Talk:Ezra Pound/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Cantos absent?

The introduction feels unsatisfactory in that it doesn't mention the Cantos and that it features a typically-opaque Kenner squib. It seems to me that long after there is no-one alive who cares what Modernism and Imagism were, there will be people who read and love (or hate) the Cantos. I'm a fairly-serious student of EP, and while I respect Kenner's achievement, he doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph.

Absent some push-back, I will adjust the introduction to include the Cantos and exclude Kenner Tim Bray 09:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I agree. This article is on my list of things to do once The Cantos is finished, but if you want to do it, great. The Pound article could be 3 times its curent size. Filiocht 08:44, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Scholarship statements NPOV

This portion: It is worth noting he was a shoddy scholar, and was always looking to cut corners. His translations often have laughable errors. His Chinese translations especially are not taken terribly serious. doesn't sound like NPOV. A reputable encyclopedia article would not contain the word "shoddy". I request that someone refine this, and perhaps through in examples of poor quality in his translation. Kricxjo 16:17, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The following sounds like an editorial rather than a set of facts about Pound. Scholarship was not, of course, the point. Literal translations were not his intention; Pound was a poet, not an academic scholar. His concern was to breathe new air into voices of antiquity. Reading Confucius in English is quite different from reading it in the original. The question was how to translate a text so it lives again, almost as a contemporary work, in a new language and new time.- 26 september


Pound's translations were often creative exercises, focused more on making a good poem than cobbling together a crib sheet, ie, a word to word bridge from the original into contemporary English. [cf (Sullivan "Ezra Pound and Sextus Propertius: A Study in Creative Translation" Texas, 1964) and EP on how logopoeia, melopoeia and phanopoeia make a "good poem" (ABC of Reading)] ~Mark Witucke 21 May, 2007

Filiocht rewrite

If anyone is interested, I am rewriting this article at User:Filiocht/Ezra Pound and intend moving that rewrite to here when completed unless anyone objects? Filiocht 12:01, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Here's the text I am overwriting for handy reference (Filiocht 14:45, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)):

Ezra Weston Loomis Pound (October 30, 1885 - November 1, 1972) was a poet and critic who, along with T. S. Eliot, was one of the major figures of the modernist movement in early 20th century poetry. He was the driving force behind several modernist movements, notably Imagism and Vorticism.
Hugh Kenner, on meeting Pound: "I suddenly knew that I was in the presence of the center of modernism."
Pound was born in Hailey, Idaho. He was educated at the University of Pennsylvania (where at age 16, he met William Carlos Williams, then a young medical student) and at Hamilton College. He taught at Wabash College for less than a year, and afterward settled in London, after months in Venice. He had thought W. B. Yeats was the greatest living poet, and befriended him in England. His intelligence, confidence and verve found him a place in London's premier artistic circles. He married Dorothy Shakespear in 1914. In 1924, he moved to Italy, settling in Rapallo.
Pound's early books created a sensation in England, and he was considered the cutting edge in the years just prior to World War I. Yeats was moved by Pound's work to modify his own style, abandoning the pre-Raphaelite techniques that characterized his early poetry.
He lived in the Montparnasse Quarter of Paris, France for a time during the gathering of great artists. Frequently, Pound could be seen at the café Le Dome, playing chess on the terrace with Ford Madox Ford.
In the early 30s Pound moved to Rapallo, Italy. Economics became his obsession and Mussolini his great hope. He compared the Fascist to the princes of Renaissance Italy. During World War II he volunteered to speak on cultural subjects on Italian radio. The broadcasts are overtly political, however, and his political sentiments were clear enough: he hated Roosevelt, and the usury of world banking - which he pinned on the Jews. The Allies would lose the war, he thought. And wars were needless--they were started only to create debt--he thought.
After the war he was incarcerated outdoors in an open cage (the infamous "gorilla cage") at Pisa for twenty-five days, then for medical reasons (he considered himself broken by his time in the cage) in a tent. During the six months spent at Pisa living with the American GIs he worked on his translation of Confucius and wrote the Pisan Cantos.
"The enormous tragedy of the dream in the peasant's bent/ shoulders" they begin, written on scraps of paper and using a typewriter in the medical tent after-hours. For books, Pound had the Chinese of Confucius, possibly James Legge's translation too, a Chinese dictionary, all of which he pocketed before the MPs took him away, an anthology of verse he found at the latrine, & a standard military issue Bible. The setting of these Cantos is as much Pound's memory, specifically of London, as the Italian landscape, and the collapse of Fascist Italy.
He was transferred to the US and tried for treason, found insane and subsequently imprisoned in a mental institution in Washington, D.C. (St. Elizabeth's Hospital) for 12 years.
Distinguished and recognized writers, in spite of Pound's politics, awarded him the Bollingen-Library of Congress Award for the Pisan Cantos.
Repeated appeals from writers earned him release from the hospital in 1958, and he returned to Italy, settling in Venice, where he was to complete his life.
In terms of his views on translation, the back cover of Pound's Confucius offers, "Pound never wanted to be a literal translator. What he could do, as no other could, is to identify the essence, pick out 'what matters now,' and phrase it so pungently, so beautifully, that it will stick in the head and start new thinking."
The 800-odd paged Cantos, which Pound described as "a poem including history", was his major work. The two line haiku-like In a Station of the Metro is well known and frequently anthologized.
Allen Ginsberg said, "He was the poet of the age." after the news came that Pound had died.
In addition to his poetry, Pound would be remembered as a great advocate for poets, the classics, the arts; in fact, as he viewed it, he was pushing for a new civilization. He tirelessly promoted artists he thought were creating innovative, good work. Upon seeing Robert Frost's first book and recognizing his talent, he took up Frost in England and quickly became an informal advocate. He was instrumental or absolutely vital in getting James Joyce, William Carlos Williams, and T. S. Eliot published. Eliot's "The Waste Land" was heavily pared by Pound, which led Eliot to dedicate the poem to him, "the better craftsman" (in Italian, which were Dante's words.) Pound wrote extensively on the arts, including a book-length "Guide to Kulchur", and "ABC of Reading". Charles Olson, one of many directly influenced by "Old Ez", expressed at Berkeley in 1965, his thought that Pound had freed the languages of the world.
"The thought of what America would be like/ If the classics had a wide circulation/ Ah, well, it troubles my sleep."
"No man ever knows enough about any art." (Guide to Kulchur)

Article too reverent

I'm sorry, but this article is far too reverent. Pound's reputation as a poet is very much open to question, and the article should reflect that. There were numerous qualifications in the earlier versions that seem to have been systematically removed. Things I have a problem with:

- why include the Kenner quote at all?

-"he convinced his mentor to adopt a more direct way of writing, helping to bring about Yeats' mature style." This interpretation of Yeat's development has been in question for thirty years now, since Harold Bloom's study.

      • But mss and typescripts of Yeats poems with Pound's (accepted) suggestions exist. Filiocht 12:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

-"His translations of Japanese Noh plays influenced Yeats' writing" - Pound didn't translate from Japanese; he didn't know Japanese, and the only influence on Yeats was the idea of Noh drama rather than any actual texts

      • Pounds workings of Noh plays from Felonosa's notes were well known to Yeats. Filiocht 12:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

-for that matter, why have the references to Pound's exaggeration of his translation skills been removed? Is there some reason that people looking up information on Pound should not be told that he didn't know Chinese or Japanese?

-"Imagism and Vorticism. These two movements, which helped bring to notice the work of poets and artists like James Joyce" - neither of those movements had anything to do with Joyce

      • Joyce was in the Imigast anthology. Filiocht 12:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

-"can be seen as perhaps the central events in the birth of English-language modernism." or perhaps not

        • Hence the perhaps. Filiocht 12:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

-"The Cantos, which he began in 1915, pointed his way forward." I don't find this to be a NPOV statement; some of us - a lot of us - think The Cantos were a complete wrong turn that went nowhere.

      • Clearly refers to Pound's way forward. Filiocht 12:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

-"Pound was one of the first to successfully employ free verse in extended compositions." somehow it has to be noted that many do not consider his efforts successful

-"He also translated and championed Greek and Latin classics and helped keep these alive for poets at a time when classical education was in decline." Pound did not do that much classical translation, and I don't think he's ever been considered particularly important in keeping classical learning going. User:66.190.242.110 4:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why not create a user account and add what you feel you want added? Filiocht

Facism and Anti-Semitism

I could not source the statement that Ezra Pound's anti-semitic leanings had their genesis at the University of Idaho. According to the University of Idaho library, though he was a fixture within its library, his tastes in reading ran more to the left and radicalism than towards facism. I removed the statement. Can someone source it correctly?

Most scholars agree that Pound's anti-semitism dates from the 1930s, and almost everybody misses the fact that there is more anti-Christian and anti-Buddhist sentiment in his writings than anti-Jewish. While not at all wishing to deny that Pound was, for a long period of time, clearly anti-semitic, this article seems to be overly concerned with this aspect of his life, to the detriment of any serious discussion of the important role he played in 20th C English-language poetry. Now that I have finished working on The Cantos, I hope to do some work here, meanwhile I absolutely agree that theis statement should be removed until a decent attribution is given. Filiocht 08:57, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

No other person researched this aspect of his life? --Duemellon 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

_________
Pound's views on money, banks, conspiracy changed after he read Willis A. Overholser's A Short Review and Analysis of the History of Money in the United States (published by the author, Libertyville, Ill., 1936.) As if he learned most of what he knew from this book; or the very least was guided by this book in a certain direction. Overholser was also the name of the superintendent of St. Elizabeth. Pound probably heard and learned more about the Jews from the social crediters in England than at Idaho University. --nt351 2008 June 17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.108.102 (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


Additionally, the page contained an allegation that one of Pound's frequent visitors at St. Elizabeth's was the "then-chairman of the States' Rights Democratic Party" and that Pound "used to discuss strategy and tactics on how best to rally public support for the preservation of racial segregation in the American South." This statement was not cited, and a Google search revealed no sources. While this certainly could be true, it is a large enough allegation that it should be properly documented if it is to remain. Josiahseale 19:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


It strikes me as somewhat bizarre that the article refers to "the charge of antisemitism" as if there is argument as to whether or not Pound was an antisemite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.83.31.1 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


I agree with the speaker above. In Kenner's book on Pound, he tends to skirt the anti-Semitism somewhat, but he does talk about the origins of Pound's crank views on money in the works of the founder of Social Credit, Major Douglas. Douglas is noted in at least one of the Cantos, so there is no doubt Pound knew of him, and probably read him. And Douglas too, along with other Social Crediters, was anti-Semitic, because they tended to associate bankers with Jews, and usury specifically with Jewish bankers. As to Pound's anti-Semitism, this was not a mere passing phase, but a long-held and elaborated view. If you read the radio transcripts, you will find some absolutely venomous stuff, and I think the article needs to reflect this aspect of Pound's beliefs, since it bears directly on any claim staked in the Cantos to creating a poetic history of the western tradition, which means that it also bears directly on Pound's claim to be a major American poet. On the subjects of both money and anti-Semitism (as they colour Pound's work and life) the article is essentially misleading, and soft-pedals both subjects. Theonemacduff (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone left a note

User:Hippopotamus left a note at the new user log that relates to this article [1]. I'll put this note here and on Talk:The Cantos. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. it doesn't look like a copyvio problem or even too much plagarism, but rather is asking for a reference/credit where his book has been quoted. I'm not sure which sections are in question, but the book is
ISBN 370520405X A Beginner's Guide to The Cantos of Ezra Pound, Roland John
This seems fair enough; and, assuming the book was referenced/quoted, would also be the proper thing to do. -- Solipsist 6 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
I couldn't see myself where he thought his book was quoted either, but rather than go trawling through I thought it best to just note the message here and leave it for those who've worked on the article to determine if it was an oversight and his book was used or if there is just a coincidental similarity somewhere. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

(Also posted on Talk:The Cantos.) Trilobite, I don't think Hippopotamus is alleging plagiarism, but simply proper use of his book, which he wants to see referenced. I've left a note on Hippopotamus' talk page, telling him that Filiocht is the author of The Cantos and also (I think) the main presence behind Ezra Pound. Filiocht is on holiday, but likely to return quite soon, so I asked if Hippopotamus would like to tell me more about it, so I can take care of referencing his work and anything else that arises, or would rather wait for Filiocht. Bishonen | talk 6 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

Well I would tend to call the use of a source without citing it plagiarism, particularly where it would involve the use of someone's interpretation of a literary work rather than a simple fact, though you're probably right that Hippopotamus wasn't suggesting dishonesty but an oversight. By the way, in case there was any doubt, I wouldn't dream of accusing Filiocht of plagiarism, and I was pretty sceptical about the suggestion myself, so I was just leaving notification of the message from Hippopotamus, no more than that. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
I have never read this book. Filiocht | Talk 08:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

About Pound's Incarceration

I found this section confusing, & frankly incoherent. Obviously, there are numerous opinions over his involuntary committment to St. Elizabeth's. (From what I remember in college, the usual explanation for it was that 1. if we wasn't clearly insane before, his stay in a military prison had made him now, & 2. better an indefinite stay in a relatively safe mental institution than risk a trial for treason & a possible death sentence.) However, these various opinions are presented in a confusing variety of ways:

  • We are told that "Pound was conceited and flamboyant", which is why he was misdiagnosed. This is an unattributed opinion that could be assumed to be a medical fact.
  • His incarceration is explaned as an abuse of government powers. This evades the fact he was accused of having committed treason, an offense for which other individuals were executed (e.g., William Joyce) at the time.
  • Now we reach an attributed POV -- "E. Fuller Torrey believed that Mussolini's propagandist was coddled by Winfred Overholser, the superintendent of St. Elizabeths." I guess by "coddled" he means that Pound was not treated as badly as the average mental inmate of the time -- which was very bad. Also, the phrase "Mussolini'd propagandist" is quite strong considering how little attention had been given previously to his infamous radio broadcasts.
  • Then we are told that he had a large number of unsavory visitors -- including an unnamed "then-chairman of the States' Rights Democratic Party" -- although we have practically no description of his more savory, intelligensia visitors. (I'm not arguing whether this is a fact: it is clear that being a famous intellectual & anti-Semite, he would attract a number of visitors of that ilk.)
  • Guy Davenport's work to rehabilitate Pound's reputation is intrusive, & IMNSHO wrong: I took a class on Pound in 1979, & even in the late 1970s his influence on 20th century poetry was widely admitted (I can recall only one professor in college who disagreed with this assessment). At the time, Hugh Kenner was the primary academic authority on Pound & his books were quite respected. (FWIW, Eustace Mullins, who claimed to be Pound's "official biographer" -- & whose article led me here -- was entirely ignored, although Pound's antisemitism wasn't.)
  • While the sentence about Pound's release is perfectly fine, the diagnosis is a bit misleading: if he was arguably sane while in St Elizabeth's, then he could stand trial for treason; if he was still insane, then he had to remain committed. (The mentally ill, in those days, were always institutionalized.) The solution was, in effect, a compromise: the government could continue to claim he was nuts -- to defend his committment & why they dropped the case; while his supporters accepted his de facto exile to Italy (a punishment, but still better than prison).

I'd rewrite this section myself, but I'm unfamiliar with the secondary literature. - llywrch 18:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Frances Gregg's Gender

A recent addition to this article identified Frances Gregg as a man and stated that both Ezra Pound and H.D. were romantically involved with Frances. I found this puzzling--while H.D.'s bisexuality is well documented, I had never heard of Pound ever becoming sexually involved with a man. A google search and a look at "The Life of Ezra Pound" by Noel Stock soon made it clear that Frances Scott was a woman. I know the male version of Frances is usually spelled FrancIs, but I assumed Gregg was merely going by an unconventional spelling.

This same mistake appeared in the article about H.D. and has since been corrected.

Devil Doll 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Gay Lobby tried, but evidently failed, this time. I'm sure they'll try again.Lestrade 22:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
I've just removed the reference, which read: H.D. also became involved with a woman named Frances Gregg around this time. Shortly afterward, H.D. and Gregg, along with Gregg's mother, went to Europe. If anyone wants to put it back, please first explain here why these lines, whatever gender anyone is, belong in the article on Ezra Pound. Strawberryjampot (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A SERIOUS REEDIT

Given Pound's centrality, I think this article is in need of a major reedit. I've tried to start this by fixing some errors (grammatical mainly) and by adding a paragraph on Cathay. The treatment of Pound's works seems cursory and uneven. There are also too few references. In my opinion, filling out the entry should precede debates about Pound's politics, etc. Help!!Benzocane 17:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Ezra Pound

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral presentation

Hi all. I like this article. I made some changes here in order to make the writing more encyclopedically neutral. If any of those - howevers - are part of a particular source's argument then feel free to restore using cites and quote marks. AlanBarnet 04:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful edits. The changes look fine to me. Paul 14:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem Paul. Its my habit to make argumentative phrasing more neutral. In this article's case it seems to be inadvertent. In other cases it can be deliberate (in cases of promotional soapboxing. Neutrality is not that easy to maintain on Wikipedia. Luckily in this case it should be fairly easy. AlanBarnet 07:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Location of DTC

I believe the camp where Pound was imprisoned was to the north of central Pisa, near the intersection of the Via Aurelia and the Via Giordano Bruno. This is not near Tirrenia, which is southwest of the city center. Deor 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Poor article

This simply seems to be a poor and cursory biography of Pound. His actual interaction with modernism just seems to be skimmed over and mentioned, but with no mention of HOW he developed modernism and what advice/criticism he gave as a critic of modernists. I'm reading a biography on Pound, and if I can catch some free time, I'll help this article. It focuses far too much on his Antisemitism IMO. I'll make my edits ADD to the article instead of taking out information, and if anyone finds me in the wrong, feel free to revert. 66.65.193.128 03:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


I agree with this utterly. The Poetry section focuses way too much on Pound's work in music and far too less on his entire oeuvre, of which his work on music was, albeit important, only a fraction. Someone needs to re-write the poetry section and there should maybe be a literary criticism section as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.216.75.225 (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor Scandal

As in this from the article:

Afterward, Pound taught at Wabash College in Crawfordsville, Indiana, for less than a year, and left as the result of a minor scandal. In 1908 he traveled to Europe, settling in London after spending several months in Venice.

Heavens to Betsy, this is like making kids jump for Snickers bars and keeping them just out of their reach ... or like holding out red meat before a wild dog ... whatever. Don't mention a scandal unless you are going to explain it; never, ever, ever, ever.

Wasn't that the thing where they took a dim view of him having a woman in his room?
Yes, fixed that. Philip Cross (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Death

Does anyone know how he died? Can't find that information anywhere. 82.163.144.250 10:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

References/Sources are there - why tag?

This article seems to list many, many references and sources - they are just not individually and specifically footnoted. They definitely should be (for example, the claim that Mussolini was not an anti-Semite should be footnoted with specific reference to a work and a specific page, etc.), but just because they're not, does that mean that this should have the References/Sources tag? The refs/sources are listed in detail, they just don't have the specific footnotes, which, again, they should, but that doesn't mean that the article is missing references/sources altogether, as the tag would suggest. OR is it a matter of Wikipedia Style Guidelines that articles without specific footnotes, regardless of the quantity and quality of their refs/sources, should get the refs/sources tag(s)? Srajan01 06:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the tag makes sense: it states that this article or section doesn't cite sources - those sections indeed don't cite anything. Having a list of books in a references section is meaningless if you don't state what content was pulled from what and where - at best such a list can demonstrate notability, reliable sources, or some such, but definitely not factual accuracy, verifiability, or no original research. Quite honestly, this article is a mess and I've been looking around for some of the books cited in an effort to adequately cite the article and make it respond to some of the criticisms listed in the talk page(s) above. --Meowist 22:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, everything should be referenced.--Gloriamarie 17:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Insanity section

This section is quite unbalanced at the moment and seems to give commentary (is Wikipedia to decide that Pound's actions weren't those of an insane man?) I inserted a (printed) reference stating that Pound was declared insane by a federal jury; the paragraph later claimed that Pound was declared insane by "the authorities" which does not exactly denote a jury. If the insanity plea was indeed controversial, let's have a reference for that. And what about this?

"Pound's controversial insanity plea is mirrored by the fate of Norwegian author and collaborator Knut Hamsun, who was dubbed insane by embarrassed authorities despite evidence in the form of subsequent published material to the contrary."

What does that have to do with Ezra Pound? That is equating his actions directly with Hamsun's, finding them both guilty, and saying that a jury and "embarrassed" authorities wrongly found them both insane-- all pretty damning accusations. This stuff needs reliable sources directly equating Pound to Hamsun, reliable sources saying Hamsun and Pound are shown guilty by the evidence, and reliable evidence showing a mistake was made with the insanity pleas or it's just POV commentary that has no place on Wikipedia.--Gloriamarie 17:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently no action was taken on this, but I agree with the above. If the parallel between the cases of Pound and Hamsun has been discussed by respected researchers, then it can be included with a proper reference. There are references in the paragraph but as far as can be told they aren't references to any scholars saying that the cases are parallel, which is like saying "Pound was a traitor like Benedict Arnold" and then backing that up with a reference to a biography of Benedict Arnold. But without such reference -- that is, a reference to legitimate scholars making the comparison -- the statement in this article comparing Pound and Hamsun is both POV and original research. I propose deleting it, unless someone can provide a reference to scholars who discuss the two cases as specifically comparable. Strawberryjampot (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Since there's been no discussion, I've deleted the Hamsun reference. Please note again that the justification for deleting it is that the comparison of the two cases is POV and original research if it's made only by a Wikipedia contributor. I'd agree that references to respectable sources that make the comparison would be acceptable. Strawberryjampot (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the historical details, but as an attorney the article is unclear: whether someone is incompetent to stand trial at the moment is a completely separate and distinct question from someone asserting the affirmative defense that they were legally insane at the time they committed a crime. Indeed, they 're mutually exclusive, at least simultaneously: if someone's incompetent to stand trial, they're incompetent to enter a plea, so Pound couldn't have plead "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect" if he'd been found incompetent and not restored to competence. Which is it? DevilLawyer (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC) DevilLawyer

Link to William Carlos William

The link that exists in the file to William Carlos William, points the wrong writer. If you examine the birth and death date you realize that Mr. Pound could have never met him. However there is another author, with the same name, with whom he was friends. There is no Wikipedia article to that author, so the link should not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.74.123.226 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The link is correct. Someone or other vandalized the dates in the WCW article ealier today, but they've been reverted. Deor 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Shortwave broadcasts from Italy were heard in the U.S.

According to William Carlos Williams, he was approached by people who had heard Pound refer to "Old Doc Williams in Rutherford, NJ" during a broadcast. He then listened to Pound's broadcasts himself. Further research should be done to source this, but, in the meantime, the implication that nobody heard the broadcasts in the U.S. should be removed from the article.

I'll try to get a source for the Williams information...

Adam Holland 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Poems

The link: Ezra Pound Poems was tentatively included in the link section, but apparently an editor removed it. Perhaps it should be emphasized that it was no spam (just not my type of thing): indeed, those poems cannot be found elsewhere online, not even on Gutenberg. Actually, about 80% of them can be found at poemhunter or at American Poems yet not all in one single page. If someone feels like including the link, can certainly do it. In a page about Ezra Pound, it seems to belong; particularly if no links to his poems are present yet, and if other resources do not provide them and/or do not list them in one page. That was the rationale (I think sensible) behind the attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.57.118 (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link because the site linked to appears to be some kind of social network/forum (it bills itself as "an innovative website for personal or professional advertisement profiles"), and linking to it is therefore discouraged by WP:EL. Deor (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I know that perfection doesn't belong to this world - said without irony, actually. It's a fact. However, since we have no links to Pound's poems and the few sites that provide them are all of a somewhat commercial nature, and all the other pages previously mentioned have the poems (though not in one page) and yet have also all banners and the alike, I thought that, somehow, a link to Ezra Pound's poems was none the less useful and an important feature to have on Pound at wikipedia.

A guideline may discourage this or that practice, but if it doesn't forbid it, the rationale exposed above has still some validity. I leave this entirely to your judgement, but a link to Ezra's poems is badly needed, at that page didn't look unprofessional - actually, I picked it exactly because, compared with the others, appeared the one with less frills and more consistency: once skipped the headers, the middle body is all Pound's stuff without the readers' comments in the way like at American Poems and Poemhunter, and without the glitzy animated banners at Poemhunter. It looked more sober, that is. You judge. Thank you anyway for your time and dedication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.57.118 (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

why does Robert Anton Wilson mention Pound?

"Pound was also interested in mysticism and the occult, but biographers have only recently begun to document his work in those fields. Leon Surrette wrote extensively of Pound's involvement in mysticism in The Birth of Modernism." <-- I wonder if that is part of the reason that in RAW's "Schrodinger's Cat" trilogy the poet Ezra Pound is often used as the fake author of the troublemaker Chaney's letters to powerful organizations... Was RAW trying to imply something about this noteable poet of which most people -- at the time of the Cat trilogy -- were not aware? Interesting... 68.149.190.31 (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jewish?

Hi was Ezra Pound Jewish? The reason that I ask is because Ezra is a common Jewish name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SceneandHeard (talk • contribs) 05:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, he wasn't. Deor (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
With questions like that, no wonder he went crazy! :)

The Occult?

The article states that Pound was interested in occultism or mysticism. In what forms--Theosophy? Classical Hermetic arts like astrology? Esoteric Christianity? What? --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.172.25 (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

With questions like that, no wonder he went crazy! :)

Antisemic

The reason I ask if Ezra Pound is Jewish with his Jewish sounding name is because perhaps his antisemic beliefs was to mask his Jewish background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SceneandHeard (talk • contribs) 13:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, he had no Jewish background. Old Testament names were (and are) frequently given to children by U.S. Protestants. Deor (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

External links

I've reverted the deletion of numerous external links, not because I want to argue they all belong in the article, but because it seems clear that a change of this nature and extent shouldn't be made without discussion, or even explanation, on the Talk page. If anyone wants to revise this section so drastically, please discuss it here first. Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One link was dead, the one added just before my edit was to somebody's essay for a college course (as the dead one also appeared to be), one duplicated a link in the Audio section, and the others did not "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" (WP:ELNO). I have my doubts about the last one ("Ezra Pound Speaking") as well, since I suspect that the texts on the site are copyvios. I'm reverting your revert. Deor (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Main picture

Do you think it is NPOV to have EP's main (and only) picture in this article be his mugshot. The first thing anyone sees is that he's been arrested. There are plenty of excellent pictures that are more characteristic of EP as a whole. I suggest that the main picture be changed. If the mugshot picture is to be retained, it should be lower in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverickenough (talk • contribs) 01:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

absolutely true. Having that mug shot is decidedly not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.98.2 (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


what the hell? just because you think the guy deserves to have his wikipedia page started by a mugshot doesn't mean it's OK. 

93.139.42.223 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that the mug shot is prejudicial, certainly as the main picture. I think it should be removed: it's so very POV that it would be better to have no leading picture than that one. This has nothing to do with whether whether Pound's admitted anti-Semitism and alleged (he was never convicted) treasonous activities should be suppressed: of course they shouldn't. The POV comes in in saying or implying that these aspects of his life are generally considered the most important things about him as a literary and historical figure, which is factually not true (factually meaning not the facts of what he did but the fact of what people, especially scholars and critics, now think of him.) Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently someone removed the picture, then someone else reverted the removal on the grounds that it hadn't been explained. I exhort people to do this in a more orderly way. I propose the following for discussion: The mug shot shouldn't be the lead or the only image. Accordingly, for the present the mug shot image should be removed, even if we don't have another image to replace it. Once a more appropriate lead image is found, then we can discuss adding the mug shot as an additional image farther down the page. If after ten days or so there's no objection to this proposal, or if discussion indicates a consensus to remove the image, then someone should remove it, with a reference on the edit history list to this discussion. Thanks. Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anything so formal is needed. I'll remove the image, with an edit summary directing folk to this conversation. I can't really see anyone objecting to the removal; I think it was just that it was unexplained that caused the reversion. Deor (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's fine with me; I was just trying to avoid triggering an edit war. If anyone disagrees about removing the image, please discuss here first before further reverts or revisions. Thanks. Strawberryjampot (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of the picture. It is the only photo we have, so it is not a matter of choosing a mugshot from among many options. It is a matter of putting a face to the name in an article about the man. It is a fact that he was arrested, which the article discusses. I don't see that there is any neutrality issue with portraying him as arrested. He was, so what's the problem? Is getting arrested inherently bad? I suppose Jesus Christ, Thomas More, and Nelson Mandela are horrible people, with the black mark of arrest on their records and all. You blush too easily. That said, if a better image of Pound is available, it should be used. Srnec (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is a matter of balance. Pound was arrested and accused of treason: so include that information. But the judgment of history so far is that that fact is significant but is not the most important thing about him: Pound is not generally considered as a fascist who happened to write poetry, but as a poet who was attracted to fascism. Giving a picture like that such prominence, by making it the only one and putting it at the top of the page, clearly suggests the former view of him, whereas the view of scholars and historians is generally the latter. Hence, using that picture as the lead and only one distorts the scholarly consensus on Pound, and is therefor POV. Strawberryjampot (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you think I'm disputing the importance of Pound's arrest? Or the "view of scholars"? There is no other image available. I suggest that a mugshot is better than no image at all. There are currently no other options. I don't see how this is a "balance" issue. No image implies unimportance, if you ask me. Viewers are less likely to read this article without an image, and if they read it they will realise what the mugshot is for. If they don't they won't, but who cares? Anybody judging a man just by one photo is not one whose opinion I care about. Srnec (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that "a mugshot is better than no image at all" (but then, I wouldn't gripe if WP had no images whatever). If you want to include the mugshot at a suitable point in the "Italy" subsection, that would be appropriate; but I agree with Strawberryjampot that it's not appropriate for the infobox image. I don't really understand the niceties of image copyright, but I don't see why the 1913 Coburn photo (which I believe used to be in the article) wouldn't be in the public domain in the United States, though I can see why copyright is claimed in Britain, since Alvin Langdon Coburn hasn't been dead for 70 years. Deor (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That image was once in the article. I haven't a clue why it can't be. The reason I prefer an image than no image is strategic: I believe users of this encyclopedia are more interested in reading when there are regular images. Sure some articles overdo it, but a main image at the top right of the article never hurts. And ultimately this encyclopedia is designed to be read. (I wouldn't mind if Wikipedia had no infoboxes, since they deter people from actually reading.) Srnec (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the re-addition of the mug shot because I think it's inappropriate for it to be added back when the issue is still under vigorous discussion and the majority of the views expressed so far are against keeping it. If we can say a consensus has been reached, then the image shouldn't be added back; if a consensus hasn't been reached, then I suggest it makes sense to follow the current clear majority view until we can reach a consensus. Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Nobody has responded to my comment on 4 February. Today is the 7th. This is vigorous discussion? The "mug shot" was cropped (by me) so that you cannot know it is a mugshot unless you are told, which you will be only if you click on the image and read its description. I did not add a caption to it. I do not know what is wrong with the image now. A Google image search shows that the cropped image is a good representation of Ezra Pound and how he looked. Srnec (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we keep to the main point, or rather two main points, one of which is procedural, and the other of substance. Procedurally, I think that while working towards a consensus we should follow the majority view, which a review of the comments so far shows is clearly not to have that image as the lead one or only one. As for the substance, that image is pointedly unflattering, looks like a mug shot whatever it's labeled, and in fact is called a mug shot in the mouseover text that appears when you place your cursor on it. For these reasons, I still think it's prejudicial to have that image as the lead or only one. That's my opinion, but if in subsequent discussion it's outweighed by comments by registered users (I don't think we should put much store in anonymous or unsigned comments for obvious reasons) then I won't complain if it's added again. Maybe the best way to proceed would for someone to find a better, usable image and add it to Wikimedia Commons (I don't have the expertise to do this myself) which we can use as the top image, and then we can try to reach a consensus on whether the mug shot is appropriate to include farther down. If anyone can find such a picture to us, I'm sure we'd all be grateful. Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've kept the point. Need I reiterate my desire for a better image? But why should we have no image while we wait? Who said all (or any) images need be flattering? And what is so unflattering about the image cropped? Like I said, I think you blush too easily. The image gives a good impression of how the man looked. Sure, he doesn't look happy, but in few surviving photos does he. And the title of the image can be changed to remove the reference to a mug shot. (And what do you mean by prejudicial? I'm certainly no fascist and have never been arrested, but I was hardly moved to immediately think worse of the man just because he has a mug shot on record!) Srnec (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no serious objection to the use of the cropped mugshot in the infobox. Hell, I look like that most days myself. Deor (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I've had my say on this so will drop out of the discussion for a while and won't tamper further with the image myself. I may check in later to see if others have reached any consensus. Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Pavannes and Divisions

The title page of the book published in 1918 can be seen here. That a later publication was titled Pavannes and Divagations is not relevant in the list. Deor (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comic relief

The image of Henri Gaudier-Brzeska's Hieratic Head of Ezra Pound adds a touch of whimsy to the article. It's a nice counter–balance to the grim mugshot. We are grateful to Modern Art for providing some much–needed laughter to this tragic article.Lestrade (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Main picture redux

I think I've finally been able to establish that the 1913 Coburn photograph of Pound is in the public domain, it having been published before 1923—in Coburn's More Men of Mark (New York: Knopf, 1922). I've updated the image's description page on Commons with the necessary information and PD tag, so there should be no further problem with its deletion. (I've also readded the mugshot image to the article in the appropriate historical section.) Deor (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

These emendations to the image copyright-status and article are well conceived. The Coburn picture of Pound is a significant improvement from the mugshot, which has found its way to a better place in the article now. Really, why wasn't this changed earlier? The Coburn picture was used in the article (as is stated above, and as I remember) several years ago. Mooret2 (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The image was deleted from Commons for lacking a license. If all the required information is not provided to establish the free status of an image, it's going to be deleted sooner or later. Deor (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Open seminal exchange of work

On the second paragraph it says: "he opened a seminal exchange of work and ideas". What does this mean? How do you open an exchange of work? I can guess what it means, but I was hoping you could improve the writing (I am no expert on Ezra Pound). 217.12.15.52 (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

lede

"known as a poet who was attracted to fascism. " was mentioned above, which I think could be more accurately said to be "known as a poet who was a Fascist and anti-Semite, and considered a traitor" but the lede does not even mention fascism or anti-semitism. Pound's marvelous work can be evaluated fairly without such de-emphasis on his life. DGG ( talk ) 11:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's inescapable that the prominence which should be given to those issues is a matter of judgment. I wouldn't object to them being briefly mentioned in the introduction, something on the lines of, "He was one of the most controversial literary figures of the twentieth century, praised for founding modernism and promoting many important talents, but also condemned for fascism and anti-Semitism and charged with treason." Strawberryjampot (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced sections need sourcing

User:Ceoil seems to be of the opinion that the sections Ezra Pound#Pound and music and Ezra Pound#Legacy do not need sources. I think they do. Unless Ceoil has some rationale for how exempting these sections from standard Wikipedia policy will improve the encyclopedia, the sections should be removed or remain tagged until someone can properly source them. Active Banana (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki is a work in progerss, that more work needed is obvious and implied, except, obviously to the trigger happy. Hit and run tagers are of value to NOBODY. We are working, come back in two years when were have done further free work to satisfy you high achedimic standards. Ahem: do you really think that we need low value idiot level taggers of your ilk to tell us this? How stupid do you think we are. Ceoil (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not think your claim of "obvious" is correct. There is a large, very large in fact, segment of the user base of wikipedia that think that everything they see in wikipedia is true. Hence the use of tags to inform 1) editors of places where they can work to improve the encyclopedia for everyone and 2) alert (or remind) the readers of the fact that wikipedia is a work in progress. If tagging was as you claim of no value, then the community would have determined that it was not at all necessary to have tags and they would have been deleted. Or maybe they are still around because no one has thought to suggest they should all be deleted. You can go test the community sentiment on that proposal if you would like. Active Banana (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
And another policy that you seem to have trouble adhering to is no personal attacks. Please stop. Active Banana (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't treathen me and use the word "please" in the same sentence, please. Passive aggresive is not very nice, actually its just sneaky, snide and low. This is an an article on Ezra Pound, not Bosina or Isreal, you don't need policies like that to protect you here - think of the spirtit for which they were drafted. You are a hit and run tagger, a 2 second critic of others, live with that. And I am quite aware of citation standards. If you had the subtety to notice, I was not attacking you, but your projection of me. Ceoil (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:V and WP:OR the following unsourced sections have been moved to talk as easy reference for editors who wish to use them as a basis for their research. The content can be returned as editors find appropriate sources. Active Banana (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As it happens everything deleted is well established by 20th century American literature scholars. Nonetheless, tomorrow I'll drop everything else I'm doing, and root through my extensive information on 20th century Am. literature and work on this article to add sources. Poor Pound—the least he deserves is a good article on Wikipedia. In the meantime I've restored a bit with a source. As the entire source is the companion to the cantos - well it explains the cantos. Can't get much better than that. Sorry, had this article watchlisted, but somehow missed the kerfuffle. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Workshop

[Pound and music and Legacy sections moved here by Active Banana (talk · contribs) for work on 12:40, 30 May 2010 UTC, referenced and restored to the article by 86.41.64.98 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)]

You idiot. You are why apples turn black. Did you spend any seconds researching the work of others that you are deleting. Ceoil (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The quotations in the sections were easy to track down and verify against reliable sources, so I think whoever wrote these sections knew what they were doing and deserve the benefit of the doubt. As such, I have restored these sections – if Active Banana or other editors find particular parts of the sections objectionable, we can discuss those on an individual basis. 86.41.64.98 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, but somehow I doubt Banana has it to be arguing on an "individual basis". Thank you 86.41.64.98, you are an hero. Ceoil (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation style

Apologize for changing citation styles without gaining consensus. I realize that was perhaps a bit heavy-handed. I'm happy to remove the Harvard templates in favour of no templates, but should do so now before forging forward with the work. Thoughts? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Longfellow connection

I can't add the reference, as all I have at hand is a mass-market paperback edition with different pagination from the hardback edition, but the Longfellow ancestry is asserted (among other places) in the Stock biography, in the second paragraph of Chapter 1, "Childhood". Deor (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Jumped straight to the page 2 - but knew it had to be somewhere. None of the other biographers mention it. I'll add the citation and take out the comment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I see it's dropped out again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The importance of the family background needs an expansion. Just finished reading another essay and working now to integrate.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

St. Elizabeths

Sample from a source is here. I don't know why St. Elizabeths is spelled without an apostrophe, but it is. Will add apostrophes for possession if and where appropriate. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Pound and music

Much of the Pound and music section is devoted to his opera Le Testament. How about splitting out the information about the operas into a separate article titled Le Testament and incorportate the background, etc., in that article? A trimmed down section about Pound & music would stay here summarizing the musicality of his poetry, the operas, his work in organizing music festivals and Rapallo, and so on. Thoughts? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree; it would be unfair to over give undue weight to one area by virtue of amount of text. A bio on such a substantial and covered figure should follow summary style. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The article currently has 50869 characters and 8403 words of prose (per DYK check tool). Have you considered creating forks for certain sections? Pound is certainly notable enough to warrant several articles...no need to try to smush it all in here.Smallman12q (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I get a word count of 8264 8188 which is comparable to Ernest Hemingway at 7967. I think the biography should not be split out, and the style/themes section can't be trimmed much more, but could eventually have a separate, longer article. Currently I'm working on each section in my sandbox to pound them down. Let's give it chance to cook for now. Don't know what others think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You should add that he was tone deaf...Smallman12q (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed the above. Go ahead and add to Le Testament de Villon for now. I think this article is on hold temporarily. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing External Links

I last saw this article about two months ago, and at that time there were several 'external links' which are now missing. I'm particularly thinking of the link that connected to a site which offered the complete text of Jefferson and/or Mussolini. Another link went to a site that had the texts of all, or most, of Pound's WWII broadcasts. And there were still more links which are now missing. Where have these gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.175.77.5 (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  • If anyone disagrees with the decision, then go ahead and replace. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Image comments

As requested, below please find FA criterion three issues:

  • File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg - Source links directly to the image itself. Where can we verify publication date? (Note creation date of 1898 is not the same as publication.)
  • File:Blast2.jpg - License is incorrect. Published works do not have copyright terms based on author lifetime in the US. {{PD-US}} would be appropriate.
    Re-licensed. Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:DorothyPound.jpg - License is incorrect (even ignoring that US is 70 years, not 50). This was published before 70 years had past since the author's death (i.e. before 2006). As a published work, copyright term would be based on publication date. Was it published in compliance with US formalities?
  • File:Ezra Pound by EO Hoppe, 1920.jpg - UK works are based on life of the author, not publication. When did E.O. Hoppé die? Should be moved to en.wiki if Hoppé has not been dead 70 years.
    Replaced by local file (File:Ezra Pound by EO Hoppe 1920.jpg). Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Ezra Pound passport photograph undated (cropped).jpg - If author is unknown, why is federal government authorship being claimed? Source does not mention federal authorship. (Note that inclusion in a passport does not mean federal authorship. Even now, the passport holder can send their own photos - i.e. photos are not necessarily authored by the government) What is the basis for assuming this photo was authored by a federal agent? Эlcobbola talk 00:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg - Have changed the link and reinstated the Fair Use Rationale. The image is in a biography published in 2007 written by David Moody, published in the United States and England by Oxford University Press.
    As a non-free image, it now needs a detailed and specific rationale per NFCC#10C and WP:FURG. Its purpose is currently "It is considered that this increases the reader's understanding of the subject". How, specifically, it increases that understanding needs to be articulated. e.g. Why is the physical appeaarance of young Pound and his mother significant? What understanding would be lost if the image were omitted? Copyright holder (SUN VALLEY CENTER FOR THE ARTS, per the source) needs to be attributed (NFCC#10A). Эlcobbola talk 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    Honestly can't think of a reason why the image is necessary, so am resigned to doing without it. However, I've found one from the same period that was published in the school yearbook according to the biographer. Would that be okay? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    File:Blast2.jpg - Updated to {{PD-US}}
    Issue resolved. Эlcobbola talk 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    File:DorothyPound.jpg is published in a biography written by Noel Stock published by Pantheon Books in 1970 in the United States. If not acceptable, fine to delete.
    Nominated at PUF. Should be removed from the article if the license can't be supported. Эlcobbola talk 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    I'd like to use this image in the Dorothy Shakespear article which otherwise would be without an image, so will add a FUR for that. If the license isn't supported for Ezra Pound will remove from here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    Haven't a clue about the passport photo - didn't upload it. The passport seems to have been issued in Italy, probably not an image authored by a federal agent. Delete or add a Fair Use Rationale?
    Fair use images must make a significant contribution to a reader's understanding of the topic (NFCC#8). Does this image make such a contribution? If not, it should be removed. Эlcobbola talk 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    I can't think of a reason to keep this. Will replace. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    File:Ezra Pound by EO Hoppe, 1920.jpg Hoppe died in 1972. Don't know how to move to en.wiki.
    Looks like Ceoil took care of it. Эlcobbola talk 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    How many can I use with Fair Use Rationale? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    As per above, the test is whether an image is making a significant contribution to reader understanding. To that end, some articles need/are allowed zero non-free images. Others, however, need/are allowed several non-free images. Ask whether there is something in the article that cannot be understood. If there is no free image available, and the understanding cannot be conveyed by prose, then a non-free image may be appropriate. Эlcobbola talk 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    I believe File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg adds perspective and understanding as a counterpoint to the later File:Ezra Pound 1945 May 26 mug shot.jpg. The man charged with treason who many wanted to see executed was once a military-uniform-wearing child. The transformation from one to another is best illustrated with words. The mother is incidental to the photograph, as far as I'm concerned. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting, lead, collaborative editing, etc.

I'd like to do some copyediting and revision on this article, but I'm unsure of what the requirements of a GA or FA are, which is what people seem to be aiming for here. For instance, it seems to me that most or all of the material in the second paragraph of the lead is unnecessary (in the lead itself, not in the article), but I'm reluctant to make changes that are too drastic and that might offend those that have worked on improving the article to this point. I guess that I could take it section by section and people would be free to revert what they don't like, but I'd hate to waste my and other editor's time in this way. Does anyone have suggestions on how we might collaborate effectively on the article without stepping on one another's toes? Deor (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Deor. I would say be bold. The main concern at the moment is flow; while the page has the cronology and facts estabiShed, a biographical narrative still needs to be construced to keep the reader engaged. There is a lot of chopping and changing going on at the moment to work this in; your input would very much be welcome. I dont think you need to be worry about stepping on toes; we've all been editing in similar areas for a few years, I hope its implicit that any changes will be taken in good faith. We can argue over detail, specific preferences, openions, etc, but I dont get the feeling that anyone here would get offended. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Deor. Any help would be more than appreciated, and I agree with Ceoil's remarks. All I intended on this page was to add sourcing, but obviously went beyond - mainly because I became fascinated. I dislike writing leads and used the one I wrote for Ernest Hemingway as a template; was actually thinking today the lead needs work. I won't be editing in the next weeks, so don't worry about stepping on toes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
To add, forget what the requirements of a GA or FA are. Guide the page as you see fit, each article needs to be taken on its own merits. Ceoil (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
And to add more: as I was building content wasn't really focused on polishing the product, was more interested in research, adding various viewpoints, etc., and threw in a lot of material (before the library fines became too stiff!) with the expectation that a series of revisions were to come. Would be more than happy to see information molded into something a little more coherent. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
You did the heavy lifting, in other words. Ceoil (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does text disappear?

How come the full text of this article doesn't load sometimes? Specifically, the part about Eustace Mullins visiting Pound at St. Elizabeth's? Strange.

This problem appears to be fixed now.

Straw poll re inclusion of Infobox

Let's gauge current consensus of who supports or opposes inclusion of an Infobox. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll responses

  • Support - Infoboxes are useful and are encouraged on all biographies. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The damn things encourage people to add useless and/or misleading OR in the "Influences" and "Influenced" fields and elsewhere. I know people are working to get this article to GA or FA status, but unless an infobox is required for an article to be approved as a GA or an FA, I say no. Deor (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - optional, occasionally useful, not needed here...Modernist (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Ezra Pound was influenced by centuries of literature and some consider him to be the most influential poet of the 20th century. Maintaining the influences fields, which are subjective, for this poet is patently impossible. The information is in the article; and per WP:DISINFOBOX I'm strongly opposed against adding an infobox to this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Spanglej (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll discussion

Ah, okay. Forget I said anything. Yworo (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Grand Yworo, but its just differences of openion, no big deal. Ceoil (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we really not want an infobox?

I added one, but it was removed. [2] I like them because they give a quick overview of education, family, dates, and they make an article look finished and tended to (in my view, anyway). Is there still consensus against adding one here? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that SlimVirgin, meant to place a note on your page today. I dislike an infobox for this particular article for a number of reasons, but mostly because the peculiarities of Pound's life are difficult to distill into the fields of an infobox. He was born in Hailey but only lived there for the first 18 months of his life; he went to the University of Pennsylvania but graduated from Hamilton; he was married to Dorothy but had a half-century affair with Olga; he had a child with his mistress, his wife had a child presumably fathered by someone else; the list of his influences is long and in turn he influenced the next generation or two of poets. I've tried to write the lead in such a manner that the facts of his life are presented there without the necessity of the infobox. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I won't harp on about this (no really), but this used to have an infobox and it didn't look bad. :) [3] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC

First sentence

I edited this a few days and just noticed that my edit was effectively reverted (I haven't bothered to parse the history to see by whom—it's irrelevant). The version I regard as deficient reads:

Ezra Weston Loomis Pound (30 October 1885 – 1 November 1972) was an American expatriate poet, critic, and a major figure in the early modernist movement.

This is simply not grammatical. "American expatriate" grammatically modifies "poet" and is clearly intended to modify "critic" in the same manner; it does not grammatically modify "a major figure in the early modernist movement." In the phrasing above, the bracketing of the single word "critic" means both that "American expatriate" fails to modify it and there is not even a successful list of three distinct descriptions (which would either have to be "an American expatriate poet, critic, and major figure in the early modernist movement" or "an American expatriate poet, a critic, and a major figure in the early modernist movement").

I have corrected the sentence—again—to the following:

Ezra Weston Loomis Pound (30 October 1885 – 1 November 1972) was an American expatriate poet and critic and a major figure in the early modernist movement.

Among the grammatically correct ways to express the sentence, I believe this best captures the intention. My guess is that the resistance to it arises from some discomfort with seeing two "and"s separated by a single word. There is obviously no grammatical problem with this and, in the context of this particular sentence, I can't see how it might be confusing. However, I appreciate the fact that some people automatically resist this construction. One means of addressing it we often see is the placement of a comma before the second "and", thus: "...an American expatriate poet and critic, and a major figure...". While this is not the height of good grammar, it is common and a far less egregious misstep than the one described above. If there's a consensus in favor of including such a comma, I won't resist.—DCGeist (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be fine with adding the comma after the second "and" and treat it as a coordinating conjunction - although it's not technically in this sense. I actually don't mind it without the comma. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Columns

I'm not crazy about columns for the refs, but that aside, the formatting on my computer is just plain bad. The columns are so close together it's very difficult to see each entry. I've changed it multiple times in the past few days and won't change again, but would like to see know whether a policy exists regarding columns so that some consistency can be applied. The templates are rendered according to browser and not always well. Just a small rant on a minor point. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Church Walk

Does anyone know how long he lived here? The sources seem to say 1909 to 1914, but our article gives the impression that he was leaving and returning to London during this period, and it's unlikely he could have kept rented accommodation open for himself. Or perhaps he was moving into different rooms in the same house. We need to clarify that part of the chronology. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll clarify later. He lived there, then left and then returned. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"steel cage open to the elements"

What does "open to the elements" mean? (This is in the lead.) 131.111.55.91 (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Outside, no shelter. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Images again

Just wanted to add that per this discussion above the image of Dorothy can't be used in this article according to Elcobbola. Neither can the image of Pound as a boy with his mother, but I like it and re-added with the expectation of delisting. I'm waiting for confirmation from New Directions that they don't own copyright to that image, but response from their permissions e-mail takes two months. I have spoken on the phone to an editor there who confirmed they didn't own copyright. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the image of Dorothy can't be used. She was British, it was taken in England, it's PD in England, and we use it in a section about his marriage to her, which is fine for fair use in the U.S.
The image of Pound as a boy is also fine as fair use in the section about him and his uniform, and may be PD because of age, though we'll need to check that (depends on first publication, death year of author). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I was told the Dorothy image could only be used in the article about her but not here. Either way, I'm happy to see it back. Links to image discussions: [4] [5].Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Personae

We say this was published in 1926, but also by June 1909. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

They're two different books. The Personae published by Elkin Mathews in 1909 was the second collection of Pound's poems to be published; the one published by Boni & Liveright in 1926 was, as the subtitle The Collected Shorter Poems of Ezra Pound indicates, a collection of all of the non-Cantos poetical work he wished to preserve at that date. Deor (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, will clarify. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
1909 Personae is Carpenter p. 107. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


Transatlantic Review

I'm wondering why we're writing this in lower case, as the sources seem to use upper case. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Also wondering why we're writing "personas," and not "personae." I changed it and was reverted, so I'm wondering if there's a particular usage here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Re - transatlantic review - should be lowercase. The sources are inconsistent in the usage but I'll pull up the page number explaining the title was deliberately lowercase. The Hemingway sources use lowercase. Ford Maddox Ford wanted the title to be lowercase. But I don't really have a strong feeling about it. The only problem is that people link it and the Transatlantic Review article we have is a different translantic review. Re - personas, I changed per an in-line comment. May have been confused. Will pull it up and post back here. Don't have a strong feeling about that at all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
There's book about it here that uses upper case. [6] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's very inconsistent. Have changed multiple times in the Hemingway articles. I think either is fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Rome 1943

Having difficulty copy-editing this; it could use a rewrite but I don't have the sources:

Pound was in Rome when the Allies landed in Sicily in July 1943. Worried about his daughter's safety in German-occupied Tyrol, he borrowed a pair of boots and walked 450 miles north to see her.[1] When he found her, he chose at that time to admit he had a wife, and a son who lived in London.[2] He stayed long enough for his feet to heal but was at risk of arrest by the German police, and soon returned south to Olga and Dorothy.[1] In 1944 he and Dorothy were evacuated from their Rapallo home. He intended for Dorothy to live with his mother Isabel in Rapallo, while he joined Olga in Sant'Ambrogio. Instead Dorothy chose to live with Pound and Olga. Olga took a job in an Ursuline school; Dorothy, who had not learned Italian after almost two decades in the country, was forced to learn to shop and cook.[3]

  • Why did he have to walk and borrow boots?
  • "Chose to admit" -- do we just mean he told her, and had she really not known he had a family before this?
  • Why was he at risk of arrest, given that he was a supporter?
  • In what sense evacuated?
  • What's the link between Dorothy not knowing Italian and being forced to shop and cook?

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I can rewrite but will add answers here:

  • Borrowed the boots for the long walk. Trains not running I think. He was crazy.
  • Mary did not know about Dorothy and Omar until that point.
  • Yes, at risk to be arrested by partisans.
  • Evacuated in the sense they had to leave their home.
  • Dorothy had never shopped or cooked. Didn't know Italian well enough to buy food from grocers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Trains not running sounds odd. Thanks about Mary. Why did they have to leave their home? Re Dorothy, did she have someone to do her shopping and cooking for her before this? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Am trailing behind you and still getting dates for Church Walk. Fairly certain that he couldn't get a train out of Rome, but he did take one back to Rapallo - it was very chaotic. They had to leave their home b/c it was too close to the coast. All I've read is that Dorothy never cooked, nor shopped. Will check about a cook - good question. Presumably yes, but would want a source. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a good edit about the boots, thanks. :) Don't feel you have to rush with any of this stuff, btw -- it'll all keep. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Today I don't have a headache so I can edit. Will see how long that lasts. I have put in a de-list request to Karanacs in case you didn't know. Anyway, let's see how it goes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I like your last edits too; nice quote. :) Mine is the only oppose, so maybe you should hang on to see what others think, but it's up to you. I wonder if I'm allowed to do a GA review now that I've edited it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I haven't a sense of how work still needs to be done. I've hacked out a lot of detail that I can retrieve from history and restore. At some point today I have to do some work, and won't get back to this until Wednesday. If we can push it through, I don't mind trying, but don't want to kill myself in the process. Committed, but not that committed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
My own view is that there's too much to do for FAC this time round. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's my feeling too. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Date formats

I notice we're using 4 October 2010 and October 4, 2010. TK, or anyone, do you have a preference? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to go through and make the dates consistent throughout. I prefer day, month, year in the article and year, month, day in the sources - although want to give that some thought. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm fine with either in the article. I don't like the 4-10-2010 way of writing, because you can never be sure that the writer was using it properly, but if it's a feature of the templates I don't suppose we have a choice. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I can tweak the templates. Just takes a little work. Will leave it to the end. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If it's possible, and so long as it's not more trouble than it's worth, my own preference would be that we always write 4 October 2010 for text, citations, and access dates. Or October 4, 2010. But not just numerals. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Fixed the sources. Will wait for the text to be more stable and then comb through. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

Some more quotes where we ought to make clear who is talking:

He used Chinese ideograms to represent "the thing in pictures", and from Noh theater learned that plot could be replaced with "the intensification of a single image".[4]

and

The Cantos, filled with "cryptic and gnomic utterances, dirty jokes, [and] obscenities of various sorts", are difficult to define and to decipher.[5]

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Seek consensus on the "further information" additions

Generally I like pages to be as uncluttered as possible, and would prefer not to have the "further information" (I don't know what they're called) additions to the sections. Each one is linked in the article and easily accessed and can be added to the "see also" section if necessary. I won't change until I get input from others about this. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove them if you prefer. I added them to pull out for the reader the links that matter, e.g. his work, his partners. But I see what you mean about clutter too. On that note, I was going to ask you whether you liked the dates in the headers. I think they're helpful for readers to orient themselves, but they do add to clutter too. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thought I'd see what others think first, and then we can take them out if everyone agrees. I think the dates add clutter, but I don't know how to get around that - the dates are fairly necessary. Let's see if anyone else has a suggestion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
(1) I find dates in the subsection headers are helpful, not only for readers looking to quickly find a certain phase of the subject's life, but also to the extent that they deliver a satisfying immediate impression of cogent organization.
(2) If you're going to have dates, there can't be gaps (overlaps are OK, but not gaps). There's no reason for "1922: Olga Rudge" not to immediately become "1922–1923". As for "1924: Move to Italy", that can become "1924–1929" with a little tweak of, or addition to, the accompanying phrase.
(3) I like the section titling style of Elvis Presley. Placing the dates after the verbal content, and in parentheses, shifts the emphasis toward the literary rather than the statistical—better, I believe. It also breaks up the visually unpleasant effect in the TOC created when the stream of date numerals is immediately adjacent to that of the subsection numerals. Finally, the abbreviated date style (dropping the second "19") reduces the clutter a little bit.—DCGeist (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You're right, that does look better. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Update

Just thought I'd post that I'm taking a break in case someone else wants a go at this now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Money

What strikes me is that he rarely, if ever, earned a living to keep himself and his family. He seems to have depended on his father's money most of his life, and/or Dorothy's, and then at the end Olga had to get a job. Plus his children were raised by others. Do we bring out this aspect of him enough, that he seems to have been quite spoiled? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please add it as it sheds light on his nature and who he really was...Modernist (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

Why none? are they no longer required?..Modernist (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think not required anymore. But probably should be added anyway. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll add the standard "photograph" so at least we have something. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ref style

Just a note here about the ref style I'm using as I add more. I'm happy for this to be converted later if others want to do that, but I don't use templates myself.

I'm writing out the full citation on first reference in a footnote, and thereafter Smith, 2010, p. 1 if it's repeated a lot, with a full citation repeated in the References section. I do that so the reader can see the full cite in the Notes section at least once, which means they don't have to click back and forth. I don't use a template because adding a template link means you can't add a Google book link to the particular page when one is available.

I also combine citations between one set of ref tags wherever possible to reduce clutter.

However, I'm only doing this because it's what I'm used to doing. If others want to convert later to Harvard refs and templates, I have no problem with that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait until you're done and then convert. I like the Harvard style b/c it's easier to distinguish new additions as they come in, and it does allow to click from the citations to the references and links. I do like the idea of combining citations. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, and I can try to learn how to help convert if you like. I'd just prefer not to do it as I'm writing so I don't break my chain of thought. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I do them without thinking now, so converting is fairly easy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin do you have an ISBN for Tytell? Then I can pull it up and start reformatting the refs. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Words quoted without attribution

I had to remove a nice sentence from the lead because it was copied some time ago—by an occasional editor, not anyone editing now—from the Academy of American Poets. We said:

His contribution to poetry began with his promotion of Imagism, a movement which derived its technique from classical Chinese and Japanese poetry to stress clarity, precision and economy of language. [7]

The Academy of American Poets said:

His own significant contributions to poetry begin with his promulgation of Imagism, a movement in poetry which derived its technique from classical Chinese and Japanese poetry—stressing clarity, precision, and economy of language ...[8]

I checked the Internet Archive and they've had their version up since June 2005. Several sentences from this source were added after that to our article with a citation, though not after all the sentences, so it wasn't clear they had been taken word for word. [9] I think the editor was acting in good faith; he just didn't realize he needed to attribute more explicitly. Over time the citation got dropped, and some of the sentences got moved around, leaving just this one uncited. I've changed it to:

... known in particular for his role in developing Imagism, which favored clear language, a lack of rhetoric, and precision of imagery.

Not such nice writing. If anyone has a better description feel free to add it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

General comments

I'm sorry but I've been slammed at work and haven't had the time to check in here. From a cursory look, I'm impressed. I see that the ODNB is being used - I've wanted access to that since July, so am happy to see it here. Also happy to see the image of the cages - I'd searched but for some reason couldn't find. I'll be fairly busy in real-life for the next fews days at least. When I return, I'll have a closer look and reformat the refs. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In case you're worried about length, I agree with you that under 9,000 words is a good thing to aim for, but this may get longer before it gets shorter again. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, so far so good, both of you are giving Ezra a pounding like he don't deserve, he's slowly coming to life :)...Modernist (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You have no idea how sick I am of the man. As for length - I believe much of the choppiness and lack of coherence came from making editorial decisions about what to put in and what to leave out, because we only have so many words to use. Backing off is good for me at this point to come at it with fresh eyes. It's not really a good idea for a single editor to make those decisions, in my view. I haven't had time to read through and won't until Sunday at the earliest. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
A pounding. Yay! :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Break please

I need to figure out why we have big error message. I've worked on this article since June, and have a fairly good sense of where the formatting is in the article. Can everyone stop editing until I can fix the problem? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's because you added a footnote as a group note but didn't add the formatting it needs. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Bollingen Prize

TS, could you say why you keep removing this section? [10] It's important, which is why I wrote it. When I first saw you'd removed it, I assumed it was in error, because it seems so obvious that we need it. You can't tack on at the end in a Legacy section that he won this and that there was public uproar, when it's such a key part of the article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Give me a chance to get caught up. When you mentioned redundancy I hadn't realized this had it's own section and I left it in the legacy section. I'm not entirely sure where it should go at the moment, or whether this much detail is necessary, but we can always get it from history. I'm going to take a break from editing and look through the article. Might take some time. I'll post comments later, or tomorrow. Also, see my comment above about the problem of adding and then deleting. This is a very frustrating page to work on. So let's all stand back for a minute and see where we are. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in the legacy section. I'd appreciate if you wouldn't remove material. Add it by all means, but removing explanations and connectors makes no sense. The issue of the Bollingen Prize was a major one, and that his winning it was concocted makes it even more so, something your version of the article didn't mention. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to check the sources on this. My version didn't mention b/c the sources I consulted didn't present it in this manner. I need to buy the books because I've returned some to the library, but as it's a controversial section, we should lean on multiple sources here. I'd prefer to see wording to the effect that it may have been concocted. Nobody really knows what happened in that room. It's speculation from what I've read. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
When you say you'd like to see wording to the effect that it may have been concocted, can you say what you mean exactly? I added the sources to the article, and the secondary source, John Tytell, named his primary source, Archibald MacLeish, who was involved. Which part do you doubt?
A lot of the article relies on Stock. You said you thought it was a terrible source, very disjointed. Is there a reason for focusing on him so much? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
EC -Wilhelm p. 277, Nadel, p. 16. These are readily available on-line, but in my view for a lit article it's important to follow the scholarship of the top scholars - and these are the people. Also substantiated by Stock, who I believe wrote early enough to interview the key players. I'll have to pull the page number for you. I'll do some digging on Tytell.
I think Stock is badly written but it's well respected. I only told you that to save you a slog through some hard prose. Unfortunately a lot of good scholarship is not well written. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd use Macleish - these guys were writing letter to eachother and the letters are not always very reliable. I rarely go to Hemingway's letters as a source - but I'll have a look about what he says on this. Nonetheless, we need to lean on the best scholars. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps that's a good place to start then, with a list of who are regarded as the top Pound scholars, and why we think that? You said you had been adding citations inside the text to give it more variety, because much of the text had relied on a small number of sources. Personally I have no problem relying on a small number of sources if they're good, because it offers coherence. Moving back and forth between sources, which the article does a lot, means we lose the context in which the sources were making the points they made. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I do have some unorthodox accesses to databases - unfortunately I can't download and email. I've found a review of Tytell from the Journal of American Literature that says Stock is the bedrock on which to build. Although good, they feel the Tytell bio lacks focus on Pound the artist. I still haven't gone through the article competely, but I do feel some emphasis of Pound the poet is shifting, and maybe b/c of the source. Nadel and everything in Nadel is absolutely the best scholarship around - wouldn't be published in the Cambridge Companion if not. Moody's book has stellar reviews and it's unfortunate the 2nd volume hasn't been published. So, we have to use Stock (bad writing and all), we have to use all the scholarship in Nadel, we have to use Moody. I'd suggest Carpenter and Tytell to fill gaps, but not to lean on. For raw facts Sieburth is the guy - I still have that book and might be able to keep a few days more. It's almost 2000 pages long. The letters I always consider primary sources and really don't bother with them. I own Hemingway's and Williams' letters but haven't even cracked for this article. Also, the Hemingway scholarship is helpful for the Paris years, and I own the best bios for Hemingway - Reynolds, Meyers, and Baker. I have access to the others but don't think they're great. The problem with writing a lit article is that you have to move back and forth between the sources - and yes, it does create choppiness. Sorry, left out Wilhelm. Also very respected. In terms of why we think sources are good or better, one knows in literature which scholars are more trustworthy and doing better scholarship than others. I've researched all the sources before adding them. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why an article about literature would have to move back and forth between sources more than any other kind of article, and anyway moving back and forth needn't involve choppiness, so long as we completely understand what we're writing about. My worry is that material is being added without being explained, so it looks as though we're just adding random facts from a source here, a source there.
The Tytell biography is very good, very complete. He's an academic, a good writer, and he names his sources, so I see no reason not to rely on him. If there's an issue of contention, we do what we always do. Tytell writes X, someone else writes Y. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Because literary scholars have different areas of research and different prespectives. To get the breadth of the scholarship it's necessary to move from to source to source. The bedrock facts are the same and often derivative; but the subtleties and nuances are only discovered by covering the entire gamut of scholarship. Usually the first thing to do is to read the scholarly reviews of the scholarly work and decide whether to use or not; then add in each accordingly. The scholarly reviews of Tytell are that it's fine but limited and skimps on Pound the artist. Our job is to present the entire spectrum. We don't add random facts from here and there; only one biography mentions that Dorothy returned from Egypt pregnant and I don't think that's random. Only one biography presents the full information about Lustra - in fact it was the printer (if I remember correctly who balked). Literary scholarship is that way - and it's a bear to build an article around it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
It's the same in any area of scholarship, but the way to approach it is not to jump around randomly. Fact 1, source 1; fact 2, source 2, with nothing to connect the facts, nothing to connect the sentences at all. You said you had added different citations after the text was written to create an appearance of variety, but perhaps I misunderstood you.
Also, I'm wondering what you mean about the previous version being more about his poetry. One of the things I've been trying to do is make clearer when he wrote what, and I'd like to continue to do that. Here's the version that was submitted at FAC. It mentions only the Cantos in the lead. It mentions A Lume Spento in passing, but without giving any information about it, not even a publication date. Then it mentions Personae, then jumps to Riposte several years later, as though nothing was published in between, and gives two publication dates for it, 1912 and 1915. The current version does explain a little about his early publishing history, though not yet as clearly as it could. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I had intended to write separate articles for each one. A lot of the detail can get shoved out of the main article that way. As far as the Bollingen Prize is concerned, I believe only Wikipedia mentions that the outcome is pre-determined and I think we want to avoid that kind of presentation. It may be impossible to get this to FA criteria. Certainly I've given up. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Why do you say that only WP mentions that the prize was discussed in advance, when the article cites the sources, and the sources are academics who've written about Pound or who knew him?
I think it's a bad idea to focus on getting it to GA or FA; you said yourself the focus should be on getting the content right first, making it a good article. If that happens then it can be prepared for FAC. And I agree that creating other articles is a good idea, with summary-style sections in this one, but important details can't be left out of this one just because another article might be written in the future. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've said the content has to be right and I've admitted over and over until I'm terribly embarrassed that I took this article to FAC too soon. In fact, though, I'm not sure this page will ever be right b/c it's too controversial, so I gave it a good try and failed.
Re the Bollingen Prize - we make a very controversial statement here that the outcome was predetermined. Stock, in discussing the prize on page 426 makes so such claim; neither does Wilhelm, or Carpenter, or Nadel - the top Pound biographers. So, to add such a claim, my standard would be to see multiple cites verifying that the outcome was pre-determined. If MacLeish said it was, and yet four major biographers disregarded his statement, I think our responsibility is to present the material in a manner found in the preponderance of sources. I've had a quick look at some other tertiary sources and they also don't make the claim.
Ultimately, as I earlier mentioned on your talk-page this may simply be a situation where we have philosophical differences about how to present a biography of a controversial figure in an encyclopedic manner. In my view, our responsibility is simply to present the facts, add color, and most importantly stick to the existing mainstream scholarship. I don't know what more to say. I'm sure you can do better than I; and I'm sure there are other editors who write about literature who will do come along and give a try as well. As I told you in private, I'm not willing to jeopardize my health over a Wikipedia article. I'm also not willing to harm relationships I've made over a Wikipedia page. It's just not that important to me in the grand scheme of things, to use a cliche. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your last point, you seem to have written to me criticizing others, then written to them criticizing me, and so now everyone's pissed off with each other, so not wanting to harm relationships comes a bit late in the day.
We can add another view of the Bollingen Prize if you like, but I'm not keen on leaving out entirely what one of his academic biographers wrote about it, based on one of the key primary sources. If it's wrong, I'm sure someone else has pointed that out, so let's continue to look. Or we can rephrase it and make it seem less definitive. And I ask you please to focus on content. If we all concentrate on good writing and good sources, the differences will be resolved. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I've just re-read our e-mail conversation and I haven't found anything that's not already been made clear on-wiki. I wrote that I asked Ceoil for help as early as June, that he's said he would help but has been busy with work, and that I'd asked him and Awadewit for the ODNB. I wrote that I've asked others for help I've asked others for help. All of this is on user pages. I wrote, in response to your comment about Malleus, that I was annoyed with him, which is true b/c I don't think the railroading comments were constructive and per your requests, I responded.[11] I shared with you my experience when I opposed on a FAC during the summer. I told you I something along the lines of not wanting to go it alone - this too is true and on Ceoil's page - I've asked him to be co-nom, but he wouldn't. Finally I shared with you my speculation about why no one wants to get involved - but that's pure speculation and just chatter. I told you the process should be kept transparent, which I think it should - and I take the blame for starting the email. I haven't written to anyone criticising you, don't know where that comes from. Will post diffs. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Adding - had unwatched Malleus' page. Now I understand. Ceoil is intuitive, and I have no control over him. E-mail was not shared. That's not what I do and not the sort of person I am. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to focus exclusively on content. I created a "to do" list, so perhaps you could add anything there that you can think of. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Image of Olga Rudge

As much as I'd like to see this in the article, it has no source or author which means we can't even claim fair use for it, so I'm going to remove it shortly. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded a 1920 concert advertisement showing Rudge to the Commons (this is the concert at which Pound first saw her). The Yale Library also makes available the portrait you removed, but no more information about it appears to be available.—DCGeist (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Great find, thank you! SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Jury in 1958?

The article said of his release from St Elizabeths:

In 1958 Pound hired an attorney to request dismissal of the indictment. It took a jury only minutes to decide in favour of release and he was discharged on 7 May 1958.

See here, sourced to Stock, 1970, pp. 445–447. This gives the impression that a jury quickly righted a wrong.

I'm only using snippet view of Stock, but he doesn't mention a jury in relation to this, and I can't find any source that does. It was Pound who over the years didn't want to pursue release. A lawyer representing him (not hired by Pound as the article said) eventually submitted a motion to quash the original indictment. It was not contested so the judge granted it. There was no trial or jury that I can find.

I've changed this as follows:

In 1958 MacLeish hired Thurman Arnold, a prestigious lawyer who ended up charging no fee, to file a motion to dismiss the 1945 indictment.[104] Overholser, the hospital's superintendent, supported the application with an affidavit saying Pound was permanently and incurably insane, and that confinement served no therapeutic purpose.[101] The motion was heard on 18 April by the same judge who had committed him to St Elizabeths. The Department of Justice did not oppose the motion, and Pound was free.[104]

I want to check in case there was jury involvement that I'm not aware of. It was added here in July, and was very specific: "Three minutes after leaving the room, the jury returned with the verdict to release him."

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I no longer have this source and have decided not to put in an ILL for it (which often takes weeks). I think your rewrite is fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Translations

The article states as fact that "As a translator Pound was a pioneer with a great gift of language and an incisive intelligence,"[6] citing Alexander. But elsewhere in the article we say people complained about his translations, that he didn't understand the languages well enough, or the context. One commentator said if Pound were a professor of Latin there would be nothing left for him but suicide. I'm therefore wondering whether we ought to imply in Wikipedia's voice that he was a good translator, rather than laying out the different opinions in the legacy section with in-text attribution? His approach to translation was much more interesting than we explain. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a contradiction from the Legacy section, but it's back and I don't want to keep removing it. It says: "There was a Pound retrospective in the 1960s and 1970s, when critics such as Donald Davie and Hugh Kenner brought a new appreciation to his reputation and work." But also: "The response went to so far as to denounce all modernists as fascists and not until the 1980s have critics begun [sic] a re-evaluation of Pound." [12] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
re: Pound as translator and poet: Robert Conquest has written a devastating (if oldfashioned ) essay on his poetry. But wrong translations may still be good poetry, and bad poetry (from a traditional pov) may be good avantgarde-poetry, why not. But can one really speak of a Pound renaissance after a dark age of political slander? He always had his devoted followers: the Olson school, the Objectivists, Allen Ginsberg, People like Hollis Frampton sat at his feet in Washington. Then there has been Hugh Kenner's Pound-"criticism". Is Pound's poetry excellent (Kenner) or awful (Conquest)? Anybody looking at Pound's own Best-of-The-Cantos anthology must think Conquest got it about right.--Radh (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If you have a good source that sums up his translation work, that would be very helpful, Radh. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I liked the Conquest Article a lot and think, he got it right, but he is def. partisan. It is in Conquest' s collection The Abomination of Moab (1979). There was an article by him [on Zukofski's Catullus], called An Abomination of Moab. In: Encounter, Vol. 34, May 1970, 56-63. This may have been incorporated into, but perhaps was not the title of the Pound essay in the 1979 book. That Pound knew next to no Japanese, he said so himself (he did not even understand what hiragana are and could not read them or katakana). (it is in an article on Pound and Kitasono Katsue, which I cannot find right now). An earlier article by Robert Conquest on Pound was in: The London Magazine, Vol. III, 1 (April 1963), 33-49. But see Donald Davie's rebuke (google books). See also Christopher Hitchens in Imperfect Recall: ...as soon as I saw the sinister gibberish on the page. This is obviously not "fair", but then some Poundians like to call Conquest fifth-rate, which is a bit strong given Pounds admiration for true fifth-raters like Gesell and such. There is a book by Daniel M. Hooley on Pound and translators of Latin (google books, but have not read it).--Radh (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look these up. Ideally we need a separate article on his approach to translation that we can sum up here summary-style. I found a book chapter that lays out side by side a page from Fenollosa's notebooks and the translation/interpretation Pound arrived at of "The Beautiful Toilet" by Mei Shang in Cathay. It's very interesting to see it laid out like that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea. And it must be remembered that a lot of good translators liked Pounds translations from the Chinese, if only because the then common translations were over-the-top, extremely flowery and did not respect the laconic nature of Chinese/Japanese poetry at all.
But some more questions about the Fenollosa-Pound idea about ideographs: Only in school do Chinese/Japanese write in printed letters and written Japanese can look very different from the printed version (like shorthand). And a whole different set of writing, grass writing is used for calligraphy, which is even more abstract, sometimes it seems calligraphy is readable only, if one already knows the poems by heart, which of course was the norm. And zen-poetry and -writing even uses a completely different language, so that the normal language-signs take on a completely different and hidden meaning, which does not fit the Fenollosan idea of ideogram at all (?). But I am no expert, so may be wrong here.--Radh (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Ezra Pound - Japanese language debacle via Katue Kitasono is in: Richard Taylor, Claus Melchior: Ezra Pound and Europe. (google books), p. 127f. (and earlier pages).--Radh (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm looking at it now, and it's very helpful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations

According to WP:CITE citation styles shouldn't be changed without consensus: Citations in Wikipedia articles should be internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected. This article used Harvard short notes for a specific reason: in my view, it's an elegant solution that we have mark-up to use. The reader clicks the footnote to be brought to the cite, clicks again to be brought to the source, and if he/she wishes clicks directly to the source via the convenience link or ISBN. Source information and google book links need to be added only once in the source section thereby keeping it clutter out of the text. Furthermore I don't believe page numbers should be bundled in a article such as this - bundling causes confusion b/c six months, a year or two down the line, does the editor remember which source/page belongs to which statement? I see that bundling refs has been added to policy recently [13] with an additional explanation [14], which presents as quite messy in the sources section. As for the citation style, consensus should be achieved before changing. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You changed the citation style a few months ago without consensus, TS. I'm quite willing to continue using short refs (Harvard refs), but I can't see the point of the templates, though I'm willing to be persuaded. What I've been doing is adding a long ref on first reference, and thereafter a short ref. And wherever the short ref is directly linked on Google books (i.e. to that series of pages), I'd like to link to them so the reader can check the source directly. That seems to make more sense than providing a link to the References section, which doesn't tell them anything.
As for bundling, you said yourself it was a good idea. I'm making it clear to the reader which source supports which point: for the marriage, see Smith, 2010, p. 1. For the death, see Jones etc. It reduces the footnotes cluttering the text, both in read- and edit-mode.
Rather than focusing on formatting, I'd prefer to stick to content for now; formatting can be fixed later. Can you address the point about the jury above? You added in July: "Three minutes after leaving the room, the jury returned with the verdict to release him." [15] You referenced it to Stock, 1970, pp. 445–447. I can't find a reference to that in any of the sources. I was intending today to go through the New York Times and W/Post archives to see if I can find it, but if you could say where it came from that would help. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I regularised the citations style. There was no clear citation style in the article at the time, and in fact not a lot of sources. I asked on the talkpage whether anyone objected and no one replied. In this case I'm objecting for many reasons, but mostly for the reason of readability. As for the bundling - I have only this to say: many people have told me that I'm polite to a fault, to the point that it's one of my main personality defects, as if politeness is a bad thing or something. I was a.) being polite, and b.) have since changed my mind. Haven't read the rest of the talkpage and don't intend to at the moment, so can't respond to your questions of content. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
If you look at this version from five months ago, it used the usual long refs, and looks well-referenced enough. You posted on talk at the time that you had changed the citation style without checking. [16]
My own preference would be to continue with the long refs that were in the article before, but I'm willing to use short refs if they're preferred. But I can't see any reason not to link directly to the source, whether it's a long or short ref, whether it's book pages or an article. For example— Adams, 2005, p. 149—takes the reader directly to that page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
If you feel it's necessary to undo the Harvard formatting, I won't object. I see that only 17 remain of the 98 current refs, and of the 180 + original refs, so this is a non-issue as the article has been entirely rewritten just by looking at refs. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the point of copy editing that introduces errors, e.g. "He spent months in detention in a U.S. military camp in Pisa, and spend 25 days in a six-by-six-foot outdoor steel cage he said triggered a mental breakdown ..." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I'd like to restore the infobox unless there are very good reasons not to. The article had one until it was removed a few months ago. Several of his contemporaries have them, e.g. T.S. Eliot, Ernest Hemingway, Robert Frost, Marianne Moore, William Carlos Williams, E. E. Cummings.

An infobox means we can add personal details about marriage, children, parents, without cluttering the lead. It also means we can add his signature. I wouldn't include an influences/influenced section as it would be too long and complicated, but for the basic biographical details it's useful for giving readers a quick overview. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally prefer not to see an infobox for this article, but since I've decided to remove myself am only expressing an opinion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Accents

Does anyone know of a source who discusses the way he spoke? I see passing references to this in all the sources (his different accents and dialects), but this recording, for example, is really very strange (text here). A Scottish accent just about, and practically a religious sermon. I'm trying to find a source who discusses that aspect in detail but no luck so far. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Those "R"s really roll, don't they? Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit about Eliot's explanation of the Cantos

The article said: "Eliot felt the need to publish an explanation of The Cantos as early as 1917." [17] Sourced to Nadel, The Cambridge Companion to Ezra Pound, pp. 8–9.

Nadel doesn't say this. Eliot did write Ezra Pound: His Metric and Poetry in 1917, which mentions the early cantos in passing, but there is no explanation of them.

Is there another Eliot publication this could refer to? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you working of the book itself or google books? The book uses the word "guide" re Eliot and Ezra Pound: His Metric and Poetry. I reworded guide as explanation. So that's what Nadel says. Feel free to take out anything.
I have to work today, but have some thoughts I'll be putting up when I can. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Nadel doesn't say "Eliot felt the need to publish an explanation of The Cantos as early as 1917." Eliot was writing about Pound's work in general. More importantly, why are you using books to tell you what other books say? For example, you used Nadel to tell us that Kenner said, "there is no great contemporary writer less read than Pound." rather than just using Kenner himself. That is, at the end of the Kenner sentence there was a cite to Nadel telling us what Kenner said. I can't see any reason to do that, because Kenner is a major source in his own right, but it's something I've been finding a lot in the article. Most of these books are available online, so they can be cited directly. The more indirect the sources, the more likelihood of Chinese whispers creeping in, or material being quoted out of context.
Could you address the jury issue, please? You added here that in 1958 that there was a jury, and that they left the room for three minutes before returning with a verdict to release him: "Three minutes after leaving the room, the jury returned with the verdict to release him." You sourced it to Stock 1970, but I can't find anything like that in Stock or anywhere else. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Jury issue addressed. No need to chastise. If you don't like it, feel free to rewrite. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I think SV's concern was simply with getting it right. If there was a jury involved, then we need to include that, and to see where it is written in the sources and what they say on the matter. If not, then that needs to be made clear too. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure SV wants to get it right. But as I said, I no longer have the five biographies I had two ago. So ... unfortunately I cannot help in this issue. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is going on?

To speak frankly, SlimVirgin and Radh and TruthKeeper and others who have been attracted to this article, if you aren't thoroughly conversant with Pound's work and with the critical literature on it, what sort of improvements, exactly, do you think you have been contributing to the article? It is still disfigured by typos (or other sorts of inadvertent mistakes) and various other errors, and I'm not sure what's going on. It's easy to find a lot of mutually contradictory opinions of Pound and his writings in various sources, and it seems to me that that people have just been adding, or discussing, whatever they've found in the sources at hand, without weighing them in the light of the totality of the accounts of Pound's life and works. If you want to expand the article and perhaps raise it to the level of a GA or FA, that's well and good, but the article needs to be informed by some sense of his contribution to literature that is independent of the various critics' opinions. Simply parroting—and citing—various people's opinions does not make for a coherent article; there needs to be an overall view that comprehends the totality of the responses to his writings. Maybe a strictly biographical article would be best (though still in need of some corrections); the attempt to combine biography with criticism has resulted, so far, in an article that leaves a lot to be desired. Deor (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The article contained plagiarism and errors, which I think partly came about because sources were added after the text was written to add variety, but it meant the text often didn't match the sources supporting it, or slightly did but gave a false impression because the source material had been lifted out of context. What I've been doing is trying to create some narrative flow, and making sure the text matches the sources. But there's a fair bit to be done yet. Also, the legacy section needs a rewrite, in my view. Which errors and typos do you still see, Deor?
Ideally, this article will become a base for a series of summary-style sections, with other articles going into more detail on the key issues. There are a few already, but we need several more, particularly on his translation work—which I see as the key to explaining his theory of mind and language—and his economic views. But that's a long-term plan. I've created a template so we can see what exists already and what needs to be developed. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
When I came to the article most of the lead was plagiarised and I deleted it. It's possible when the lead was rewritten during the FAC review that a piece of copyvio was reintroduced from history via copy/paste, but it wasn't done deliberately. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deor, I don't understand what you mean when you write "but the article needs to be informed by some sense of his contribution to literature that is independent of the various critics' opinions. Simply parroting—and citing—various people's opinions does not make for a coherent article; there needs to be an overall view that comprehends the totality of the responses to his writings." When you write the article needs something "independent of the various critics' opinions" it almost seems as if you're arguing editors should synthesize their own views of Pound's work. True, a simple listing of all critics' views is not an article; but citing and summarizing those often-conflicting views is exactly what WP:NOR and WP:NPOV demand. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
No, Jayjg, I'm certainly not arguing for synthesis, and I admittedly haven't been following the changes in the article as closely as I should before making such a sweeping statement, since I've been busy in RL. My point was simply that there seems to be a lack of cohesion in the article, factoids having been strung together without any clear purpose. About any major literary figure, and certainly about one as controversial as Pound, there are many critical sources expressing various takes, ranging from dismissive to adulatory, with everything in between; and there are biographical sources covering most every incident in the person's life. Creating a WP article requires one to be selective, and I am—perhaps stupidly—missing a sense of a consistent principle of selection here, an overarching narrative that justifies the inclusion of exactly these items of information and no others. Having been somewhat put off by what little I've seen of the FA process, I've tried my best to avoid becoming involved in articles undergoing it; and I think that decision is probably a wise one, so I'll not comment further. Deor (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a very fine line to walk in terms of weight - Pound was a traitor and antisemite vs. Pound's contribution to literature. His contribution to literature is lacking in the article - Deor is quite right. If I were to continue to work here, I'd restructure accordingly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
That's an odd thing for you to say, and I can only assume you haven't read the article. The thing that jumped out at me about your version was that his contribution to literature was completely unclear. That's one of the things I've been trying to bring out as I go along—to give some sense of his publishing history. Compare the version you submitted at FAC, and the current version. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
As it happens I agree with your assessment. I had useful feedback from Awadewit that came after the article was submitted to FAC, along the same lines, and I think it's absolutely valid criticism of the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Then why are you criticizing when it's obvious that I'm trying to develop that aspect? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy here; should the article discuss Pound the man or Pound the poet (not to mention Pound the editor and supporter of other artists)? From what I can see, the recent editing is about improving the coverage of all aspects of the subject. And all these aspects are critical; from what I can tell, Pound was without question the most controversial (and publicly complex) important poet of the 20th century. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

General comments

I haven't edited here on a sustained basis in two weeks and unwatchlisted about 10 days ago, though I peek in to the talk page occasionally. I haven't looked at the article itself in a full week. In the past week I've received feedback from Pound specialists, with whom I was in contact for various reasons, questioning the direction of the article. I won't be contributing here anymore. In fact I find I no longer wish to be involved with Wikipedia, and am an the verge of a full retirement. I'm very disappointed in a variety of issues, but frankly think it's best to simply move on in life. Good luck. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you should edit or not, as you see fit, but above all I ask that you stop trying to stir things up. I am sorry to say this, but you've been playing people off against each other, and whenever things die down, you revive them by announcing that you're leaving or too ill/upset to edit. It isn't fair or justified to turn me into the villain of the piece. I only got involved because you said you wanted help developing the content.
I understand that it's upsetting to be opposed at FAC. It has happened to me, and I've shed a tear over it myself. I also understand that it's upsetting to have others arrive to edit an article that you may have a special vision for. That has happened to me too. But the more important and complex the article, the more it's likely to happen. In addition, because this one's about a writer, it's important that we try to present it coherently. It doesn't have to be brilliant writing, but it does have to be smoother than it was.
The article is slowly improving and will continue to improve, but it can't be rushed, and there's no point pretending that the improvement wasn't and isn't needed. I would appreciate it very much if you would stop trying to cause a problem over it. If you want to continue to be involved, you'd be more than welcome from my perspective. I'd enjoy having someone to work with and bounce ideas off. If you don't, that's obviously fine too. But either way the drama has to be allowed to fade away. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the work can't be rushed and am happy to see you're not rushing it. Things such as formatting, which I take very seriously, do discourage me when they get changed without discussion. A great deal of time went into running down images, sending email, making phone calls, getting them approved, only to see the ones approved disappear and the ones disapproved appear. I'm new enough here that I don't understand how an image specialist tells an editor one thing, only to have another very experienced editor such as yourself have a different opinion. I do think the recent edits to the article have been a bit heavy-handed in those areas. But in general I think that's mostly minor stuff. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem in at least one of the cases was that you asked for a release from people who didn't own the image, so when they said yes or "no known restrictions" it was unfortunately meaningless. And you were using images with no source or authorship details, e.g. File:Rudge.jpg; or with no indication as to why they might be PD, e.g. File:EzraPound Paris.png.
The key issues for public-domain images on WP are (a) they were published, not created, before 1923; (b) the author died over 100 years ago; (c) they are the property of the United States government. And (d) to claim fair use, we need source and preferably author details, along with a rationale that explains how the image adds meaning to the article or section; we also need to know that we're not harming the author's income by using it.
There are other rules, e.g. this one, but they can be tricky to apply correctly. This copyright tag list is a helpful guide. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I asked for release from the National Archives. They do own the image - they have the image. The Olga Rudge image I put in after the FAC archived, knowing that it could removed later, but realizing the FAC run was over. That wasn't in earlier. I do use the copyright list - it just seems odd that what Elcobbola cleared and didn't clear was changed. And in fact Elcobbola worked himself on a number of the tags if I remember correctly. Moreover, Elcobbola doesn't believe FUR images should be used, but you do. All I'm saying is that I don't understand the rules by which you guys play, is all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The National Archives don't own the copyright. Displaying an image on a website is not owning it. All they can tell you is that they're not aware of restrictions, but that doesn't mean anything. And we shouldn't add images with no source or author info regardless of whether the article's at FAC. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Spam?

I had posted some info on one of Pound's rightwing admirers in the 1950s (who has an article on Wikipedia). I am a bit astonished about the strong reactions, I thought Pound's politics were pretty well known. --Radh (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I worked on this article from June to October and of course knew of Pound's politics. Being of aware of a fact is not an endorsement of the situation. Personally I didn't find it necessary to post information on the talkpage as was here this morning. As you say, the politics were known, and that certainly wasn't anything that could have been used as a source, so not sure why it was posted. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a blog and/or spam with advertising and a plea for donations - inappropriate and consequently deleted...Modernist (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
If Jonathan P. Gill's entry on the Radio Rome broadcasts (in: The Ezra Pound Encyclopedia by Tryphonopoulos, p. 115f.) is correct, broadcasts by Pound started in 1935, became regular in 1940 and went on long after July 25, 1943 when Mussolini's government fell (until April 1945).--Radh (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing prevents you from adding well sourced, correct, information...Modernist (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
ok, let's finish this spat.--Radh (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the article itself recently, but the information about the 1935 broadcasts was in and sourced. He was asked and he declined. Will add diffs in minute. Why is this a spat? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This version that was nomed at FAC includes the 1935 broadcasts sourced to Redman pp. 169-170. I did not delete that information. If it's no longer there, then it's been deleted recently. He declined the offer to make broadcasts in 1935. And Modernist was correct to delete the site you linked. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that the information about the 1935 request for broadcasts is gone. That's unfortunate - it seemed important to me that he was involved that early. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It is just one tiny aspect, but still. Another strange thing: Pound may not have liked Hitler at first, but he defends him vehemently after the war. The idea, that Pound was pro-Mussolini, but against Naziism seems to be wishful thinking (and also, by the way, the famous Ginsberg quote about stupid antisemitism pure hogwash). [source: the Pound-Olivia Rossetti Agresti letters; but must read more]--Radh (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC).
I dislike the Ginsberg quote intensely. If it's in the article now, I'm disappointed. Btw - I think you should strike your comments rather than deleting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the Ginsberg quote so it's complete and I added the primary source. [18] Radh, do you think it's hogwash in the sense that Pound never said it, or just that he didn't mean it? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Question Why does Pound say that to Allen? Do you think he's sincere or does he say it because Allen was Jewish and the most important Beat Poet in the world? Just curious, IMO he sounds utterly insincere...Modernist (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
[To me the Pound statement to Ginsberg is a lie, uttered to make him look better, perhaps he just wanted to be nice to a protege of W.C.Williams'. But pictures of Pound + Ginsberg (online) show a very tired Pound, who probably just wanted to be left in peace. But why did Ginsberg buy it (or pretended to)? He must have known perfectly well, that Pound's antisemitism ran deep. Perhaps G. playing up to his Buddhist self? --Radh (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)]
Good point, Allen had his own complicated agenda and others speculate as well: [19], [20], in the picture I've seen Pound looks bored...Modernist (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
And here: [21] On the whole situation also: Nex York Review of Books: [22], good response by Kazin. This Peter Russell guy looks interesting; on Pound in St. Elizabeths: Lee Lady: Memories of Pound at St. Elizabeths. James J. Wilhelm: Ezra Pound, The Tragic Years has the Pound-Ginsberg encounter on p. 343f. . --Radh (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good find. I added a little bit from one of the NY Review of Books articles. [23] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Could be, though Pound did annoy other friends who were Jewish, because he continued to be anti-Semitic in front of them. I'm not sure he was the type to change his views depending on who he was speaking to. My only thinking was that it's such a famous quote it would look odd not to include it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion - the interaction between Pound and Ginsberg is relevant; a meeting of two separate generations of guys whose particular way with words and sound defined their lives, I just think Pound didn't want to totally lose Ginsberg. Ginsberg was a link to the future and Pound had a very good ability to recognize important writers...Modernist (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The sources are inconsistent about when he started the broadcasts, and whether he asked and refused initially, or was keen and they refused him; and if both happened what the exact years and circumstances were. TK had the article say they approached him and said no, but the source linked above shows they were not keen on him, and other sources say he practically had to beg them to let him on; he told Harry Meacham: "It took me, I think it was, TWO years, insistence and wrangling etc., to GET HOLD of their microphone." Anyway, it's one of the issues I'm trying to straighten out. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why was the Literature and treason thread removed from this page as a matter of interest? [24] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said - WP:BLOGS, WP:ADVERTISING, WP:SPAM somewhat uselessly ugly material that the links already in the article covers well enough [25]...Modernist (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Broadcasts

The radio broadcast issue was one of the things that concerned me about the previous version. The article made it sound as though the Italians pressed Pound to do them, but he said no. See the Italy section in the version submitted to FAC:

In 1935 the Italian government asked for a series of radio speeches on the subject of "the economic triumph of fascism";[108] and when in 1936 the Ministry of Propaganda again offered Pound a weekly radio broadcast he refused, saying "I don't care a hoot about talking over the radio".[103]

Both points sourced to Tim Redman, Ezra Pound and Italian Fascism, 1991, pp. 156-158, 170.

But Redman gives a very different picture. On page 158 he says the Italians asked Pound in 1934 to give a radio talk on "the economic triumph of fascism." Redman says Pound was "enthusiastic about the talk, because it gave him the opportunity to make new contacts with the Italian government." He gave the talk on 11 January 1935. The Italians didn't like it, because they couldn't understand what he was saying, Redman writes, and Pound had trouble getting another invitation. See here on Google books, p. 158.

Whoever added this to the article then quoted only part of the "don't care a hoot" quote, missing out a vital few words. The quote came at the end of a list of Pound's requests of the Italian government in a 1936 letter (he wanted to see the "Capo del Governo", among other things), and Redman gives the full quote as: "I don't care a hoot about talking over the radio UNLESS it conduces to one or all of the above activities." Redman interprets the letter as follows: "The above letter demonstrates clearly that Pound initially was interested in broadcasting for Italian radio as a means of spreading his economic views. The Italian ministry apparently was not interested in having Pound ride that hobbyhorse and reacted coolly." Redman explains that the Italians felt Pound was saying strange things on his broadcasts and weren't keen on them. See here on Google books, p. 170.

The other sources are consistent with Redman. Pound himself made clear that he was the driving force behind the broadcasts, and that he had to badger the Italians to let him make them. But the editor who added this to the article, using Redman as the source, made it appear that it was the Italians asking Pound to make the broadcasts, and Pound who resisted them, exactly the opposite of the point the source makes. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you're doing a fantastic job of discrediting me. The content was added here on July 14th, the very week I learned I was suffering from a rapid and significant loss of vision for which I had surgery in the first week of September. I readily agree I should not have been working at all on Wikipedia, and that's why I have a semi-retired banner on my page. I'm absolutely mortified at the mistakes I've made. You can AGF and believe that or assume that I was whitewashing, I leave to you. I do, however, want to make it very clear that I have no interest in bringing this article back to FAC. Do you know whether I need to tell one of delegates that it won't be returning to FAC? I'd like to slink away from this page forever and put this behind me, if you don't mind. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The point is not to discredit you. The point is twofold: first, because you've been attacking me all over the place for my edits, I have to show why I'm making changes to the article, and why I was concerned. That necessarily means that I have to start listing the errors (and I have only listed a few). I would prefer not to be doing it, because it's time-consuming, but your reactions made it necessary.
Secondly, I have to check in case there was some context in which you felt the edits were correct; because it could be that I need to know about that context to make things completely accurate. But I have to say that quoting the first half of something, and leaving out key words, and not even adding dots to show that something was removed, is hard to explain. And it's not the only selective quoting I've found.
As I said, you're welcome to edit or not, post here or not. But I think if you're going to post, you owe some explanations, or at least you need to stop making editing difficult for others. The jury business for example gave a very misleading impression. You added that a jury returned a verdict to release him in 1958, giving the impression that a jury finally put right a terrible American injustice. But there was no trial, no jury, no verdict in 1958. There was one when he was sent to St Elizebeths in 1945 or whenever it was, a very different context, and their verdict at that time was that he was insane, which is why he was sent away. It was a judge alone who released him in 1958, and only because the government didn't oppose the motion.
This is why I'm adding links to Google books in the citations, which you're complaining about. I'm doing that precisely so that readers and other editors can check that what the article says is what the sources say. If the edis in question had been uncited, people would have known to check them. If they'd been sourced with a link to Google books wherever possible, it would have been easy to check them. But because you added citations with short refs and templates linking to the References section, instead of linking to the source directly, people assumed you were being faithful to the source and didn't go to the trouble of looking things up—because they would have had to find the pages themselves, which is not always easy. And when I did, I was attacked for it.
This is one of the reasons I'm very opposed to fancy citation-template formatting. The important thing is to make citations easy for the reader to check. All else should be subordinate to that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Point taken. Unwatchlisting now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Point taken perhaps, but with no apology for the trouble you've tried to stir up against me. I had the following choice when I saw this article. (a) Say nothing and let an important article full of errors be promoted. (2) Start trying to fix it without drawing attention to the number of mistakes I was finding, while encouraging the nominee to stay involved. (3) Set up a subpage and start listing the mistakes so that other people would see what the problems were.
I chose to do (2), which I thought was the decent thing, but it left me vulnerable. And for that decision I've had to watch myself be torn to shreds on various user talk pages thanks to you.
Now, I really don't want to discuss this aspects of things again on this page. If you want to, please tell me where to go and we can talk about it on another page. But I would like this page to be only for content issues from now on. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You cant have it both ways, use it as a tool when it suites, and then cty 'content only' after a responce, choking further right of reply. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
As I see the problems with TK continue (and Ceoil, please note some of your copy edits are changing meaning and tense), I'll open up a subpage and start listing the errors I found. That way others can see what the issues are, but it'll keep it off this page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
So now myself and TK are 'problems'. O lovely. I worked with a lot of people on a lot of pages over a lot of years, and I gotten on well with all of them, most of the people I met are now friends. Collabaration, give or take. Being undermined like this is a new one for me. I dont get it, its pointless aggressive. Its not within my experience. But do as you wish, open up your page, whatever makes you happy. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of broadcasts

Between January 1942 and July 1943, he made 125 broadcasts,

Just a nicety, and rather pedantic. This is the number monitored and recorded by the FCC, and may not represent the total of broadcasts. He certainly was interviewed on Radio Corse Libre, in French, and not just on Radio Rome. Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi N, I've been having trouble coming up with a rough estimate, so I wrote "He began broadcasting regularly on 23 January 1941 ... Between January 1942 and July 1943, he made 125 broadcasts ..." because these are the figures one of his biographers gave. I was intending to say more about when he started (I believe it was 1935), when it ended, and how many. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

G'day, Slim. Apart from memories of conversations with a fascist who used to introduce some of his broadcasts, I've got quite a lot of books on him. Specifically on this C. David Heymann's Ezra Pound: The Last Rower, Faber & Faber, London 1976 (earlier that Tytell, and therefore perhaps dated). He tells us that the FCC monitoring only began several months after Pound began broadcasting, so from Jan 21 to 2 October 1941, when they started registering, (p.102) Pound's rants weren't registered by that service, and on a rough calculation (WP:OR!!), since he spoke throughout that period on an average of 10 times a month, (every 3 days,) about 82 never figure in the 125. The 125 figure relates to broadcasts from October 2 onwards(p.102). By the way, just reading through, lots of folks are never wikilinked in the text, but only in the notes (Fenellosa, Kenner, Sandburg etc.) If there's anything you needing looking up in Noel Stck, Norman, Kenner, Donald Davie, G.S. Frazewr, Eva Hesse, Rachewiltz, George Kearns or the late lamented Humphrey Carpenter, drop me a note. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be really helpful, thanks. Any input would be much appreciated. Material that needs to be developed in particular is his work with Fenellosa's notebooks, and Cathay, and his attitude to translation in general. I've tried to clarify the broadcasts issue here, and I'll take another look at it later. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. Problems offline. Briefly.

I’m glad to see you’re reworking it. It needs, probably for this generation, a little more weight towards the exceptional role he played, and influence he exercised on modern English poetry and criticism. By the way I was surprised to see no mention (from memory, I read it too quickly, these have been hectic days offline) of the fact that he twice volunteered to serve in WW1, with England (from memory) and then the US expeditionary force in 1917, but was rejected. The ‘San Vio bridge’ address worries me, and is worth checking. 'living over a bakery near the San Vio bridge'. I know it's often said in sources like Carpenter that he stayed at Ponte San Vio, as they comment on the famous lines in Canto 76 (New Directions 1972: p.460). He lived certainly in Campo San Vio, between the Ponte dell'Accademia and the church of Santa Maria della Salute. That was his postal address in 1908, but I don’t think it’s named thus now. Could be wrong though. There are footbridges there, but I don’t know of a San Vio bridge? You’re right, the aesthetics needs improvement, needs two sections on (a) translations (b) theory of translation. In my day the classicist J.P. Sullivan made a very good argument for the way he manipulated classical texts. Apropos the fierce critique made of his 1918 Propertius translation. You might like to check his 'Ezra Pound and the Classics' in Eva Hesse, (ed.) New Approaches to Ezra Pound, Faber & Faber, 1969 pp.215-241, and the same author's Propertius: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge UP 1976 pp.114-116,149-152; L.S. Dembo's The Confucian Odes of Ezra Pound: A Critical Appraisal, Faber & Faber 1963, is short, succinct (readable) at a single sitting and shows an acute familiarity with Pound's doctrines and the Chinese originals. On Fenellosa, Hugh Kenner's The Pound Era, pp.192-231 (there's tons of stuff on that angle, esp. in Japanese, though) is a good early guide, though there are slips. Nothing like Herbert Marshall’s blunders when he used to lecture on the ‘Chinese character’ theory behind Sergei Eisenstein’s montage, though. I'll look around some more tomorrow. Davie's short Modern Masters account on his verse aesthetics is worth reading generally, though he's excessively adulatory at times.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

@Nishidani, do you know, which broadcasts the Rotterdam/Cold Turkey book has, or if it is any good? (I am trying to write something on the Cold Turkey Press itself)--Radh (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
No, Sorry Radh. I've never read that. All I have in extenso on the broadcasts is C.David Heymann's book, cited above, which has substantial excerpts. I confess I haven't even heard of that book. If I turn up anything though, I'll let you know.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The tiny User:Radh/Cold Turkey Press is kind of interesting and the Pound book created a stir in Dutch papers at the time, it seems. P.S.: de:Eva Hesse (Autorin) is great and I everything I have read by her (with the exception of her first Pound-bio) was very good, but she also is kind of nuts (Maoist).--Radh (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
That's better than a lot of article stubs on Wiki. I don't see why you couldn't just get the page up here as a stub. As for nuts, some of my best friends . .:). Glossing it by (Maoist) is not quite precise: Julia Kristeva and Philippe Sollers were Maoists for a while, along with a huge bunch of people, but, certainly the former has written books of great penetration, rationality and beauty. Most normal people are nuts while not prey to the delusive idiocy of Maoist. They watch television, Fox News, vote for Tea Partyites, join the marines, see the world, and shoot people, believe all sorts of extraordinary things because of something said thousands of years ago by someone or other whom, had they known them, they'd never invite into their houses, . . Which is arguably a definite symptom of mental pathology:) And now to work.Nishidani (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind remarks; @Hesse: I bought her Pound bio when I had next to no money and am still angry with her about it. Some of her work, the things you mentioned and other stuff from that time are of course very good.--Radh (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Anything you can add here, N, would be most helpful. I'm thinking in the long term the article should present a series of sub-articles summary-style. His translation work would be a separate article, as would his economic ideas, the broadcasts, and his time at St Elizabeths. I didn't know about his volunteering to fight; in fact I had wondered about that. The First World War section could use a rewrite because we don't explain why it affected him so much, apart from the obvious. Will check the San Vio bridge issue. Radh, I'm laughing at you being angry with an author because you bought a bad book when you had no money. I know the feeling. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to mess round with your work. Noted remark re templates, which means my new style is overloading, (and you're against too many links, hence I didn't want to do the dozen I'd noticed needed links) and, in any case, I know you go through articles like a dose of salts, (I've learnt from you in this, but not to advantage!) and when I see editors willing to do this, I stand by, waiting for them to finish, and then offer to chip in if needed.
I checked the WW1 bit, and found the source

He volunteered for war service, but was not accepted. Later, after America's entry into the war, he sought Quinn's assistance in finding service with the Americans in France . .These efforts were, however, unsuccessful.' Noel Stock The Life of Ezra Pound, (Routledge & Kegan Paul 1970)Pelican Biographies/Penguin reprint 1974 p.230.

Just to be sure, I've checked Humphrey Carpenter. He writes:

'From 1914 through to 1918 he contemplated doing some 'war work', but never gave serious attention to the matter. 'True they wont have Americans in the English Army yet,' he wrote to his mother in the spring of 1915,'and that am unlikely therefore to enter active servce, but it is still possible that I may find some indirect work to do.' In 1916 he enquired if 'in view of the National Service activity' - conscription, recently introuced - 'perhaps the time has come when I might be given something to do.' H Carpenter, A Serious Character: The Life of Ezra Pound, F&F 1988 p.237

Yes, good thinking structurally. A business man, friend of my father's, hit me with Major Douglas's books, when I was scarcely out of the cot. Too conservative, not insurrectionry enough for me at that age, but if you ever touch that topic, (haven't checked any wiki pages) I can check anything in his Social Credit or Economic Democracy, provided I can find the blasted things etc. Sorry I can't do more than check, since my time's been wasted quite a lot on futilia recently, I've a huge backlog of winter work to do outside, and will be travelling for several months in a few weeks. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a long-term job, N, because such a complex subject (not yet time for the dose of salts) so feel free to pitch in as and when, and also please link as you see fit. I often err on the side of no-linking and maybe go too far. Thanks for the sources on his wanting to volunteer. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Aargh, cut myself. Respite. I forgot to note. That's quite to the point re WW1, the need to provide some details of why it sent him off the rails (as a background to the ultra-fascist, kike baiting that got to him afterwards). Apart from the effect of that larg-scale massacre of friends of great promise and talent, I think his brief encounter with Wilfred Scawan Blunt (poet/anti-imperialist) was fairly important (poet and anti-imperialist, the ideal father substitute. The meeting and Blunt's account of it can be found in Elizabeth Longford's A Pilgrimage of Passion Knopf 1980 pp393ff (Belloc was there spouting anti-semitic stuff, by the way). I can't recall many bios that explain this adequately, but reading them allows one many OR reflections! +
Re being cheated on a book, forking out cash when one's short of the folding stuff, for a boosted book. It last happened when I saw rave reviews of a book in my field 16 years ago. I worked off the sense of being gulled by writing a 150 page review of it with several hundred footnotes. That worked, I learnt a lot, but not from his book! A few friends in the game read it, privately circulated, agreed, but thought I was nuts to prove the point in that way!Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Okay I'll at least do the links today, once my hand's back in shape.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

ISBNs

Is there a point in adding these? Personally I don't mind either way, but I see a few are being added incorrectly and are having to be fixed. Given that it's unlikely readers use them is it worth keeping them? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice undermining tactic. Whatever. Ceoil (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a few mistakes in copy/pasting, but nothing that can't be fixed, and I intend to go through them all again and check them. Personally I always use them - the ISBN is the most stable manner to get to google books, but more importantly I use them on WorldCat to search for books I might need and want to order through ILL. Clicking the ISBN bring you to WP:Book sources which is really a good resource. So, yes, it's very much worth keeping them. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy editing

This is not good copy editing, Ceoil.

  • The article said:

It was at Pennsylvania that he met Hilda Doolittle—the daughter of the university's professor of astronomy—who went on to become a poet known as H.D.

You changed it to:

He met Hilda Doolittle at Pennsylvania. She was the daughter of the university's professor of astronomy, and became as a poet as H.D.

  • The article said:

In June 1910 he returned for eight months to the United States, in part to try to persuade the New York Public Library, then being built, to change its design. The New York Times wrote that he went almost daily to the architects' offices to shout at them.

You changed it to:

In June 1910 he returned to the United States for eight months, in part to persuade the New York Public Library, then being built, to change its design. The New York Times wrote that he almost daily visited the architects' offices to shout at them.

  • The article said:

His essays about America were written during this period, and became the book Patria Mia ...

You changed it to:

His essays on America were written during this period, and were complied as Patria Mia ...

There has been a lot of copy editing like it. I don't see the point of change for the sake of change when it's introducing errors. All it means is it has to be reverted at some point, then we get more posts here about you being pissed off.

Also please don't remove any more links to references. They are there so that readers can check what we're saying. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Your a nasty piece of work. No interest in give or take; its all just another fight. Have fun with that. Ceoil (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This is all I've ever had from you, Ceoil—cursing at me because I do something you don't like, or telling me I'm wonderful because I do something you do like. [26]
It isn't fair to ask people to give and take with the writing. I saw the same thing during the FAC; here for example. The article said that he was held in "a six-by-six-foot steel cage, open to the elements, which had been specially reinforced". You changed it to: "a reinforcedsix-by-six-foot steel cage held in the outdoors." The article said: "Whatever the cause, Pound clung to life for another decade, which he attributed to Olga's influence." You changed it to: "Dispite his illness, Pound lived for another decade; he attributed the fact to Olga's influence and care." [27]
It leaves people in an awkward position. Leave it in the article, which would make no sense; revert without explanation; or revert with an explanation and be insulted. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell this article is becoming vastly improved - thanks to TK, SV, Ceoil, and everyone contributing, even with the philosophical, and editorial differences...Modernist (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
There are no philosophical or editorial differences. Just discretating. Fine SV, I can't spell, but I can rephrase, usually people I work with accommodate that and dont use it against me. I got 2/20 at school tyically, but so what, a few typos, and you basically want to take me out of the page. Not likely. My typicall experience is talk and discussion with good people. Not here, this is all new. Re praise, perhalps I extended too much good faith there. I was willing to accept you had changed, apparently not so. Still a bully. Ceoil (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Spelling aside, Ceoil is a good editor as are everyone that has been working here lately - let's please try to work together, no one owns the article as no one owned Pound - marching to his own drum...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not just a question of typos and spelling. It's the writing. What is a cage held in the outdoors, for example? It doesn't make sense to add that when what was there was fine—"a six-by-six-foot steel cage, open to the elements." I'm happy to work with anyone who wants to copy edit. All I'm asking is that editors make sure the change really is an improvement. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
More importantly, what is needed is not copy editing or removing references, but content addition. The First World War section, for example, is very poor, and there is still only a shaky sense of how his work developed. And very little about his translation work. If people really want to help, please add content. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
If people want to help? If they really 'have' to help? For several reasons thats a transparent deflection. Content? Hmm. Some self awarness pls. Lets be honest about whats going on. Ceoil (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll stop swearing at you when you earn the right. I'm so not seeing that now; bullying TK, and hammering me, and endlessly twisting. What are we, twelve? Ceoil (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, this edit [28] has an edit summary of "restoring material, copyediting". It's no more than a mass revert of over a hundred edits. I formatted all the ellipses, added non-breaking spaces, took care of many MoS issues - all wiped out in a single edit. At the most minute level, is there an issue with formatting ellipses per MoS and adding non-breaking spaces at appropriate places? We really need to listen to Modernist's advice above. Each of us brings a different vision to this article, and everyone should be welcome to work, not chastised. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You removed all the links, which you had been asked not to do. This is coming across as very manipulative. You know what you did, so why are you asking me? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you point me to a diff asking me not to remove inline links? If we had that conversation, I don't remember that specific part of it. I'm going to AGF and ignore the comment about manipulation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Please don't ignore it. My every experience with you is you trying to stir up drama around these issues, posting on multiple pages, emailing people, playing people off against each other. It has made me not want to edit anymore, except unlike you I won't start posting a retired note on my talk page to attract attention. But I can tell you that this experience has sickened me.
Please come to the page with clean hands, and discuss things here only in a straightforward way. It will be a more pleasant experience for everyone, including you. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I really have no idea how to respond to this. As it happens, yesterday I felt well for the first Saturday since early September. I edited an article I've been working on since June. You reverted all the edits. I'm sorry you consider me to be manipulative and sickening. I just do not know what more to say. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Minimalism and the epic

I can't find this in the source:

"In its purest form Imagism was a form of minimalism, but minimalism did not lend itself to the epic, and so he used the more dynamic structure of Vorticism for The Cantos.

Source: Albright, Daniel. "Early Cantos: I–XLI" in Nadel, 1999, p. 60.

It's been in the article since the FAC version. [29] If anyone can see it in Albright or knows of an alternative source, that would be helpful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's presumably a distillation of the folowing passage, in which Albright begins with a reference to "In a Station of the Metro" (the passage is indeed on page 60 of the cited work): "By eliminating all but the hardest kernel, through eighteen months of hard poetic work, Pound hoped to find the minimum unit of poetic expression in a haiku-like sentence. ... But this technique, basic to the Imagist movement that Pound helped to establish, through editing the Imagiste anthology, was unpromising for an epic poem. ¶Almost as soon as the Imagist movement began, Pound sought for ways of extending the poetic image without losing its concentration. The Vorticist movement of 1914 sought ways of embodying in a poem, not just the image itself, but the process through which the image was conceived and transmitted. ... The notion of a whirl of ideas fining themselves down, focusing on some central point, seems more useful to an epic poet than the notion of an interminable gallery of of terse and disconnected images—pattern-units in the absence of a pattern. But how was Pound to write an epic in the form of a tornado?" Deor (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Is that an accurate summary, then? The next sentence says he did not want to ask himself such questions. He just wanted to write without any particular sense of a model. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
And if you look at page six of the article (the pdf), it seems to say he didn't use Vorticism for the most part. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's not exactly how I would have summarized the passage, but it doesn't seem a particularly forced reading either. As I've intimated, a good deal of the article in its present state doesn't use the sources in the way I would, so it's best if I leave you folk to argue about this sentence's accuracy as a summary. (Especially since, having looked at p. 6 of the PDF, I see no mention of Vorticism at all. There, and in the passage you referred to in the post above, he's talking about models—existing poems that P. might have patterned his work after; Vorticism was an artistic method or movement, not a poetic model.) Deor (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
He says on page six (as I read it) that it was used in the later cantos, but for the most part not. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I haven't read the pdf - is it exactly the same as the essay in the Cambridge Companion, or is one a rendition of the other? Will check the essay in a while. I agree with Deor's point that Vorticism is not a poetic model. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Page 60 from the Cambridge Companion:
    • The notion of a whirl of ideas fining themselves down, focusing on some central point, seems more useful to an epic poet than the notion of an interminable gallery of terse and disconnected images - pattern units in the absence of a pattern. But how was Pound to write an epic in the form of a tornado?
  • Please reword however seems appropriate. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
But read the rest of it, particularly page six. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you read page six, TK, and say whether you agree with the summary or not? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I need to print it out. The essay in the Companion appears to be based on this paper, but the paper is quite different. I'll have to compare the two. Without a comparative analysis that's all I can say at the moment, and I can't do it immediately. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Which parts of the paper are different? They look identical, and he gives the Companion cite for it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Back of with the hounding, or learn to spell immediately. Either way a more respectful, less agressive mode would be nice. This is painful to watch. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
SV - the computer I'm using isn't hooked to printer and the other one is being used - so please be patient. From a quick scan of the first paragraphs there are wording differences which makes me think the pdf is a longer version with more detail. I don't object to the sentence being rewritten and it's not worth making a big deal. As soon as I can print, I will. It's easier for me to read from hardcopy than online. That's just the way it is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Stock 1973, pp. 400–401
  2. ^ Wilhelm 1994, p. 203
  3. ^ Wilhelm 1994, pp. 206–207
  4. ^ Nadel 1999, p. 3
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Oconnor7 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Alexander 1998, p. 208
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ezra_Pound/Archive_1&oldid=1152155241"