Talk:Edgar Allan Poe/Archive 7

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

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

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


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

To clarify further:

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

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

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

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

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


 * If you take a look at | Quinn's biography, which I believe is considered authoritative, you'll find "it seems certain that [EAPoe's] great-great-grandfather was David Poe, a tenant-farmer in Dring, in the parish of Kildallon and County Cavan, Ireland, who died in 1742. David’s son, John Poe, emigrated to Pennsylvania in 1749 or 1750,(29) having married Jane McBride, daughter, it is possible, though not certain, of a clergyman, Reverend Robert McBride, and sister of an admiral of the Blue, John McBride. After living for a time in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, John Poe moved to Baltimore, where he died in 1756."  aruffo (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Quinn does make the same claim, though he still is only | referencing the same Bewley source that I did. One would have thought that if it was good enough for him it would be good enough for Midnight dreary. Blippityblop (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would recommend that adding more to this info is not helpful. Unless we can agree that Poe's ancestry is what makes him notable enough for Wikipedia, this info should be, at best, a blurb. It isn't: Poe's notability is based on his writing. Further, Wikipedia merely reflects what everyone else is already saying in their published reliable sources. Again, I would reiterate that if it was a common aspect of Poe studies, most of his recent biographies would dedicate space to it as well. If this info is so important to this article (and not merely interesting), I would recommend it be as simple as "Poe's father was of Irish ancestry." If that is done, however, it would also include "Poe's mother was British." --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the article on Poe's father (who is only notable for his relationships), does not mention this info at all: David Poe, Jr.. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You see its very confusing Midnightdreary when you state twice that you're removing something because of doubts over the source and then you turn around afterwards and say its because of relevancy after you've been shown to be wrong. As regards recent studies, certainly Jeffrey Meyer draws attention to the County Cavan origins of Poe on page one of his biography. I might be wrong, but has there been a major biography of Poe since then? Certainly it is the most recent one used liberally as a source on this wikipedia article. As for David Poe, Jr., I can certainly add it to that article too if you like. And if "Poe's father was of Irish ancestry", that means Poe was of Irish ancestry too. That's how ancestry works. If you look through wikipedia there are hundreds of other biographies mentioning the ethnic backgrounds of other notable people: as well as a plethora of ancilliary information about their backgrounds not directly linked to their "notable" features, but which adds to the picture of them (certainly many full-lenght biographies on Poe seem to mention the fact). You could argue that Poe isn't notable as a cryptographer - but his work in the field is still mentioned in this article. As for Poe's mother and her ancestry: personally I only want to mention the Poe family name history itself, but if you want to add that information to the article I won't throw a hissy fit. Go for it. What I propose is adding the sentence "Edgar's grandfather David Poe, Sr., emigrated from County Cavan, Ireland to America around the year 1750." I've tried to chop and change and compromise, but all you do is move the goalposts because you're page is being edited without your permission. If you're not happy with that, its about time this went to some sort of dispute resolution. Blippityblop (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop claiming that this article "belongs" to Midnightdreary. It's annoying and untrue.  At least one reliable reference has been identified for Poe's ancestry; if you intend to use it, then do so, taking two items into consideration:  first, Midnightdreary's legitimate concern regarding the purpose and quality of this article; and, as supplement to Midnightdreary's recommendation, the fact that other stuff exists does not automatically justify including information about Poe's lineage.  (And if you sincerely believe that Poe's cryptography was not a significant element of his professional life, please read one or more of the biographies.)  aruffo (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * [undenting] Blippity, I'm sorry that I'm offering multiple concerns, rather than just one. I am not reneging on any previous concern. And, as Aruffo stated, I do not own the article; his other points are helpful as well, so thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * What I would recommend, then, (assuming all parties are in consensus to include this info) is that a quick sentence is inserted, without the "Sarah Helen Whitman said" stuff (that does not lend credence to the comment), and with the more recent source for a citation (no rootsweb stuff, no matter what it links to). But I would insist that it be added to the article on David Poe first; it's far more important there, as he is closer to that ancestry, and only notable for his relations. I would also suggest an equal amount of text on this article mention that EAP's mother was British-born. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the more-detailed ancestry information will do well to be placed on David Poe Jr's page, and I support Blippityblop's adding it there. I also agree that a mention of same is appropriate here.  Quinn's biography does devote its entire first chapter to Edgar's parents, and to Elizabeth's mother, but this is not for the sake of tracing lineage.  Rather, Quinn traces the professional acting careers of all three parties in exhaustive detail (the first such survey) to demonstrate that Edgar's creative spirit was his heritage.  Other relatives are introduced, but briefly; Quinn also takes a moment to debunk certain other claims of royal ancestry, but only a moment.  Relatives are discussed for their influence on Poe's career.  Failing an influence, they are merely mentioned for their existence.  aruffo (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Hi, Sürrell, thanks for dropping by. Your main argument for including the info on Poe's ancestry is that you find it interesting, which is not a good argument. As for the other stuff, the info here is a bit of an overview, certainly. But further info on Poe's work and influence can be found in Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe, Poems by Edgar Allan Poe, Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture, Edgar Allan Poe and music and Edgar Allan Poe in television and film. Is that not enough? --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Midnightdreary. That is very interesting and, on the other hand, it must be in an encyclopedia article on Poe. People do not want to know about it? On the other, I think it is sufficient in any way, sorry. Time will prove me right. I must leave now. Later. ;)--Sürrell (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Interesting topics to describe an author's life: his family, his friends, his ancestors, his teachers. (Who were the Pilgrim Fathers? Bah, never mind.) Is also interesting, is necessary what those who knew him well said of him. For what reason. Because I'm 150 years away from him. What his girlfriend said about him is of great interest to know the person. She saw him, she knew his eyes colour, she heard his voice, even she kissed him. It is first hand information: therefore gold information. My information, on the contrary, now is only fourth or fifth or tenth hand. My job is to transmit simply this information of first-hand in the correct perspective (beware of the primary sources). 2. Articles about writers consist of two parts. Biography and work. I think, in terms of size, must be fifty / fifty, more or less. Your article is a great article (thanks for it, I translated it because I thought it was excellent), but not enough when it comes to his work (that is why I expanded it much). 3. I'm much more interested in Baudelaire's, T. S. Eliot’s, Borges’, Edmund Wilson’s view that of Sowa, Meyers, Silverman. Sorry. Don’t you have a policy of more or less authoritative sources, more or less important kind of sources? I have a problem: I want to know what Stevenson or Dostoievsky had to say about Poe. This is very important for me, excuse me. (But, for me only?) This is it and nothing more.;) --Sürrell (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No arguments? Let me tell you that your silence will not help improve the article and the blessed literary memory of the best writer of fantasy of all times and of the United States. It's simple. The article is not finished. (And ancestors must be in it, of course, and criptography is too long versus critic, poetry, and...) So long.--Sürrell (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Ha, ha. Still confused? I will bring fire to thee. 1. Bad boy, you misrepresented my words. I say: This article should not be a featured article because it does not mention Poe's work enough, and other items, as Poe's ancestry. 2. If Blippityblop wants to add that information, is he welcome to? Then, restore his information. 3. The States is your country and this is the free encyclopedia, a free funny space, and that is why you, and others, can take my advice or not. 4. The section about Poe's work is not under a deadline, of course. I think it is primarily the responsibility of Midnightdreary (the main editor) to enlarge it (sorry, I think). Is it clearer now? You're welcome.;)--Sürrell (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how I'm required to add info about Poe's ancestry - I'm not the one who expressed interest in it - nor do I see how it is my responsibility to expand a section just because you don't like it. If you have additional concerns, perhaps a new section on this talk page is required outside of this particular question about Poe's family. Further, if you dislike the article so much, you can bring it up for reassessment to remove its featured status, or you could consider helping to improve it yourself. I feel somewhat attacked here, and not merely because you called me a "bad boy". --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree-- I haven't been able to understand exactly what Sürrell is trying to say, either, although it does appear that Sürrell, like Blippityblop, is falsely attributing powers and responsibilities to Midnightdreary. aruffo (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Going by the fact that the Irish diaspora and Irish American wiki pages are both even longer than the Edgar Allan Poe page, one easily concludes that there are a large amount of people that consider Irish ancestry to be both significant and highly interesting. Not that his Irishness decides that: if he was German American or of the Spanish diaspora or Italian diaspora, then I would expect that fact to be listed. But you decide Midnightdreary, you obviously have ownership of the site and only you have the right to decide what is interesting or not. I'm grateful that there are paragons of objectivity such as yourself, veritable oracles who can proclaim these truths to the masses. Thankfully you also have your cronies that enforce your ownership of this page just in case any interlopers appear. Grand, leave the page as it is. It is yours after all. See ya around. Blippityblop (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


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

Influence or work?
Listen, folks. This is a very interesting topic. I think that this editor, Midnightdreary, should not distort the words of editor Sürrell anymore. Editor Sürrell does not say you have to extend the influence of Poe, but the work of Poe. You do not just say nothing of the work. And Poe is not just a drunk who married a girl of 13 years and went hungry, as shown in this article. This article is half article, as Sürrell says, and a bit ridiculous article for that reason. Poeseye--85.59.141.63 (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear... I'm not sure how I distorted Surrell's words. I never understood them, as I mentioned (more than once, if I recall). I worked hard to make sure this article was not just displaying Poe as a negative figure or living a negative life. I wish you could show how you came to the conclusion that it is "ridiculous". If there is a concern that there's a not enough information on his literary work, add it, bearing in mind there's a whole article Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe (which is also a featured list). --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh my... Lists? No, thanks. We already have the phone-book for lists. This article has a clear bias against Poe, and, in fact, some believe that is «displaying Poe as a negative figure or living a negative life» in the same line as Griswold, Krutch, Bonaparte, Yvor Winters, Huxley, and others. It is an old and sordid subject. For what reason? Because Poe's work does not have enough extension. And this decompensation, this omission is absolutely un-jus-ti-fi-a-ble. And it is a bi-as and it is ne-ga-ti-ve for Poe's memory and the truth. It is also ridiculous to keep distorting, dear friend of lists and Poe´s toasters. Poeseye--85.53.137.255 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to your concern. Could you please be more specific as to which parts of the article are anti-Poe? Could you please be more specific about what you think has been omitted? If you see something "absolutely un-jus-ti-fi-a-ble" or something which is distorted or, again, "ridiculous", have you attempted to fix it yet? --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You have worked the article (467 edits). You started it, somehow. You control all editions and, according to your subjective judgment, you deleted many of them, some of my own. Then, you morally must finish it. If you do not understand what we say, you should go to school to learn. Is it clear now, dear friend of Poe’s toasters? Pd.: By the way, do you know if H.P. (another American genius, isn't he) once wrote something about Poe? Poeseye--85.53.144.8 (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is only clear what you are saying in the sense that you are saying nothing. Please answer the question: What specifically do you recommend updating? I did not start the article, I do not control all additions (I assume you meant that, not "editions"), and I am not "morally" obligated to add something which I'm not aware is missing, nor remove something I am not aware needs removing. Please, either give more specific information, edit the article yourself, or stop trolling me. -Midnightdreary (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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

Location of hospital at death
The link for the hospital of Poe's death points to the wrong hospital. The link points to Washington College Hospital on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, likely over a day's journey from Baltimore back in Poe's day. The correct reference should be Washington Medical College, aka Church Home and Hospital, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Home_and_Hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:8:D1D:B95F:9ACF:404F:52E0 (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noticing this error and mentioning it here. I've corrected it just as you've suggested. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your moderation of this page, and the quick response and update of the link. You might also want to consider changing "Washington College Hospital" to "Washington Medical College". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:8:D1D:B95F:9ACF:404F:52E0 (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can do that as well. I'm not a moderator; just a humble editor. Most people can edit this page but it's been protected so only established users can edit due to inappropriate behavior. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Ichnussa2000 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This would appear to be more appropriate for the Poe article on the Italian Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits to intro (second graph)
I edited the second graph and twice the edits were reverted. Once because of purported 'grammatical errors" (there are few, if any, and should be edited and not wholesale deleted) and another time because, apparently, FA is to be confused with 'perfect'. It is not.  This graph is an improvement and I will take it to arbitration if I have to.    The previous version of the graph I edited had multiple issues and was misleading: not least of which it make it seem that Poe and the Allans (collectively) had tension. Not so.  Poe and Frances Allan had an apparently very loving relationship right up until her death and it was with the parsimonious John Allan (and later his second wife) with whom Poe principally quarrelled.   In addition the graph, which is supposed to be a summary, doesn't make note of the fact that Poe was a second child and confuses the death of his mother with the abandonment of the father when in fact those events occurred a year apart. The previous graph glosses over the death of Frances Allan. The previous graph also conflates his first stint in the army with his attempts at West Point. The previous graph also ends with the publication of Tamerlane... making it appear as though the book came out after he left West Point when in fact it was published during his first, abortive, attempt at army life, the success of which led him, while at West Point, to believe he could make a living as a writer. Petrsw (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All good points, Petrsw, with the sole exception of your threat to go to arbitration. It's a little early for that, don't you think?  Arbitration would frown on any attempt on your part to bring something to them that has not been thoroughly discussed on an article's talk page.  So, I hope you don't mind if I, for one, maintain that the article's lead should continue to reflect the summary as it has stood the test of time and FA scrutiny.  Joys! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 18:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The grammatical errors you call "purported" are there in the page history and can be seen by anyone who cares to look. I frequently correct such errors, rather than reverting, but I avoid doing so when I am less than confident that the substance of the edits I'm correcting would constitute an improvement to the article. Substantive changes should always be reliably sourced, and yours were not. Incidentally, arbitration does not deal in questions of content—only behavior. You're fine now, but if you make these changes again, you'll be edit warring, which is a behavioral issue (although not one typically requiring arbitration). Please see WP:BRD for the best way to proceed. Rivertorch (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Arbitration exists to resolve disputes. This is a dispute. I am not edit warring, you are.   I have improved the graph and you have reverted my improvements: it is your behavior that requires justification and perhaps modification.  You claim that the "test of time" and "FA scrutiny" is all that is needed. I say you are wrong.  FA or not, the article can be improved and I attempted to do so. You have attempted to stymie me.   You claim that 'substantive changes should always be reliably sourced'  but I made no substantive change to the content and do no reference anything that is not source properly later in the article: I have made changes to the ordering of the graph to avoid obvious conflation and, therefore, confusion,   I made changes to grammar and to syntax to further avoid the obvious confusion inherent to the previous graph. The previous graph was incomplete as a summary as well as misleading and incorrect as a timeline.  In short, I edited it.   Petrsw (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Petrsw, first, thank you for your edits. I was one of those who reverted your work and, for that, I apologize. I hope it does not dissuade you from continuing discussion here. I think some of your edits were somewhat misleading; for example, "Poe received all the attention, education and care the otherwise childless couple could offer." This is a bit of a personal reading, and not necessarily encyclopedic. I'm also concerned about, to nitpick, things like "Poes" instead of "Poe's" and the insertion of double spaces after periods. No one would suggest that an article that has reached "featured" status is automatically perfect but one should be extra careful at making any adjustments that might diminish its quality, as the aforementioned errors. Let's work on this together. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Midnightdreary for concrete and specific examples. I intend to make the changes you suggest and strike the sentence of which you make note, thus restoring, in part, my edits.   I do believe that timeline of the present structure is confusing and misleading and overall clarity is improved.    Are there objections?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrsw (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI: I learned to type in 1979, on a monospace manual typewriter, so double spaces after the period is an old habit drilled into me by my then instructor, an old crone with a sharp tongue and a bad attitude..  It was thought to be 'good' practice back then for readability and the overall look of the page and so deviation was not permitted.  Of all the bad habits I've picked up that one seems to be the hardest to shake...  Petrsw (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I, too, picked up that "bad" habit at an early age. Some of us do not consider it such a bad habit, especially when it does help the readability of the code, and yet makes no difference at all in the article.  Whether you leave one space or two spaces after a full stop in the edit screen, the space after a full stop in the article remains the same.  I sometimes use this to make dummy edits, when necessary. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 18:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. Let me also suggest that if you ever want to use double spaces, for example on your user page, just use a "non-breaking space", like this:

...and another wad of ex-novel went straight into the trash can. Oh, how do I defeat this horrid Writer's Block?
 * ...which renders: ...and another wad of ex-novel went straight into the trash can. Oh, how do I defeat this horrid Writer's Block?
 * PS added by –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX !

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

For more information and for verification see

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

And also

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

I hope that this has been of some help.

Moonwalkerfairy (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Most of the material related to Poe in popular culture is kept away from the main page so it's a more legitimate biographical article, rather than a round-up of tangential or trivial offshoots. Instead, look at Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture, Edgar Allan Poe and music and Edgar Allan Poe in television and film. I'm sure The Following is already covered. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

Nietanoniem (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most places in the text of this article state 1835. Of note, on his cousin's article, it is stated that Poe filed for a marriage license in 1835 and had a marriage ceremony in 1836 Cannolis (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The date is confusing. There was a marriage license in 1835 but I'm not sure how much evidence exists that there was a ceremony until 1836. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Due to the discrepancy here, there will need to be a consensus achieved through discussion and presentation of RS to back up claims one way or the other.  Until there is such a consensus to change (or make a permanent note that the date has been discussed and declared accurate so that we don't have to revisit this multiple times without new sources that would be needed to influence a change), I'm deactivating this request.  Please feel free to reactivate when consensus is reached. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 20:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Poe and humor
I would recommend putting this source in when you mention Poe's writing of humor. The source, a professor who has written multiple books on Poe, argues that Poe wrote more humor than is commonly understood. To quote: "In Poe and the Subversion of American Literature: Satire, Fantasy, Critique, I argue that Poe is perhaps best viewed as a practical joker, a highly skilled literary prankster whose fundamental talent lay in putting one over on people. More frequently than we care to admit, the victims of these confidence games, these diddles, are us, the readers." http://humorinamerica.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/joker-poe-part-1-just-diddling/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.24.135 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be beneficial to add more about Poe's comedies, which make up a substantial portion of his work; currently it's barely mentioned under "Genres". The source provided above, however, doesn't seem to pass inspection as it is a self-published Wordpress site. Any other sources? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

If it was discussed can someone give me the link to the discussion because I seemed to have missed it. If it wasn't discussed, I think it should be. I don't have anything against the new image per se, but the prior (the Ultima Thule) has been defended by other editors in the past as the most appropriate image for the top of this article. What do others currently think? MorbidAnatomy (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. The Ultima Thule photo is the most recognizable image of Poe, without question. If that factor is a requirement for a main image, I don't know. I was wondering if other folks thought the same, however. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

That leaves us with the matter of the Ultima Thule vs the Annie as the main image.... MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for inviting me to the conversation. Restoring old images is a bit of a hobby of mine, and I couldn't help cropping & fixing up a Poe daguerreotype after Getty finally released a high resolution digital copy through it's Open Content Program.  I know it's a bit taboo on Wikipedia to replace the infobox image of a Featured Article without discussion, but I took the advice of Midnightdreary's talk page: "I strongly encourage people to be bold and mercilessly edit [articles relating to Edgar Allan Poe]".  I know that the Ultima Thule is considered Poe's most iconic likeness.  Feel free to change the infobox image back if that's the group consensus.  Personally, I think my cropped high resolution version of the Annie daguerreotype is a nice change of pace for the main image.  I think it helps the value of the article to rotate the main image every once in a while. BTW, check out the Timothy Cole woodcut of the Ultima Thuile daguerreotype I recently uploaded.  Cheers!  Scewing (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for working on these images, Scewing. Sorry that it took me a while to respond, I don't really have any complaints with changing up the main image. It sounds like we all agree that the Ultima Thule is the best candidate as it is the most famous, but it also sounds like no one has any real objection to using the Annie. So probably your edit will stand as is. In time someone may swap it for the Ultima Thule again, but for now no one seems to care. Sounds like you've got group consensus--though, admittedly, only three people have joined the conversation. Thanks again. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll swap out the Halling portrait with a color version of the Osgood portrait. Scewing (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2014
86.171.40.248 (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)edagr alan poe was born in Virginia Ireland and migrated to America at a very young age
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Unsure what change is requested, and seems contradictory to the sourced material already in the article. Cannolis (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014
I would like to add a book at the further reading section: Robert C. Marley, Tell-tale Twins, engl. edition, Luebbe, 2014 (Todesuhr, german Edition, Luebbe 2013) The novel describes the mystery surrounding Poes last days.

Andrea Miebs (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is an appropriate addition to this article. You could consider, however, adding to the article that discusses Poe as a character in fiction, if the book is notable enough. See Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture. The page isn't aiming for completism, however, but just for notable examples. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  22:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2014
90.222.112.66 (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC) I think jack the ripper was a edgaR A PO FAN SORRY I HAVE DYSLEXIA BUT LOOK AT THE FACTS THANK YOU
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Pedophile
Why has this fact been left out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhkhlhklhkj (talk • contribs) 06:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know I'm late to the party, but I believe this was left out because the formal diagnosis for pedophilia originated in the late 19th Century, after Poe's death. Moreover, it adhered to a strict set of criteria (as it does now) and I doubt Poe would have applied. Since he was never diagnosed with pedophilia, it is not discussed. There are rumors of it—especially since he married his first cousin, Virginia Eliza Clemm, when she was only 13 years old—but not a single shred of evidence. Considering how there isn't even evidence of Poe's medical records (a problem in determining his exact death), I doubt there would be anything related to any sexual disorder or paraphilia, assuming such diagnoses even existed during his time. Anyway, pedophilia deals with prepubescent children, typically under the age of 13. If Poe had any sexual paraphilia, it was probably hebephilia. Even this assumes a general sexual attraction, however, for which there is no evidence. In all likelihood, he was attracted to Clemm for whatever reasons, but those reasons were specific to Clemm. Thus, Poe's sexuality is pretty much irrelevant.


 * In other words, no, Edgar Allen Poe was almost certainly not a pedophile, nor could we ever know. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

edgar allan poe
he donated sperm to women — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.78.206 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source claiming that? If so, please provide it. It may be included in the article. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a joke edit. Pay no mind. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)