Talk:Ezra Pound/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Marking edits as minor

TK, you're making lots of small edits one after another but not marking them as such. Could you start making them as minor, please, as appropriate? It means we would know which ones didn't need checking. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Says the person who blanket reverted a days work today (see below). Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A presumptuous comment

Once again, I'm reluctant to insert myself into this situation, but I'd like to point out that there's really no reason for the search artifacts in all the courtesy links to Google Books in this article. Shortening the URL http://books.google.com/books?id=0iCYVqAMnfkC&pg=PA5&dq=%22we+have+Pound+the+major+poet%22&hl=en&ei=pfSsTKaPHcmnnQfRtvzABg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22we%20have%20Pound%20the%20major%20poet%22&f=false, for instance, to http://books.google.com/books?id=0iCYVqAMnfkC&pg=PA5 takes the reader to the same page image at Google Books and clutters the edit screen a lot less. I haven't any desire to edit the article at this time, though, so I'll leave the matter to others. Deor (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm intending to go through the links and find the shortest URLs that lead to the same set of pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

They should all go. They are not static, and their accibality dependes in which country you are in. People from England have sent me links, and I cant see them. And they are a html nightmare. When I just 'have' to jump in a change meaning and tense, they confuse me, and I go to hatch diabolical plans elsewherere. Ceoil (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Most readers can see them, and they are becoming more static with time as Google sorts out the licences. Just because some people don't have subscriptions is no reason to remove links to journals for those who do. There were a lot of errors in the article. Providing links to the source material directly helps to avoid those because it makes it easier for other editors to check. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what conflating means? Hint: Its not becoming. Ceoil (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

They have to go. Yesterday I tried running the dashes script and each time the page hung. File size is 282 kB - much too enormous. The point of using the single word short cites is they simply minimize the page size. I'm willing to compromise with simple short cites instead of Harvards, and I've unpicked those that were left. At this point we have a page that's too big for some people to load and we have to be cognizant of that. Furthermore, the links are not static. What one person sees is not what another person sees. They're very spiffy and cool to use, but not reliable. The ISBN system the best way to find and verify information. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No, they do not have to go, and they're not causing the page to hang. You added hundreds of templates to the page, which slowed down load time and now you're complaining about URLs?

How do you get to a page number with an ISBN? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I linked how to got to the google books with the ISBN. SlimVirgin, I'm going step away now. I know a little a bit about technology and I always keep a sharp eye on file sizes. The short templates are not as much of a problem as the long templates. Yes, I am complaining about URLS - I have as much right as anyone on this project to discuss anything on a talkpage. I also see that you've reverted a number of edits - so we're at the discussion phase of BRD - but I think we both need to come at this as calmly as possible. For whatever it's worth, I think a number of your additions are quite good, but I haven't quite finished going through and looking at everything. Will return in a while, after coffee and bagels. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you get to page numbers using an ISBN? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And it is 144 kB, 77 kB of which is the prose size. That is perfectly fine. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of cite templates, but one sin does not forgive the other. My hope is that we loose both. I do it if we can agree on that out of this unholy mess you have created. Ceoil (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Truly am not making this up:

• • File size: 282 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 77 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 57 kB
  • Wiki text: 141 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9863 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 16 kB
• I'll go in have look at the source html if necessary, but it's a pain and time consuming and my coffee is cold. Am happy to lose all templates. Can bend. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise, I'd be willing to remove the links to Google books from the References section, where they're just general links, if that will make a difference to file size. It's the links to the page numbers, or the snippet view page, in the footnotes that I want to keep, because they lead directly to the material we're citing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Truly, I'm glad you are not making up the easily accesable stats because friend, if not making up, you are certainly skewed in most of what you are saying here. All the usual trickes ye people used to get away with back three or four years ago. And why? Duunno. You could have worked with us, you know. Ceoil (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

An example: footnote number 3 in the lead links here. I don't know what anyone else sees, but I see 8 blank pages. That doesn't seem very useful. With the precise number and ISBN, a person can find this information if they wish. It would take a lot to convince me that linking to 8 blank pages is worthwhile. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind answering the question about ISBNs? How do you get to a page number using an ISBN? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88, I'm not sure why you are stating the article size is 282Kb; that's simply not the case. Yesterday, when you made the comment it was 144Kb, and that's easy enough to check from the history (as I have just done). As of the time I am making this comment, it is 136Kb. The latter is about the usual size for larger FAs. The difference in size is mostly from my shortening the Google books links; the "link clutter" has now been fixed. Whatever the issues are with this article, it's not article size. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Content

Whenever you and TK turn up here, it's all about formatting and image sizes, so content addition slows to a halt. Why not help to add content instead? The article is really very poor. We need more sub-articles, for example, so we can slowly move content and have summary-style sections here. I'm going to start one on his time in St Elizabeths when the books arrive. Why not help with that process? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

When ever myself and TK turn up here? Are you serious? Fool some other people, this is boring now. 0/10. Ceoil (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is not poor. I had to return books to the library and wait to get them back. Put in requests yesterday and should receive books next week. Will work on content then. Page formatting/layout is important. We are basically an online publishing company. Publishers think about page layout. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just have to say this: Ceoil has been "showing up here" for many years - have a look at the edit history. It sounds as though we're invaders. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not before content, they don't. And if you are going to continue to work here you owe explanations for the mistakes. They were major ones, not minor, and they have caused a serious AGF problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments like these hurt - very much. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"if you are going to continue ", "you owe explanations". No wonder you are seen as a best avoided plague. Who the hell do you think you are talking to TK like that? Get real, you make my skin crawl. Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And if you are going to continue to work here - will I be blocked or banned?

owe explanations for the mistakes - sudden loss of vision in right eye diagnosed in July, surgery first week in September, complications due to surgery since. Can't be any more clear than that. I'm very human, and made a few mistakes in a large article working alone and under difficult circumstances. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

See article editing history here:[1] it's turning into a great article thanks to everyone's contributions...Modernist (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, SVs FAC review was very strong and exactly what the imcumbants were hoping for. But the sting in tail was to cut us out, using two means, neither platabale, and neither honest. Why it has to be a bloodbath I dont get, but I suppose some people prefer to work that way. It would seem discredit is a side dish for her, and part of the fun. Ceoil (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Subpage

Missed this comment earlier: 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)

If it's necessary to open a subpage, which I don't believe it to be, please provide a link here. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Google page links

Nikimaria, please don't remove the google books links, they're quite helpful - I've restored and shortened them. I'm a bit baffled, though, when you state (in your edit summary) that they are "in-line links accessible from references" - can you explain? Also, regarding the name order, for the Notes, they first names should be left out altogether, unless they're required for disambiguation. In the References section, they should be Last name, First name. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It would seem to me that a majority think they are not helpful, and should be removed. Which they will be, again. Jayjg, please dont work against stylistic preferances which the incumbant major authors have already discussed and decided against. Being baffeled is not a good defense. It your own problem if you cant work with us, not ours. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you decided who the "incumbant major authors" are, but from what I can tell there has been no such consensus to remove these helpful links by the major authors of this article. Though people have claimed the information in them can be easily found through other links, no-one has actually been able to describe how. Please discuss further on Talk, rather than removing these links that are obviously helpful to the reader, and have involved so much effort. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Jayjg. I find they're not really that helpful when used in-line in the way they were - they clutter up the text, and as I noted are available from the Reference section. If you scroll past the Notes to References, you will find that all of the books for which I removed in-line links are already linked to Google Books. As those links are available, page-specific links (as were in notes), which are unfortunately less stable and more dependent on editor location, are not a net positive. I agree with Ceoil that you should respect the majority viewpoint, especially as it seems those of this view are the original/primary authors (although I might've worded it differently). As for your second point, thanks for the info - that doesn't seem to be the prevailing style as it stands, but I didn't do much in the way of note formatting anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, the general links don't go right to the pages where the material is discussed in the specific note, so they're not nearly as helpful. Also, while they may not be visible to editors in all countries, they are certainly stable. Either they work or they don't; when they do, they take you right to the page. When they don't, they take you to the book. There aren't really any downsides here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, page links are much less stable than general links. When they work, I've found that they tend to be a few pages off. If they work. If they don't work, they tend to go to either the book description with no preview, or to a 404 not found. Furthermore, the general links allow you to go to the direct pages you need (any page you like, really) where the book is accessible. The way I see it, having the general book link in Reference is comparable to having full bibliographic information for a book in References and having only author/date/page in notes - less clutter, shorter load time, greater efficiency, no excessive loss of convenience. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding on to that, I think that linked ISBNs, in References at least, would be more helpful, as that would offer a wider range of options for editors for whom Google Books is not or only partially accessible. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, your statement is not really accurate. First of all, properly formatted google links never produce a 404 error. In addition, google page links always go to the same page. They never go to any other. If the link is to page 153, then it always goes to 153, it never goes to 168, or 129, etc. And with the general book link, you force the reader to then search the entire book; why on earth would you make them do this extra work? They might not even be able to get to the page by searching the book, since Google limits the total number of pages you can see in a book, so it's best to go directly to the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Linked ISBNs in References will not take you directly to the page being reference in a note, so they can't really serve anywhere near the same purpose, can they? Also, why can't one have both? Of course, one should have both; the google book links do not in any way preclude linked ISBNs. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Linked ISBNs give you the Google Books links. As for your first point, see reply above. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, after some extra clicks and page loads, but they don't take you to the page, do they? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are being willfully obtuse now. Leave it. Ceoil (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil, please comment on content, not editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I did, TK did, Modernist did, Nikkimaria did, and still you reverted. So now I'm saying clearly, as before, accept it. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The links clutter the text, often go nowhere, create load problems for an already overly long page - they have no upside. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

But this is not accurate; they always go somewhere, and if they don't, then they just need to be fixed. In addition, they create no "load problems" whatsoever; this is simply false. Templates create load problems, links never do, they have no impact whatsoever on page loading. In addition, the value of linking directly to the page referenced is an obvious "upside"; if not, we wouldn't encourage editors to link to online versions of newspaper or magazine articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The links to page numbers help the reader to find the text, just as links to newspaper and journal articles do. There is no good reason at all to remove them, and you can't add page numbers to a References section, esp not when you've linked to multiple pages. Nikkimaria, can you say what prompted you to arrive at this article specifically to remove links to sources? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I came here as a follow-up to my comments at FAC, to see if I could help out in regards to consistency, MoS issues, etc. I didn't arrive specifically to remove links, but I fully support their removal, for reasons I have already explained. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

But your reasons don't really accord with the facts of these links, and removing them simply make things harder for the reader. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Content removal

I'm not following recent removal of links to google books. These links are certainly helpful to anyone interested in finding out more material and the original citations on the subject. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are not following but want to say anyway them Im not sure what to say back to you except, <sigh>. The reasons are reasoned. Are you a friend of Jayjg's by any chance. It would seem so from edit histories. One attack dog is bad enough, I hope there are not many more in the post with a sudden interest in mid period modernist poetry. Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The links have been discussed and really aren't necessary. The sources will have the ISBNs re-instated, which really are much more stable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Links are never necessary, but they are helpful, and it's very odd to want to remove links that will help the reader find the source material within seconds, rather than having to walk to a library! You can add your ISBNs too, if you want. But removing links just because you don't like them, asking others to arrive here to do the same, and even starting a discussion on WT:FAC to try to have them banned, is ... well, I don't know how to describe it.

In the meantime, article development is once again halted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just noting here that the conclusion of the discussion on WT:FAC that Truthkeeper started in order to have Google page links banned (so she could remove them from this article) concluded that they are permitted. And this article is not an FAC candidate anyway, and is never likely to be one without better content and stability. But the point is they are allowed, and several editors argued during the discussion that they are helpful. So if you personally don't like them, then please just ignore them, but allow others to use them. Jay has helpfully found short URLs for the links so the clutter factor has gone. I'm someone who strongly dislikes citation clutter myself, but the clutter is here minimal and the benefit very clear. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I find your lack of AGF here disturbing. I don't see TK or others asking others to come here to remove the links. In fact, at the discussion at WT:FAC that you linked, demonstrates this - "I only wanted to know whether it's required, or even necessary, to add google book links to each footnote in an article. Has to do with something I'm working on. The discussion seems to have grown a bit. I didn't mean to start a huge meta-discussion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)" - she does not mention this article, she was not the person who started the discussion about banning the links (she only asked if there was a policy requiring them, and the conclusion was that there was not). There are also several other editors arguing during the discussion that they are not helpful. Short URLs reduce the clutter slightly, but by no means do they eliminate it. I should also point out that for those who wish to use such links, they are able to do so using the links in References with a minimum of extra work. They won't even have to walk to a library to do so - just click once or twice more. Your points do not seem at all compelling. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your point about AGF. TK was indeed the person who started the discussion on FAC in an effort to have links banned, because she wanted to remove them from here, and was hoping for help. But the conclusion of the discussion is that they are allowed.

You can't add page links and page numbers to the References section. That is not what it's for, and particularly not when you're citing several pages from the same book. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You're seriously misreading the discussion. TK started a discussion on FAC, but she did not start the sub-discussion about banning such links. In fact, once that discussion sprung up, she pointed out that all she wanted to know was whether such links were required. As for your second point, who is suggesting that? Page numbers go in notes; general Google Books links, to the book as a whole, can go in References. That way, we reduce clutter, particularly when we're citing several pages from the same book. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, page numbers go in notes, along with the links to those page numbers where available. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The inclusion of those links is the whole point of the discussion here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Two examples of why linking to pages helps

I added links to book pages because the article contained (and may still contain) mistakes, and one example of plagiarism. It was easy for the mistakes to creep because no links were being used, which made source checking harder than it needed to be. Here are two examples of how providing links would have helped:

• The version of the article brought to FAC contained a plagiarized second sentence, copied word for word from the Academy of American Poets website. [2] The sentence has been added by an occasional editor last year with a link to the source. Someone removed the citation and the link (I believe it was Truthkeeper), but did not remove or rewrite the sentence. If the link had remained, other editors would have been able to see at a glance that it was a copyright violation.

• The FAC version contained examples of sources being misrepresented. For example, Truthkeeper added that Pound had been reluctant to make the radio broadcasts, and that the Italians had had to persuade him. But this is the opposite of the truth. She wrote: " ...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". No dots to indicate that anything had been removed. Sourced to Tim Redman, Ezra Pound and Italian Fascism, 1991, p. 170.

  In fact the full quote was: "I don't care a hoot about talking over the radio UNLESS it conduces to one or all of the above activities." The context was Pound asking the Italians if he could broadcast, and the Italians replying they were not keen on hearing about his economic theories. He replied that he didn't want to do it unless he could discuss certain issues.

  If we had linked to the Google book page, Redman 1991, p. 170, other editors would have been able to see that Pound had been misquoted. They would also have seen Redman explain: "The above letter demonstrates clearly that Pound initially was interested in broadcasting for Italian radio was a means of spreading his economic views. The Italian ministry apparently was not interested in having Pound ride that hobbyhorse and reacted coolly."

There may be similar issues remaining in the article. As I've been checking the sources, I've been adding links to page numbers so that other editors can see what I'm seeing. I can't think of a single reason that would not be regarded as helpful. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For reasons already explained above. Thank you for bringing up these issues - I assume you have already fixed them? However, as already explained at length above, any editor checking the quote would likely have seen the mistake whether or not a page-specific link was provided - it's not like those links highlight inconsistencies! Any editor dedicated enough to check facts and quotes would be dedicated enough to click one extra time to get from the general link to the required page. They might even - heaven forbid - visit a library! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

How could an editor looking at that quote have checked so easily without links? The article was copy edited by several people, and none of them noticed the plagiarism or the misquotation, even though the latter point about the broadcasts was a major one, and went right to the heart of whether the Italians had persuaded Pound, or vice versa.

You don't remove links to newspapers and journals (at least I hope not) to force readers to go to libraries, so why single out links to book pages? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone is going to have to explain to me how this—Redman 1991, p. 170—could possibly be objectionable. Here it is in edit mode—[http://books.google.com/books?id=hjJ7uj0zWN8C&pg=PA170 Redman 1991, p. 170] It's a short URL, with minimum clutter, and goes directly to the page with key source material on it. It is not as long a URL as most newspaper articles.

If the argument is that people in some countries can't see it, we don't extent that argument to remove everything from Wikipedia that can't be read in China, or to remove every link to a subscription page that can't be seen without payment. But in any event I am sure most people in most countries can indeed see Redman 1991, p. 170, and the number of countries this is available in is growing, not shrinking. Please allow our readers who can see it to do so. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Because removing links to specific pages of Google Books does not force people who would be able to access those links to go to libraries - it only forces them to turn to the page they're looking for in the book. The links are objectionable because, while the clutter impact of a single link may seem minimal, multiplying it by over 100 times adds significant clutter and load time to the article, and is furthermore unnecessary. Copy-editors, under most circumstances, aren't looking at sources, they're looking at the article's prose, so I wouldn't expect the average copy-editor to notice plagiarism or mis-quotation, whether a link was provided or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that adding links to book pages or newspapers adds significant load time? The article is loading fast for me, and I'm usually sensitive to load time being increased by citation templates. I have never experienced that because of simple URLs. Do you remove newspaper links too? And editors preparing articles for FAC are expected to check a variety of things; providing links helps them to check the content they are editing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't remove newspaper links. I have thus far only removed page-specific GBooks links from Notes, where general GBooks links were included in references. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, you say removing the google book page links "only forces them to turn to the page they're looking for in the book". But why on earth would you want to force users to turn possibly hundreds of pages in order to get to the relevant information? In addition, as has been explained, Google limits the total number of pages one can view in a book; so, if you start at the very beginning, and start paging down, you will never get to many pages - but if you link directly to them, this problem disappears. And finally, the claim that links add to load time contradicts all experience; templates and images add significantly to load time, not links. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper links

Nikkimaria, are you arguing that when we want to link to a newspaper article, we should provide only a general link to that day's newspaper, and let readers find the right page using the search facility?

If you're not arguing that, what do you see as the difference between that and providing a book page link? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not arguing that, and that doesn't really seem comparable. First, many newspapers don't provide "a general link to that day's newspaper", but instead archive every story separately. Second, many of the newspapers cited in this article are included only in Notes, and thus don't have the equivalent of "a general GBooks link included in References". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers do indeed provide links to their front page for that day, with a search facility to find the articles. But it would be silly not to link directly to the article.

Can you explain why you're fine with a direct link to a newspaper article, even when the URL is long, and not fine with a link to a book page? That is the part I don't understand, why a book page should be inherently different.

And we are only talking about the links in the Notes section here. I don't mind if the links in the References section are removed. It's the page links in the footnotes I would like to keep so with one click readers can see the page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I only want to remove the links in the Notes sections where a general (read: not page-specific) link exists in References. Not all newspaper websites are formatted in the way you describe, and for those that are my other point tends to hold true. Are there any newspaper articles that are linked both in Notes and in References? If so, I would also advocate removing the link in Notes. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

How Google books works

I think there is a misunderstanding here about how Google books works. If you give a link to book title, it's not always possible for readers to find the page that way. Asking Google to show you the page by entering it into the search box sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Adding key words to the search box sometimes works if you know what the key words are (though it sometimes doesn't). But where we're not quoting it's not always obvious what key words need to be looked for.

Most readers don't know how to form a URL so that it goes directly to the page number we want them to look at. So that is the service we are providing. I haven't seen one argument on this page against providing it. People are saying "they can go to the book title, and search for themselves," or "they can go to a library." But it is always true that people can find information in other ways. The point is: what is the easiest way for the reader? We are not writing this article for our own benefit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you give a link to a book title (which I have been referring to as a "general link"), any reader who would be able to access a page-specific link will still be able to access that page (assuming the URL isn't entirely dead, which happens for both types of links). It is always possible, from my experience, so long as the above criteria are fulfilled - can you give an example of where this is not the case? You don't need to know how to form a URL for a specific page; you don't need to go to the library (again, assuming GBooks allows you access to the book); all you need is the general link. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you definitely get to a certain page number with just the title. If you scroll down you may not be allowed because you go passed your page limit. If you try to find it by entering it in search it sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. Unless you have some other method in mind.

But again you're not addressing the point, which is this, and I'd really appreciate a response.

Why is this okay? Wearden, Graeme. "UK economy grew by 0.8% in last quarter", The Guardian, 26 October 2010.

But this isn't? Redman 1991, p. 170

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Because this is a 404 not found while this isn't. The equivalent of a link to the entire book would be a link to the entire newspaper for that day - I don't believe that such a thing exists, at least not for the newspaper/day combination that that article appears in. Furthermore, if for some reason you wanted to cite that newspaper in the Pound article, I would support having the link in References but not in Notes. As for the "getting to a certain page" issue, the table of contents allows you to bypass most of the scrolling, if none of the methods you mentioned work for you for some reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the reply. You linked to a non-existent newspaper page. The link to the newspaper for today is The Guardian, accessed 26 October 2010. You would never use that instead of a link directly to the page. And we don't add page numbers of books to a References section, and you anyway can't link to multiple pages there. Why not have it in the footnote where the reader needs it?

You are still not really answering my question. You would happily add this to a footnote, which goes directly to the newspaper page we want the reader to see: Wearden, Graeme. "UK economy grew by 0.8% in last quarter", The Guardian, 26 October 2010.

So why are you not happy adding this, which goes directly to the page of a book? Redman 1991, p. 170

Please explain the inherent difference between a newspaper page and a book page, because I am genuinely lost here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the reply either. You can't use a link to the website of a newspaper in a citation, that fails WP:V. And linking to the whole book makes it harder for the reader to find the specific page, and often impossible, as explained above. Linking to a whole book simply does not provide the utility that linking to a page does. Why are you advocating making things harder on the reader (and potentially impossible for them)? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this has been raised before at FAC talk, and it was decided then too that these links are fine. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive37#links_to_Google_Books It's also recommended in one of the examples at CITE: Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Electronic_equivalents. I have never heard of anyone objecting to these. On the contrary, I'm seeing them added more regularly as more pages become available.

I'm genuinely puzzled by this. They help editors and, more importantly, readers. What is the downside? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer all of the above points:

1. "The Guardian, accessed 26 October 2010" is quite a different thing from the book link, because what you get when you click on that link will be radically different from day to day. What I would be looking for as an equivalent to the whole-book link would be something like "http://www.guardian.co.uk/2010/oct/26", which would be an entity representing all of the content of the newspaper for that specific day. A book (even one linked via GBooks) does not change its content from one day to the next.
2. I am aware that you don't add page numbers to References. I'm not advocating that, nor am I advocating adding page-specific links to References
3. I am aware that linking to the website of a newspaper in a citation fails WP:V. I never suggested doing so - SlimVirgin did indirectly in her hypothetical example. I do not endorse the method she described, and am uncertain why she chose to use the example she did, as she seems to be comparing apples to oranges
4. I have already explained how a reader who would benefit from a page-specific link would also benefit from a general link. The point of this is not to make things difficult for the reader, but to incorporate links to print-based material in a manner consistent with good citation practice.
5. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I see no firm consensus at the linked discussion, particularly as regards page-specific links. I also see no reason, given that such links are not policy-based, why we must have them here.
6. The downsides have been explained multiple times. I suggest you re-read the discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

1. And what is the relevance?
2. Then References can't do the same thing as these links, can they?
3. You keep saying that links slow things down and are bad, but what's the difference between linking to a specific online article of a printed source, and linking to a specific online page of a printed source? That's apples to apples.
4. The reader could benefit from both links, as they serve different purposes, and cannot simply substitute for one another.
5. Certainly no firm consensus to remove, then.
6. Yes, but the "downsides" listed were all non-factual, aside from a very minor increase in "clutter". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't true that what you get at Redman 1991, p. 170 differs from day to day. If that were the case I'd agree with you about removing them, but there's no evidence of that at all. Do you have any evidence?

I'm concerned about this, not only because of this article, but if there's a general effort to remove these links, we need to deal with that wiki-wide. The CITE guidline allows it, and the sourcing policy and guideline philosophy has always been to allow editors to use the citation style they want, not to impose fancy styles. And also to supply as much information for the reader as you can, including links where they exist. I'm very concerned to find out that people actually want to remove links. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Slim, this would be easier if you would read a bit more carefully. I said "A book (even one linked via GBooks) does not change its content from one day to the next." what does change is the content you will get at the Guardian's homepage. Supplying more information for the reader is why I would advocate including ISBNs in references. Removing page-specific links does not supply less information for the reader. I'm not sure how we're managing to talk past each other, but it's clear that misunderstandings are occurring here. As for your point about wiki-wide - if that's your intention, open a wiki-wide discussion, but don't try to make this article a test case. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

First, Nikki, can I ask that we deal with the link issue first, and after that other formatting issues? We are jumping back and forth in a way that is very time-consuming and unconstructive, and probably making us both look like idiots.

Please don't talk about newspapers or whole books. Please tell me clearly what your objection is to this link -- Redman 1991, p. 170 SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's unnecessary, it's redundant, it clutters the page, and it increases load times and makes editing more difficult. It is also inconsistent with the shortened-citation reference form - the whole point of that form is to avoid unnecessarily repeating information that's better left to References. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's not redundant, because it gives the reader information they might otherwise not find, or might not find so easily—just as journal and newspaper links do, which you don't object to, and there is no difference.
• The clutter factor is minimal, less than most newspaper URLs; here is the Redman link in edit mode:

  http://books.google.com/books?id=hjJ7uj0zWN8C&pg=PA170

• Do you have evidence that links increase load time significantly? I know that citation templates do, but I've not heard this about simple URLs.
• How does providing URLs make editing more difficult? We've been providing internal and external links as sources ever since Wikipedia began.

Are you doing this on other pages too, Nikki, and if so could you give examples? I won't go to them to interfere, but I'd like to get some idea of how widespread this is, because it has repercussions for the sourcing policies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Addressed above, although we obviously don't agree on this point
• Most newspaper URLs are included only once; when you insist on having page-specific links for each occurrence of a book, clutter accumulates
• I can't provide anything other than anecdotal evidence on that point, other than to say increasing page size increases load time.
• It clutters the page and increases load time. It also impacts certain editing tools that I use, but as I know such tools are not universal I'll not make a big argument about this point.

Thankfully most pages that I edit frequently avoid this problem, so I haven't felt it necessary to do much large-scale link removal. Again, if you're worried about widespread sourcing policy issues, I suggest you open a general discussion at a relevant project page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Slim, could you please restore the non-link-related formatting fixes that you reverted here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A newspaper page is the same as a book page. If you have a long newspaper article, you can link to individual pages. It's quite normal to do that.

Increasing page size does not increase load time unless the size becomes very large. Citation templates increase load time.

Have you done any link removal before? I'd be interested to see an example. I definitely won't interfere with it, and that's not why I'm requesting it. But I'd like to see where and why it was done, and what the response was.

We need to reach a compromise, or decide that we can't and open an RfC, because these discussions are a time sink and have halted article development. My compromise suggestion was that I won't add more links, if other editors won't remove the ones already there. Then when the content issues are sorted, we can revisit the formatting issues, when the heat is out of the situation. Are you willing to agree to that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Depends. Is addressing the content issues likely to require the addition of further references/citations? If so, do you intend to use page-specific links with those additions? If not, then certainly we can agree on that as an interim measure, but this issue will have to be addressed at some point. And could you please restore the non-link-related formatting fixes that were removed by your reversions? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war or consensus

Can we please find a middle ground and stop bickering...Modernist (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Discuss and develop agreement:

• Neutral - I'm ambivalent about the specific page google links - I like 'em most of the time; however in the 7 or 8 FA articles I've collaborated on we've left them out in the long run, obviously they take up a lot of space...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• May I suggest the following compromise? I will agree not to add any more links to pages for now, if other editors will agree not to remove the ones that are there. Then once the content issues are sorted out, we can revisit the formatting issues, and decide whether the links are overall beneficial or not.

  I would like to see content development continue, rather than focusing on formatting. Every day that's spent discussing the latter is a day not spent developing the former. That's particularly unfortunate when books are out on loan, because they have to be returned, and can't always be renewed immediately. So if they're not used while we have them, that's another opportunity for content development wasted. Whereas formatting can be decided at any point in the future.

  Would that be a compromise people could agree to? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• May I make a different suggestion? Other than copy-editing, I don't really feel qualified to contribute to content - though I'm interested in English lit, I don't know much about Pound. So, how's this: you, TK, anyone else who has books that will need to be returned, etc, focus on content. I'll do some work with the ref formatting in Notes that TK said she would do (way back in the FAC section), leaving her free to work on content, and bringing the article into compliance with WP:MoS and WP:CITE. I will also add ISBN numbers to the References, to benefit readers who may not have access to these sources on Google Books. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What kind of ref formatting did you have in mind, and what kind of MoS/CITE compliance? ISBNs I have no problem with. I don't see the point of them myself, but if someone else wants to add them that's fine by me. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Harvard-style referencing that you agreed to further up on this page shortly after the FAC, which if done consistently would meet WP:CITEHOW and would fix the problems with formatting inconsistencies (which, unfortunately, are almost overwhelming at this point). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with short refs inside footnotes (author-date), but not citation templates. CITE is clear that they should not be imposed over objections, but otherwise I have no preference. The only two areas where I do have a preference are (a) the Google Book page links to stay as part of the footnote (whether a short or long ref), so a compromise or agreement on that has to come before we decide on other formatting issues. And (b) I prefer to avoid lots of blue numbers, so I'd like to keep the references bundled as far as reasonable.

And the formatting inconsistencies are not overwhelming, Nikki. I'm happy to work with you, but would appreciate a more measured response to this. The article is currently being developed and is in flux. There's no point trying to impose perfect formatting while that's underway. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

CITE is also clear that the existing citation style should not be changed without consensus, which seems to have been done here. I agree that bundling is preferable. No, you are correct, they are not overwhelming, but they will take some time to address, particularly given the reverting of formatting fixes that has been occurring. Thank you for your offer of help, but I feel capable of addressing the formatting inconsistencies myself, leaving you free to focus on the content. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nikki, I think we need to deal with the link issue first, then return to the more general formatting issue, because we've got a forest fire of responses going on here.

The existing citation style was changed without consensus by Truthkeeper several weeks ago. I have changed it back. She agreed. You said earlier that you want to avoid drama, but you are not going to have much success at this rate.

This is halting article development, so please discuss what you have in mind clearly, so we can reach an agreement in advance. It may require an RfC, so we need to be clear what the dispute is about, and which parts of it we can compromise on between ourselves. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Chinese name

Does anyone happen to know how to write this correctly? It's a Chinese name, Wai-lim Yip, so I'm worried that if I do last name/first name, I'll be misrepresenting it. Is this right? "Yip, Wai-lim. Ezra Pound's Cathay. Princeton University Press, 1969". SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that way it reflects the Chinese order 葉維廉.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Lead image

I feel the lead image needs to be smaller, but Deor keeps reverting. On my screen it's enormous, and that it's not brilliant quality doesn't help. The MoS says that image sizes may be fixed. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO image size MoS are guidelines; not policy and editors must be able to exercise judgment concerning image sizes and how they fit into articles, generally the lead image is larger than the other images but it is not set in stone. Usually the lead image is 300px max, currently the lead image is 225px; and the thumb default is usually set at 200px...Modernist (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to fix it at something, because it's currently very large. On my screen, it's a giant pixellated face filling the first three paragraphs of the lead. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets try 200px...Modernist (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The browser rendering issue is really annoying. On my laptop the image fills about one-and-half paras; on my big screen desktop it's quite small; on my work computer (that runs on IE7 or 8) it is rather large. This is off-topic, but I'm having a big problem with the rendering of the refs and sources. Let's leave the image for now. Let me get caught up, and then decide if another can be added to the lead instead, and if not, how to make it render well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: The default thumbnail size was recently changed in the software, from 180px to 220px (see WP:IMGSIZE and bugzilla:21117). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Subheads

I've added some extra subheads to keep the sections shorter, and dates in the subheads to help the reader navigate. Truthkeeper, if you don't want them feel free to remove them. I was trying to shuffle the material to impose a tighter structure on it, and shorter sections are easier to work with, but you may prefer longer ones. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about long TOCs; that said, I had a look at the article recently on an iphone, and thought the sections were too long. I've been busy and need to get caught up, but most likely am in favor of the shorter sections. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they need only be temporary—though it being at FAC might not be the time for experiments. It's just a question of trying to wrestle it into something a bit easier to read and edit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Karanacs to archive. As for the subheads: I had subheads much like what you've added earlier. Need to look at the history, but I agree it's hard to read and to edit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, regarding subheads or anything else I do, you should feel to revert, and don't feel you need to explain. I'm trying to help, but help isn't always helpful. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your help. Unfortunately I'm trying to multitask and need to find some information in history, but I'm not as focused as I should be. Tried to comment out a stray ref, but it formatted strangely. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Image queries

I wonder how we know that File:EzraPound Paris.png is in the public domain. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have an email from the National Archives clearing it. Would you like me to forward it? Ecobbola has the the OTRS, I think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please, that would be helpful. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Same with File:Ezra Pound by EO Hoppe 1920.jpg. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure about this. But do have another that was on a frontispiece in 1918 - unfortunately very blurry - but can be used as a replacement. File:EzraPound Pavannes.png Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good one. The key is that it must have been published, not taken, before 1923, or the author must have been dead for 100 years. There are other grounds, I think, too complicated for my feeble mind, but those are the main two that get you PD in the U.S. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

His work after the first world war

Confused about this part:

Back in England Pound had only the New Age to write for, as other magazines ignored his submissions, or refused to review his work. Six months later he and Dorothy moved to Paris. A. R. Orage wrote in the The New Age: "Mr. Pound has been an exhilarating influence for culture in England ... however, Mr. Pound ... has made more enemies than friends. Much of the Press has been deliberately closed by cabal to him; his books have for some time been ignored or written down; and he himself has been compelled to live on much less than would support a navvy."

Why was he suddenly unpopular? If it was anti-war writing, which articles/poems in particular? And when did Orage write that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Need to work on that. Am a little unclear about why the unpopularity all of a sudden. Certainly the stuff earlier during the war - the challenge to the duel, the involvement with Blast - did nothing for his popularity. Unfortunately some of the sources are not as clear as I'd like. I think I'll need to dive into some databases when I have the time and see if I can pull up journal articles about this period. Need to take a break now ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a break for however long you need, TK. I may do the same soon. I'll try to look around myself about the unpopularity issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Refs and page numbering question

SlimVirgin, to save having to re-do new sections I'm working on - are you bundling the refs and using page number spans of two pages or so? Just wanted to be clear. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've usually been joining them in cases where they're used close to each other, and one is Smith, p. 1, and the other Smith, pp. 2-3. And also if it was a point that didn't seem contentious. The page span depends on the context. But it's something that can be done after the fact, rather than having to focus on it as you're writing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Page size and word count, and things to clarify

Currently word count is at about 9400. I've trimmed the article three times in the past to bring the word count down to 8500 or below. In my view 9400 is pushing the upper boundary, but I'd prefer that someone else with better perspective take out the pruning shears this time, if someone is up for it. I won't be editing tomorrow until night-time UTC, for whatever that's worth. Have to look through, but believe I have addressed all the in-line comments. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just done another round of tightening. It's currently 8990 words readable prose size, with 155 footnotes. When you submitted it at FAC, it was 8606 words, with 190 footnotes.

There are still parts that are unclear, particularly the turn to fascism (when exactly) and the radio broadcasts (when and how many); his work for Mosley's magazine (if that is true; that was Orwell's claim); the offer of an academic job in Italy; and why neither of the children were raised with their parents. The remaining invisible questions are:

• why was the Rupert Brooke thing bad taste;

• considered bad taste to write about a person killed in the war. The piece was written before Brook died - it's in history somewhere and I'll pull it out

• why did he want to stop the serialization of Joyce;

• he didn't so I have to look at this to see why you're reading it that way

• did we mean that he asked Joyce to join him in France, because the article said Italy, but Pound wasn't in Italy;

• Pound was in Italy, Joyce joined him there and they went to Paris. Will pull out of history an earlier version that's perhaps more clear

• we don't explain why he left Paris permanently, as things seemed to be going well there for him;

• From what I can tell he came to Italy to recuperate and stayed. That's a simple fix.

• the giving away of both children to be raised elsewhere, and why the women allowed that to happen;

• The sources are stunningly silent on this issue and we can't go to OR - but my feeling is that one was a single woman who had a child out-of-wedlock, the wife may have had a child by another man. So the children were hidden. Despite the onset of modernism, Victorian values still prevailed to some extent. I cannot verify any of this.

• what income was it that Dorothy received from England that Pound relied on;

• will add - I believe she had an inheritance

• why were his royalty checks stopped because of the war;

• will clarify - American banks would not wire funds to Axis nations

• the number and timing of the broadcasts;

• all the broadcasts were prerecorded in batches. will add

• the Oswald Mosley thing, and in general the timing of the turn to facism;
• why was Dorothy suddenly forced to cook;

• the sources don't elaborate - but it's a good question. Perhaps best to eliminate the section altogether?

• when did Dorothy find out about Olga and Mary;

• another good question. I've read and re-read the sources and nothing about this. Will do some more research here.

• who said he went into a terrible tantrum when Hemingway died?

• will clarify

But they won't necessarily involve extra words, just setting things out differently. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dipping in quickly and may not have time to get caught up completely today. I'm extremely concerned about the page size. The page I submitted to FAC - here came in at 8600 words. The page now exceeds 10,000 words. As I've mentioned elsewhere on this talkpage, the content and details on an article such as this essentially are distilled from reading thousands of pages of biographical information and deciding what's relevant and what not. I haven't had the time to read the entire article, but my goal was to write an article that was accessible for all readers with good sources which readers/students etc., could use to glean additional information. I'd like to see some judicious cutting. Personally I don't think Pound is worthy of an article with 3000 words more than the Catholic Church - complete with 2000 yr history. Article size and load time is something I feel very very strongly about. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree about page size, but it's going to get longer before it gets shorter again. If you're concerned about load time, the citation templates wil be slowing it down, but whether it's 8,500 or 9,500 words won't make any difference. The current version is 9702 words; the FAC version was 8,606 words.

The problem with the version submitted to FAC is that it tried to include a lot of material without explaining the relevance, and a lot of important connectors were missing. So I'm trying to introduce those connectors and some context, and once that's done the page can be tightened again in a way that retains the flow. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review

Free

• File:Ezra Pound 2.jpg (lead image): PD, published before 1923, no issues
• File:Church Walk, Kensington.jpg. Image of street he used to live in. Released by the author cc-by, I'll shortly be sending an e-mail to permissions, no issues.
• File:Ezra Pound plaque in Church Walk, Kensington.jpg, blue plaque on the house he lived in, as above, no issues.
• File:EzraPound Ripostes.png. Cover of Ripostes, first published 1915, PD, no issues.
• File:EzraPound Pavannes.JPG. Pound in Pavannes and Divisions, first published 1918, PD, no issues.
• File:Ezra Pound 1945 May 26 mug shot.jpg. Pound mugshot 1945, property of U.S. govt, PD, no issues.
• File:Poundgrave.jpg. Pound's grave, released by author, no issues.

Fair use

• File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg: Pound as a boy in uniform in 1898. Fair use is claimed because it's used in a section that discusses the school and the uniform and the drilling. We could probably find where this was first published or when the photographer died by looking through a library, but fair use seems justified, and it's low resolution.
• File:DorothyPound.jpg. Pound's wife, taken 1910-1920, photographer died 1936, which makes it PD in the European Union. For the U.S. I believe we have to claim fair use, but that can be justified given that she was his wife, and it's a poor-quality image. Also, we use it in the section where Yeats discussed her appearance, which makes it directly relevant to that section.
• File:Hdpoet.jpg: Taken from a postcard of Hilda Doolittle (1886-1961). Image page says PD. See source. Undated, probably taken around 1921, first publication date unknown, author unknown, probably not PD as claimed. I'm less certain of claiming fair use for this, but it seems to be justifiable given how important she was in his life.
• File:Security cages where Ezra Pound was held, Pisa, Italy, 1945.JPG. A photograph of the steel cages he was kept in. I've added a detailed rationale to the image page, and I think it's safe to claim fair use for it.

Needs more research

• File:Rudge.jpg. Olga Rudge. No author, no year, no source. Can't be used as it is. Fair use can't be claimed without a source at least. I've tried looking for a good source, but have only found it on blogs so far. Her daughter's book has an image that looks as though it was taken during the same sitting, but it also has no date, and is very poor quality.

Removed from article

• File:Ezra Pound by EO Hoppe 1920.jpg. Ezra Pound. Source says it was taken in 1920, but doesn't say when it was first published. Photographer E. O. Hoppe (1878-1972), so it's not released by his death year. Not PD. Fair use can't be claimed because we already have one of him from around this period (the lead image). Also removing this as there's no realistic hope of claiming fair use for it.
• File:EzraPound Paris.png. Ezra Pound. No year, no photographer, not PD, fair use can't be claimed because we have one from around the same period. I've removed this as we know nothing about it, and we definitely can't claim fair use.
• File:William Carlos Williams passport photograph 1921.jpg, William Carlos Williams. American passport image dated 1921. Image page says PD. Are passport images the property of the U.S. govt? [3] I'd be less certain of claiming fair use for this, because Williams was one of a large number of friends, but he was a lifelong friend, so we could maybe do it. I've commented it out for now, until we can find out more about it, because it's the least relevant of the possibly non-free ones.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Radio broadcasts

This is confusing. We say he started making them in 1935, but then later we say he refused in 1935 and 1936, and only started in 1941. We also say over 100, where other sources say hundreds. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he was approached in 1935 but refused. Then in 1940 he offered to make the radio broadcasts. Honestly, the section about the 1930s could go. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Accents and dialect

I wonder if we should mention the dialect that he would often write in. He did it in London, maybe writing in what he thought was a Cockney dialect, and during the radio broadcasts too, adopting what he thought was a hick dialect. I was wondering whether the sources discuss any of this. Not something worth a lot of extra work or words, but if it can be added easily in a sentence or two might be worth considering. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's referred to as his fake American vernacular. As it happens, Hemingway had the ear for the real American vernacular, whereas Pound just seems foolish. I can pull a quote about this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Relationships with racists

Reading around, the issue of him forging relationship with American racists (including Ku Klux Klan perhaps?) while in hospital was one of the things that added to public outrage in the 1950s. This was an important time for the American Civil Rights movement. I wonder if we should say more about it, even just an extra sentence or two. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can document it with a solid source then add a sentence; it sheds light on his true persona...Modernist (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I read something about this in Hemingway's letters. Will have a look - but not immediately. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Legacy section

Is there a point in repeating in the legacy section basic details that are in the article? I'm thinking especially if length is a concern that repetition should be kept to a minimum. We have a lot of information in the article about how he advanced careers, and whose careers in particular, including the lead. We have a section on the Bollingen Prize and the Pisan Cantors, including mention in the lead. And yet with this edit, it's all repeated in the Legacy section, including basic details such as him winning the Bollingen Prize as though we'd never mentioned it.

His legacy is not about what he did, but about the effects he had, and what people nowadays think of him, so I think we should confine it to that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I put it back. I'll rework the section, but to some extent if necessary I'd rather lose some of the detail in the article and confine it to the legacy. These are not just any careers - without Pound's rewrite of Indian Camp Hemingway might not have had his first story published in the transatlantic review; without the first story, maybe no Hemingway. Without Hemingway, American fiction and prose might have taken a very different turn. The same applies to Joyce and Eliot. But beyond these, he was instrumental in discovering and having published works by a plethora of other well-known writers. As much as people dislike Pound, his influence is not in dispute in the literary world. The work he did with translations was equally important and had far reaching consequences in terms of how literary translations are treated to this day. Ultimately this is an article about a writer with two stories - one is his influence and the modernist movement; the second is his behavior during WWII. I think they need equal balance. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If details from the article are moved to Legacy, it will leave the article jumping around, unfocused, lacking a clear chronology. That was the problem with the version submitted to FAC. It's fine to explain how he helped people in Legacy (so long as it offers more detail and is not simply repetitive), but you added to the Legacy section that he had won the Bollingen Prize, as though we had never mentioned it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry - I'll fix it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

Sorry for popping in and out, but have a fairly busy weekend. I've taken a screen-shot of the image size b/c the images are formatting extremely small for me. File:Pound page image example.png I've checked three versions of Safari, two of Firefox and all show the small images. At work I checked Internet Explorer 7 and 8, both show larger images. Is there an image expert we can discuss this with?

The second browser issue is the columns - Safari and Firefox show columns as per the templates; IE7 and IE8 show no columns, although the templates are in place. Can we share what each of us is seeing, because it's nice to get the formatting right. Unfortunately I have to run again, but will return in a couple of hours. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I see the image sizes keep being changed. I think we need to bear in mind that they can look enormous on people's screens. I don't like them too small myself, but if you make them large it becomes difficult for some people to download them or see the page. When the lead image is 220px, for example, it's several inches on my screen (including the cutline), and looks a bit looming. That it's low resolution makes it look worse.

Speaking of the lead image, I think we should restore the infobox. The ariticle had one until June, and several of the other writers we mention in the article have them too, Ernest Hemingway and T.S. Eliot, for example, and they look good. That helps to deal with the issue of the lead image, because within a box it needn't be huge to fill up the lead.

I don't follow your point about columns. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I increased the people image sizes from 130 to 150px (except for the lead one). Does this look better on your screen? [4] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The images are still to small, I enlarged them earlier and I see they are again reduced. I will put them again back the way they were. The infobox has been discussed a few times, the primiary editors are against it, with very good reason, see above. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I wish we had an article on browser rendering, but we don't. The reason SlimVirgin doesn't see the columns is because they aren't rendered on her browser. When I work on a page, I check the rendering of the formatting in Safari (various versions b/c I have more than one computer), Firefox (various versions), Internet Explorer 7 and Internet Explorer 8. Then I format accordingly. Unfortunately we cannot assume that what we see is what everyone else sees. I see a comment has been made above about the default size for images. I've always used the default size. We may have to lose some images, but that's okay. Also, once the images are re-sized, I'll be adding one of Hemingway in Paris on the street where they both lived to replace the one that was lost for that section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what is happening with the images here. Now they're back to being huge, the image of Hilda has been removed so she's looking off the page (see MoS), and Church Walk and his grandfather have been removed.

Which columns do you mean, TS? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

All the references and sources at the bottom of the page are rendered in two columns. It should be across all browser but the template must be buggy. If your computer doesn't render according to the template, then you see a single column. I see two. Last week I saw one. For a few days I saw three. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Which browser is showing them as not two? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

At work I use two computers; one with Internet Explorer 7, one with Internet Explorer 8. Neither shows the columns - or least didn't when I looked a few days ago. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Why remove the photograph of his grandfather and the example of his radio broadcast? [5] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There are too many images, and at that low size to me give the page the page a squashed feel. I'm not sure what that pic added. The grave pic also I'd take out, its just a grave, we'll all have one. In general I'm not in favour of quote boxes, for the same reason as I dislike infoboxes. Out of context, shallow. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the blue boxes, but you didn't remove them all. I think if we're going to have them, an example of a radio broadcast showing the antisemitism is justifiable. The issue of context would make no difference: the antisemitism was rampant, so context would not ameliorate it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, grand. One slanded text would be fine, two would be grand also, can live with that. But the amount blue text you added, and all so pointedly and aggressively negative, well no. In you version of the page, each sect opens with "Ezra is a prick". Maybe, but do we have to say it over and over and over and over? Lets be honest here, myself and TK are here because of his work, you because of his views. Fine. I think the article had a good balance and did not shirk, but now its way too slanted. Its increasingl;y going towards a hatchet job. Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add any blue. I changed it to beige because the blue stands out too much, but it was changed back. My own view is that we'd be better with no quote boxes. I think I added only two of the kind you describe, one from HD saying he was childish, and one example of his broadcasts. Please don't add or remove material because negative or positive. We're not here to blacken or whitewash, just to add what's interesting according to the sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ceoil, IMO he was one complicated guy whose views really overshadowed his poetry, and cannot be overlooked, that said, a couple of blue boxes including the radio quote helps bring Pound into focus...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Modernist, nobody is denying that. Its pure fact and needs to be upfront and clearly stated. But he was also a major poet, and imo the article is loosing sight of that. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "Lets be honest here, myself and TK are here because of his work, you because of his views." How would you know why I'm here Ceocil? And if you want to know the best way is to ask me, not guess. I'm not here for either his views or his work. I'm here to write an interesting article that reflects what the sources say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right. I dont play games like that. I dont ask questions when I already know the answear. Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What it saysd. "And if you want to know the best way is to ask me"? What would be the point. Stop playing games. Its Martin Luther all over again. Thats why you are here. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take your assumptions of bad faith somewhere else. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Pound was a major poet and an important figure in the formulations of modernist poetry and that's why we are here. And Dylan said Ezra Pound and TS Eliot are fighting in the captain's tower (indicating their importance as poets) while calypso singers laugh at them and fisherman hold flowers - and still we have to deal with his actions and his very troubling persona and his work...Modernist (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

We have to reflect the sources, period. No whitewashing, no blackening. The great poetry, the incredibly interesting man, his promotion of other important writers, the childishness, the narcissism, the womanizing, the odd abandonment of his children, the racism, the mental illness—it's a package and none of it can be ignored or minimized. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the narrative

The problem I have with this article is that it lacks coherence, and this is something that needs to be fixed. One example (but there are lots):

Pound was deeply affected by the war and devastated when Gaudier-Brzeska was killed in the trenches. He was upset when criticized for bad taste for his July 1915 article in BLAST on Rupert Brooke, who had recently been killed in France.[40] In April 1916 he published Gaudier-Brzeska: A Memoir, with letters, illustrations and photographs of Gaudier-Brzeska's work, establishing Gaudier-Brzeska's reputation.[41] Publication of Lustra was stopped in 1917 when the editor Elkin Mathews objected to the tone, writing that it was "unsuitable for the innocent Young Person and the right-thinking Family". Pound refused any suggested revisions, and the volume was published as a private edition that June.

• Fact 1. He was affected by the war, and upset when Gaudier-Brzeska was killed.
• Fact 2. He was upset when criticized for bad taste for an article about Rupert Brooke. What does that have to do with the first point? We don't connect the sentences. What was in bad taste, and why was he criticized? We don't say.
• Fact 3. He published Gaudier-Brzeska's work. This connects to the first sentence, so why did we add a sentence about something else between them?
• Fact 4. Publication was Lustra was stopped. What is the connection to that and the previous sentences? Why did we suddenly jump two years? And what was the tone objected to? We don't explain.

Large sections of the article are like this. I'm trying to introduce more form to it, but it necessarily means adding to length until it's done. Then we can cut back. But we first of all need to create a narrative. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

My view is that it's an encyclopedia article - we're not writing a book. We don't necessarily need a strong narrative. We can't present every single year of Pound's, or any writers, life. Fact 1 through 4 is a series of events that affected him during a period of time: his friend was killed, he was criticised for writing for BLAST (which can be taken out, I'm not in love with that fact ); his work was censored. In my view, in order to understand why a possibly promising artist becomes insane, twisted, whatever, we have to look at the facts. All of these facts are in every source I've read - they are indisputable and should be here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. If the writing is poor, people won't read it, and if they try to read it, they won't follow it. We don't have to present every single year, but we do have to connect our sentences. That this is an article about a writer means we have even stronger reason that usual to make sure the writing is good. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article criteria

I'll get caught up in a moment, but just looked at WP:WIAFA. At the moment we're failing the following: 1. (d) - I think neutrality is swinging too far in the wrong direction; 2 (b) the table of contents has gotten too long; 2 (c) citations are no longer consistent; 4 - the word count is too high. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Which parts aren't neutral, in your view? The citations you said we would fix at the end. Ditto the length. I'm getting very mixed messages from you, TS. Your emails asked me to help; you said you'd had trouble finding anyone to help you with content, that people only wanted to copy edit. You wrote the same thing on talk pages, complaining that copy editing was pointless when it was the content that needed to be fixed. So here we are, focusing on content. Let's do it. Tightening and citation formats and image sizes -- they can all come at the end.

In the meantime there are some serious narrative gaps. See the sections above for some examples. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I very much appreciate your help, as we discussed off-wiki. I've been upfront since the beginning that this a complicated page and I'm glad to see the interest. But, I'm afraid you may be falling into the same trap I did. I added detail, then trimmed. Added back, trimmed back. Again and again. Could never get it quite right. As for the neutrality - the same issue. Is he a great poet or a prick or both. I swung back and forth, adding, trimming, adding, trimming. It's very easy to swing in one direction one day and in the next the next day. What was here on September 28th was the result of four months of work. Maybe it was crap, maybe not. But I did spend a lot of time thinking about how to present the point-of-view. What I'm seeing now is the pendulum swinging in the other direction. That doesn't mean it won't swing back, but today, the first day I've read this page since last Sunday, I see a very different page. So, yes, you're getting mixed messages, because I'm quite conflicted myself here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not falling into any trap, because I'm not adding detail them removing it. I'm just adding it. Then once we have a first draft, we can start tightening it back. But we're not even close to that yet, and today I've spent hours having to argue silly points rather than reading and writing, which is senseless. The worst thing you can do when writing this kind of thing is try to tighten in the middle of it. That's how you lose your narrative threads.

He is both a great poet and a prick. Don't think in terms of ideology, because if you do you'll start trying to minimize or maximize. Just follow the main sources. They all say the same, emphasize the same, so there's no conflict. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"a multicultural perspective could be found in folklore"

I found this a bit confusing. What does this mean and what is its significance? Was this just Yeats' view, or do/did others share it? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking through this. I'll try to clarify soon, or remove. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Lowell

Pound "embarrassed" Lowell by referring to her as a "hippopoetess", repeating a "witticism" of Witter Bynner's. The term was later misattributed to Pound. Is this worth mentioning, at least in a footnote if nothing else? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've found a source I can use to clarify that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"The couple spent the following summer in the south of France"

Together, I assume? The article doesn't make this clear. Also, it doesn't exactly make clear how they got together; did they start seeing each other immediately after being introduced? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As above, will soon be clarified. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusion about Prufrock

I'm confused about how the article presents the publication of The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Pound famously discovered the poem by having it published in Poetry magazine in Chicago in June 1915 (e.g. see here). But our article says it was rejected by Poetry in 1914 as too cosmopolitan (sourced to Stock, 1970). We mention it again later saying he was determined to find a publisher for it (again sourced to Stock). Then we don't raise it again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Stock pp, 166-167 "Pound sent "Prufrock" to Poetry in October [1914] saying 'Here is the Eliot poem. The most interesting contribution I've had from an American. P.S. Hope you'll get it in soon.' "

Stock pp. 169-170 "Miss Monroe received her copy of "Prufrock" and was disappointed to find it was not what she expected. She had very definite ideas about American superiority and she wanted her American poets to exemplify this superiority in rousing verse like Nicholas Vachel Lindsay's "The Fireman's Ball" which had appeared in the July Poetry....[fireman's ball snipped]. To the September issue of Poetry she herself had contributed a poem on "The Giant Cactus of Arizona" [verse snipped] .... So naturally she was disappointed when she found that Eliot had betrayed his heritage into the hands of the very cosmopolitanism which American civilization was destined to overcome. Pound was so disgusted when early in November he received her letter objecting to "Prufrock" that he could manage only seven words in reply: 'Your objection to Eliot is the climax' " [snip two sentences - Pound won't send her Eliots address and date chrono of letters] ... Ten weeks later she was still objecting and on 31 January Pound was still explaining to her that "Prufrock" did not go off at the end. It was a portrait of failure and it would be false art to make it end on a note of triumph." The struggle between Monroe and Pound re; Prufrock lasted many months. This is all I have time for at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Have been thinking about this, which is actually a good point. My feeling is that the extended story should be added to the Prufrock article, a less extended version to the Eliot article, and even less here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Could we keep this material, please, until the issues are settled? We can strike them through as they're dealt with. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

I looked for reasons to remove the links in the replies to my query and noticed the following:

1. results a larger load time.

Please add more if you have them, I am currently holding the idea that links should be reinstated. If load time was an issue for text (in oppose to say, flash content), we might as well have deleted the entire wikipedia project and go back to books. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion: explanations have already been provided multiple times. For the record, a temporary agreement has been made to leave the link situation as it currently stands until content is more stable, at which time we may resume the debate about whether or not to include the links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

On Saturday,as I was editing the article I attempted to run the dashes script with which I haven't had trouble in the past, but the page kept hanging. Removing the urls and other edits brought the file size to this ( per this version ):

• File size: 58 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 80 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 43 kB
• Prose size (text only): 59 kB (10129 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 15 kB

Currently the file size is this:

• File size: 271 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 77 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 46 kB
• Wiki text: 133 kB
• Prose size (text only): 58 kB (9990 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 16 kB

I'd like to have some time to look at diffs and at the source code and figure out what's causing the discrepancy. Tried running the dashes script a few minutes ago only to have it hang again. In my view we need to look at what's bloating the file size. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88, I've asked you this before, but gotten no answer. Can you please explain why you keep saying the "File size" is these obviously incorrect, huge numbers? As of the time you made that post, the article size was exactly 135 kilobytes: when you hit the Edit button at the top of the article, Wikipedia actually tells you "This page is 135 kilobytes long". Can you explain how you are making your own calculation of file size? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I run this script: User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js . Not my own calculation. And btw, b/c I don't use IE 7, as you'll see from the page I linked, I don't see the calculations for images. The numbers are a copy/paste of the script read-out of this article. Need some AGF here, though I can ask someone else to run the script as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• The dashes script works perfectly well for me, in fact I've just run it. In reply to Jayjg, the reason for the discrepancy between the file size of 135 kB reported in the edit window and the 271 kB reported by Dr pda's script is that the script is (obviously) running against the downloaded and expanded page, whereas the edit window is looking at the size of the unexpanded file in the database. Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Malleus for running the script and for the explanation. Don't why it's hanging - will spend some time testing it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Reversions of edits

Yesterday I made about 100 edits to this page. All my edits were reverted in a single edit. Some examples of the edits were:

• I used more precise language for descriptions such as Hailey, which was a western or Idaho mining town and not really a "Wild West" town [6];
• I added ISBNs ;
• I added non-breaking spaces to all of the ellipses per WP:MOS;
• I changed the image to default image sizes per WP:MOSIMAGE;
• I deleted unstable google book inline links from the text;
• I added inline comments.

What's the justification for the mass revert without discussing on talk first and achieving consensus per policy? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you knew the removal of the google book links was, at best, contested, so it probably wasn't a good idea to unilaterally do that. Also, they are in no way "unstable", so I'm not sure why you claim they are. They don't work in every country, but the links themselves are quite stable. Either they take you to the exact page, or they take you to the book cover/description. They don't take you to different pages or different books on different days. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your point about the book links is discussed at length below. However, that aside, I can see no justification for a revert of the other material, which is mostly bringing the article in line with the MoS. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted because all the links were removed as part of the same edits, and the image sizes were removed again, though this has been discussed at length; it left the image of the Pisan Cantos fragment several inches high on my screen, which looked absurd. If you want to add ISBNs or inline comments, or more content that is fine, indeed welcome. But please don't also remove material you've been asked many times not to remove. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Japanese; Chinese

A bit strange, but good: Japonisme, Orientalism, Modernism site; Pound chapter.--Radh (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference formatting

I've been doing some formatting work on references in an effort to make them more consistent, and I have a quick question for the main editors of this page: when a work is "in" a larger book, would you prefer that the author/editor of that larger book is listed first name or last name first? For example, would the correct formatting be "in John Smith" or "in Smith, John"? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria. My preference is to follow MLA style and use last name, first name. I'm not entirely familiar with the type of referencing being used at the moment, so am not sure if that is correct or not. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that Smith, John seems correct enough...Modernist (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, too. Ceoil (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been using Smith, John. "Name of Paper" in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Book. Name of Publisher, 2010 (which I think is MLA style, but I'll have to check, and I don't know whether others use it too).

There's no need to start with last name for the editor, because the point of "last name, first name" is to create an alphabetical list that makes the references easy to find, which isn't needed deep into the citation. I have no objection if you want to change it, though. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware there's no need to do it - however, there is a need to be consistent in what is used. Given the pre-existing style of the page, I have made all references consistent with editors listed surname first. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've noticed that this page was previously using Harvard-style references. If that's just a function of the influx of new editors post-FAC, I'd be glad to reformat to that style. If not, could someone point me to the discussion where it was decided to change the style? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If we're using MLA style, we should follow what they do, and to the best of my recollection they use first name last name for editors when citing a work within a work.

As for the templates, they were added a few weeks ago, though the article already had a referencing style, which CITE advises against doing. They also meant page links couldn't be added, so please do not restore them or it will lead to another dispute. I'd also appreciate it if you would stop talking in terms of the "major editors" and the "influx of new editors," as though that makes a difference. I am one of the major editors now. I've added a lot of content, and fixed a great deal more. And this is Wikipedia. Someone arriving with one edit has as much of a say as anyone else, so long as they understand how to edit within the policies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Starting using Harvard style as long ago as June, as can be seen from this version of the page dated June 14th, which is longer than a few weeks ago. As it happens, I've unpicked all the Harvard templates, and don't think it's necessary to reinstate them at this point (too much work, quite honestly ... ) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Had a look at the references/citations tonight and I see a great deal of discrepancy. SV which style are you using? I think we should make a decision re: how to format since multiple people are editing here. Since the harvard short notes and the cite templates are now gone, is MLA style at acceptable, since this is a lit article? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Image sizes

Could we sort out the issue of image sizes? I thought we had agreed that we would fix image sizes, but not too small. I don't mind them being a little bigger if people want it, but the sizes are being removed entirely (sporadically), leaving some of them enormous. The MoS allows us to fix sizes. What is the objection to it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I promote the 'thumb' attribution on images. I became familiar with its use in high quality articles while working on the Israel article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The 'thumb' parameter is often used in conjunction with specific image size parameters. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that there are default sizes with the thumb parameters and that people with special interests have the option of overriding these with their own preferable size -- something which does not work when we dictate the size parameter.. at least, that's what I remember from my talks about this issue on Israel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

SV, the reason is aesthetic, your mention of (sporadically) is misrepresentation, washing over reverts between your stylistic preferance (small images, large colour-dy quote boxe) and mine (large images, keep colour-dy quote boxes to a minimum). Unfortunitaly I dont have as many friends to just 'turn up' to agree with me, so I'll conceed tiny images at least, pointed quote boxes are another matter. Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the sizes were removed once, not sporadically, and restored to thumbnail default. Agree with Ceoil that page design aesthetics drive these decisions, but personally I always adhere to the thumb default (btw - the default size is set preferences). Unlike Ceoil, I don't want to concede tiny images - would rather have no images than have to squint. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Userfriendly editions"

What, pray tell, does that mean? Annotated? Abridged? Selected with introductions? Varlaam (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I too would like to see an infobox for all the reasons SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} gave here: Talk:Ezra_Pound/Archive_1#Infobox. In fact, I don't understand why it was removed from previous versions of the article, besides one editor's wish to not have one. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually more than one editor objected...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Two. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I count four in this discussion and at least one other elsewhere. Deor (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Prefer not to have an infobox. Thx. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

TuckerResearch - when you refer to "one editor's wish to not have one", can you please identify the editor (as you have SlimVirgin). In my mind this is not about pitting two editors against eachother, but if that's the case, then let's be honest about it. It's about the value of infoboxes in articles to do with artists - a value, I for one find dubious. Infoboxes are great for country articles and for articles with statistics - but having an infobox for the sake of having an infox, and then adding subjective information such as "influenced by" and "influenced" doesn't really add much to the page, in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I, too, wish to see an infobox; not for the sake of it, but for the convenience, and for the metadata thus emitted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Temporary protection?

This article seems to be getting quite a bit of vandalism recently. Is it worth protecting it for a short period? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Lan, Feng. "Ezra Pound / Ming Mao: A Liberal Disciple of Confucius." Journal of Modern Literature - Volume 27, Number 1/2, Fall 2003, pp. 79-89

Though this is just the abstract, it's on EBSCOHost and I have a copy of it WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Carson, Luke (1999). Consumption and depression in Gertrude Stein, Louis Zukofsky, and Ezra Pound. New York, N.Y: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0312216629. is said to be an amusing read.Smallman12q (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Pound as composer

Probably few people are aware that Pound was also a composer; I can't find any mention of it in the article. A group called Other Minds has issued a CD of his music, with a fascinating booklet, called "Ego scriptor cantilenae: The music of Ezra Pound" (OM 1005-2 CD) 67.173.232.164 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC) R. Anthony Lee

There's a bit in the "Paris (1921–24)" section, and relevant publications are listed under "Works". More can be found in the linked article Le Testament de Villon, which includes an external link to the Other Minds website. I'm not sure that any additional information about what is, after all, a fairly minor aspect of Pound's career is needed in the main Pound article, but if you think that more is called for, feel free to make suggestions here or add it yourself. Deor (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

St. Elizabeths

Shouldn't "St. Elizabeths" be "St. Elizabeth's." Dick Kimball (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems counterintuitive but the hospital is named St. Elizabeths Hospital. It is a bit odd though. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"right-wing"

It seems a little unfair to describe National Socialist sympathizers as "right-wing." I read through the entire article and it was somewhat jarring to see that Pound apparently jumped into bed with the "right wing" after a lifetime of fairly obvious left-leaning. Is it even necessary to include a political judgment? Feel free to discount the point, but the phrase just didn't seem to fit. Let people fill in their own "wing" for Nazis, Fascists, and Klansmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.150.203 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's probably a valid point. The page needs some work. Thanks for the comment. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely concur with first comment; I am tired of seeing the right wing smeared with Ezra Pound's legacy. He was a socialist. That is the domain of the left. That socialism correlates strongly to fascism and nationalism is something the left needs to deal with. Ezra was one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.76.122 (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That's kind of funny. No one, apparently really wanted Ezra to be "one of them". Anyway, the page is slated for a rewrite when the main editors are less tired. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I `m missing information about casa pound

CasaPound in this article

more http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/CasaPound

--89.204.153.68 (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk page dispute

I responded to Ceoil, as is apparent from the indenting, here, CurlyTurkey responded in turn here. Nikkimaria removed, Curlyturkey reverted, and then a long thread ensued at Nikkimaria's page here. I've put back CurlyTurkey's comment. Are we done now? Truthkeeper (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully. Sorry, TK. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Not at all your fault. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion at Nikkimaria's user talk didn't take place until after this edit was made by Nikkimaria, claiming WP:TPO as justification. The discussion was started to address that specific edit. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

I've replaced the lead with a previous version [7]. Since there are a lot of eyes on the page at the moment which do people prefer, the current lead, or the one that was in place? [8]. The current lead was written specifically to give an overview w/out an infobox. Feedback welcome and anything can be reverted. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I prefer the lead that doesn't end with 1 November...Modernist (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it only that sentence, or the entire lead? I can try to meld the two, or I can decide not spend more time here and revert. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I too prefer the lead that you've overwritten, Truthkeeper. Deor (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the other lead, I think you would do well to revert, however if you are motivated to continue working the article - have at it...Modernist (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted. I do however think that some elements that people want to see in the infobox need to be in the lead. Needs some thought. Thanks for the feedback. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specifically you have in mind - add those elements if in your judgment it improves the text...Modernist (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'll just let it go. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefer elements of the rewrite. "attempted to prevent" for example is a bit fanciful. Ceoil (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Was experimenting is all. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Cornell

I changed Joseph to Julien because I can't find any substantiation that Pound and Joseph Cornell were friends...Modernist (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Modernist. According to the NYT source, definitely Julien. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Imagism

Per a comment at the peer review, I've taken the 3 points out of the block-quote and tried to prosify [9], but I think I prefer it with the block-quote in the list. I've seen these three points presented various ways in sources, either as a separate list or prosified, and would like feedback on the formatting. My view is that the point is sufficiently important to present as the list (and it reflects the source from which it was taken), but if WP policy overrides that, should we keep the prosified version? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's better to present the three "principles" of imagism as they were. Don't take every comment at WP:PR as a directive to change the article. This is merely a matter of layout, and I think that in this case it makes more sense to lay it out in a clear format than to "prosify" it. Deor (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Deor; I agree. I think it looks quite awful to be honest, but thought I'd give it a chance. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, in the original book publication of the three points, they were definitely presented in list format—see here (on page 95). Deor (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I thought they were. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed infobox

Ezra Pound
Ezra Pound photographed on 22 October 1913 in Kensington, London, by Alvin Langdon Coburn Ezra Pound photographed on 22 October 1913 in Kensington, London, by Alvin Langdon Coburn
Born	Ezra Weston Loomis Pound (1885-10-30)30 October 1885 Hailey, Idaho
Died	1 November 1972(1972-11-01) (aged 87) Venice, Italy
Occupation	Poet, literary critic
Citizenship	American by birth
Education	M.A. in Romance languages
Alma mater	Hamilton College University of Pennsylvania
Period	1908–1968
Literary movement	Modernism Imagism Vorticism
Notable works	Ripostes (1912), The Cantos (1915-1962) [unfinished], Hugh Selwyn Mauberley (1920)
Notable awards	Bollingen Prize (1948)
Spouse	Dorothy Shakespear (1914)
Partner	Olga Rudge
Children	Omar Pound Mary Pound

I know there are a few editors of this page, including a few keen watchers, who are dead set against putting an infobox on this page. See, for instance, Talk:Ezra Pound/Archive 1#Straw poll re inclusion of Infobox, and user Truthkeeper88's arguments on the issue:

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.

But such can be said of, for instance, T. S. Eliot, who has a fine infobox. Or Shakespeare, who has an infobox. Or William Carlos Williams, who has an infobox. Or, hell, anyone else. Infoboxes, however, are useful and on the pages of most poets and writers simply because infoboxes are useful in distilling some facts about a subject's life.

And despite Truthkeeper88's protestation that he has "tried to write the lead in such a manner that the facts of his life are presented there without the necessity of the infobox," nowhere in the lead can I find what the name of his wife was, or what his children were called, or where he was born, or where he died, or how old he was when he died. This is the information an infobox is designed to convey. How many times is an infobox used by the public to see how old someone was when they died, or what movement a poet belonged to, or a simple link to the poet's wife up at the top of the page?

I can understand user Truthkeeper88's quibble that "the list of his influences is long and in turn he influenced the next generation or two of poets," and as such I've removed these from the proposed infobox at right.

Still, despite all this, I know I'll hear about how infoboxes are not useful, how consensus says keep one off, and I'm sure someone will trot out WP:DISINFOBOX (despite the fact the latter is an essay, not a policy). And I know I'm marching uphill here, against the wind, in the snow, etc., and will only have scorn heaped upon me by my fellow editors, but, oh well, I'm only trying to make this page, I think, better. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The first mistake you made was to call me out solely; the second was to imply ownership (by me); the third is to insist on an info box (easy to create) when what's needed here is hours and hours of research, reading, note taking, writing, and polishing. I don't care - do what you will. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) I don't think naming you and quoting your arguments is "calling you out," (2) I don't understand how referencing your arguments against an infobox is somehow a mistake, and (3) how is it my mistake that you inferred I think you own this article when I said "my fellow editors" will heap scorn on me. Protest too much, methinks?

(4) And I totally don't have a clue what you mean when you say it is a mistake to put an infobox on this page when the article is in dire need of hours of work that, presumably, only you can do. What are you trying to say? We should only worry about an infobox when you have decided the article is up to standard? This isn't Citizendium!

(5) And what's with the faux exasperation of "I don't care - do what you will"? I've taken a proposed change to the talk page and you act as if I'm here to torpedo the Ezra Pound article!

Calm down, please. I'm not making a change, I'm advocating a change! TuckerResearch (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that others (such as yourself) can do some work. In fact SlimVirgin has done as much here as I have. Calm down? A bit patronizing, don't you think? Anyway, I won't stand in the way of your info box because I seriously don't care. If you believe the page needs an info box, then add an infobox. All I'm saying is that it needs much more and in my experience often editors conflate cosmetic changes with improvements when a subject such as this, which is enormously complex, needs more than cosmetics. As for the remark that only I can do it, as far as I know I'm one of the few editors with the subject expertise, but I could be wrong. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Me patronizing? So let me see if I understand your last comment. Before I put an infobox on the page, I should "do some work." Is that what you're saying? My input shouldn't matter because I've not made any substantive changes to the biography? Besides, I'm just worried about cosmetics, not true edits. Right? And you call me patronizing. And what's with the comment: "as far as I know I'm one of the few editors with the subject expertise"? I can only hope you're being facetious and not actually making an appeal to authority. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Look if you have the expertise in early 20th American literature, that's fantastic. The page has been difficult to finish because Pound is difficult to write about. Anyway, I'm dropping out of this. And really, seriously, I don't care out the info box. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Really, you're "going to take your ball and go home" because I've suggested an infobox for this article? If you care to know, I am an academic, but I've not once trotted out any qualifications when editing an article. My interest in poetry is as a reader, and the poets of the interwar years interest me greatly. I happen to think infoboxes are grand, you do not. I opened it up here for discussion. I find your resignation puzzling. "Over and out"? "I'm dropping out of this"? I'm one of the few historians on my campus (or that I know of) who supports and edits Wikipedia, both "cosmetically" and substantively, and who points their students to it. And I'd hate for someone with expertise to stop editing a good article on Ezra Pound just because I've suggested the addition of an infobox. I find that troubling and, I'm sorry to say this, a tad melodramatic. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It is quite melodramatic, but there's background that you're unaware of. I haven't edited here for more than a year, perhaps longer, but have had on my list to rewrite (again!) the entire page and add the missing pieces. The melodrama is not because of the info box but rather a long string of events. This happened to be last. Truly, I don't care about the info box. I do care about the way your argument was personalized. That's really not necessary. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've edited for years and one of my pet peeves is editors who immediately run to WP:No personal attacks when they are challenged. I did not attack you by quoting you. As the foremost advocate on this talk page against an infobox I decided to address your argument. To me, I am not "personalizing" an argument against you, though I am attacking your argument. If you feel I am personally attacking you, that was not my intention. I am trying to convince you, someone who has made substantial edits to this page, and others that I think this page could use an infobox. I do, however, find your appeal to authority quite condescending. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The truth is that in general I'm fairly burned out and generally fed up with editing here. As for the argument; the lead I wrote was much different than it stands now. But this page has been through a lot of strife and it seems appropriate to me to use this as an opportunity to take a much needed break. I haven't a clue what you mean by appeal to authority. Truthkeeper (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Appeal to authority: "as far as I know I'm one of the few editors with the subject expertise." As if only those with "expertise" should edit this article. I'm sorry you feel burned out. I tried putting an infobox on the article and you reverted it. I'm not going to put one up now unless other editors think it's a good idea. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Infoboxes are useful to readers, and I Like templates. Alarbus (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I know others have them, but this article doesn't need it, and the loss of details and oversimplification would be more of a disservice to readers than a service. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I trust the good judgment of the editors of this page. Eisfbnore ^talk 14:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think an infobox in this instance is too great an oversimplification. I do recognise that they are useful in some instances, but I don't believe this is one of them. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Eisfbnore: So if the good judgment of the editors of this page were for an infobox you'd support it? That's not much of an argument.

User:Kafka Liz: Tell me where an infobox is not an oversimplification. Especially on a biographical article. Isn't that the point of an infobox? Are you just against infoboxes on biographies? And, could you explain how Pound's birth and death dates, his age, his major works, and his wife's name is an oversimplification?

I'm truly curious; I've never understood people's fierce opposition to infoboxes on biographies. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tuckerresearch. I'm not against infoboxes on all biographies, no, though I'm not a fan of them in general. Most of the simple facts you outlined, "Pound's birth and death dates, his age, his major works, and his wife's name", are already available in (or deducible from, in the case of his age at death) the lead, so an infobox containing just those seems a bit redundant to me. Beyond these, this box in particular seems to me to raise as many questions as it answers (the inclusion of two alma maters; the mention of a wife and a partner), and the simple listing of his children seems somewhat misleading, given the complexities surrounding their birth. If the object is to present a clear, concise fact guide, then I don't think it succeeds. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - to answer the question above: I dislike infoboxes in biographies because I think they trivialize the subject. First, I like the purity of the photograph alone - a lovely photograph by a well-established photographer of the period. The photo was taken for a frontispiece to one of his books (Ripostes? can't remember off the top of my head) he was ill with jaundice and sat for the photo in his dressing gown. I believe we have a better version of it - or it can be replaced with another photograph.
• Some of the fields in the infobox don't tell the entire story: he was born in Hailey, Idaho was not yet a state, but was only there for the first year or so of his life. I think poet and literary critic is a simplification, although it's probably true that's what he's known for. But what about traitor? Or promoter of new poets? Is it our job to publish oversimplications to be the #1 google hit? Also, I don't understand what the 1908-1968 stands for. Next, he married Dorothy in 1914, but had an affair with Olga from 1924 until his death. With Olga he had a daughter. Dorothy had a son - biographers either skirt the issue of whether he was the father or explain that Dorothy became pregnant during an extended visit to Egypt when Ezra was in Italy. So that's a bit murky. Not all of these details are in the lead, but there's something to be said for having readers dip into the page to find relevant information rather than finding it from an infobox and clicking out to another page. I won't !vote here, but these are my thoughts on this issue. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Any fields that are truly problematic (the "influences" and "influenced" ones in paticular) should be left blank, and commented to prevent editors in the future from adding to it, thus:

| influences = <!-- too many; leave blank, as per consensus -->
| influences = <!-- too many; leave blank, as per consensus -->

The birth and death dates are entirely unproblematic. The fact that he "only" lived in his birtplace for eighteen months does not negate the fact that he was born there. He married Dorothy and never divorced her. Etc etc etc. The details are details.

Of course infoboxes simplify things. Of course infoboxes are redundant. Nobody expects them not to be redundant and simplistic. They are there to give the reader a quick overview. Quite often they prove useful to those who are merely clicking through while reading another article: "So-and-so McGillicuddy was deeply influenced by Joe Blow, John Doe and Ezra Pound" ---"Ezra who? I'll just click through and---ah, he was a modernist poet, early 20th century, etc etc, okay, back to McGillicuddy..." The Infobox provides this info in a compact, familiar, easy-to-access way. If a reader is sufficiently interested, they can actually read the article. The choice is the reader's.

Sorry, but Pound is not the only complicated figure in history. History abounds in complicated figures. Regular people's lives are complicated, too, and busy. I'd like more people to get to really know about my life, too, but sometimes I just have to tell them I'm a teacher and leave it at that unless they start probing me for more. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"They are there to give the reader a quick overview" - isn't that the point of the lead? Why do we need another thing to do exactly what the thing we already have does? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have to avoid it? Are you proposing abolishing infoboxes? If not, your point is invalid. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: The lead is also supposed to be redundant, summarizing in prose what is in the body of the article. The reader has the option of choosing what level of depth they want to engage with the article: Infobox, lead summary, full article, or, if they choose, any of the sources or external links to more fully in-depth sources. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per above; they aren't necessary everywhere, not needed here...Modernist (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The article itself is not "needed". Is it useful to readers? Yup, I use them all the time, and so do large numbers of other users. If you have an issue with Infoboxes per se, this is not the place to "make a point". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes aren't mandatory. But just to be clear, here we're trying to reach consensus about this specific page, so let's keep the commentary to the reasons why or why not to have one here instead of accusing others of being pointy or assuming that Nikkimaria is proposing something that's perhaps absolutely incorrect. I'd prefer not to see one myself on this page, but let's see how this plays out. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The aren't mandatory (very little is), but the reasons many of the editors are giving are not specific to this page. Some of the editors here clearly have an issue with infoboxes in general. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you've got me there. I dislike info boxes for books, pieces of art and some biographies. As the primary editor on the page I made a decision not to have an infobox - which you've challenged and is now being discussed. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

As the primary editor of this page, you deserve kudos for your contributions. The Infobox, however, serves a purpose for a large number of readers. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy. If only 5% of the readers of this page benefit from having the Infobox on the page, that is more than significant enough a reason to keep it. Nobody makes you, personally, put it there. Multiple editors have gone to the effort of providing one. If you merely dislike them, that is about the most frivolous reason I can think of to block out the work of other editors. If the information in the infobox significantly distorts people's perception (e.g. giving them the impression that Pound is someone he was not), then it should be fixed. Removing it entirely is quite drastic, and should be done as a last resort when shown that it cannot be fixed. Again, we're not talking about making you add it. We're talking about you or others removing it entirely when other editors thought it beneficial to add it.

There are many different levels in many different contexts at which readers approach articles. As I wrote above, sometimes one just wants to check out what was referenced in another article. At other times, want a little more significant knowledge, and will read through the lead summary, and leave if satisfied that that was all they wanted to know about the subject. At other times, one may want a thorough overview, and read through large parts, or even all, of the article. Sometimes, if one is deeply enough interested, one may hunt out a book or three on the subject. Some may even populate their personal library with books on the subject, and others will devote their lives to the study of the subject. Every approach is legitimate given the individual and the context. By removing the infoboxes that other editors keep placing on this page, you are looking down your nose at particular individuals and particular contexts. Show us how these contexts are illegitimate first. Failing that, show us what specifically is wrong with the infobox as proposed, and how it is unfixable. Failing that, even a quantitative "consensus" is not seriously a legitimate excuse to keep removing the infobox. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Another editor removed it, not me. [10] Nor have I added a support or an oppose above for precisely the reasons the you mention. I wouldn't object to having an infobox if there's consensus for one. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, I find it quite disturbing that an editor has exhibited ownership behavior on this article, claiming that as the "primary editor" they get to make the "decision not to have an infobox." There is no such thing as a "primary editor" of a Wikipedia article. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

TuckerResearch, you seem to be putting words in TK's mouth. They did indeed say they were "the primary editor" and that they had "made a decision not to have an infobox". Your phrasing implies a degree of ownership that has not been claimed: TK never said that they "get to make the decision", with the implication that no one else has a say; what they said was that they had made a decision (emphasis mine), and that wouldn't object to having an infobox if there's consensus for one. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of us object to the ridiculous suggestion that a consensus must be reached before adding an infobox, and that one editor not deciding to add one equates to deciding there should not be one without overwhelming consensus. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

One was added, it was reverted, therefore WP:BRD. No consensus = status quo maintained. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

One was not added. It has been added by at least six separate editors (I got bored combing through the page after finding six). I've pointed out above, however (to which nobody can be bothered to respond) that simple numerical consensus is not enough to keep it off the page. Wikipedia is not a democracy. In order to keep that infobox off the page in the face of so many editors finding it useful, one would have to show clearly how the infobox has a significant negative impact on the page. You don't like infoboxes? Don't read them. Think people skip the content because of infoboxes? Aside from being inexcusably condescending, I think you would need to show some kind of proof of that (you won't. The proposition itself is purest horse manure). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a democracy, but built by consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Try reading what you link to---in the first paragraph: "nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms". Wikipedia is not about one group of strong-willed editors ganging up on the rest to create the illusion of a quantitative "consensus" (by word count?). It's about presenting the information on a topic in the most useful way to the largest number of users. You do not like infoboxes. You have the option of not making use of them. But in order to have the infobox removed, the onus is on you to show that the infobox has a significantly negative impact on the article, even if only a small fraction of users can demonstrably be shown to make use of it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please put it back. After months of hounding by an editor with a very full sock drawer and who has a specific pattern of hounding to the point of being banned, I don't want to go through something like this again. It's truly not important in the grand scheme of life. Of course anyone is free to add an infobox or anything else to a page and anyone, similarly, is free to remove. If there's opposition, it will be removed. If not, it will stay. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Steady on. Condisering how difficult it was to biuld the page and put to geter a nuanced balance on this very very complex man, a reductive infobox would be a step backwards. Ceoil (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes area a simplification, we all know that. In fact that's the point. Given that that's the point, stating it over and over has to be about the lamest argument a person could come up with against them. Tell me up front---do you actually believe that a reader would be dissuaded from reading the article entirely because of an infobox? Do you have even the slightest shred of evidence to support that? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Very difficult page to build with huge efforts by lots of editors: SV, me, you, Deor, Filliocht's incredible foundation and on and on. But I'm not having another talk page fight over something like an infobox or a nav template color that results in months of ill-will. And this seems to be going on and on and on. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, if you are not going to make comments that add to the discussion, then could you please refrain? "I won't stop you *pout pout* but someone else will" is simply embarrassing for the rest of us to read. Nobody's questioned the magnitude or quality of your contributions here (I can't say about any discussions you may have had in the past). The discussion is about the infobox and the infobox alone, and teh group of vigilant editors who have staked out this page to make sure any infobox added won't survive an hour. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a major misunderstanding here. I was simply explaining that at the time when I was working heavily on the page I made a specific decision - in fact over a course of months I made many many decisions. That said, except for tending the page now and then, and except for a faint hope of returning to finish the job, I haven't worked here much in almost two years. At any rate, if you believe there's an issue of ownership, then I suppose there's someplace on Wikipedia to report it. Otherwise, I suggest letting this go. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont think its a matter of ownership, more than one of clue. The arguments against are well made, and boil down to the fact that they simplify the subject. A lot of people have strong feeling about this man, they cant be bagged in categories. Ceoil (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow! So, User:Ceoil, editors that would like an infobox don't have a "clue"? I see, we are too dumb to comprehend "well made" arguments. Yeah, that's not ownership behavior at all. (From Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Examples of ownership behavior, "Are you qualified to edit this article?" - and apparently we're not!)

And if Pound can't be "bagged into categories," then you had better remove those things called "Categories" at the bottom of the article, which contain such simplifications (oh the shock and horror!) as:

• "1885 births" (Too simple! What month?)
• "People from Hailey, Idaho" (Idaho means nothing to Pound!)
• "American people of English descent" (How does this mean anything to Pound! And "American" is a simplification!)
• "American poets" (It's too simple to call him a poet! He's the greatest thing since sliced bread!)
• "Imagists" (If you can't put Imagist in the infobox because it simplifies his oeuvre, how can it be a category?!?!)
• "Italian poets" (He's Italian now too?!?!)
• "American Nazi collaborators" (Slander! And simplification! We can't put up with any simplification!)
• "Ezra Pound" (Does Ezra Pound belong in the category "Ezra Pound"? He can't be "bagged in categories"! Oh no paradoxes of set theory!)
• "Writers from Idaho" (Idaho wishes it was that simple!)

The "infoboxes simplify the subject" argument is a canard. And your comment that pro-infoboxers don't have a "clue" and can't grasp the "intelligence" you're spouting is the very definition of condescension. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming very late to this debate, but I support having an infobox on this page. I really don't see what the big deal is. I think it's a good thing for any writer's Wikipedia page to have one. It provides readers with the basic facts of the writer's life, concisely and easily found, for those readers just looking for the barebones facts of that life.Jpcohen (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well said, but tehy hatez tehm: Talk:Murasaki Shikibu/Archive 1#why can not infobox be used here. And tehy OWN “their” articles. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha.Jpcohen (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What, specifically, is wrong with this infobox?

If anyone has a problem with infoboxes as infoboxes, they should take this elsewhere. If anyone has specific problems with the infobox above as proposed, please list those specific objections below so they can be addressed and dealt with.

Personally, I see few aspects of Pounds life that are complicated in such a way that they could be significantly distorted by being simplified in an infobox. The influnces/influenced sections certainly are, but they are also not included in the proposed infobox (and I've proposed a way to future-proof those fields above). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Commentary removed

You mean repeat all that has been said before. No thanks. Commentary removed Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The header for this (sub-)thread demands that we ignore the forest for the trees. There is a general problem with the infobox in this case that appears to be beyond correction: it is unnecessary clutter. It serves little purpose in summarizing vital information that does not already appear in the lede (in contrast to, say, the infobox for Albert Einstein). In sum, it does hardly anything to improve the article, and rather more—in terms of redundancy and visual distraction—to detract from it.—DCGeist (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As has been said before, if there is a problem with infoboxes per se, this is not the place to bring up the issue. The claim is certainly not widely accepted. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs05:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You must not be responding to my comment, CT, because I expressed no problem with infoboxes per se. In fact, you obviously didn't bother to read my comment at all, as I cited an example of a worthy, beneficial infobox. Once again, I observed a general problem with the infobox proposed for this article. You have failed to address the issues I raised, so my argument stands uncontradicted that this infobox constitutes unnecessary clutter, and that the ways in which it detracts from this article clearly outweigh the ways in which it arguably improves it.—DCGeist (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed those concerns in the previous thread. And calling the infobox clutter is purely subjective. I, and many others, would say it actually helps better organize the page, while providing another way to access key information on the page.

And you have failed to show how it "clearly outwiegh[s] the ways in which it arguably improves it". You've baldly asserted so, but you have not shown how in any way, shape or form. I've given my reasons why it helps in the previous thread, and nobody (not you, either) has bothered to respond to any of the actual points I've raised.

The previous thread is about whether or not we should have an infobox. This one is intended to be about what is specifically wrong with the proposed box, as there were concerns that it may present information in a misleading manner. The discusions are related, but different. I'd hoped to keep them separate, as the previous thread was cluttered enough. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs22:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Further, claiming it is clutter because it is redundant misses the point. For many, the point of the infobox is its redundancy. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs22:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the discussion above (as well as previous discussions) shows no consensus for the inclusion of an infobox at all, it seems otiose to discuss the merits of any particular one. Deor(talk) 22:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The point was that the above discussion was confused further than it needed to be by the fact that at times it was discussing whether or not there should be an infobox, and at others about what was wrong with the proposed userbox. I hoped to separate the two arguments, as the above discussion is already long and convoluted. If the discussion above were one-dimensional (inclusion or not), I'd've had no motivation to start this subtopic. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I love that you went there: "calling the infobox clutter is purely subjective." As if all of your arguments couldn't be labeled "purely subjective." How intellectually vacuous can you get? The plain fact is that this comes down to the exercise of editorial judgment. Your judgment that this article would benefit from an infobox has failed to gain anything even remotely approaching a consensus. Perhaps, if you ever recognize that this infobox would be virtually nothing but redundant, you will begin to understand why you have failed to convince enough engaged editors that your judgment in this case has merit.—DCGeist (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My arguments amounted to: "some people use them, and find them useful". That's subjective?

I see by your sarcasm and choice of words that you're trying to bait me into a war of invective, in order to avoid engaging inthe actual issues. I will cease responding to any comment of yours that isn't a concrete response to a concrete argument. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, all infoboxes are repetitive, so to say that this one can't be included because it is repetitive is fatuous circular reasoning. (User:Curly Turkey, among others, is correct in this.) User:DCGeist says that the proposed Pound infobox "serves little purpose in summarizing vital information that does not already appear in the lede," yet he maintains Albert Einstein's infobox is a good infobox, presumably because it summarizes vital information not in the lede. The proposed infobox above contains many bits of information not contained in the lede:

1. His birthplace
2. His place of death
3. His MA degree
4. His almas mater
5. The literary movements scholars place him in
6. The name of his wife and partner
7. The names of his children

This is not a subjective argument, User:DCGeist, these are facts ("information") not in the "lede." All of the items in the proposed Pound infobox are indisputable facts, facts that are meant to be conveyed in infoboxes. (All facts in all infoboxes are "simplifications," to use the terminology of the anti-infoboxers.) Users may say, again (like User:Truthkeeper88 says above), that infoboxes "trivialize the subject," but let's take User:DCGeist's model of a useful infobox, Einstein. Nowhere does the Einstein infobox say he did his best work as a patent clerk, that he was instrumental in the birth of the Manhattan Project, that his best friend growing up was his sister Maja, that he had epochal arguments with Niels Bohr, etc. The point is, infoboxes are meant to quickly convey facts. Perhaps, admittedly, trivial, incomplete, and unexplained facts, but facts nonetheless. A Wikipedia reader can look at Pound the infobox and say:

• "Born in Idaho and died in Venice? I must read on."
• "What was the name of his wife? Dorothy. That's right."
• "Vorticism? What's that?" [User clicks through to the Vorticism article.]
• "Pound went to UPenn! So did I!"

That is the point of infoboxes. I realize that a preponderance of editors who stalk this page (and their ilk), some with clear ownership issues, have manufactured a consensus against an infobox, so be it. That is why I have not attempted to be bold again and add an infobox to the page. But I will continue to point out that their arguments against an infobox are mostly aesthetic, a product of their dislike of infoboxes in general; I will continue to point out their calumnious attacks, saying pro-infoboxers should do some good edits first, that we're not qualified, that we don't have a clue, that we're "intellectually vacuous" (I could just as well attack the pointless pretension of using words like "otiose"); and I will continue to point out their sophistic arguments against this infobox. Say you don't like it and don't want it, don't say we're stupid and that infoboxes are "simplifications," because that is what they're meant to do: simply convey standard facts. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"who stalk this page"? Who wrote this page. Ceoil (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You've already had your invective here removed by an administrator, Ceoil. "twat" is hardly appropriate for an edit summary. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs15:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your entitled to that openion, I suppose. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think it is given the condescending comment above. As though people and their ilk (whatever that means) "stalk" the page for the hell of it. Anyway, CurlyTurkey, you've created enough drama for a while, so I'm nicely asking you to back off. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one who accused anyone of stalking, nor am I the one who called anyone "twat". Accusing me of creating "drama" is fairly one-sided, not to say condescending and dishonest. How about actually discussing the merits and demerits of the infobox, instead of making personal comments and defending personal attacks? How about not cherrypicking the "stalking" comment—like an adult—and responding to the actual points that Tuckerresearch raised? He (and I) has raised a number of points not tackled in the Disinfobox essay, and those points deserve to be addressed.

Nobody deserves to be called a "twat" or a "vengeful prick", even if they are one. I mean, you've accused me (on Nikkimaria's talk page) of having a personal vendetta against you merely based on me asking you (yes, impolitely, but not uncivilly) to stop whining, yet you find actual unambiguous invective like Ceoil's acceptable? Please don't say you're that unreasonable. I'm certainly not out to get anyone. I just want to see some honest, straightforward answers to the issues Tuckerreasearch and I have raised, and I'd like to see it done without emotional theatrics, ad hominems or condescension. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs16:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've struck my comment and moved yours to my talk. We can discuss it there. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, User:Ceoil! Again, as above, what a brilliant riposte! I must thank you for so many things.

• Thanks for calling me a "twat" in the edit summary of your magnificently reasoned response. I mean, I was pointing out what an infobox does and what the proposed infobox does that the lead doesn't do and the logic and intellect behind the word "twat" just demolished my reasoning. Kudos to you.
• Thanks for the rest of your reponse too. "'who stalk this page'? Who wrote this page." Once again proving my point that there are several editors of this page who clearly exhibit ownership behavior, your implication being that since people like you make the lion's share of edits to this page, that the opinions and actions of other editors do not count as much. Some animals are more equal than othersmuch? Again, a cadre (better than ilk?) of editors have asserted they know best, only they have expertise, they've written so much so they get to decide, anyone who disagrees hasn't a clue, and anyone who argues for an infobox is a twat.
• Thanks for earlier saying that users who want an infobox don't have a clue. Another brilliant argument. Are you a lawyer?
• Thanks, lastly, for not addressing any of my actual arguments. I have addressed the shallow argument that an infobox only "simplifies" the subject, I have addressed the issue that the proposed infobox above adds nothing not already in the lead. Your response? To ignore me, to offer illogical arguments, and to unleash puerile invective.

How about (a) an apology for calling me a "twat"; (b) someone on the anti-infobox side of the issue admonish User:Ceoil for his childish personal attacks; and (c) someone address the arguments I put forth above, about categories as simplifications, and that this infobox indeed addresses things people might like to know. Infoboxes exhibit facts about the character in a simplified form, yes, simplified, so you can't argue against an infobox because it simplifies facts. I don't understand how the presentation of facts constitutes disinformation. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This has gone way beyond anything that can be productive. People who edit articles place them on their watchlist - they don't stalk them. It's that simple. The rest has been answered multiple times. Baiting has its own consequences. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

1. The specific issues raised by Tuckerresearch and myself have not been addressed, neither here nor in the Disinfobox essay. The dodging has long since gotten exasperating, and this discussion wouldn't be nearly as long if the participants would only keep on topic and respond to the points actually being made, instead of resorting to invective, emotional outbursts, condescension and bare claims that "Oh, we've already talked about this before".
2. Ceoil's behaviour is reprehensible no matter which side you're on. I hope Tuckerresearch will stop rising to the bait. Many commenters here have added zero to the discussion, but I think it's safe to say the Ceoil's contributions have resulted in a net negative, as s/he has, with moderate succes, derailed the discussion on multiple occasions.
3. I believe TR's "stalking" comment stems directly from his assertion of ownership behaviour being displayed here. I'm sure "stalking" is just being used as a synonym for "ownership". Given that he has been editing since 2005, I'm pretty sure he's familiar with watchlists. Maybe he could use more tact with his choice of words, but, as poetry fans, I think we should be expected to be able to read between the lines and find the meaning that he is trying to express. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Here, here, User:Curly Turkey. The claim that a mere statement of facts in an infobox constitutes disinformation because they "simplify" is a canard because infoboxes are meant to convey simplified information. Nobody has addressed that categories are simplifications, yet they remain on the article, or that the infobox provides vital facts at a glance, at the top of the article, that can't be found in the lead. (This latter in response to a declaration that the infobox adds nothing not in the lede.) And I admit I am snarky, but I like pointing out hypocrisy. So I get a giggle that I am accused of attacking people because I quote them (see above), yet when called a twat by an editor, the same people accusing me of personal attacks are nowhere to be found. As to the stalking comment, I merely meant that, yes, editors staunchly against an infobox have this page watchlisted and remove any infobox with a quick "no consensus" argument. Then when someone, in good faith (like me) takes it to the talk page, the argument is "we already decided against an infobox." When I give arguments for an infobox, I'm told I don't have a clue, I'm a twat, the "primary editors" have decided that the opinion of other editors mean less. That is, and I direct people there to read it, clear ownership behavior. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying the feeling behind your snarkiness is unjustified. The problem is that its actual expression gives people the opportunity to fill up their comments with responses to your snarkiness while completely ignoring any point you've made. That way, they can satisfy themselves that they have "responded" to you. One is not tactful merely to be nice---tact is a tool used to get the response you hope for from others. Just as invective is a tool used by Ceoil to ensure the discussion remains off-topic. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How dare you just declare a whole section of a talk page off topic! I have reverted because I disagree with your assertion that this is off-topic. I have addressed issues that serious editors want addressed. An editor asked for comment on an infobox, there are arguments and then counter-arguments. I have seriously addressed arguments that anti-infoboxers made, and then was answered with personal attacks and rigmarole. My argument has not been "answered multiple times." The only argument against the infobox is that it simplifies information and I have shown several time in several ways that that is what an infobox is meant to do. Nobody has yet countered that argument. My serious, yet admittedly snarky, argument was met with you don't have a clue and twat. TWAT! And your solution is to unilaterally declare a subject closed, remove it from easy view, and accuse me of bringing the epithet twat down upon myself. So address my arguments. If an infobox is good for Albert Einstein, how is not for Ezra Pound? How does the very annunciation of the facts of his birthplace and deathplace in an infobox constitute spreading disinformation? How can declaring the information in an infobox a simplification when an infobox is meant to simply convey information be a valid argument against an infobox? TuckerResearch (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Get over your self dude. "I demand satisfaction!" "Im indignat I not paid due respect for dragging up old, defeated arguments". Really. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That is proof to me, then, dude, that you can only answer comment with childish remarks and claiming that these are "old, defeated arguments." Really. Wikipedia is not static. I guess you've never read Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change. Brilliant argument again. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Tuckerresearch, please stop feeding the trolls. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll stop "feeding the trolls," as it were (but I feel a need to answer personal attacks). But claiming "old, defeated arguments" as a reason to not have an infobox needs to be addressed. Again: Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Tucker, you'll get no joy from me, I wont bother talking to you serious after the stalking cmt, so either just forget it or do whatever you feel you have to do. I dont actually care. Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone who called me a twat won't talk to me anymore. You honor me, sir. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonononono! That's the very definition of feeding the trolls! Ceoil clearly has no intention of stopping this BS, after being told repeatedly and having comments censored. Getting a (totally off-topic) response out of you is precisely Ceoil's goal. If we ever want to see this discussion get back on topic, you need to start pretending Ceoil's comments are whitespace. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. The Eninstien argument is a fallacy, the lines in the sciences are far more blurred with the humanities, and like, jesus christ, do ye guys realise the irony of trying to put Pound in a box. This conversation was exhaused a long time ago. Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Eninstien argument is one that Pound personally professed while in his box at St. Elizabeths, but the Elders of Zion have conspired to keep that fact off of the article. Jesus Christ is well aware of the irony, and was exhausted by your trolling a long time ago. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No you fool, Im not talking about any theory, but the retarded "if Eninstien has an infobox then Pound should have one" stuff above. That I have to explain this is embarrasing. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone actually made me smile on this discussion! The fact that you think you have to explain yourself is embarassing to witness. The comment was supposed to make you laugh, too, Ceoil, and get us out of this spiteful spiral. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It did make me laugh to be honest, Curly Turkey. Yes, this is after getting very silly. I dont actually think you are a fool, far from it, but Ive been through this argument so many times, its well, ugg. Truce? Ceoil (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out who "Eninstien" is! TuckerResearch (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, but I never pretended I could spell in fairness! Ceoil (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Info box" boxing marathon

I'm new to this controversy, but what is all this about????!!!! It's a battle of editors pitting their egos against one and other. Take the gloves off! This is all needless back and forth leading to nothing (apparently) until someone gives in or takes a dive in the ring and the controversy ends in a knock-out. The Info-box is a conventional Wikipedia insert on every page of biographical entry. It is meant to serve as a "list", a "snapshot" of facts, not a forum for debate. Can't someone with AUTHORITY intercede and referee a decision on this? Betempte (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Some "marathon"—nobody had posted on the subject in six months until you made your demand for AUTHORITY. There was at least one administrator involved in the debate, by the way. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's untrue. I posted on this subject on October 1, 2012. See conversation in discussion thread line two sections above this one.Jpcohen (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs , apparently, this info box issue has not been resolved. I inserted an info box on October 9th. It was deleted only three hours later by Deor with the explanation: "Undid revision 516879572 by Betempte (talk) - no consensus for inclusion—see talk page." If there has been "administrative" involvement, as you write, what has been decided? It appears the controversy still goes on. Betempte (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an utter joke that this article doesn't contain one; they seem all but standard on prominent Wikipedia bios. This appears to have moved past the point of debate to determined obstinancy. Against the current (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-free images

• I've noticed that this article uses several non-free images which do not comply with WP:NFCC #8. One has been nominated for deletion (the cages), one has been removed but reinstated, and one which I missed when browsing earlier. As all of these individuals have an article, we don't need an image here just to show what they look like. That HD had short hair is not relevant to the discussion next to which her picture is placed; that Dorothy looked the way she did does not relate to her marriage to Pound. They should be removed, all three.

As a side note, I think that File:Sheets of toilet paper on which Pound started The Pisan Cantos.JPG may be free in the US as it does not have a copyright notice. It was not published, naturally, but it may still be free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussions here, and [11]. I leave it to the experts. Might be a good idea to make SlimVirgin aware of this conversation. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Crisco, that seems to be an overly strict interpretation of fair use. HD was important to Pound, as a poet and a person. His wife was obviously important to him too, and the images were used (writing from memory) in sections about their relationships with him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• His wife is still there. I've looked at the image reviews TK linked above, and one (from Elcobbola) looked pretty much entirely at the sourcing and not how the images are used. The other link didn't seem to include your image review.

WP:NFCC #8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - A lack of a physical depiction of HD and Shakespear is not "detrimental" to one's understanding of their relationship with Pound, although admittedly the images make the article look nicer and they are relevant. As I said above, the short hair, or jacket, or so on is not inherently related.

It's possible that H.D. had free images published in her first edition anthologies, and Dorothy may have made it into the newspapers before 1923; if free images like that could be found, they'd be great for the article. However, until then it's best to play it safe. A first edition cover of Personae could replace the current Shakespear image, while the cover of Hilda's Book would be an acceptable replacement for H.D. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There are very few fair use images that would fit a strict interpretation of WP:NFCC #8. TK and I have discussed taking this again through FAC; the only reason we haven't so far is that we're at the fiddly, checking-every-reference stage, which is a lot of work, but it will be starting soon. Would you mind leaving the images on the page so that people can discuss whether they're appropriate at FAC? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, although I'd likely take issue with the images at FAC (or probably GAC). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks, Crisco. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Question - Crisco, what's the policy in regards to passport photos? I've found this interesting page on flickr [12] with a 1919 US Passport photo of Dorothy (second row from the bottom). If you're interested, can explain the circumstance behind it (sourced) but will wait first to see if these are viable alternatives. The existing image of Dorothy File:DorothyPound.jpg is free outside of the US (death of photographer = 70+ years). Also will weigh in about the cages, etc., but one thing at a time. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• • I would consider being used in a passport a form of publication (and, with a pre-1923 date, that would make it free in the US). You may want to double check at MCQ, but I think this is 100% useable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Can you point the way to MCQ? I don't know what that is. Also if passport pics are okay, then there's one of Ezra that's been deleted (sorry can't remember the file name) that I'd like to get back so I can check the source (I think the Beineke) and look to find a better source for these than the flckr page. These may have been doctored a bit and better to find the best source. I'll dig around to see if I can find the file name if it's not easily find. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sure, WP:MCQ. I've already posted at the Commons equivalent (I guess), CT:Licensing. They may be annoyed if we cross post though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, good idea to ask because Elcobbola said no. If the answer is yes then I'll work on those. Still working on HD. I won't annoy anyone - or at least try not to. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, interesting. Do you have a link to the discussion? I'd like to read his/her rationale. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)