother in law/aunt that went on beyond his wife's death

He also has no doubts about the manner, date and place of his death, in Baltimore on October 7 1849, which he attributes to delirium in tremens, after a night of suicidal drinking.

He also mentions his birthdate as 1813, dead then at only 37. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HervéAlphonse (talkcontribs) 16:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Baudelaire was quite fanciful in his understanding of Poe. Poe himself is the source of some of the problems, including frequently lying about his age/birth year. He also made up the rather exotic story of joining revolutions overseas. None of that is true. As for the "very special relationship" with Poe's mother-in-law, you can thank Rufus Griswold, Poe's enemy, for creating that debauched lie. I have to admit, however, that many Poe biographers have offered their definitive theory on Poe's death; few of them match up to the others. Baudelaire's has no more (nor less) credibility than the others. Did you mean to suggest any of this information be incorporated in this Wikipedia article? I see nothing worth the effort in your post. Cheers, --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Writer, author, other qualifier?[edit]

Feel free to discuss the best way to describe Poe in that opening sentence. I personally prefer simply "author" or "writer". "Short story" writer is far too specific and, to be pedantic, strictly inaccurate. I don't see any reason, however, also to add "playwright" or "novelist" as those genres are less identifying. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"American author, poet, editor, and literary critic" is fine with me, especially to note as did David Levy that Poe's "short story" work comes up in the next sentence. Paine  03:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Midnightdreary, how is "short story writer" far too specific? It's no more specific than poet, playwright, or novelist are when used to described someone who writes poems, plays, or novels. Those are examples; I'm not suggesting we describe Poe as a novelist or playwright (he's not known for writing plays or novels.) I do suggest the description be: "short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic." Also, how is short story writer inaccurate? As I've already mentioned, the tales Poe wrote are a specific type, or subset, of the short story genre. Also, I’m not suggesting Poe be described as only a short story writer, but described, as I’ve said: "short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic." JoePeschel (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
To directly answer the question you addressed to me: As I said above, I would not recommend adding "playwright" or "novelist". --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I would not recommend adding "playwright" or "novelist, " either. As I wrote above: “I'm not suggesting we describe Poe as a novelist or playwright (he's not known for writing plays or novels.) I do suggest the description be: ‘short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic.’”JoePeschel (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
"Short story writer" is overly specific. Poe certainly wrote short stories, but "short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic" omits other works covered by "author". In the very next sentence, we note that "Poe was one of the earliest American practitioners of the short story", so this information is conveyed clearly. —David Levy 18:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Since when is being overly specific a problem? If one objects to “short story writer” as being overly specific, one would have to object to “poet,” “playwright,” and “literary critic” for the same reason as each writes a specific type of work. “Poe was one of the earliest American practitioners of the short story" is merely the logical follow-up to the introduction “…short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic." As for “author” covering other works by Poe—those other works: a play, essays, etc., are not the writing Poe is known for. So, “short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic” is precise because it covers the sort of writing that Poe is known for. JoePeschel (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Being overly specific is problematic when it paints an incomplete picture of something significant.
A literary critic isn't necessarily a writer. I've explained why "poet" should be mentioned separately. As Midnightdreary noted, no one has suggested that "playwright" be added. —David Levy 01:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
David, just when is a literary critic not a writer? Even when a literary critic does a broadcast, that critic is reading his own script. If that script was ghostwritten or otherwise written by someone else, then the reader is not the actual critic. What is incomplete about writing “Poe... was an American short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic..." JoePeschel (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
David, just when is a literary critic not a writer?
Example
What is incomplete about writing “Poe... was an American short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic..."
Please see WP:HEAR. —David Levy 05:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Odd, that you think this little example of an instructor berating a student telling his pupil "you are not a writer, you are a literary critic" is an example of a critic not being a writer. It's clear that the instructor is technically wrong, but the student got the point that he should writing criticism not fiction.JoePeschel (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, Barbara Dixson is female. Secondly, the phrase that you quoted doesn't appear in the book. Thirdly, I'm providing an example of a profession (professor) in which a literary critic isn't necessarily a writer (in the relevant sense). Obviously, Dixson is a writer. —David Levy 14:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
You’re right, no one including me has suggested that “playwright” be added. The example I used concerning “playwright” was to illustrate a point. That point is: if we call a writer of plays a “playwright (as we correctly do in other articles) then we should call a writer of short stories a “short story writer.” As for your contention that poet should be mentioned separately—I don’t follow your reasoning at all. You contend that “author” includes short story writer and any anything else that Poe wrote. So, why should be include “poet” if author already includes an author who write poems? We include “poet” because it is specific, just as “literary critic” and “short story writer” are specific, and, for example, just as “playwright,” “novelist,” “memoirist,” and “biographer” are specific and used correctly in other articles.JoePeschel (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, I previously explained why I believe that we should include "poet" (despite the fact that it refers to an author of poetry). Was that reply "so unpersuasive that [it] might as well not have existed"? —David Levy 05:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
David, do you mean this bit: “The contextually applicable definition is "the writer of a literary work" (source: Merriam-Webster). This includes poetry, but "poet" is much more common in this context (to the extent that its omission would be misleading.) Apparently, for some odd reason, you think the word poet is more a common descriptor of poetry than “short story writer” is as a descriptor of one of who writes short stories. The term short story writer has been around 100 years, going back at least to first “Best American Short Story” collection. So yes, it was “so unpersuasive that [it] might as well not have existed”—how well you put that.JoePeschel (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, for some odd reason, you think the word poet is more a common descriptor of poetry than “short story writer” is as a descriptor of one of who writes short stories.
My point is unrelated to the frequency with which writers of short stories are described as "short story writers". It pertains to the infrequency with which writers of poetry are not described as "poets". Someone reading that Poe was an "author, editor, and literary critic" might assume that he didn't write poetry, despite the fact that "author" allows for the possibility. (To be clear, I'm aware that you don't advocate removing "poet".) Conversely, someone reading that Poe was an "author, poet, editor, and literary critic" is unlikely to assume that he didn't write short stories (because writers of various types of stories are commonly described as "authors"). —David Levy 14:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


  • I moved the message below from @JoePeschel:, which I received at my personal talk page, to this section, as I believe it is better addressed here, where all interested parties can discuss it. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

On the precise description of Poe and Others[edit]

I've seen no persuasive reasons (or any at all) why my corrections to the Poe article should have been reverted to something imprecise.

As I’ve stated previously, the terms “writer” and “author” are each ambiguous. They are general terms, nonspecific, and hence imprecise. Note: the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) definition of writer:

1.a. A person who can write; one who practises or performs writing; occasionally, one who writes in a specified manner

and the OED’s definition of author is even broader:

1. The person who originates or gives existence to anything

It’s easy to see that “writer” is more a specific description than “author,” since an “author” could be the originator of a law or an even idea, while a “writer originates something in writing.

Now, we call a “writer” or “author” who writes poems a poet, as we do Poe. We call a “writer” or “author” who writes literary criticism a critic, as we do Poe. We call a “writer” or “author” who writes plays a playwright. We call a “writer” or “author” who writes essays an essayist. We call a “writer” or “author” who writes novels a novelist. Likewise, it only make sense that, for the sake of precision, we call a “writer” or “author” who writes short stories a short story writer.

Further, the short stories Poe wrote are often referred to as tales; and tales, like fables and parables are each a different type, or subset, if you will, of short story. JoePeschel (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I see little point in discussing the matter with someone who intends to ignore others' arguments and cherry-pick definitions that suit his. —David Levy 16:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
David, I didn’t ignore anyone’s comments, as those comments didn’t exist when I originally posted mine. As for cherry picking—I used the first definitions in the OED. JoePeschel (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn’t ignore anyone’s comments, as those comments didn’t exist when I originally posted mine.
I'm referring to the edit summaries. You needn't agree with the multiple users who've reverted your edit, but I'm baffled as to why you've claimed to have seen no reason at all.
As for cherry picking—I used the first definitions in the OED.
Multiple definitions exist, with context establishing the relevant usage. Someone reading the lead is unlikely to interpret "author" as "the person who originates or gives existence to anything", which simply would't make sense. The contextually applicable definition is "the writer of a literary work" (source: Merriam-Webster). This includes poetry, but "poet" is much more common in this context (to the extent that its omission would be misleading). —David Levy 18:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know I need not agree with other users and I did not. The reason: they gave no compelling reason to concur.JoePeschel (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe the point is that the fact that you disagreed with another editor and did not find their reason compelling to concur requires only one revert, after which discussion here on the talk page should ensue rather than to edit war. Your arguments might have gone farther had you brought them here rather than to battle with others over such a thing! Paine  22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Paine, I changed the original article to read “short story writer” instead of “author” because it was more specific. Even others here on this Talk page have said “short story writer” is more “specific” than “author.” Midnightdreary reverted my edit because, he says, "author" is more appropriate -- in addition to tales, he also wrote a novel, a play, etc.” So what? Poe is not best known as a playwright or a novelist. Whether the disagreement was settled on the Poe page or on the Talk page is a moot issue. Here we are and nothing is settled.JoePeschel (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
No, nothing is settled. Why? Maybe the issue can be settled to everyone's satisfaction; however, you have not helped to move this process along by edit warring. It is why you have received all this resistance. I still think "author" is better as an opener; and then, as the next sentence does, go into more detail such as "what kind of author?" – ah, an "author of short-stories". So another reason you get so much resistance is that there are several editors who don't see the need for such a specific description in the opener. If you disagree with that, then you have a "dispute". Please see WP:DISPUTE. Paine  11:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Paine, When another editor reverted my correction of “author” to “short story writer,” that editor caused what you call a “war.” Every term but “author” in that introductory sentence is specific. Why include a descriptor as general as “author” in a sentence that includes that the very words “poet,” “editor” and “literary critics”? The generalized term simply does not go with the specific terms in the rest of the sentence. I did not suggest “writer of short stories”; I suggested “short story writer”—it’s one word shorter. JoePeschel (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
You stated that you'd seen no reasons at all (apparently in an attempt to justify your edit warring). Opining that a reason is unpersuasive is not the same as denying its very existence. —David Levy 01:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
David, the reasons were so unpersuasive that they might as well not have existed.JoePeschel (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS (particularly 4b). —David Levy 05:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that “writer of a literary work” is the meaning of “author” in this context. But the term “author” is very broad and all sorts of people can legitimately be called “authors.” I’d hate to include Poe in that same group of folks, like Rosie O'Donnell, who are called “authors.”If we are going to say “poet,” “playwright,” and “literary critic,” we need to include “short story writer,” which Poe is arguably best known as.JoePeschel (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I have yet to see anyone suggest he be listed as "playwright". Why keep mentioning it? Look, "short story writer" is inaccurate because it makes it appear we are ignorant of his play, novels, essays, sketches, and other prose writings not considered a "tale". On the other hand, neither "writer" nor "author" is not inaccurate. For further information on his authorship and/or writings, there's a whole article beneath that one sentence. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I’m sorry my example of “playwright” confused you. I gave “playwright” only as an example of what we call one who writes that specific form called a play. We call poet someone who writes that specific form called a poem. We call “literary critic” someone who writes that specific form called literary criticism. So, “short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic” is the most accurate description.JoePeschel (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
An incidental point: It is hard for any one person to generalize "what Poe is known for". Perhaps in our individual experiences, he is known best as a short story writer, but I have interacted professionally with scholars from other countries who know Poe first and foremost for his novel. I add that just for further criticism of the reasoning presented here for "short story writer" as the best and sole acceptable descriptor. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It’s not particularly difficult determine what Poe is known for. I think we can all agree that he is known for his short stories, poems, and literary criticism. I’ve never encountered any right-headed literary scholar who recognizes Poe “first and foremost for his novel.” Who would that be? As for short story writer being “the best and sole acceptable descriptor”-I’ve never said that. I’ve said he should be described as “short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic”; if you wanted to add novelist, that’s fine.JoePeschel (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm not sure Joe Peschel understands the level of discussion, debate, and consensus that is required for an article to reach featured status. The wording of this article's lead is the result of a very long process that accounted for every one of your concerns, such as they are. As another editor pointed out above, you should read WP:HEAR. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


Kevin, You should follow your own advice and read WP:HEAR. I’ve no idea how the Poe article reached the status you ascribe to it. The article’s lead, “…Poe…was an American author, poet, editor, and “literary critic…” is flawed. It should read, “…Poe…was an American short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic…” The phrase “short story writer” is precisely accurate, as precise and accurate as “poet” and “literary critic”; the phrase fits with the other descriptive elements of the lead sentence. Now, a few other contributors here contend that “short story writer” is “far too specific,” which seems incredibly odd, since those other “editors” don’t see a problem with the other accurate descriptors: “poet” and “literary critic.” To reiterate: “short story writer” is no more “too specific than “poet” and “literary critic.” It seems the other editors want to use “author” as a catch-all phrase that includes everything Poe ever wrote. But if we use “author” as such a catch-all phrase, then we would not need to write: “poet, editor, and literary critic,” since “author” includes “poet,” “editor,” and “literary critic,” and would be redundant. The idea of removing “poet, editor, and literary critic,” though, seems intuitively wrong-headed. Instead, we should eliminate “author” and replace it with “short story writer”; thus, again, “…Poe…was an American short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic….” My guess is that the resistance to the proper replacing of “author” with “short story writer,” is the result of some need to maintain a poorly reasoned status quo. JoePeschel (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Evidently, WP:HEAR didn't do the trick, so please see WP:THETRUTH. —David Levy 18:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, idea, David! I agree Kevin should do that.JoePeschel (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
To move right along: Consensus thus far has indicated that "short story writer" is not a good usage for this article. I'm not sure why one editor absolutely refuses to acknowledge this. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Midnightdreary, I’m not sure why you and David Levy, Hallward's Ghost, Paine absolutely insist on ignoring my explanations for using “short story writer” as the correct replacement for the absurdly broad catch-all phrase “author.” There are plenty of similar bios that correctly use “short story writer” as a descriptor. So, I’ve moved this argument on to a resolution page.JoePeschel (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It's become difficult to continue assuming good faith on your part. I can't help but wonder whether you're purposely engaging in the behavior proscribed on the project pages linked above. —David Levy 00:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
If it is your choice to continue the process of dispute resolution, then that is of course one option. You are learning what I learned in one of my first major discussions about a change I wanted to make to an article. You are learning about consensus and how it is the heart of Wikipedia editing. If you want to change something that turns out to be controversial, then you must first garner a consensus among the community of contributors. It is consensus and only consensus that either maintains status quo or makes changes to improve this encyclopedia. Thus far, you have not garnered a consensus to alter this article's lead. Paine  01:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I admit that I came here from the DRN because it caught my eye. I expected that the "overwhelming consensus" would be just that. Maybe I am getting the wrong end of the stick, but I would have to agree with JoePeschel that, in context, "short story writer" would be a better term than "author". I believe that most articles on authors either refer to their subject as "author" or give a list of the genres of literature in which they are most noted (as is done here). I'd have thought "poet" should come first, then the rest of the list. Of course Poe is an "author", but to use the term in the context of this list is tautology. Deb (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Deb, quite a to-do over a one-word replacement, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Allan_Poe&diff=685268128&oldid=684639271

It seems other editors want to include a catch-all phrase like “author” or “writer” to cover every thing mentioned in this bio that Poe ever wrote. But it’s unnecessary to use such a general, all-inclusive descriptor in the first sentence, and such a descriptor doesn’t fit in with the specific “poet” or “literary critic.” To “author” followed by “poet” and “literary critic” is redundant. Better stick with the specific and write: “American sort story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic” “novelist could be added too. If that sentence seems too long, break it up thusly:

"Poe was an American short story writer, poet, editor, [novelist,] and literary critic. He is widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole. (I'm not particular about the order of these precise descriptors.)

Anything else Poe wrote could be introduced much later in the bio—something like Poe also wrote This, That, and Other.

Other Wikipedia bios appropriate omit the “author” catch-all and they lose nothing for that. Moreover, other encyclopedias see no need to use a catch-all phrase in the ledes of their Poe biographies. JoePeschel (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


Other featured articles on authors that actually use the term "author" or "writer" who worked in multiple genres: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., Nathaniel Parker Willis, Stephen Crane, Maya Angelou, Samuel Johnson, etc. I'm afraid there is no obvious majority. I also disagree extremely that "poet" would come first for Poe. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I recognise that there are examples of this tautology, but Stephen Crane and Samuel Johnson are both inappropriate examples as they conform to the norm, ie. neither of them couples the word "author" in the same clause with more specific terms. I can also well see that there might be disagreement as to which of Poe's preferred genres might come first. But I can't see what the argument is for not including "short story writer" and "novelist" in the opening list in preference to "author". Articles don't become set in stone just because they have been GAs or FAs. Deb (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Other encyclopedias also see no need to use the word author in their bio of Poe:

Encyclopedia Britannica

"Edgar Allan Poe, (born January 19, 1809, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.—died October 7, 1849, Baltimore, Maryland), American short-story writer, poet, critic, and editor who is famous for his cultivation of mystery and the macabre. His tale ‘The Murders in the Rue Morgue’ (1841) initiated the modern detective story, and the atmosphere in his tales of horror is unrivaled in American fiction. His ‘The Raven’ (1845) numbers among the best-known poems in the national literature."

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Edgar-Allan-Poe

Encyclopedia of World Biography 2004 "Edgar Allan Poe was best known to his own generation as an editor and critic; his poems and short stories commanded only a small audience. But to some extent in his poems, and to an impressive degree in his tales, he pioneered in opening up areas of human experience for artistic treatment at which his contemporaries only hinted. His vision asserts that reality for the human being is essentially subterranean, contradictory to surface reality, and profoundly irrational in character. Two generations later he was hailed by the symbolist movement as the prophet of the modern sensibility."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Edgar_Allan_Poe.aspx

The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.2015

"Edgar Allan Poe, 1809–49, American poet, short-story writer, and critic, b. Boston. He is acknowledged today as one of the most brilliant and original writers in American literature. His skillfully wrought tales and poems convey with passionate intensity the mysterious, dreamlike, and often macabre forces that pervaded his sensibility. He is also considered the father of the modern detective story."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Edgar_Allan_Poe.aspx#4

World Encyclopedia 2005

“Poe, Edgar Allan (1809–49) US poet and short-story writer. Much of his finest poetry, such as ‘The Raven’ (1845), deals with fear and horror in the tradition of the Gothic novel. Other works include the poem ‘Annabel Lee’ (1849), and the stories ‘The Fall of the House of Usher’ (1839), ‘The Murders in the Rue Morgue’ (1841), and ‘The Pit and the Pendulum’ (1843).”

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Edgar_Allan_Poe.aspx#5

New World Encyclopedia

“Edgar Allan Poe (January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American poet, short-story writer, editor and literary critic, and is considered part of the American Romantic Movement. Best known for his tales of mystery and the macabre, Poe was one of the earliest American practitioners of the short story. He is considered the inventor of the detective fiction genre as well as contributing to the emerging genre of science fiction.”

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Edgar_Allan_PoeJoePeschel (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


I don't recall suggesting this article was set in stone and apologize if I implied it. I was merely pointing out recognized, high quality articles that I felt did not conform to the standard you mentioned. I do think we need representative terms here, but none of us (so far as I know) believe Poe should be qualified as a novelist or playwright in the opening line. Can we take that off the table, at least? Also, should we be on the dispute page for this discussion at this point? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Really, Midnightdreary? not set in stone. You certainly acted liked it was…till now. Yeah, we can omit "novelist" and "playwright" in the lede.JoePeschel (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't really think we should be on the dispute page. I would agree with some of the comments above that it's not really the right place for resolving this kind of issue and I'm not involved in any case. But I do think we need wider participation in the discussion if the dispute - if that's what it is - is to be amicably resolved. I'll put a note on the dispute page to that effect if it helps. Deb (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: What would people say to an opening sentence similar to the one in the Samuel Johnson article, eg. "author who made lasting contributions to American literature as a poet, short story writer, novelist, editor and literary critic" ? Deb (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a counter suggestion: "Edgar Allan Poe was an American writer who particularly wrote short stories, poetry, and literary criticism." I know it is still not all-inclusive and it risks the tautology mentioned above but it may, perhaps, alleviate one editor's concerns while still satisfying those of others. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm okay with that structural change with slight alteration: "Edgar Allan Poe was an American author who wrote poems, short stories and literary criticisms." I think that's almost what the lead sentence in its present form tries to convey; however, this change gives it much more clarity. Painius  15:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
There’s really no need to include “author.” As I’ve said, the lede does not need a catch-all phrase to cover everything this article will go on to say Poe wrote. I’ve given examples of Poe bios from other encyclopedias. As for: "Edgar Allan Poe was an American author [or writer] who wrote poems, short stories and literary criticisms"—the sentence is unnecessarily wordy, probably because of a desire to hang onto “author” or “writer.” "Edgar Allan Poe was an American poet, short story and literary critic” seems fine.JoePeschel (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Overall, the Poe article is not badly written; it could use some editing: tightening and general clean-up. I’m only interested improving the article.JoePeschel (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, at least you agree it's "not badly written." Since it has reached featured status, I assumed that was a given, but I guess not. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I think, to be sure of that, you'd have to check what changes have been made since it obtained feature status. All wikipedia articles are subject to change and can deteriorate as well as improving if no one is keeping an eye out (although obviously, in this case, lots of people are).Deb (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested wording[edit]

[references omitted for clean talk page formatting]

Edgar Allan Poe (/p/; born Edgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American author, editor, and literary critic. Poe is best known for his poetry and short stories, particularly his tales of mystery and the macabre. Widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole, he was one of the country's earliest practitioners of the short story. Poe is generally considered the inventor of the detective fiction genre and is further credited with contributing to the emerging genre of science fiction. He was the first well-known American writer to try to earn a living through writing alone, resulting in a financially difficult life and career.

David Levy 19:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I much prefer Levy's version. And with that, I take my leave from this "discussion" that is starting to seem like a bridge to nowhere. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe born Edgar Poe; January 19, 1809– October 7, 1849) was an American poet, short story writer, editor, and literary critic, widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole.

--JoePeschel (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your preference has been conveyed quite clearly. I've proposed a compromise, indented to avoid commingling the catch-all "author" and the specific "poet" by shifting the latter (in the form of "poetry") to the following sentence, paired with your desired mention of short stories. —David Levy 20:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The DRN and consensus[edit]

The "moderator" at the DRN has no experience editing this article, and is of little value in contributing to this discussion. That noticeboard actually seems quite pointless, and of little use other than trying to stir up a bit of trouble. The discussion here has led to a local consensus, which should be (and is) binding regarding the wording of this article's lede. I have seen one editor agitating for his preferred wording, while other editors have (mostly) patiently explained why that wording is not best. At some point, such discussions end, and local consensus holds. I contend that point has arrived. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 06:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It is important to use the correct jargon: the term local consensus refers to something bad because it refers to a situation where, for example, some fans of a topic agree among themselves to add external links throughout an article whereas in fact a local consensus cannot override established procedures. There is no need to prolong the agony—all that is required is to respond to new points raised on this talk page, or to revert any edits for which there is no consensus here. People are welcome to invite (in a manner consistent with WP:CANVASS) others to participate in order to test whether the consensus evident on this page is merely local. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I had no idea that "local consensus" had any bad connotations. I apologize. My meaning was simply that consensus amongst people who actually know what's going on in this situation (read: not the DRN "moderator") is fairly clear. I am only a Poe dilettante, but at least one of the regular editors of this page seems to be something of a scholar in the field. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hope everyone is now happy with the compromise. Deb (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No, because Peschel didn't actually use the version Levy put together up above, that he claimed in his edit summary to be using. I have modified his change to reflect what he CLAIMED in his edit summary to be inserting. It's becoming harder and harder to assume good faith when Peschel does something like this, after agitating against consensus for days and days. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Joe requested that modification in the DRN discussion (and indicated that this would resolve the dispute). Painius and I agreed (and no one objected). —David Levy 20:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to "resolve the dispute" by agreeing to what someone insists on. Imagine how that would work out on articles which are really contentious—one or two obsessive contributors cannot block consensus. However, the fact that a high level of cluelessness has been demonstrated is not relevant for what wording should be used in the article, and what happens on this page in the next few days will determine the agreed wording. It is likely that the current "writer, editor and literary critic" will be accepted as several editors followed the DRN discussion, however for the future please bear in mind that discussions on another page like WP:DRN have no weight other than to serve as an indication for what will be agreed here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No argument from me. I reverted to "writer" strictly because its replacement with "author" stemmed from a misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting that such wording (or the rest of the lead, or any part of the article) is off-limits to normal editing. As always, the content's inclusion remains subject to consensus. —David Levy 23:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • So now we're having "discussions" where "moderators" accuse people of "personal attacks" (where none existed) on a talkpage other than the one designed for discussions of article content? If we're really conducting our discussions about article content in such a way, then you guys do your thing. I won't be participating further at this article, as decisions about such things should be made here, not at some pointless, navel-gazing noticeboard. Wow. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 22:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    I agree with you. But from a pragmatic standpoint, I didn't consider the inclusion of "author" important enough to prolong that unpleasant experience. If it's important to you, feel free to revert to it on that basis. I undid your edit strictly because it stemmed from a misunderstanding, not because I believe that "writer" is locked in and mustn't be changed. —David Levy 23:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    I think it's ludicrous that we've let another editor simply bully his way through what was already a consensus-based wording, simply because he didn't like it. That's no way to go about editing an encyclopedia. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 03:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    I have serious concerns about DRN, where the volunteer who ultimately handled the case described it as "one of the less-than-common successes for this noticeboard" on the talk page. (They seldom go this well, apparently.) I noticed that the process was nominated for shutdown in March 2013, with three of four criticisms (all of which were supposed to be addressed) describing its current problems with uncanny accuracy. —David Levy 05:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps part of the problem, as noted by several editors, is that DRN is not the correct venue for the type of dispute opened there by a fairly new editor. And yet, how is a new editor to know this? A new editor goes to WP:DR and quickly makes it down to WP:DR#Resolving content disputes with outside help to find that the very first suggested venue is WP:DRN. In the past IIRC, that section began with WP:3O and DRN was farther down after 3O and RfC. Looks like someone along the way decided that DRN should be placed first on that list. Maybe this discussion should be on the DR talk page(?), because it appears that we do new users an injustice by placing DRN at the top of the list for resolving talk page disputes. Pleasant pathways, Painius  05:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think adjusting the order of items at WP:DR would help much. WP:3O is only useful when there are only two editors in a disagreement, and properly setting up an RfC is too tricky for a new user. and we should not encourage an RfC for every quibble. The actual problem is that the people monitoring DRN are pretty clueless (in fact, that's why they're monitoring DRN). I've seen several cases where someone has got in a dispute where it is screamingly obvious they are going the wrong way, yet they have been welcomed at DRN and others invited to repeat the obvious, in detail. Of course a minority view may be correct, so some time should be given to check each case. However, the DRN people seem unaware of the fact that exhaustively proving that an obviously mistaken reporter is in fact mistaken has a detrimental effect on other good editors who are not here for a debating class. Please don't waste any further time on this by commenting about DRN or at DRN because nothing would be achieved. We can't solve all problems. Everyone should just focus on the article wording—if you're happy with it, fine. Otherwise, change it, and forget about DRN. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    That is probably some of the best advice ever given on WP, Johnuniq; however, it's too late Face-smile.svg. I've already brought this up at WT:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Concerns. Do you really think RfC is too tricky? My first RfC went pretty smoothly, and I truly think that if this fairly new editor had opened an RfC here on this page, they would have been quite astounded by the sheer number of objectors; I could be wrong. Pleasant pathways, Painius  06:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    Good luck, maybe my doom-and-gloom will be shown to be wrong! Re an RfC: the main problem is that we would drown in RfCs (and people would give up checking them) if one were opened for every disagreement. Often a new user will word an RfC incorrectly by putting their case in the question or otherwise slanting the issue: that's what I meant about a properly set up RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you! and I've seen experienced editors, even admins, begin RfCs and RMs with very non-neutral statements. Pleasant pathways, Painius  07:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to witness this display of sour grapes. You could have had a proper discussion here, and that was what I would have recommended Joe to do, rather than going to DRN. Nevertheless, you eventually had a constructive discussion in a more open forum where a compromise was ultimately reached. The wording of the introductory paragraph now is better than it was, partly because some contributors have been prepared to see both points of view instead of sticking to the position that "there are more of us than there are of you, so get lost" - which was what was being said previously. It's not like there were dozens of people desperately keen to keep the word "author", and it's noticeable that one or two contributors adopted a more open-minded attitude once within the DRN environment, which led to this conclusion. To suggest that one person can "bully" four or five others into submission is laughable. Deb (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    We can show differing viewpoints all day long whether or not the DRN discussion was "constructive" or destructive to a lead sentence in a featured article that has been agonized over for a long time. Where we all seem to agree is that DRN was a jump of the gun, and that the initial informal discussion on this talk page should have become an RfC. One editor who won't back down against four editors is actually somewhat compelling to me, because I've actually been through that a few times. An RfC for an article like Poe's would have probably produced several more editors and would have resulted in either upholding the status quo or a new consensus. DRN, in my view, should only be used as a last resort after an unsatisfying RfC has ended. So who put it at the top of the list at WP:DR? I was the one who pointed JoePeschel to that policy, but too late I find out that someone has put DRN at the top of the list above even WP:3O! So it wasn't JoePeschel's fault if that editor went there, read that, and decided to take the content dispute to DRN instead of opening an RfC here on this page. How can DRN possibly show anyone what the true community consensus is? That takes an RfC. As for one person bullying several? That editor had help going against the FA consensus – help from DRN, which did not bring out the long-term consensus. It's not designed to do that; it's designed to settle disputes for which consensus cannot be determined. Pleasant patways, Painius  16:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    As I've explained repeatedly on DRN's talk page, I originally proposed exactly the same wording (which Joe eventually accepted, contingent upon the replacement of "author" with "writer") here. It's in the section directly above this one. As you can see, Joe ignored it and reiterated his desired wording. So no, there wasn't "a more open-minded attitude once within the DRN environment, which led to this conclusion". There was an editor who refused to even discuss alternatives to his preference, found an apparent opportunity to get the answer he wanted, and finally agreed to fall back on a previously rejected compromise when his intended outcome again failed to materialize. DRN didn't host "a constructive discussion". It prolonged the dispute, thereby diverting multiple editors' time from improving the encyclopedia to rehashing arguments and struggling to comply with an inexplicably esoteric format that appears to exist for reasons unknown even to its enforcers. —David Levy 17:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    You've certainly been at this longer than I have, David; however, I can see the value in DR as a last resort if there is a close !vote and good rationales on both sides at an RfC. I could be way off base, but it looks as if someone at DR got bored for lack of disputes and raised the level of DRN so that new editors who are involved in the first levels of dispute will choose DRN over RfC. Until that has been revised in the manner I described on this talk page (and it looks as though that won't happen in the near future), I won't point editors in the direction of WP:DR and in the future will find a better way to advise contributors like JoePeschel. Pleasant pathways, Painius  06:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    To be clear, I'm not condemning DRN's very existence (though I believe that the process is in need of improvement). My point is that this particular case shouldn't have been accepted (and certainly shouldn't be celebrated as a "success" or cited as an example of the forum fostering cooperation). —David Levy 08:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. It resulted in a compromise in spite of your and another editor's best efforts to prevent it from working. Congratulations or something. If you had spent half the time trying to work collaboratively that you spent attacking me and one other editor, the result would probably have been the same but more pleasant. Congratulations or something. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
What on Earth are you talking about? I proposed the compromise. I did so on this talk page and was ignored by the DRN case's initiator. Then I proposed it again at DRN, per your request. Then I agreed to a modification that the case's initiator requested. When a misunderstanding led to that change's reversal, I explained the situation and reverted from my preferred terminology to that of the case's initiator.
After all of that, you allege that I sought to prevent the compromise – the one that I proposed twice – and attacked editors instead of working collaboratively. I'm flabbergasted. —David Levy 07:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015[edit]

Some information in here is not completly correct, David090720 (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Are the images reversed?[edit]

I am by no stretch of the imagination any kind of an expert on Poe, when I clicked on a link under your image of the Annie Daguerreotype I noted that both images on that link, the ones of the "annie" and "stella" images, are reverse images of those in your article. Someone, I suppose must have made a mistake, either you or whoever did the work on the link. http://www.eapoe.org/papers/misc1921/deas109a.htm

Just trying to help. Please keep up the great work you do! You have become the best source of information I have ever seen, or ever expect to see. Tom G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.133.159 (talkcontribs) 04:31, 5 January 2016

Thanks. I'm not any kind of expert either, but someone will fix any problem or comment here. I'm just clarifying by formatting your comment and noting that clicking the eapoe.org link given above shows the image known as the "Annie Daguerreotype". My guess is that it looks different from what is shown at the top of this article because our image is a cropped version of the full picture—that is, it shows only a part of the picture. Johnuniq (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Daguerreotypes like those of Poe are, by definition, mirror images, unlike modern photography. Sometimes they are displayed as the artifact they are, other times they are edited such that the subject would appear as if you were looking directly at him/her. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent numbers[edit]

Was the circulation of the Southern Literary Messenger increased to 3,500 as this article says, or 5,500 as the linked article says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.80.112 (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

One is cited to a source, the other is not. I would trust the former. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete or replace this reference?[edit]

The link in a reference called "homepage", presently no. 148, contains no information about Poe. It is a GoDaddy place-holder. If it can't be replaced, it should be deleted IMO, but I'll leave that decision to "the regulars". --Hordaland (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed and thank you! Good catch, Hordaland! The "poeboston.org" should have been "bostonpoe.org", so I replaced that and used the title at the website. Keep 'em comin'!  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  21:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the original URL was correct. The web site is just no longer active. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it – thank you very much, Midnightdreary, hope good times are yours evermore!  Paine  03:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)