Talk:Ezra Pound/Archive 3

Freely available online source

 * Beach, Christopher. ABC of Influence: Ezra Pound and the Remaking of American Poetic Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press,  c1992 1992. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft0b69n6n3/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.172.189 (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

?
"and had an interest in non-traditional verse forms as the Japanese Haikus." How are haikus non-traditional? whose tradition aren't they? Not to mention that this sentence is worded awkwardly. 131.191.98.224 (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would guess the sentence means that at the time of Pound, haiku was not a traditional form of English verse, nor was it part of the Western classical tradition. Not sure what else it could mean. If a Japanese poet used galliambics, we could say "had an interest in non-traditional forms such as Greco-Roman galliambics." Cynwolfe (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, that makes sense. however, merely implying this, instead of stating it plainly shows a (presumably unintentional) bias towards Western traditional verse, and against Japanese traditional verse. The problem is that the word "traditional" is virtually meaningless without the qualifiers, except that the reader can unintentionally absorb this unintentional bias towards one form and against another. 131.191.98.224 (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed "non-traditional" for the moment, but he was interested in older forms such as waka that aren't as well-known. I do think you bring up a good point though and that section might need a bit of tweaking. I don't have sources at hand at the moment, but will get to it when I can unless someone else gets to it first. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion on CfD notifications
Please participate: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion. Thanks! &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Rock Drill
Please could someone with knowledge of Pound's work help with a query at Talk:The Cantos? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
Added an infobox. Needs a verifiable list of people influencing/influenced, and signature. Adding this to the todo list. Bubka42 (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Signature added. Bubka42 (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see previous discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

An established infobox deleted
Over an 8,000-word discussion last updated over a year ago no sane person would read in the first place? The very same infobox uncontroversially found at Ernest Hemingway, T. S. Eliot, Robert Frost and D. H. Lawrence among others? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Could someone explain the rationale behind this, and not write a novel doing so? Literature doesn't require excessive verbosity. That's why we have, um ... poetry. Surely Pound would appreciate that. ''' Oh No! It's Faustus37! ''' it is what it is - speak at the tone 11:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given his history, Pound would be more likely to appreciate not being confined. Not even poetry can be readily reduced to a box, and Pound's life certainly cannot. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Though not that necessary, a simple infobox, consisting of only birth and death date/places and occupation could've been added in my opinion. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no rational argument against adding the info box. It's just that a small group of Wikipedia editors are heavily invested in not having one on this article. I guess you could say that they have a subjective, "aesthetic" distaste for info boxes and feel that Pound is too complicated to have one. Which is nonsense in my opinion. Jpcohen (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks aren't really helpful, imo. We should follow this recommendation. Victoria (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Whom have I personally attacked? Jpcohen (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "It's just that a small group of Wikipedia editors are heavily invested in not having one on this article. I guess you could say that they have a subjective, "aesthetic" distaste for info boxes and feel that Pound is too complicated to have one."—is aimed at the editors rather than the issue. "Attack" is silly hyperbole, but polarizing comments like yours don't help, either. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't personally attack any editor or group of editors. I tried to sum up these arguments, which seem to sprout up ad nauseum over this extremely minor issue, as I have witnessed them, primarily as a bystander. I am saying that I think these arguments are nonsensical. That's just a criticism. Not an attack. It's certainly not personal. I have no investment in these ongoing arguments. But as an outside observer, they do appear to be very silly. Jpcohen (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You sort of did. "no rational argument", "a small group of Wikipedia editors are heavily invested", "nonsense", "ad nauseum", "very silly". Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I "sort of did." What in the world does that mean? You don't seem to understand the difference between a personal attack and an argument. So I will try to explain the difference. If I say that an argument doesn't make sense (or is "nonsense" as you quoted above), that is not a personal attack. That is an argument. As a counter-example, if I was to call another editor lazy (which I would never do, by the way), that would be a personal attack. There is a big difference. But I think editors of this page are trying to divert attention from the lack of a sensible argument on their side against the info-box idea by making baseless accusations against me. I have attacked no one. Saying it repeatedly won't make it so. Jpcohen (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite so. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  21:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I considered writing a lengthy reply here but honestly am not yet ready to do so. The Infobox arbitration case ended on September 10th and a number of arbs strongly recommended a six month moratorium on these discussions, which I think is good advice. I suggest we revisit when the six months has expired, if necessary, and at by that time hopefully I'll be better prepared to present the reasons I've chosen not to have an infobox here. In the meantime, unless someone objects, I'd like to archive this thread until then. Thanks, Victoria (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
Just an FYI that yesterday, after seeing this page come up on the watchlist, I thought it needs a bit of polishing, so there will work ongoing here for the next week or so. If I do edit heavily, which sometimes I have the tendency to do, I'll put up an in use tag to avoid edit conflicts. Thought I'd post this for those who watch. It might be in a messy state temporarily! Victoria (tk) 03:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just noting that I'm really glad to see this is being worked on again, and I'm ready to help if needed, so I'll keep an eye out for anything I can do. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"I resolved at 30 … "
Parking here for the moment: "I resolved that at 30 I would know more about poetry than any man living, that I would know what was accounted poetry everywhere, what part of poetry was "indestructible," what part could not be lost by translation and – scarcely less important – what effects were obtainable in one language only and were utterly incapable of being translated. In this search I learned more or less of nine foreign languages, I read Oriental stuff in translations, I fought every University regulation and every professor who tried to make me learn anything except this, or who bothered me with "requirements for degrees.""


 * If this is the quote that needs a source, it's also in Stock, The Life of Ezra Pound, here (the page number isn't clear; perhaps p. 28), and apparently comes from a Pound essay called "How I began." SlimVirgin (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that edition, but in the Pantheon hardback (first American edition) it's page 12. However, only the part beginning "In this search ..." is given as a direct quotation; the substance of the preceding sentence is reported indirectly by Stock. Deor (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Part of the essay ("How I began") is in Stock, Poet in Exile: Ezra Pound, including this particular quote on p. 6. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah; note than there should be an ellipsis after "than any man living," and that "not be lost" and the "one" in "one language only" should be italicized. Deor (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that was useful! I spent about two hours looking for it last night but was searching on 30 instead of "thirty" - or maybe distracted by the Olympics. At any rate, I've put it back, sketched in a rough attribution, and formatted. Victoria (tk) 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead
Just noting here that I think I preferred the previous lead. I'm not sure why, but I think it's that the previous one was more chronological. I'll leave it to others, but I'm posting the two side by side for future discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's a good idea. The lead seems to have degraded quite a bit and rolling back to the previous version is a good solution. Victoria (tk) 00:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like I made a copy/paste error, but I think fixed now. Regarding the Hemingway, quote, but it's been cut. As a quote I like it, but the problem I've noticed is that it gets reformatted as a blockquote, and I'm not crazy about seeing a blockquote in the lead. So we probably should decide either how best to prevent that from happening, or where else in the text the quote can be slipped in. Victoria (tk) 16:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding, I just picked up the 2010 Cambridge Companion from the library and they have the same quote in the introduction, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 17:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We could post an invisible note around it, saying "please don't turn into a blockquote." We could also shorten it a little, which might help, e.g. "He defends [his friends] when they are attacked, he gets them into magazines and out of jail. ... He gets publishers to take their books. He sits up all night with them when they claim to be dying ... he advances them hospital expenses and dissuades them from suicide." SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * After seeing that Nadel put it in page two of a 500 book, I think we're on the right track and I wouldn't mind keeping the "wealthy women" part too. We would have to add an inline about the blockquote. Victoria (tk) 20:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The wealthy women part is good too. I like the quote because it really paints a picture and brings him alive. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record I agree with the restoration of the older version. SV if you could shorten the Hemmingway quote, that would be great. Ceoil (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, Ceoil, will do. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Albert Pound
I started an article about Albert Pound who served in the Wisconsin State Assembly and was mayor of Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin; his brother was Thaddeus C. Pound, Ezra Pound's grandfather. Albert Pound would had been Ezra Pound's great uncle. I believe Ezra Pound wrote of Albert Pound in some of his works. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a nice article, RFD. Thanks for starting it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent work RFD. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Tense
I'd like clafify our usge here; I'm seening a lot of "had been"s, and poems that "were" rather than "are". And objectins if I change these. Ceoil (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For the most part we should use literary present tense, so poems are and so forth. Critics "write", and so on. Good catch and something else I think I had on a mental list of things to check. In other, yes, these need to be fixed throughout by one of us. I'm losing perspective and hard to see what's what right now. Would like to back off myself for a little bit to regain sight, so to speak. Victoria (tk) 17:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Trimming
SlimVirgin makes a very astute point above about how long articles such as this are read; not from top to bottom, but rather people dip in and out of sections they are interested in. This rings true, and with that in mind, I'm not in favour of further trimming. Some of the small details to my mind are illuminating and give us a closer understanding of what was happening in his life at the time, espically in the context of his friendships and ties. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it is an astute point and I'm glad you posted. I've been fence-sitting on this subject but I've just been toppled off! Victoria (tk) 00:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with what we have now, though worry we might have gone too far. Am inclined to trust SV's judgment here, so partial reverts are not a problem. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I might have gotten a little carried away. I do sort of regret losing the story about the duel, and possibly the long quote about leaving London, though I never could quite get that right so in the end decided it wasn't adding all that much. I'm undecided about the bit about the Japanese print and I didn't think I'd done a good job working it into the section. The piece about Kaspar going to jail I commented out because I was beginning to think I was going too far. As I've written above, I've done this before to this article, trimmed quite brutally - and I wasn't pleased with the results. Putting back is easy and as I said, I toppled off the fence. When it comes to the amount of detail in this page I simply have no perspective so I think maybe you or might want to decide how to triage my surgery. Victoria (tk) 02:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What I often do, when I'm not sure about whether to keep something, is move it to a footnote (not by using the additional "note" format – just by moving the text to the same footnote as the nearest or most relevant reference). It means the material is preserved. Then when I'm reviewing the article later with a bit of distance, if the extra detail seems helpful I can quickly convert the footnote back to text, rather than having to hunt for it (or forgetting that it was ever there). Conversely if the material seems fine in the footnote, I leave it; or if it seems too much of an aside even for a footnote, I remove it entirely at that point. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent idea. Victoria, the bits you linked are worth having, and you should recreate in the refs. Ceoil (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks to both of you. Probably what I'll do is put the duel back in the text, push Kaspar going to jail to a ref-note. The other two, Orage's quote and the mention of the Japanese print (which went to the daughter article) I'll play around with a bit in the morning to see if I can get them to fit better in the text, otherwise I'll push to a note. Victoria (tk) 03:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've put back those bits. Might need checking. I've switched out the Orage quote slightly and think it fits the text better now but I'm open to suggestions. Victoria (tk) 14:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit
Just checking some minor issues here (will add as they crop up):


 * The family moved to 417 Walnut Street in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania and in 1893 bought a six-bedroom house at 166 Fernbrook Avenue, Wyncote.
 * The most recent version left out the second address. Any reason? (I'm about to restore it, so checking here.)


 * In 1902, Pound took ..." I would omit the comma; it's a preference issue but we need to be consistent. Any views?
 * Yes, these need to be consistent. I tend not to use a comma in a construction like this. Victoria (tk) 21:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Are we using en or em dashes? (asked and answered: en dashes)
 * I won't change punctuation with quotes (I don't use LQ), so someone else will have to check that we're using LQ properly (or decide that we don't care, which is a valid option!).
 * His criticism of the Jews was removed from the lead, so I'm about to restore, because that was a major reason for the controversy around the Bollinger Prize. If it was removed on purpose, please let me know.
 * Reading this with fresh eyes presents several issues for me. Currently, the lead says: During the Second World War the Italian government paid him to make hundreds of radio broadcasts criticizing the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Jews, for which he was arrested in Italy in 1945 by American forces, on charges of treason.  The first problem I have is with the blue link to FDR.  This breaks the concentration of the reader and disrupts the flow when you read it for the first time.  There's no good reason to link to it here anyway.  Writer Nicholas G. Carr has discussed the problem with links interrupting the flow of a sentence in his book The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, and makes a good argument (based on evidence) that links like this can disrupt the reader's comprehension. The second problem I have is with the phrase, "the Jews".  We wouldn't say, for example, that he criticized the Christians, or the Muslims, or the Buddhists; we would say that he criticized Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist people, or specific sects within those groups.  For this reason, I prefer the term "Jewish people" for its specificity, exactness, and reference to a group of people. "The Jews" by itself in this context sounds nebulous, and lacks the redundancy needed to describe a group of people, just like we would discuss any other religious or ethnic group in English. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wy not "Jews" instead of "Jewish people"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you always ask a question after the answer has been provided? Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I may have misread your comment. You are apparently arguing that it should say "and Jews", not "the Jews", correct?  That's acceptable to me. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Jews would work without "the"; I'm too tired to think about the lead right now, but maybe I'll look around at the sources and see if we can be more specific. It was usury he was railing against and it all became very antisemitic. I agree about blue links, but if we remove that one (Roosevelt) we'd have to remove all the links to names, and someone would restore them. Or do you mean we should remove the name, not the link? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So now it reads: "During the Second World War the Italian government paid him to make hundreds of radio broadcasts in which he criticized the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Jews, as a result of which he was arrested on charges of treason by American forces in Italy in 1945." It used to say "and in particular Jews," because that seemed to be his focus, but I'd have to re-check the sources to make sure, so I've left those words out for now. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The name of Wabash College was removed, even though we go on to discuss it at some length. I'm about to restore, so if it was removed for a reason, pls let me know.
 * I saw that Misses Ida and Belle Hall were removed during peer review, so I won't restore them, but I do like the names. They paint a good picture! :)
 * The issue I see there is that naming them draws attention to them—the reader will expect them to play some larger rôle in Pound's life, when in fact this is the only one they will play (at least in the article). Not naming them in a full biography would be the wrong thing to do, but an encyclopaedia article is only a summing up, and has different reader expectations. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That A Lume Spento (With Tapers Spent) sold 100 copies at six cents each; the 100 copies etc was removed, and I'm about to restore it. Also that he arrived in Gibraltar by cattle boat.
 * This NYT article was used earlier as a source to say that one of the reasons Pound went back to New York was to try to change the design of the new library. I can't see the article. Does anyone know if that's right (or wrong)? If right, it's quite telling. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if she was the one who removed it, but I aksed if it could be elaborated why Pound was so worked up over the library that he'd return to the States, and Victoria said she couldn't confirm it because the article was behind a paywall. I think it should stay there, though not explaining what issues he had with the library is tantalizing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There must be another source for it somewhere; will look around. Have asked for NYT at WP:RX. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've got the NYT article now thanks to John M. Baker (have sent it to others too). It doesn't say that he went to NY because of the library, just that it was "among his projects while here" to try to change the design, because it displeased him; doesn't say why. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I read this in … can't remember. Moody maybe. Anyway, he disliked that the third floor was disguised or something. Do want that level of detail. If so, will find and add. Victoria (tk) 01:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Minor issue, perhaps not worth bothering about. We add after the bit about him falling out with Schelling and his fellowship not being renewed: "Schelling told Pound that he was wasting his own time and that of the institution, and Pound left without finishing his doctorate." Could he have finished his doctorate without the fellowship – or was it not part of losing the money that he was unable to finish his doctorate? That is, are we repeating ourselves? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A few replies to SV's queries:
 * Re A Lume Spento - Stock says 100 copies, at least 20 not printed correctly, an unspecified number were sent out (i.e, to Yeats), priced at 5 lire and probably only a few sold (pp. 49-50); Tytell says 100 copies, doesn't mention the price (p. 38);  Moody says 150 copies, doesn't specify price or number sold (p. 49). See below re Carpenter.
 * I looked for the NYT article in all the databases I have access to and couldn't get it. If we can get it and verify that's why he went back to New York, then restoring that section is fine. It's quite interesting, and telling as SV says.
 * Re Schelling - Pound took five classes in the English dept that semester, (the "spat with everybody" is on page 29 of Moody btw), alienated everybody, dropped out of his classes, didn't sit finals, didn't get credit, and Schelling, as dept head, refused to renew the fellowship. Moody doesn't specify whether he needed the fellowship to finish, but he was finished academically. We can cut the quote and paraphrase. I have Carpenter's book waiting at the library but couldn't get there today - will try to pick it up tomorrow - and will see what he says. But I think Moody's is the most in-depth and up-to-date bio.


 * That's all I can do right now! Victoria (tk) 22:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Another minor thing: just noting that I removed jaundice from "Pound suffered jaundice but nevertheless persuaded his parents to finance his passage back to Europe." Wasn't sure what "nevertheless" meant in that context (was he ill, what was causing the jaundice, too ill to travel? etc) Will look it up later and restore whatever makes most sense, if anything.
 * Serial comma: some sentences have it, some not, so we just need to choose. I have no preference, so let me know if you do. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we can lose the "nevertheless". That section is a little muddled chronologically anyway. Re commas, if there's a national tie, I guess we should use American. I tend to use serial, but don't have a preference. Also, re LQ, I'd suggest following this edit Tony made. Punct outside if a fragment; inside for a full sentence. I think that's all - I meant to post those earlier. Victoria (tk) 23:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Re the jaundice - no one explains why he kept getting it, but he had it when Coburn took the photo in the lead (that's why he's wearing his dressing gown). In 1910 he had jaundice in the summer when he was with his parents, but recovered and went to NY after and then back to London. I have no doubt though that he asked his parents for funds to go back to Europe, but I'll have to look up that section again to get it straight. I like the way it's written because it avoid the "this happened" and "then this happened". Victoria (tk) 13:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving the LQ as it is, so that should be fine. I'll start using serial commas. Another thing. I'm not quite sure what this means: "About a year later, he had the form of the first three attempts at Canto I, published in Poetry in January 1917." Is there a better way of putting "the form of the first three attempts"? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Missed this - I'll have to look it up. He wrote a letter to his father explaining what the "form" of his long poem would be and that by then he had it in place. I'll find a better explanation in one of the other essays about the cantos. Victoria (tk) 02:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Break 1

 * Excerpt from Hugh Selwyn Mauberley. We used to have "There died a myriad / And of the best, among them, / For an old bitch gone in the teeth, / For a botched civilization." We now have this. It's obvious from the first how angry he was about the war, but not from the second, so I wonder if that was a good change. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a chance and trimmed b/c on my screen the three stanzas aren't formatting well - the box is butting into the next section - but it's not a trim I was happy about. Let's try the three stanzas again, and Ceoil can rejig the page later. The page layout should be last anyway. And I hate to admit, but we may lose some images. Victoria (tk) 00:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and restored that, along with some more lines, but if you prefer the previous please say and we can restore (or go ahead and rv). I was thinking that it makes his anger clearer, and helps to explain what happened later. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've taken a run through Early life to the end of London, so I may stop for the evening. If anyone else wants to jump in, that's fine. I've left the Hugh Selwyn Mauberley excerpt as it was, so others can decide which one to use. I just felt the other was more powerful; you get a real jolt when you read it and know immediately how he felt. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm off to watch winter sports. I went through history, and here's the version of HSM I trimmed. I like the stanza you have above better, so that needs to be fixed somehow. Looks like that stanza may have been swapped at a different time. Victoria (tk) 00:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Question about refs: there are some long refs in the text, including books. Do we want all books to be short refs, or only books that are used a lot? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really sure, couldn't decide myself. Maybe skip the refs for now and add to the final sweep list? I was thinking we might be able swap out some and consolidate a little when I get Carpenter in hand, and with the new Nadel, which has many essays. We've been okay recently leaving long refs in the text for books that are only used once or twice, so doing that doesn't bother me. Sorry a bit of a non-answer. Oh, btw, I'm using a modified version of MLA's very stripped down, minimalist, (modernist!) new style. No "pg.", not even "p." but simply the number. Less punctuation too - but it takes a little getting used to for those of us who had "pg." drilled in! Victoria (tk) 02:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I like the way you've done it; in fact you could remove the brackets too and just have Smith 2014, 1. I keep trying to do it on articles I write, but I always forget and add p. 1, even though it's fiddly and unnecessary. So okay, I'll leave the refs as they are; I'm just anticipating that someone at FAC will say they're inconsistent, but maybe we could just say we used short refs for multiple-use sources, and otherwise long refs. I just converted two from long to short, so maybe I should revert that. Btw, again, don't feel you need to respond to everything here quickly; it'll keep. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I usually do a final sweep right before or during FAC to get all the refs consistent, so wouldn't worry about it now. I can't remember whether in recent FACs I've been moving all the book refs out of the text or leaving in the few that are only used once. Will check and report back. I've "modified" the style by putting the date right after the name because we have multiple Nadels, Sieburths, etc., and imo it's easier to match that way. Victoria (tk) 13:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Quote boxes

 * Question about one of the quote boxes. We highlight "You let in the Jew and the Jew rotted your empire, and you yourselves out-jewed the Jew," etc. I may have been the one to add it, but looking at it again, along with the poetry we highlight, it's so ugly it really stands out (maybe too much). I was thinking of removing it. What do others think? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Quote boxes give the articles a neat-o magazine article feel to them, but I've come to prefer sticking them right into the body—if it's important enough to add, then I think it's important enough to form part of the article, and not just as easily-skipped peripheral decoration. You could always use Quote to "highlight" it within the flow of the text. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we need it SV...Modernist (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We need one about the radio broadcasts. The older version had a longer one, see . I don't care which we use, but it's really important to highlight the degree to which his thinking changed and why he was charged with treason. This is something the more recent scholarship is concerned with as well. Victoria (tk) 13:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've left it in. I've removed the yellow colour from the quote boxes; that may have been what was making that one look inappropriate. We can restore it if others disagree, or another colour, or none (I think I'm leaning toward none, but I don't really mind). SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to see you left this in. And in response to Curly Turkey above, I think on literature pages the quote boxes are helpful - they give a snippet of writing; and with Pound saying he made radio broadcasts and showing a bit of the radio broadcast is two very different things. For readers, like me, who look at pictures and read quote boxes, I think it shows a lot. I'd become partial to the yellow! Actually changed the blue in other pages I've worked, but I think that's a minor point. Victoria (tk) 21:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I like quote boxes too, especially for writers. If you like the yellow it's easily restored (#FFFFF0), and there are more lovely colours at List of colors, if you ever fancy getting lost in doing endless previews to check all the possible shades of a quote box. It's fun! :) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've done that - spent a few hours looking for the perfect color for a quote box. The things we do! Victoria (tk) 22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In case we do want to think about colour for quote boxes, some examples:

SlimVirgin (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I like the yellow, but recently updated my browser and I think I need to calibrate the colors again or something. I'm seeing three whites, one yellow, one peach. Is that what you see? Victoria (tk) 22:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The first is without added colour; I think the default is a slight greyish effect. Then I see yellow, a pale lilac, a beige, and a mint green. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I sort of suspected they should have color! I'll have to figure out what's going on with my computer that I'm not seeing it. Will fiddle a bit. Taking a break now! Victoria (tk) 22:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're going to take a break, I might add another poem or two. I like the idea of having his poetry scattered throughout, but it may end up being too much, so feel free to remove it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got the colors restored and … wow! … looks different around here! My preference is yellow because of the contrast with blue which is the only other color on the page - the blue plaque, Cathay, the blue sky and sea in Rapallo, the blue sky at St. Elizabeths - but since at least one or two visual arts people are watching, am thinking maybe we should let them decide? Or least give input. Victoria (tk) 01:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think whether we have colour, and which colour, will depend on how long the quotes are, their placement and how many there are. My only slight worry about the yellow is that it's cheery, but a lot of the words aren't, and it seemed to jar with the radio broadcast quote. But if others are happy with yellow, I'm fine with it. I quite like the cleanness of the blank; it started to appeal to me the more I saw it. I've not tried the other colours in situ in this article. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So here is the London section with three quote boxes (actually there are four in that section but I forgot about the last one) in:


 * default white/light grey
 * lilac
 * yellow
 * beige
 * mint

I think they all look good, except maybe the mint. Agree with Victoria that we need input from visual-art people! SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On a personal side-note: I'm really glad you did this! Now I know why I had a migraine on the weekend - after I recently updated all my software, screenwork has really been bothering me a lot. It was simply an issue of adjusting the contrast that was off enough that I couldn't see the pastel colors and off enough to bother my eyes, but not off enough for me to know what the problem was. I think there might be an accessibility issue here and after looking at all the tests you've made, I prefer the lilac and beige. But agree that we need input from the VA people. Victoria (tk) 02:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not getting much input here! I like lilac, yellow and beige and will probably just go ahead and choose a color later today. We can always change it is we hate it! Victoria (tk) 13:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The yellow does look good. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the yellow color too, it projects well...Modernist (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Break 2

 * Some confusion about this:
 * "A few weeks later he returned south via Milan to Olga and Dorothy. They had been living in Isabel's apartment, but it was small so they decided to move in with Olga at Sant' Ambrogio. His daughter Mary, then 19, was sent to Gais in Switzerland, leaving Pound, as she wrote, "pent up with two women who loved him, whom he loved, and who coldly hated each other." He was in Rome when the Allies landed in Sicily in July 1943. Pound borrowed a pair of hiking boots and a knapsack and left the city, having finally decided to tell Mary about his wife and son. He traveled 450 miles north, spending a night in an air raid shelter in Bologna, and taking a train part of the way to Verona. She almost failed to recognize him when he arrived, he was so dirty and tired. He told her everything about his other family; she later said she felt more pity than anger."


 * The current version has him returning to Milan after his visit to Mary, rather than before. Rather than checking it, I'm thinking of just removing that part, and starting with him being in Rome when the Allies landed.


 * Another issue: "A panel of psychiatrists eventually settled on a diagnosis of schizophrenia." But the same paragraph says they considered him sane. I'm going to make the schizophrenia sentence invisible for now.
 * Trimmed now. It failed source verification. Victoria (tk) 01:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I restored the quote box at the end (right), but maybe I shouldn't have (confusion about when it was written, so maybe it's misleading next to his death). Anyone should please feel free to remove it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I see we have it twice now, as it's already in the Legacy section, so I'll remove the one I just added. I've copy-edited down to the end of Italy (1958–72). SlimVirgin (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Rome: I must have made a copypaste error somewhere around here. The chronology is that he was in Rome, walked to Bavaria to visit Mary, went from there to Milan, and then by train back south to Rapallo.
 * Quote box: was just playing because the other section looked empty - doesn't matter where it's at. It's a nice quote.
 * Panel of psychiatrists > added by an IP at some point, can't get my hand on the diff right now. I was thinking it should be taken out. Victoria (tk) 21:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I'm done for now! I've taken one run through the whole thing, didn't check refs (checked a few, but not many), but read the whole text. It reads really well! Flows nicely, nothing seems out of place, etc. Very interesting. Not sure what you mean about the panel of psychiatrists, so I'll leave you to decide about that. Also, maybe you could decide about the visit to Mary and whether to restore those details, as I got a bit lost at that point trying to work out where he was. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, tired! I see that in the Rome section I missed a piece when I flipped the chronology. I've put in my sandbox to work on later (when I'm less tired), to put back the piece that I missed. I meant I think we should cut the bit that the "panel of psychiatrists eventually settled on a diagnosis of schizophrenia." because I vaguely remember someone else added it, but I haven't a clue when so I couldn't find a diff. I'm glad you like it! You've done an amazing job, so quick! I think it's in good shape too. Victoria (tk) 22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's really confusing. I put it back as it was with some tweaks, because of three biographies Tytell's account is by far the clearest and easiest to follow. Catching up on the rest! Victoria (tk) 21:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's much clearer now. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The article certainly needs a copyediting run, but I'm unwilling to waste time on one until everyone has made all the substantive changes that they are going to make. If someone lets me know at the proper time, I'll be glad to do it. Deor (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Judgemental often Deor? We'd hate to "waste" your precious time. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Deor, I get that I'm not the best writer. I really hate to be goaded to the point of having to put this on this page, and I'll probably revert it in a few minutes, but I've not been very healthy and working the page is difficult. I think trying to take another run at it was wishful thinking. I worked quickly to respond to PR queries (which apparently were done incorrectly), and hoped for copyediting. It didn't come, so here we are. Victoria (tk) 22:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Ha, this is a big problem. Everyone wants to do the final copy edit, completely understandably. It's not that anyone thinks they can do it better; it's just that it's a lot of work, so having the work undone isn't fun. Also, if there are multiple voices involved, you can end up with inconsistent writing. Not better or worse, just different styles (although having looked through it briefly, it's looking pretty good). Maybe we should draw straws or something! I'm not sure whether to press on or stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to press on. Yes, we have different writers from different countries, using different English and different punct styles and the page has degraded some too. My view is that anything terribly egregious will be picked up at review. And my view is that we've all put so much work into this, we should finish it. I've seen worse pages get through FAC! Anyway, I need to break, but will look in again later. Victoria (tk) 22:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks SV I appreciate some of your changes today; please Victoria press on it's appreciated from you too...Modernist (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying anything about your writing, Victoriaearle. I was just offering my services for a final copyediting pass when the article is ready for one. (I worked for a number of years as a professional copyeditor and editor.) I'm sure it needed a good deal of copyediting before you ever touched it. And I'm referring mainly to matters such as punctuation and minor syntactic problems; I have no desire to change the style of the writing. If I've stepped on anyone's toes here, just forget my offer. Deor (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasnt a very substantial offer in the first place, more of a dig, so done, fogotten. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Okay, I'll press on for now, but if you want me to stop at any point, please say. I've taken out number of copies sold and cents, and I'll leave the fellowship/doctorate thing as it is. By the way, I'm jotting these points down only so that someone can tell me to stop if I restore an issue that was removed on purpose (or vice versa). If it's something that doesn't matter, just ignore, i.e. don't feel you have to respond to every point. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, it's my fault for running out of steam and not checking in earlier today, but I'm finished adding content and had hoped you could get to the copyediting this week. I did mean to touch bases earlier but RL got in the way. I won't be able to edit for the next few days, but I'll be checking in the evenings and can answer content questions. I have all the books at my fingertips, I'm making notations as the questions come in, and the books are festooned with stickies! I need to bail out now - really having trouble seeing the screen. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries. I don't blame you for running out of steam! It's a huge article to deal with, but you've done a great job, so this really is the home stretch. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin for the record you are doing a fine job with the page. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ceoil. Just a question about the kind of copy edit that's wanted here. I'm just tweaking for flow and things like that; I'm not doing anything major. Is the text too wordy? It's a matter of taste. Nothing is jumping out that's horribly wordy, but it's long, so we could easily lose some. For example:

"Hemingway asked Pound to blue-ink his short stories. Although Hemingway was 14 years younger, the two forged a relationship of mutual respect and friendship, living on the same street for a time, and touring Italy together in 1923; as Hemingway biographer Jeffrey Meyers wrote, 'They liked each other personally, shared the same aesthetic aims, and admired each other's work', with Hemingway assuming the status of pupil to Pound's teaching. Pound introduced Hemingway to Lewis, Ford, and Joyce, while Hemingway in turn tried to teach Pound to box, but as he told Sherwood Anderson, '[Ezra] habitually leads with his chin and has the general grace of a crayfish or crawfish'."

We could lose those quotes, and reduce it to:

"Hemingway asked Pound to blue-ink his short stories. Although Hemingway was 14 years younger, the two forged a relationship of mutual respect and friendship, living on the same street for a time, and touring Italy together in 1923, with Hemingway assuming the status of pupil to Pound's teaching. Pound introduced Hemingway to Lewis, Ford, and Joyce, while Hemingway in turn tried to teach Pound to box, without much success."

We could do that throughout – shave off some of the quoting and colour to reduce the length. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO I like the long version, but then, I like colour...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oof - I wrote that almost four years ago and now it makes me cringe! Yes, better paraphrased! If you can work in a very short bit of the quote about the crayfish that would be great because it shows up in the all the bios. The image of Mister Sportsman, EH, teaching Mister Aesthete, EP, to box, is sort of comical. Re the quote boxes, I like the color too. I did try to reduce the margins on Hugh Selwyn Mauberly quote to make it fit better (before I ended up trimming a stanza), but I'm not familiar with those templates. Let's just keep the ones we have - I like the color and look of them. At least that's my thinking right now. I'll pop back tonight and hopefully will have Carpenter today, so that will be helpful to check sourcing. Victoria (tk) 13:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No need to cringe! I only highlighted that one as an example of text we could cut if length is an issue, but if people are fine with the length, that's okay by me. It does flow well. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholar credentials
Before we add scholar credentials throughout, I'd like to get other opinions. It's been brought up twice in the PR and I've sprinkled a few throughout, but in recent FACs have had reviewers ask for them to be removed for various reasons (because it's obvious the sources are scholars, gets to be repetitive, etc.). I think it's repetitive and makes for stilted prose, but I suppose we need to decide so as to be consistent throughout. Victoria (tk) 21:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would leave out a description if the name is blue-linked, and otherwise I'd add "Pound scholar" or something, though if it got too repetitive I wouldn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that and know that the convention Ceoil follows as well. I'll revert the ones I've added. Second question: MA or M.A., BPhil or B.Phil., PhD or Ph.D., and linked or not? I don't care either way, though I though MOS was leaning toward fewer periods, but we should be consistent. I've kind of messed these up a bit. Victoria (tk) 21:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't link them, and I prefer not to add periods, so I would write MA, BPhil, PhD. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As it is in the text and I think now consistent. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 22:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Translations

 * I've found a fair number of new sources, published in 2010 or thereabouts, regarding the translations and it's the last section still sitting in my sandbox that I've not yet gotten to. I think our section in "Style" about translations is probably okay, but I might try to stream in some of the newer work as well.
 * I took out this: "An honest sinologist said of Pound's later translation, "Undoubtedly this is fine poetry. Undoubtedly it is bad translation. Pound has the practice, but not the learning. He is to be saluted as a poet, but not as a translator."
 * I took it out because I couldn't open the link to identify who the "honest sinologist" is, and because I think we have enough commentary from earlier translation scholars and so replaced it with something more recent, . I don't mind putting it back if we can get the source and maybe move to the translations section. Victoria (tk) 00:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wondered about the honest sinologist too. The link is in the Internet archive here. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed this last night. I did a find for "honest sinologist" and couldn't find it, but thanks for the link. Very interesting and probably the place now for this is Cathay. Victoria (tk) 01:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Cantos
Victoria, just wondering how you prefer to number the Cantos. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a thorny question. Roman numerals or Arabic? Why isn't anything straightforward with Pound? Off the top of my head I'm thinking let's go with whichever matches the quotes, but that's probably not helpful because the sources aren't really consistent either. Do you have any thoughts on this? Victoria (tk) 01:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources use both, so we can choose. I have no preference. It would be easier for the reader if we write 74 rather than LXXIV, but our article on The Cantos uses Roman numerals. I suppose it depends which is more common with modern Pound scholars.


 * By the way, I'll stop fiddling now if you want to continue editing in case I was interfering. And in future if you need a clear run, just post a note here or add the in-use tag (or simply override if you get an edit conflict and it's a nuisance). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Scholars seem to use both, which is annoying. Nadel's book is the most recent I have (2010), and I'll look to see how he standardizes, or whether he does. Lots of essays in there! I'm about to bail out again for the evening and most likely won't be around much again for a day or so. I wanted to hack a bit at the PR, and I added a slight bit to the translation section in my sandbox. But that needs to cook for a day or so. Victoria (tk) 02:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Checked lots of books today and the newer books are using the Roman numerals. Placing this here so we can decide. Victoria (tk) 01:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, singular or plural? I think of it as a single long poem made up of many parts. Victoria (tk) 17:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If the more recent sources are using Roman numerals, we should probably follow, and I would say singular, poem. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed those last night because I thought I'd make them easier to read. But I was really was too tired to have made a decision then and am happy to put them back. I'm finding a lot of Roman numerals in the newer scholarship, but also some newer books that are using both! Pound must wreak havoc with publisher style guides everywhere! Victoria (tk) 01:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you should use whichever you prefer to write. So long as we're consistent, either style is fine. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We should probably follow the convention they had when they were published, shown here. I came down with a flu or something, but hope to get back to this today. Victoria (tk) 13:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Poetry
I've added a few lines in quote boxes, appropriate to the section, so some lines from A Lume Spento in that section, from Personae in its section (I checked that it was a new one, and not one of the repeated ones), and something from Cantos 74 in the Pisan Cantos/Bollingen Prize section.

I was wondering whether we would want some lines in a quote box in each section, perhaps always in the same position (top left or top right, or alternating left and right). Maybe it would look too fiddly. Just leaving it here as a suggestion. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I like what you've done with these. Do we need to add references - sorry, haven't looked to see whether that's been done. Victoria (tk) 13:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Cathay
I threw together a stub for Cathay because I do agree that these pages are needed. I got stuck though as I was trying to decide whether we might want to move the middle paragraph from "Translations from Japanese and Chinese" to that article and summarize here. Or perhaps have the same material in both? Victoria (tk) 17:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This article says of the poet, HD: "She wrote in 1979 that she felt their lives..." But HD died in 1961. 76.103.116.3 (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting that; I've removed it. The book was published in 1979, which is where the confusion arose. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Spirit of Romance

 * I've started an article on The Spirit of Romance (decent start class right now), and plan to work on it through the rest of the day. I'll try and write a content summary later, although I don't think I will be as detailed as I was in Theory of Literature... maybe 4 or 5 paragraphs, half a paragraph for each essay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've got a C class article there (give or take 1200 words), although I haven't touched the contents as I'm not sure of the best way to approach it. Anyways, glad to help! (Also, Pound was in contact with Yone Noguchi? He certainly got around!) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Crisco. That's nice - I'd hoped to get to that a couple of weeks ago! I have quite a bit of information about "SoR" in my sandbox - hope you don't mind if I jump in there soonish? Also, I have something about Mary started off-line. Still trying to determine her nationality though! I hope to get back to all of this later today. Victoria (tk) 13:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be fantastic, Victoria. It would be nice to have another article on literary criticism/theory at GA... the whole field is woefully undercovered (though, of course, Pound's article comes first! You've all been doing a fantastic job.) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Photographs

 * I've dug up a couple of free pictures (and We hope has confirmed). They're all watermarked, but if you come across any of them in the books you can scan them safely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The copyright holder of the original Church Walk image has replied, and has changed/restored the licence to cc-by-2.0, so we have a choice now. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * , regarding File:Security cages where Ezra Pound was held, Pisa, Italy, 1945.JPG, Victoria has discovered that it was credited to the US Army in Humphrey Carpenter, A Serious Character: The Life of Ezra Pound, Houghton Mifflin, 1988. Does that mean we can upload it to Commons with a US military tag? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also noting that I've extended the caption on the photograph of Pound and his mother to note the Cheltenham Military Academy uniform, and I've added "see image, above right" to the part of the text where the uniform is mentioned (diff). I think that should satisfy the non-free content guideline. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: File:Security cages where Ezra Pound was held, Pisa, Italy, 1945.JPG, that sounds good to me. I'd put it on Commons. Re: mother: I'd be careful with "above right", as it may not be above right depending on what you use to view (say, a Blackberry might have it simply above). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding to the ping. Indopug has removed "see image, above right," and the cages image is now PD and on Commons. That means we're down to four non-free images: File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg, File:Hdpoet.jpg, File:DorothyPound.jpg, and File:Toilet paper, Pisan Cantos.JPG. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Just noting that I found this nice image of Pound in the Yale University library. I've mislaid the blurb that came with it it, but I think it said he was 18. We couldn't claim fair use, but we could add it to the education section as an external image, though it might look too cluttered. Leaving it here as an option (if we do want to use it, I'll retrace my steps to find the details). SlimVirgin (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed this last night. The Beinecke isn't always easy to navigate though it's gotten much better. I was looking for something there a couple of weeks ago and found a way of setting the page so that only images are shown and was thinking it would be nice - if I can recreate it - to add to the external links. That would give us a single page with lots of images. Will report back. Victoria (tk) 13:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Found it! I fiddled with the settings and got the page to look like this with lots of photos. I see they have one of the Hailey house too. I'm not sure how well this link will withstand linkrot (I've found the Beinecke links change frequently) but what if we were to link this in the external links? Victoria (tk) 16:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent, that's great! We should definitely add that to EL. I think Olga Rudge's papers also contain images of Pound. It would be nice to find a free one of the house in Hailey. The photos of Pound as a teenager are quite interesting. They were taken in 1904, according to the library, when Pound would have been at Hamilton College (1903–1905). I wonder whether 1904 is right, because one image is stamped "Biofix Boul'd Poiss". That would be Boulevard Poissonnière in Paris. Pound was in Paris in 1902 during the second three-month European tour with his Aunt Frances, and again in June 1906. Biofix was a company that made flip books like this one. This image, File:Guillaume Apollinaire 1914.jpg, was created on a Biofix machine. The company was located in Paris at 23 Boulevard Poissonnière. There is some more information here: "Just before the World War I, the photo laboratory Biofix ... in London (56 Strand), Bruxelles (53 rue de la Madeleine) and Paris (23 bd Poissonière 15), proposed to its customers an original flip book made in their shops with the pictures of those who wanted to. Most of them are stapled, but some are bound thanks to an imitation metal book with the name of Biofix on it. The most famous shows Guillaume Apollinaire and André Rouveyre." I wonder whether there's a flip book somewhere of a young Ezra Pound. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Added that link. When I can remember the path I took I'll do it again for Olga. The flip-books are interesting! I wonder whether the Beinecke only scanned a single image but has the entire book? Victoria (tk) 22:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ginsberg quote
A FAC reviewer raised an issue about the Ginsberg quote that I think I agree with and, not remembering adding it myself, I tried to find the actual quote in the source given,. But I can't find it there. Can someone else look on g-books? I've not been able to see much at all there recently and am getting the feeling others have been more successful. In 2012 the quote was added to its current placement and moved from where we had before in this series of edits: diff, diff, diff. I'm okay with having it in the current placement, but would like to see the entire quote so as to decide how best to present it, and it should be cited correctly. In the meantime, I'll look for it in the books I have at hand. Victoria (tk) 16:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I had the same difficulty when I first looked for it, but then I found it. Will retrace my steps and post the source here. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I remember the problem now. It was that some of the words were not coming up in a search, and that initially made me think the wrong source had been added, but in fact all the words are in Allen Ginsberg, The Letters of Allen Ginsberg, edited by Bill Morgan, Da Capo Press, 2008, 339–340. Page 335 is also referenced; perhaps there is background there. There are lots of ellipses in the book, and some that we've added too. This was originally in the article elsewhere, and in two quotes, one (writing from memory) that was in a letter, and a second part from a conversation. From the article:


 * "... [M]y own work does not make sense .... A mess ... my writing, stupidity and ignorance all the way through ... the intention was bad, anything I've done has been an accident, in spite of my spoiled intentions, the preoccupation with stupid and irrelevant matters ... but my worst mistake was the stupid suburban anti-Semitic prejudice, all along that spoiled everything ... I found after 70 years that I was not a lunatic but a moron. I should have been able to do better ... It's all doubletalk ... it's all tags and patches ... a mess."


 * SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I found it in Carpenter. It's from a multi-page (I think 3 or 4 pages) single-spaced conversation between Ginsberg and Pound. The quote takes bits from throughout all those pages, so I think we can do a better job of presenting it. I've looked elsewhere too and haven't seen anything that chops it up quite to this extent. I have to go offline now, but will work on this later or tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 22:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is interesting: Carpenter has a three page extract of "A Conversation Between Ezra Pound and Allen Ginsberg", and below I've typed out about half of it. None of the bits in our quote are elsewhere in Carpenter that I can find. Most of the bits can be found below, but patched together, not always sequentially, so I think this will need some re-doing. Some other interesting bits here from Ginsberg that we might want to extract.

–– Victoria (tk) 02:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tried to sort this out, but it might need some tweaking. I've left an inline comment too about the source - I still can't see Morgan's book and can't tell whether what's copied above from Carpenter is substantially different or not. I've left Morgan in for now. A question - what if we were to swap out that last Hemingway quote in the lead and replace with this from Ginsberg:"'You have shown us the way,' Ginsberg said. 'The more I read your poetry, the more I am convinced it is the best of it's time."? That would bring us full circle, from top to bottom. Anyway, something to think about. I'm done for the day. Victoria (tk) 17:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it would not be such a strong quote to end the lead with, but I'd like to think about it some more. Thanks for sorting out the end quote. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm embarrassed to admit that I totally agree with Pound's own assessment of his work...and weirdly I've always thought so especially after hearing his readings...Modernist (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Although if I'm reading Allan correctly - the sound of Pound was influential; he sounded like he had something to say; and Allan was able to make something of that with his own work...Thank goodness Allan finally heard Dylan who does have something important to say - and said it...Modernist (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I hadn't really realized how interesting this conversation was until I typed it out. I kinda agree with SV that it's not a strong quote, but in that moment the impact of Pound's own criticism seemed relevant to me. Victoria (tk) 22:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing names
Victoria, re: removing bits that are over-detailed, I think Rupert Brooke is worth naming as the reviewer. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm experimenting a bit. I agree it's important, and I got interrupted by a phone call in the midst of working on that section, but I'm wondering whether it might be better if we stick as much as we can to summary style in the body and perhaps move something like this to the "Legacy" section? I'm not quite sure, and would want to finish with that experiment before deciding. I've always thought that one of the challenges on this page is how much detail to present (personally, I could easily add another 2000 words), and how much to trim. It gets to be a difficult balancing act! Anyway, it's fine to revert. I'll try to get back here again tonight or tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 22:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that detail can be distracting. For me, the point is more that, if we decide to include a detail, then we should include any notable or interesting points about it. So for example, we can leave out the Rupert Brooke review entirely, but I think if we decide to include it we should name him, because he's just too notable not to. For me it's the colour that makes the article, and it also shows that we've done some detailed research, but I know that not everyone agrees with that. You're right that it's a challenge to hit the right spot. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Something to bear in mind is that FAC is quite a fake environment in terms of reader response. The only time a Wikipedia article of this length would be read top to bottom is when it's being written and reviewed (and sometimes not even then). We can almost guarantee that our readers won't do that. They'll dip in and out, using it as a reference work, so details that might seem distracting to a top-to-bottom reader might be interesting to the reader of one or two sections. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've put it back for now because I was distracted and was unable to finish my train of thought and the series of edits I was trying to make. Yes, I think Brooke's name is important there but because he mentions Whitman, I was thinking of moving it elsewhere, perhaps at the beginning of on the other sections. Mostly because it's a highly relevant piece of early criticism. I do want to spend a bit of time thinking about the issue of detail. The comment that "I don't know where these places are" does resonate with me somewhat – I've been to London and so the detail makes sense to me and doesn't really register, but I do think it's worth consideration for other readers. The comment above, regarding a reference work, resonates as well. I don't really know what the solution is, it's always been a problem for this page, and a reason it's a hard page. I have more versions of this article, with varying degrees of detail, than I'm comfortable admitting to! Victoria (tk) 03:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I do see what you mean. But even when I've not been somewhere, I like knowing, for example, that he was born at 341 Second Ave South, Hailey, Idaho Territory. It means I can look up the house and it makes him real for me. That could just be me, though. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why I like to use images! File:Smelters.jpg shows what it looked like when he was born. Oh, during our conversation about the image I found we have an article about the Pound House. We should maybe find a way to link it, but I don't want to link "house" so leaving that to someone else. Regarding the detail, I've given this a lot of thought in the past few days and still don't quite know how I feel about it. I did once go on a big trimming spree - i.e, removing detail about what Olga was wearing when she met Pound, that Stone Cottage has something to do with Winnie the Pooh (can't even now remember what!) - and I wasn't happy with the results. My prose can quickly become choppy, whereas you're really masterful at packing in detail while still keeping a breezy style. In the end though, I think, if it seems the focus might be lost, then maybe some judicious trimming wouldn't be a bad idea. I'm too close to the article myself, and too immersed in the research and readings, to be able to see what needs to be done, so I'm happy to take on suggestions. Victoria (tk) 17:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead
I'm unhappy with the lead as it stands; it doesn't, to my mind, expain how difficult the man was. It needs whatever are the opposite of accolades. Throwing this out for disussion. [Note Victoria is overworked and banned from the article for a week, so its for the other regulars to gripe only]. Ceoil (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Put this back - He was a temperamental and extremely complicated man whose formidable reputation was ruined by his pro-Fascist radio broadcasts and anti-semitic outbursts in the early 1940s...Modernist (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Modernist. I think we need to show both sides, the poet and his mistakes, but its thorny and complex as the article body readily explains; there are many shades of grey here. The page hangs all that out there, I mean I dont think the lead does. My attempt was a bit basic; would like to hear your or SV's thoughts. Ceoil (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree - he wasn't just Mr. Niceguy and the lead needs a stinger or two...Modernist (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * M yes, I think we are all conflicted here; any agreed lead will have to be very nuanced, to say the least. so I want to cast a wide net of openion. Ceoil (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the writing in the lead a little. For example, I reintroduced "he said" in "He spent months in detention in a U.S. military camp in Pisa, including 25 days in a six-by-six-foot outdoor steel cage that he said triggered a mental breakdown, "when the raft broke and the waters went over me". It's not that I doubt that it did (although arguably he had had the breakdown already), but that it's needed for the quote; otherwise the rhythm of the sentence doesn't seem right. I also think it's better to quote Hemingway than paraphrase. It's a nice quote for the end of the lead; I think it makes readers want to know more about him.


 * I don't see that we need more controversy in the lead. We already talk about supporting Hitler and Mussolini, being arrested, being in hospital for 12 years, being "very unsafe for children," etc. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You dont have to explain every edit. Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that you are a major contributer to the page, your judgement is trusted, and you wont offend. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying that, Ceoil. I'm just worried that things have been removed because they're wrong or in some other way bad, and I then restore them without realizing there's a problem. For example, that his first book of poetry sold for six cents; it was removed, I restored it, then it struck me that it wouldn't have sold for six cents in London (the source was the NYT). So was it six cents, six pennies, something else? So I've removed it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was necessary to remove it entirely, but Victoria discovered that it didn't actually sell 100 copies—100 was the print run, but 20 were given away. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to restart this because a couple of points were brought up at the PR that I think are valid. First, I do think we make a jump from moving to Rapallo in 1924 straight into the 1930s – because he wasn't doing anything then! Yesterday I read that the years after he moved to Rapallo were his least productive - he even ceased writing letters for a time. I'm wondering whether we should slip something in there to that effect? Also, I think having the Time quote from 1933 placed right after "His political views ensure that his work remains controversial" can be seen as confusing. I like the quote but am wondering whether we should find something more recent. I think I might have a recent essay with a statement to the effect that no one was as politicized as a writer since Dante, which might work (will have to look it up though). Anyway, I think we've worked out most of the other issues except these few. Victoria (tk) 00:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see the point about Time, although it's such a nice quote. A blander but more recent one is that he remains the most controversial post of the 20th century (source). Comparing him to Dante would be more interesting. I wonder whether we need to say anything in the lead about his least-productive period. The point of the lead is to highlight what matters, so in that sense silence is telling. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I found it: "No one, perhaps with the exception of Dante, has so intertwined poetry and politics as has Pound", . I have the book in my hand, written in 2010, but it's not from Time. Perhaps we could keep the Time quote (I like it too), and maybe stream in the more recent one, or would that be too quote heavy? Or maybe even paraphrase the more recent one? I'm really terrible at writing leads so leave it to others to try to wrestle with this. Regarding the 1920s, my inclination is to agree and that's also why I think the Hemingway quote works for that period, but wanted to throw it out in case it gets raised again. Victoria (tk) 00:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think keeping the Time quote and adding another would be too quote-heavy. We could either tweak the tense or leave out Time, which would give us something like:

"While in custody in Italy, he had begun work on sections of The Cantos that became known as The Pisan Cantos (1948), for which he was awarded the Bollingen Prize in 1949 by the Library of Congress, triggering enormous controversy. He was released from St. Elizabeths in 1958, thanks to a campaign by his fellow writers, and returned to live in Italy until his death. His political views ensure that his work remains as controversial now it was during his lifetime; in 1933 Time magazine called him "a cat that walks by himself, tenaciously unhousebroken and very unsafe for children". Hemingway nevertheless wrote: "The best of Pound's writing – and it is in the Cantos – will last as long as there is any literature.""

or:

"While in custody in Italy, he had begun work on sections of The Cantos that became known as The Pisan Cantos (1948), for which he was awarded the Bollingen Prize in 1949 by the Library of Congress, triggering enormous controversy. He was released from St. Elizabeths in 1958, thanks to a campaign by his fellow writers, and returned to live in Italy until his death. His political views ensure that his work remains as controversial now it was during his lifetime. Hemingway nevertheless wrote: "The best of Pound's writing – and it is in the Cantos – will last as long as there is any literature.""

SlimVirgin (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree about being too quote heavy. And I'd prefer to use Time and the cat quote. I think either of the above will work - personally I prefer the first with the slight wording tweak, but now we have both here just in case. Thanks for the rewrite. I hit a slight wall again and lost my train of thought completely! Victoria (tk) 01:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Just noting that I tweaked the lead tonight, and can't see whose edits I undid, so I'm posting the reason here. I changed back to "Working in London in the early 20th century ... Pound helped discover ..." to avoid "He worked in London ..." followed by "He was responsible for ..." I changed "hired him for hundreds of radio broadcasts" back to "paid him to make hundreds of radio broadcasts," and I joined this with the next sentence ("as a result of which he was arrested") to avoid the second short sentence. Hope this is okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair use images
We have four fair use images (File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg, File:Hdpoet.jpg, File:DorothyPound.jpg, and File:Toilet paper, Pisan Cantos.JPG) and I'd like to use this talk page to document what we know about them: I have to be gone for a few days (might be around tomorrow, but not Friday and doubtful Sat). and so am putting this out now for us to discuss and would welcome 's opinion, 's opinion, and whomever else has an opinion so we can come to a decision and update the FAC. Btw - I know there's a section up-page about images and it's okay if this should be refactored. Victoria (tk) 01:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg - I did a lot of research on this 117 year old photograph in 2010 and I believe that research is being continued. All I managed to establish is the Sun Valley Center for the Arts, who were at the time displaying it, don't claim copyright, and that New Directions publishing, executors of Pound's literary estate (including photographs), don't claim copyright. A lot of ink has been spilled here, and I believe at Commons as well. Sorry, don't have that link. Not used in any other articles.
 * I'm thinking (but can't prove) that File:Hdpoet.jpg was probably taken before 1923 when H.D would have been about 36. The back of the postcard shows it was published in Barnstaple (in Devon). She and Richard Aldington moved to Devon in 1915, see page 15. Because the war's travel restrictions HD's was in England until 1920 and didn't visit the US (when she did visit Marianne Moore to whom she sent the postcard) until 1920 or so see page 179 here. These still photographs at the Beinecke show her at various ages: this is what she looked like when she got married; here she is in 1919 with her daughter Perdita; here she is in 1922; again in 1922 with her daughter and her mother; and here in 1923. The problem is that I can't find a source that says the picture was taken on such a such date. The image is also in H.D.. If absolutely necessary, we could remove from here.
 * File:DorothyPound.jpg - I've found a creation date of 1915 for this and we know it was published in Noel Stock's 1970. We know the photographer died in 1936. We don't know whether it was perhaps published in the society pages of a newspaper or elsewhere before 1923. Also in Dorothy Shakespear. If necessary, I suppose we could remove from there so as to have an image of EP's wife here.
 * File:Toilet paper, Pisan Cantos.JPG - a piece of toilet paper on which EP wrote a poem while sitting in a steel cage. Used in The Cantos. If necessary we could remove from there.
 * I think that we can safely argue that File:Hdpoet.jpg is PD in the US, owing to the dating as you've explained it. Not too sure about where the toilet paper image should be... I'd think it would have more value in The Cantos. Where was File:DorothyPound.jpg taken? The US or UK? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:DorothyPound.jpg would have been taken in England - again because the travel restrictions. I'm not feeling great at the moment so my judgment could be way off, but I was thinking the toilet paper has value here because it's here that we present the story of why he was in a cage writing a poem on a piece of toilet paper, and here we explain that the poem became The Pisan Cantos which received a controversial prize. But that's why I'd like to have, and anyone else chime in. Victoria (tk) 01:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We seem to have good rationales for them, and four isn't that many for a long article. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As rationales go, these are very strong. I dont see four as excessive for such a detailed and involved c 12k word biography of the long and complicated life of a major 20th century poet. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Three of the four, at best, fall marginally in the FU category, imo, and Hilda could well be free. I just wanted to document here on the talk page, and clearly we all agree. I don't know whether we need to link this to the FAC, but it's here if anyone wants it. Tks all. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Today's DYK
According to today's DYK, his PhD was denied twice. I only find one case in the text of our article, but I may be overlooking something. I just flag it here because it seems urgent if the DYK is wrong and others will know a lot more about this than me. Also, the case we mention of his PhD being "denied" sounds more like a case of getting kicked out of school, or asked not to return, which isn't quite the same thing, is it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Victoriaearle and Ceoil, do any of your sources go into more detail regarding The Spirit of Romance and U. Phil? The sentence in question is in the article on the book, "In 1920 Pound attempted to submit The Spirit of Romance to the University of Pennsylvania, asking that it – particularly the discussion of Lope de Vega – be considered his dissertation, thus allowing Pound to complete the requirements for his doctoral degree. The university, after what Menocal categorizes as "a weak reading (if any reading ever took place)", refused the request.". (Also, would "rejected" be a better term?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus, I was just off to the library to hand in the last of the books. I'll check quickly, but off the top of my head, Jimbo's reading is correct. The department head really didn't want him there any more. Will report back momentarily. Victoria (tk) 15:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Victoria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay got it (in a book I own!). According to David Moody, pages 27-28, he began the thesis, went to Spain for the summer to research, returned and signed up for English courses, alienated his professors and most importantly the dept head Schelling. Schelling said Pound was wasting their time and basically kicked him out. Pound's thesis advisor didn't defend Pound and according to Moody "Exactly when [Pound] abandoned his thesis is not known, but he may have let it go with a sense of relief" (p. 28). According to Tytell, Pound did try to re-submit the thesis quite a few years later but he was told it lacked required elements (in other words, he wasn't a student any more!). In 1932, Pound wrote to Schelling asking for a reconsideration. Schelling replied: "If you had not expatriated yourself long since but had remained in deplorable America to help somewhat in the realization of at least an approach to better ideals, you would not find yourself so hopelessly embittered … " (Tytell, p. 226). I'll be honest, haven't read SoR, but without reading it closely, I think it's best to say that Pound tried to resubmit his thesis and the University refused to read it. My reading of the situation is that without being an enrolled student he never had a chance. I'm afraid the book that would best explain this, Humphrey Carpenter's biography, went back to the main library yesterday and there's no way for me to get there (is miles away). Sorry. Hope this is helpful. Victoria (tk) 15:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vic. So, essentially, not all that significant in terms of the biography here (especially compared to later topics) but worth mentioning in the main article. If I find any books here (!) I'll try and polish that paragraph more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also see discussion from up-page. Essentially he just didn't finish and left - he had no hope of finishing and I think the article does explain that, but will check. I have read SoR now, sorry was really sick last week and just couldn't get to it, and I'm not sure how important that episode is to SoR. SoR came out the lecture notes from his teaching in London, and well, I have a ton of stuff about SoR in my sandbox. It's a really important piece of writing, but he'd changed his thoughts significantly by the time SoR was published. Also in 1932 he submitted a different book again to try to have accepted as his thesis, Guido Cavalcanti Rime so I'm not sure how important it is to tie one piece to the situation. I need to go out and will have a look at this later, but what we have in the biography characterizes the situation the best imo: "In July he returned to the United States, where in September his first essay, "Raphaelite Latin", was published in Book News Monthly. He took courses in the English department in 1907, where he annoyed Felix Schelling, the department head, with silly remarks during lectures, including that George Bernard Shaw was better than Shakespeare, and winding an enormous tin watch very slowly while Schelling spoke. As a result his fellowship was not renewed at the end of the year; Schelling told Pound that he was wasting his own time and that of the institution, and Pound left without finishing his doctorate.[18]" Victoria (tk) 15:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Guido Cavalcanti Rime? That's interesting. I'll try to find that... worth a footnote in the context of of SoR, at least IMHO. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's more complicated. The Cavalcanti work was separate. I have to run, but will trawl through my sandbox when I get back. I had earlier compiled notes there because I meant to start SoR but a lot has been deleted so isn't easy to find. Victoria (tk) 16:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Alright, I'll hide the footnote. Do you have a link to where you were compiling the notes? If there are any deleted revisions I can get them for you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked The Spirit of Romance somewhat and looked at what Menocal had to say on page 116 and I think that source presents it in a confusing manner. Essentially the work on Lope de Vega (which we do mention here) was abandoned in 1907. He was proud of SoR and so tried submitting, but that's really the only relationship between the two - off the top of my head. I have stuff in my sandbox but also on paper notes and sticky notes in books. I'll spend a bit of time this afternoon putting the info re SoR back in my sandbox and maybe adding a bit more there. Generally I like to take Pound's work slowly because it's often difficult to understand, as are the sources, and because SoR was central to his writing philosophy quite a bit has been written about it. So it will take time. Also to, I'm not seeing in this article where we're claiming the PhD was denied? I think the situation is fairly well spelled out, but welcome other comments. Maybe can chime in too? Victoria (tk) 18:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
Why there isn't an Infobox in this article ? --Satdeep gill (talk • contribs 04:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because consensus is to not have one. They aren't required. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeats picture
Do we really need the picture of Yeats? Not that there is anything wrong with it, but Pound wasn't associated more significantly with Yeats than with at least a dozen other prominent writers and artists of the time. It seems eccentric to single out Yeats as one to illustrate. Littlewindow (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Littlewindow, thanks for asking. Yes, I believe the image of Yeats is important. It would be difficult to overemphasize Yeats. As young man Pound moved to Europe to meet Yeats; he moved to London to meet Yeats. He secured the friendship of Olivia Shakespear (Yeats' good friend) to meet Yeats. Through Olivia, Pound met the woman he would marry (Dorothy Shakespear), and found a source of income that would tide him over for decades. Pound spent at least three winters with Yeats which were productive years for both poets. Pound's role in submitting Yeats's work to a wider audience was to be repeated again and again with other poets and writers, but it was a role that began with Yeats. Victoria (tk) 22:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism of Eustace Mullins
I've reverted the edit that deleted the description of Eustace Mullins as an "antisemite," since the term is both accurate and relevant. As for its accuracy, the WP page on Mullins gives in support of this description as of this writing no fewer than a dozen citations from respected mainstream academics at major universities, from books published by respected major publishers like the Oxford University Press, St. Martin's Press, and Routledge, and from major mainstream newspapers like The Independent on Sunday and The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; in at least ten of these citations the quoted material includes the specific term "anti-semite" or "anti-semitism" applied to Mullins. It's hard to see how the attestation of Mullins as antisemitic could be any better established. As for its relevance, since this characterization of Mullins is in a section dealing with accusations of anti-semitism against Pound, it's clearly relevant to include the information that one of his late associates (after he had supposedly repudiated his antisemitism) was an anti-semite.Littlewindow (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Incoherency
I've taken this article off my watchlist and am no longer particularly interested in it, but someone really should check and emend the Allen Tate quotation in the last paragraph of the subsection "The Cantos" under "Style". It makes no syntactic sense as it stands. Deor (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your shroug of the shoulders, biting header, and somebody else's problem comment. You'll be sorely missed. At least you have audited content on other articles, oh no wait. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The last time I offered to do some copyediting of the article, I was treated to a variety of insults by you (much like those above); that hardly encourages one to contribute cheerfully to the article, does it? If you don't mind incoherency, why should I? Deor (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which you richely deserved. I dont stand on passive agressive needling (If you don't mind incoherency). As to you question, only you know the answer. Ya might have, you know, just fixed it; the habit of editors I care to respect; see the following helpful comments for eg. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There was a missing word – "checked" in "not checked by a total view to which it could be subordinated". I don't have access to the original, so I had to use sources quoting him. I therefore can't be sure it's correct, but it will do until someone can access Tate. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, just noticed this. It looks like it came from a source I have or got from the library. I'll check the books I have at hand and if it's one I have fix anything that needs fixing; if it's one from the library, I'll order through interlibrary loan tomorrow. I did thank you for tending this article on the FAC,, and I don't have an issue checking sources. I do have a bad tendency to miss words or not always to see well. But it's probably easily fixed. Thanks for noticing.  Victoria (tk) 01:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Victoria, missing a word is easily done; the eye self-corrects, especially when we've been reading the source material a lot. I googled a fragment of the sentence and found it in James Laughlin, New Directions, and the Remaking of Ezra Pound by Greg Barnhisel, and in Partisan Review, 1949. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks SV. That's not a source I have at hand, but it looks like you fixed it and it should be fine now. If we need it to check, I'm happy to put in an interlibrary loan request. Victoria (tk) 01:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted image
File:EzraPound Pavannes.JPG was deleted per. Why? It was the frontispiece of Pavannes published in 1917 - see here. Pinging, because you know about images. It would be nice to get it back. Victoria (tk) 14:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We can host it locally, but Commons deleted it for not being free in the source country. We'd have to ask a Commons admin (User:Materialscientist?) to upload a copy locally. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) The ultimate problem is that the image should not have been transferred to the Commons. Certainly the image is public domain in the US per pre-1923 publication, as you suggest.  However, the Commons--unlike en.wiki--requires images to be free (e.g, public domain) in both the US and the country of origin.  Given the image's author, E.O. Hoppé, was born in Germany and lived in London and that Pound was an expatriate, the implicit concern at the DR (which was woefully inarticulate) was that this would still be copyrighted until 01.01.2043 in the UK, which uses date of author death instead of publication to determine copyright duration (Hoppé died in 1972 + 70 years pma copyright).  That said, the image can be restored and hosted here on en.wiki; it just needs to have a Do not move to Commons template.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've restored it here: File:EzraPound Pavannes.JPG. Эlcobbola  talk 15:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I might try to find out whether Hoppé gave up copyright to the publisher, but that will be a project! In the meantime, thanks for the explanation and for putting back. Victoria (tk) 01:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Image
I commented out File:Ezra Pound 1963.jpg temporarily, which got added recently. Pinging and  re copyright status. If it's ok to use, I'll unhide and move it elsewhere in the article. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 15:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Needs a US copyright tag at the very least. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * PD-URAA would probably apply, depending on publication details. Do we know when/where this was first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you for the quick response. I don't know anything about them, two were added in this edit, but they're nice and would be nice to have in the article. Pinging  who might have more info. Victoria (tk) 16:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This article's talk page/lack of an infobox encapsulates everything I hate about Wikipedia
So, silly me noticed there was no infobox on this page. I added one, being the astute Wikipedian that I am, not knowing the history that preiously unfolded without my knowledge. When it got deleted, I just assumed it was typical WP bullshit. When someone said that there was already a discussion on the talk page, being the astute Wikipedian I am, I was curious as to what kind of discussion could've possibly caused a lack of a template.

Holy balls.

Nothing could've prepared me for the labyrinth-like trip down the rabbit hole that I was about to witness.

I read through all of it. ALL OF IT. And my God... I have never seen reasoning so crooked, ideas about how best to display information so half-baked, article editors (the people who don't want an infobox) so snobbish and elitist, attacks so personal, and ultimately, the bullies get their way. I am now doubting, BASED ON READING THE TALK PAGE ARCHIVES OF THIS ARTICLE ALONE, whether or not I should continue to be an editor for a site that allows this bullshit to continue, and not only that, but let the bullies win, and continue to impede the gathering and easy access of knowledge for some limp-dick "oooooh, NOTHING can sum Pound up" reason.

Sorry if I sound angry (actually, no, I'm not), but Christ almighty this stuff really pisses me off. This is by far the worst example I've ever seen, and the people who decided against an infobox should be ashamed of themselves.

Simply put, this article's talk page should be classified a crime against humanity. If you don't believe an infobox should be put on this page for whatever jerkoff reason, please do us all a favor and slam your head against a wall until you can't think in your native tongue anymore.

That is all. I hate all of you. Fuckity bye.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox (again)
I move for a vote/request for comments to include an infobox on this article, as in this revision. I know infoboxes aren't required, but I don't see why not to have one.

THis has been dicussed in the past, but I've not seen a valid reason not to have one in just this article. (t) Josve05a  (c) 16:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not "just this article", and you've not presented a valid reason to have one - nor a valid RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The valid reason is that editors has been trying to add it (being BOLD), but has been reverted, on multiple times. When that happens one should start a disucssion about the edits. That is what I have done. I want a discussion about pros and cons (for/againt) of having the infobox which users has been trying to add. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That may well be a reason to discuss the issue, but you've still presented no valid reason to add it nor a valid RfC. If all you want is a discussion of pros/cons (and you are unsatisfied with previous discussions along those lines), that's also not an RfC (and certainly not a vote), so I'd suggest removing the tag and rewording your initial comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A summary of the earlier discussions is that Modernists are notoriously difficult to categorise, and that doing so via genre choice in an infobox would be especially glib for such a complicated man as Pound, and would poorly serve or more likely, mislead readers. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To say that Ezra Pound is too complicated for an info box is nonsense - many complicated people on Wikipedia have info boxes, Gertrude Stein, for example, who was arguably a more adventurous writer than Pound and E.E. Cummings who was much more innovative with language than Pound. The Ezra Pound page is a Featured Article on Wikipedia and should follow the same standard format and presentation as other Wikipedia articles (Epinoia (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Having an infobox is not a FA requirement, and Wikipedia's Manual of Style also states that infoboxes are not required. The e.e. cummings page as of this timestamp (as I'm about to edit it) is a good example of some common problems - an overemphasis on details that are easy to reduce to a value pair, even when they contribute little to an understanding of who the subject actually was; failure to follow documentation/best practices for the infobox; oversimplification of details presented (or in one case not even presented) in the article; etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Did Cummings or Stein support the Italian Fascists and the Nazi regime? Were either of those two rabid anti-semites or confined to an insane asylum? or convicted of treason? Sorry but no infobox here...Modernist (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @Modernist. Why are those facts a reason not to have an info box? Debresser (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why should a person's political views mean they are not eligible for an info box? Hitler has an info box and he was more of a fascist than Pound. Christopher Smart was a writer confined to an asylum, yet he has an info box. The info box gives basic information such as date and place of birth, date of death, etc. It is a feature of Wikipedia articles and is not an endorsement of anyone's beliefs or actions, it is a statement of information. Advocating for an info box does not imply support of Pound's anti-Semitism or fascism, it's simply a summary of dates and facts. (Epinoia (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC))
 * does the lede.  Cassianto Talk   23:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As discussed above there are too many complicated directions for the simplistic infobox; try somewhere else...Modernist (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you won't provide an acceptable answer to the question asked by both me and Epinoia, your opinion is likely to be overruled by the majority here. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you simply don't have the capacity to understand my answer to your question, Pound's issues are too complex for a simplistic infobox. I suggest that you go elsewhere with your desire for an unworkable infobox...Modernist (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User warned for WP:NPA violation. Comment on arguments, don't comment on people. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am talking about issues; and WP:AGF having made my arguments...Modernist (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * List the problems. While infoboxes are helpful in general, they don't work where significant infobox parameters cannot be adequately summarized into a simple phrase.  In such cases, the infobox either become bait for repeated edit-wars, or gets reduced to only containing minor points, leaving the main reasons for having an infobox absent.  Is that the case here?  If so, then I'd definitely oppose having an infobox.  Simply list the infobox parameters that are likely to be a problem, and we'll discuss them.  However, without that list, by default, I must be in favor of including a standard infobox.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at Gertrude Stein's info-box, it lists her birth date, death date, nationality, etc. - what is complex about that? If you feel that Pound can't be pigeonholed as a Modernist, then leave that field out - there is nothing complicated about an info box, it is a standard Wikipedia feature presenting basic information and there is no reason why Pound can't have one, the same as anyone else on Wikipedia - (Epinoia (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Any reason he would not be described as a Modernist? I'm looking for any potential problems with the infobox.  That doesn't sound like one.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose infobox per the last pantomime that appeared on these pages. This is a classic case of the requesting party not liking the result the last time round, so thought they'd have another stab until they get their way. This is a pointless waste of time. Since when do a load of lemmings with opposing views, requested by a RfC bot, trump the opinions of the primary author?  Cassianto Talk   23:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes work on complicated articles, and this article most certainly does not fit into that category. I like infoboxes, generally, and think they work extremely well on royal, political, sports, geographical, and film articles; but my worry is that this article only has one simply because some people perceive it to be "normal practise" for all articles to have an infobox, irrespective of the fact that it might not actually do the job required of it.  Cassianto Talk   23:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
 * 2) Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
 * 3) Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
 * 4) Disconnected particles: Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
 * 5) Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
 * 6) Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)

Placeholder - as the article's primary contributor I made the decision not to add an infobox. I'll explain my reasoning as soon as I have time, in a few days. In the meantime, I'm bringing this discussion to the attention of the arbs at ARCA, if that request is still open. Victoria (tk) 00:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the infobox added on 19:56, 17 September 2016, in this edit for the following reasons: Maybe this will help. It's taken two hours to write it all out. Victoria (tk) 16:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Image - image in the infobox (File:Ezra Pound 1963.jpg) is not free in the US. We've had a lot of trouble with the images here because the Pound estate claims copyright in most cases or they were published at or about 1923ish when images fall out of the public domain. Plenty of discussions can be linked in regards to which images to use and which not. This is not on the list.
 * Place of birth: Ezra was born in Hailey, Idaho (these days an adjunct to the Sun Valley and Ketchum area (strangely the same area where Hemingway lived for a period and committed suicide). When Ezra was born Hailey wasn't a lovely little resort town, it was a silver mining town (basically lawless) in an area that hadn't yet achieved statehood. But this is all mostly irrelevant because Ezra's mother Isabel disliked Hailey intensely and the family moved back east to Jenkintown, Pennsylvania when Ezra was about a year and half old. He lived in Jenkintown until he moved to Europe c. 1906 (except for the period he was in college in Philadelphia and New York) so he grew up very much a Philadelphia Main Line boy and not at all a westerner. The field in the box implies he was born and lived in Idaho. He didn't.
 * Resting place: this isn't incorrect - that's where he's buried, but I do dislike this terminology.
 * Nationality: well that opens a can of worms and is one reason I decided not to include an infobox. He was born in the US and he held a US passport (though I'd have to look into the sources to see whether that was stripped at some point - certainly he wasn't able to use it when he was reputably trying to get out of Italy before his arrest). He lived in the US from his birth in 1885 to 1906 when he moved to Europe, and he lived in the US during the 12 years he was in St. Elizabeths Hospital - the rest of his life was lived in England, France and Italy. In many ways Ezra epitomized the post-WWI expatriates. Furthermore, he was accused of treason. In other words he was a traitor and came extremely close to being executed for treason. Many people repudiated him and repudiated his nationality.
 * Alma mater: these are correct but it's a little more complicated. He went to UPenn at age 16, almost got kicked out (the sources are unclear why) then went to Hamilton. Some of his graduate work was done at Hamiliton - where he fought with the professors and was almost asked to leave (I'll need to get into sources to cite some of this and not all of it made it into the 10,000+ word article), and he tried to go back to UPenn as a graduate student but if I remember correctly off the top of my head they wouldn't have him. So it's all a little muddled. If I remember correctly he did receive an honorary degree from Hamiliton at some point. So, again, it's all a little muddled and not totally straightforward.
 * Period: 20th century in literature is overly broad but not bad and probably acceptable because of his influence on 20th century literature - not only through his own writing but through his mentorships to writers such as Joyce, Eliot and Hemingway among others.
 * Genre: links to Poetry which is overly broad. He wrote essays, books, poetry, literary criticism, economic criticism, treatises, radio broadcasts, etc.
 * Literary movement: Literary modernism and Imagism, yes, ok. But again, what about all the others (and frankly there's no room in an infobox for them, but if we have an infobox some will creep in; some will be correct, others not).
 * Notable works: Four works of poetry are mentioned - Ripostes one of his early collections; Hugh Selwyn Mauberley and The Cantos. If we had to have an infobox and we had to chose one or two examples from his body of work, "Mauberley" might probably be included, but really he's best known for his Cantos that he worked on for many decades.
 * Years active: 1908-1968: hmm, in 1908 he had a volume of self-published poems (A Lume Spento) to his name. He was incarcerated at St Elizabeths from 1945 to 1958 (he was published during that period, notably the Pisan Cantos that he began while in a cage for six weeks (and the irony of caging him again is not lost)), and on his return to Italy after his release he was quite ill for most of the 1960s until his death in 1972, so I have to question these dates.
 * Spouse: another can of worms. He married Dorothy Shakespear in 1914; in 1922 he met Olga Rudge and kept two households until his arrest. The infobox says he was separated from Dorothy in 1961, which is not true. At that point he was quite ill and Dorothy and Olga (and for a period, his female secretary) were looking after him, which was a difficult job. Dorothy eventually decided to return to London, but I'd have to check the sources to verify whether they were officially separated. Off the top of my head, I believe they were not.
 * Partner: Olga Rudge - the infobox says they were married in 1923. This is untrue. He never divorced Dorothy, and see above re separation. In fact he kept a household with Dorothy until his incarceration and during his incarceration Dorothy was declared his legal guardian. Olga visited twice during those 12 years. Yet, before his incarceration he also kept a household with Olga (separate from Dorothy's) and he kept a household with her until his death. The two were never married.
 * Children: Mary de Rachewiltz was his daughter with Olga. He did not raise her, but did take some interest in her as she became older. Dorothy gave birth to Omar Pound. I invite you all to read this article and the one about Omar and decide for yourselves re paternity. The sources are clear that Dorothy went on an extended months-long visit to Egypt and returned pregnant - beyond that they are murky. Ezra never raised Omar - the child was sent to live with his grandmother within months (?) or a year of his birth.
 * Oppose the infobox per comments above; and as I said the last time as well...Modernist (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the excellent and very germane comments of Victoria which are focussed on the specifics of this article. As there is already a full Wikidata entry for Pound, we also do not need to worry about the "remember the metadata!" argument either. - Gavin (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as written since, as Victoria has pointed out so diligently, some entries were wrong. But no objecton in principle to an info box, if it contains accurate information and if contentious items can be found a compromise or be ommitted. Do I get special privilages in editing the infoboxes for small rodents?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Approve of Info Box Thank you, Victoria, for taking the time to list the problems with an info box for Ezra Pound, but I don’t believe any of the issues are insurmountable - there are people as complicated, or even more complicated, than Ezra Pound on Wikipedia with info boxes and there is no compelling reason to make the Ezra Pound page a special case. I would like to offer the Gertrude Stein or T.S. Eliot info boxes as models. There is a notice on the Pound page about not adding an info box – if an info box were allowed the notice could be revised to say that no changes are to be made to the info box to avoid unwanted edits and additions. I like info boxes as they provide a quick precis of information which provides a framework of the proper era and cultural milieu for more quickly and completely accessing the information in the main article – if I know the basic background it is easier to understand additional material. I know others disagree, but info boxes are a standard feature of Wikipedia articles and it would be stylistically consistent to have one on the Pound page (at the risk of being labelled a lemming). Some fields may be contentious, but basic factual info such as birth date, date of death, etc. are non-problematic. Fields such as Years Active, etc., can be omitted. I believe a simple, useful and informative info box could easily be designed. For some problem fields:
 * 1. Place of Birth – a person’s place of birth is their place of birth. I don’t think it is our job to guess how people will interpret it – my father was born in Cairo even though his parents were not Egyptian and he never lived there, but he was still born in Cairo. My wife was born in Manila, even though she never lived there and her parents were not Filipino, she was still born in Manila. A field for Hometown could be added with Jenkintown, Pennsylvania if anyone is afraid that Hailey, Idaho is too misleading.
 * 2. Nationality – a person’s nationality is their nationality – Pound was American. Another war time traitor, Iva Toguri D'Aquino, a.k.a. Tokyo Rose, has American as the nationality in her info box, so there is no reason not to do the same for Pound.
 * 3. Alma mater – change the field to Education and list UPenn and Hamilton
 * 4. Period and Genre – change to Occupation and list Poet, Critic, Essayist, Editor
 * 5. Literary movement – I think most people include Pound in Literary Modernism – even Imagism can be seen as a sub-movement of Literary Modernism – no artist’s work ever fits completely into a niche, but artists are known for a predominant style or school
 * 6. Notable works – I think the qualifier Notable indicates that it is not a full list – Cathay and The Cantos are possibly his most influential, but I doubt if any choices will please everyone
 * 7. Spouse – one’s spouse is one’s spouse. Pound married Dorothy Shakespear and she is therefore his spouse.
 * 8. Partner – Olga Rudge was certainly an important part of Pound’s life, the difficulty is describing their relationship without a morally pejorative term – Partner doesn’t sound right – Companion? Friend? Inamorata? Intime? Intimate Friend? Paramour? Consort? Lover? Confidant?
 * 9. Children: Mary de Rachewiltz, Omar Pound – we don’t need to list in an info box that they had different mothers – Pound never said that Omar was not his child and he bore Pound’s name, so for all intents and purposes he is known as Ezra Pound’s son. (Epinoia (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC))
 * We have already seen that people add infoboxes despite notices requesting that they discuss first; I have no confidence people would heed a notice not to add or change parameters, particularly as it would be at the head of a long string of code, making it easy to miss. Your argument of a "quick precis" and your specific parameter suggestions are in conflict - it is in no way precise to say "education = UPenn and Hamilton" for example, it's an oversimplification of the situation. Yes, "a person's nationality is their nationality", but Victoria has provided extensive reasoning for it not being quite that simple in this case, to the point that the proposed box would be misleading. Your examples also provide little reassurance - another article says something that it probably shouldn't, and so this one should as well? OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose for all the reasons eloquently given by Victoria above; I also endorse Nikkimaria's comment about precision and oversimplification. Further, it is adding undue emphasise to some aspects of the factoids. I note the who initiated this RfC has stated on his talk page it was because he received a request to do so via OTRS - I know little of OTRS but shouldn't there be an indication of that, together with the ticket number, given on this page as he is acting as a proxy?  SagaciousPhil  - Chat 08:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read my last response on my talk. Not by proxy, but following a ticket. (t) Josve05a  (c) 08:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Birth/death details
I've taken the liberty of including birth/death details in the infobox. Those might be considered uncontroversial and useful to the "pub quiz" reader who just wants to know one of the five factoids. I do understand that there's an argument that once we have a few items, there's a temptation for drive-by editors to add more, less suitable fields. The contrary argument might be that having a minimal infobox removes the likelihood that drive-by editors will continually ask for an infobox or boldly add an unsuitable one. As I'm not one of the regular editors of this article, I'm in no position to make a considered evaluation of the relative strengths of those two possibilities, so I have no objection to my edit being reverted if the former is judged the greater concern. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See discussion above with regards to birthplace in particular... Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that - although I had the impression that his earliest formative years were spent in New York, rather than Jenkintown, which came later - but I've never thought of "place of birth" being synonymous with "place where the subject grew up". Nevertheless, I'm content to be guided by yourself if you think it best to exclude his places of birth and death. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that - although I had the impression that his earliest formative years were spent in New York, rather than Jenkintown, which came later - but I've never thought of "place of birth" being synonymous with "place where the subject grew up". Nevertheless, I'm content to be guided by yourself if you think it best to exclude his places of birth and death. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Horizontal images
Does anyone mind if I separate the horizontal images in the first section? I'd like to keep the grandfather in the background section, move Pound in his school uniform to the education section, and move the blockquote and H.D. down a bit. Here's one I made earlier! SarahSV (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I also meant to leave a note about my recent edits. I've done a general copy edit to smooth out the writing and join some sources back up with the text; a couple had become unhooked. I've added some padding to the boxes, and moved the "In Durance" box out of London and into "Teaching", because it was written in (and, it seems, about) Indiana. I restored the image of Pound from the cover of Pavannes and Divisions, and this time added it to the World War I section; perhaps there was a reason for removing it that I've forgotten, so feel free to remove again. I restored it only because I like the image and we needed something for that section.


 * I've swapped the image of Rapallo for a more interesting one. I changed the "You let in the Jew" quote by adding the next sentence rather than one after it. I made the horizontal images of Pound and the cages vertical and slightly larger; moved the toilet paper into the "Arrest for treason" section where it's discussed; swapped the boarded-up image of St. Elizabeth's from 2006 for an older one; and fixed links and added a couple of refs. SarahSV (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Blimey, you have been busy. It looks much improved, Sarah, thank you.   Cassianto Talk   08:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cassianto.

I forgot to mention that, in the Education section, I moved the sentence about H.D. following Pound to Europe in 1911 into her image caption, because it took us far ahead of the chronology. Another thing I'd like to do is add a grey bar to the blockquotes. Are there any objections to this? They would look like this:

I resolved that at thirty I would know more about poetry than any man living ... that I would know what was accounted poetry everywhere, what part of poetry was 'indestructible', what part could not be lost by translation and—scarcely less important—what effects were obtainable in one language only and were utterly incapable of being translated. ...

SarahSV (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry I got sidetracked and won't get back for a few days. First, thanks for this enormous amount of work. I hadn't realized until a few days ago how much the article has degraded, and it definitely needed tending. I took a quick look and think it all looks great. If I remember correctly the double image was a test edit (perhaps when we were unsure whether we could keep the image of young Ezra with his mother) and I don't mind if it's separated, nor do I mind any other of the proposed edits. When I have a little more time I'll look more closely at what you've done and if I have anything else to add will comment here. Thanks for posting. Victoria (tk) 12:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * , thanks, I'll make the changes in my next edit. Feel free to undo or change anything. I've been enjoying becoming familiar with the article again, and there's no rush for any of this. SarahSV (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No, there's no rush. Thanks again for this major overhaul - I don't have the energy right now for this amount of curating, so it's really nice to see. It all looks good to me. Victoria (tk) 17:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

, I've made a few more changes (diff); as before, please rv anything you don't like.
 * I removed the Hemingway quote from the lead ("He defends [his friends] when they are attacked"). I used to like it there, but for some reason it struck me recently as too much. Perhaps I'm just bored because I've read it so often. Anyway, see what you think of the lead without it.
 * A few details are now in a separate Notes section, including the Hemingway quote (a longer version of it). This means we now have four headings at the end: Notes, followed by References which includes Citations and Bibliography. It's not ideal, so perhaps we should undo having separate footnotes, or we could change the headings.
 * The sentence about H.D. following him to London is now back in the text, rather than only in the caption. I'd like to do something more with that section to change the flow, but I'm not sure what (hence the back and forth).
 * I sourced the Ford quote about Pound ("would approach with the step of a dancer") to Ford rather than Moody, and added a similar quote from Hemingway. I like the one from Hemingway because it describes his personality: "has the temperament of a toro di lidia from the breeding establishments of Don Eduardo Miura. No one ever presents a cape, or shakes a muleta at him without getting a charge."
 * "The New Age published ... a statement of his philosophical views on consciousness and God" is now "on consciousness and the universe", because the source suggests that it wasn't about God.
 * I added a heading, "Views and relationships", to separate his dealings with Kasper etc from his release, and added an image of Hemingway to the release section.

SarahSV (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, these are all excellent changes. Thanks so much for taking the time to rework, tidy, copyedit, etc. I'm glad you found Ford's quote (I like that one) and don't mind that the Hemingway quote is gone from the lead. It's a good quote but has had trouble finding a home. I'm also happy to see that we have an image of Gaudier-Brzeska's head. The formatting it good too. It's inspiring to see this - I need to hack away at Hemingway and do the same thing there, and to a few other articles. Victoria (tk) 22:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you. I was glad to find Gaudier-Brzeska's head (sorry, forgot to mention that); it's a good image. I have a few other things I'd like to do too; maybe some tweaking of the chronology around the release and in the education section, but I'm not quite sure what. I've tried a few things on preview that haven't worked. SarahSV (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, if it would help, I can take a look in Moody re the education section and see how much smoothing out needs to be done. I have Tytell too and can look to see what he says about the release, and I have the Cambridge Companion, which might help on both fronts. But I can't get to it right away. If I forget, either remind me here or on my page. Victoria (tk) 00:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , thanks for restoring that text. I have no idea what caused that; I did the same thing recently at another page, so it must be something about my account/browser/computer. I'll try to track it down and fix it. SarahSV (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

New Editing section
Should this new section be added:...Modernist (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing
His influence into the world of Modernism is maybe most visible in his editing of others’ works, and nowhere is it more clear that in T.S Eliot’s seminal works The Waste Land . His editing of Eliot’s work was so hands-on, that the entire tone of the work is unrecognizable from Elliots original manuscript. In keeping with his general views on poetry and the benefits of brevity, he insisted on a number of major cuts in Eliot's work. Specifically, he insisted on the cutting of three parts; an introductory account of a night out, a section of satiric Pope-esque couplets, and a section which prefaced Phlebus the Phoenician which involved a ship setting off from Boston. This severe poetic culling is what led to the signature disjointed fragmentary nature of the work. He also changed the preface dramatically, which further elevated the text and changes the meaning of the whole work. Pound said “The thing now runs from, ‘April…’ to ‘shantih’ without a break. That is 19 pages, and let us say the longest poem in the English langwiche, don’t try to bust all records by prolonging it another 3" . While he slashed large chunks from the work, he also went about removing and altering minute details. In particular, Pound had an issue with the "may" in the phrase “may pass", saying that the character of Tiresias would know one way or another. More importantly still, the extra work changed the meter of the line bringing it more in line with Pounds own ideas of a “musical phrase”. In these additions to The Waste Land, we can see Pounds own views on poetry creeping into the works of Eliot's. With such intense editing taking place some would claim that The Waste Land was Pounds greatest poem, rather the poem is a collaborative effort between Eliot, Pound and the plethora of quotes, references and intertextual nods which comprise the poem.


 * No we can't. The first sentence is an analysis but it cites a primary source - the poem itself. The next section is cited to Nadel, but he doesn't say "His editing of Eliot’s work was so hands-on, that the entire tone of the work is unrecognizable from Elliots original manuscript. In keeping with his general views on poetry and the benefits of brevity, he insisted on a number of major cuts in Eliot's work." The next two sentences, in my view are too specific for this article, and we already mention in our article that Pound heavily blue-inked The Waste Land. The section in the passage above beginning with "While he slashed large chunks ... " needs a secondary source, not a primary source. The sentence about "may" is directly from Nadel but not cited to Nadel. The next section doesn't seem to be referenced. Nadel mentions it was a collaborative work but all he says it that was "intensely collaborative", so that section won't work as written. My feeling is that we've covered this issued adequately in the this article, but there may be room to cover it more in The Waste Land. Thanks M, for reverting and brining it up for discussion. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"walked 450 miles north"
In the "Arrest for treason" section, second paragraph, it says
 * "Pound was in Rome... He walked 450 miles north, spending a night in an air-raid shelter in Bologna, then took a train to Verona and walked the rest of the way."

But walking 450 miles north from Rome would put you in Munich, according to Google Maps. Also, the implication of "spending a night in an air-raid shelter in Bologna" is that he walked from Rome to Bologna and spent the night there, but Bologna is ~75 miles north of Rome and walking 75 miles in one day is a pretty amazing feat... it says here that the world record for the most miles walked in 24 hours is 141... that's the world record, presumably by a superb athlete on flat terrain under ideal conditions and presumably racewalking... 75/24 is a brisk 3.1 MPH, without stopping, including crossing a mountain range. I suppose it's possible... but you still have the "450 miles" deal. The ref is a book, which I don't have, so I've marked the passage as dubious, and if someone who has access to to ref could either confirm it (and remove the tag) or unconfirm it (and rewrite the passage).... Herostratus (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , I can't see much of Tytell, so I've added a quote from Stock in a footnote (diff). I wrote "traveled"; I can't recall whether this is in American or British English. Someone can correct if it's the latter. SarahSV (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , OK, thanks! Herostratus (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This Article needs a more Postmodern, less Eulogic perspective
This article does nothing but praise Ezra Pound. The article itself is a celebration of him due to the subtle, though obvious use of weasal words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.144.205 (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I presume by postmodern you mean you want to "deconstruct" him. We are now long post post modern, so it strange you refer to that as though it was some sort of standard. Still, like Allan Ginsberg, Pound was one of those educated white males who lived mainly near cities. What (cited) changes do you want to make to pull him down? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)