Talk:Joyce Kilmer/Archive 2

Protected
We seem to have a hot edit war going on here. I protected the page so people can cool off and work this out. So. Do that. :) For the good of everyone. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor questions
Cheers and good luck with the GA status. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "The year 1913 approached Kilmer in trials of suffering and faith but also in success" Can this be reworded to be clearer? Does it mean the events were in 1912 or late 1912?
 * Why was she called "Deborah ("Sister Michael") Clanton Kilmer". Was she a Catholic nun?
 * Let me see if I can take a crack at the 1912/1913 discussion.
 * I didn't make the "Sister Michael" edit, and I'm actually not sure. I've heard as much, but never got to the bottom of that one.  Sorta slipped out of my mind.
 * We're beyond GA. FA is on the horizon, after this madness gets pushed under the rug. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 09:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Sister Michael" thing was mine, I don't have a source for it but she was a Catholic nun. I figured giving the name she went by for a great portion of her life would make it easier to find info about her in the future. 69.19.14.33 18:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC) (User:Makemi

Resolution: What I would like
These are the only two things I'm hung up on. If Alansohn and others on his side have demands, list them below. I have never said that I was unreasonable. It only appears that way when other people can't reason, or refuse to. Right now, too many Type-A's in the room. We're all decent editors. But we're all Type-A assholes. That being said, none of us should get banned over a few keystrokes. Let's get past this. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 09:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Abandon any desire to list non-notable siblings. On this I will not bend, I think WP:NOT and WP:WINAD are clear on the issue, and other people seem to agree their mention is irrelevant. The only way I'd bend on this is if it can be established that there was a sibling-impact on the writing...and then only the relevant sibling gets mentioned (re: Kilmer's older brother if the suicide thing is adequately sourced), not all.
 * Alansohn wants to talk about the brother's suicide and its possible impact on Kilmer's writing. Find reliable sources that actually discuss the issue. So far there are none. Putting two separate unrelated lines that Kilmer's brother committed suicide and Kilmer wrote about suicide (criticising with ennui how it was en vogue to praise suicide and use it to raise the works of third-rate verisifiers) in a review of some suicided-writer's book, only seeking to justify each other by false association does not count. Without sources&mdash;and good sources (not find-a-grave)&mdash;it's gone. If it's an unaccessible source (and trust me, I can have any book, microfilm, magazine, letter, etc. in my hands within a week), it's unreliable and unverifiable and it's gone.  In the meantime though, it's unreliable, it stays off until it's verified and sourced properly.
 * If you want to revert everything to American spelling, go right ahead. I'll give on that...a good faith offering.


 * Are you now calling me an asshole? Please be civil. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to calling myself one. Let's not get into any more hypocritical discourse about who is civil and who is not, because this is an example of the pot calling the kettle black. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 19:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You can call yourself anything you want. Please refrain from calling me an asshole. Or describing edits as "shit". You scatological obsession isn't welcome. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you done pontificating? You're only proving my point. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 19:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And what is your point? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely, you can't be that obtuse? &mdash;ExplorerCDT 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can explain more. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, you're irredeemable. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 21:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Review the prose so that they are compelling, even brilliant.
"Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.

2. Ensure that all major facts and major details of each major fact are included.
"Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.

3. Ensure details stay focused on major fact without going into unnecessary detail
It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Review each claim in the article (i) verifiable against reliable sources, (ii) accurately present the related
"Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.

The Hillis reference
FA advice 1C, states that a substantial number of the highest quality reliable sources available on the subject should be consulted thoroughly. It seems that the Hillis reference is the article's main highest quality reliable sources available on the subject. The article does cite a substantial number of other reliable sources on the subject. If you look over many FA articles, they cite one main reliable source with a substantial number of other reliable sources. -- Jreferee 13:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anne Kilmer Hillis here; I helped my husband, John Hillis, prepare that biobibliography some 45 years ago. I've been attempting to look up those references, and they all lead you to other footnotes. That's the trouble with a secondary source. I notice that John Covell, who wrote a recent book on Joyce Kilmer, hunts those notes back to the primary source. I think it would be preferable to cite the original authority, rather than the researcher. I recently scanned a Xerox of a Xerox of the original bio, provided me by Harvey Brudner of the J.K. Centennial gang, and cleaned it up some. Maybe someone would like it on a web page?

I notice that many of the Hillis references do not, in fact, lead you to the desired spot in the manuscript, anyway. Needs to be checked or redone.

There is also a lot of good information in a memoir my father, Kenton Kilmer, published at the time of the Joyce Kilmer Centennial. Memories of my Father, Sergeant Joyce Kilmer.

There is a scholarly article on Joyce Kilmer, by Burton R. Pollin, in The Southern Quarterly History Journal  Vol. 44, No. 1 (Dec. 2006); the gist seems to be that Kilmer had a considerable effect on the writers of his time, and their careers. Akilmer 10:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have repaginated the Kilmer biobibliography so that it matches the original, and would be happy to email a RTF file to whoever wants to play with the footnotes. I will help. I have the Annie Kilburn Kilmer books but not the Bob Holliday book. email me if you want to jump back into this. Akilmer 15:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Ensure each view is presented fairly and without bias.
"Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).

6. Work together to bring article stability.
"Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.

A. British English vs. American English
Please see National varieties of English to discuss this issue. -- Jreferee 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

B. Listing non-notable siblings
Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary states that many genealogical details may be omitted in exchange for a better-flowing, more rounded article. Template:Biography clarifies this and explains how to handle marriage and offsprings to maintain a better-flowing, more rounded article. WikiProject Biography endorses the use of Charles Darwin to address the issue of whether to include siblings name in an article. -- Jreferee 18:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

C. Impact of brother's suicide on Kilmer's writing
Copied here from archive (with edits only for clarification, and removing irrelevant comments):
 * The New York Times article he (Alansohn) cites is irrelevant. It's trivial. Basically saying. "Kilmer wrote about suicide, once." But what's sinister is that Alansohn desires to use it to justify an unreliable and right now unverifiable statement (contrary to WP:RS/WP:V) that the older brother's suicide impacted Kilmer's work. The NYT piece mentions suicide to criticize a writer Kilmer thought was third-rate and that his work was only being talked about because of the novelty of the author's suicide. Nothing dealing with his brother at all. That makes his attempt at truth by unrelated association false, and misleading. —ExplorerCDT 18:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. As stated above in previous discussions, if a source indicates that Kilmer's brother's suicide affected Kilmer work, and this that meets WP:RS and WP:V (i.e. not find-a-grave.com), I'll gladly accept it's inclusion into the article. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So does this mean the article should be purged of anything not related to Kilmers writing? Is the article about his writing or about Kilmer? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which of the two facts is in dispute as unsourced? That his brother took his own life? or, that he wrote a letter condemning suicide? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * findagrave.com is not a reliable source for reporting the suicide, also the has just a Kilmer family descendancy chart and related genealogical trivia, it shouldn't be used to report a cause of death it does not list nor discuss.  I gander that Alansohn used it only to establish a birth and death date for Kilmer's brother and that he had a brother, which is superfluous citation and it is not in dispute.
 * the mention of Kilmer writing an article about suicide (in which he does not condemn it, but in a review of what he wrote to be a bad book, takes a swipe at the artistic crowd who praises suicide and uses it to raise up "third-rate versifiers") was used by Alansohn to wrongly justify by false association that Kilmer work was impacted by his brother's suicide in a manner that was misleading and speculative (wikipedia is not speculation). If he can find a verifiable, reliable source that says in a scholarly fashion "Kilmer's work was impacted or influenced by his brother's suicide" fine.  But he hasn't done that, instead he tried to get the fact in by the back door.  If mentioned on its own, as "Kilmer wrote about suicide", it would be seemingly irrelevant.  Kilmer also wrote about trees, war, love, birds, holidays, religion and other subjects as well, and we don't put a sentence of "bullet point trivia" for those.  It's also wrong to write "Kilmer wrote about suicide" when the topic wasn't an essay on the pros and cons of suicide, or some other examination of the subject but a review of someone's crappy book.
 * Lastly, the fact that Kilmer's brother committed suicide is just genealogical trivia that can be omitted per WP:WINAD unless it can be shown through reliable sources that Kilmer's brother's suicide had an impact or influence on Kilmer's work. Why WP:WINAD: Unless it's relevant to a discussion of Kilmer's work, it's genealogical irrelevancy that impedes the article's flow.
 * Hope that answers your question. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's very hard to argue that suicide did not play a major role in Kilmer's life and work, this being a poet who wrote To a Young Poet Who Killed Himself, a poem that he referred to as "the 'Suicide' poem" in a 1913 letter to his mother (Kilmer 1993 p. 202). The poem itself includes such lines as "The fight was on -- you ran away / you are a coward and a craven" and concludes "Then don't you feel a little shame? / And don't you think you were an ass?" The review of "Middleton's "Monologue's" in The New York Times focusing on suicide, one of many essays in the book is another example. This hardly makes his brother's death at his own hands mere "genealogical trivia". The whole WP:WINAD claim was utter nonsense to start with, but it is undeniable that it is thoroughly relevant, perhaps even more relevant than the trivia about his father's role in the invention of baby powder. That you still insist on applying rather inconsistent standards to yourself and to others, and to refer to anyone other than yourself as "Type-A assholes" is still rather disturbing. Alansohn 22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a quote that says explicitly that the poem is about Anda, or should I really tell you which poet Kilmer was referring to in the poem? (hint, it's not his brother...his brother Anda wasn't a poet). Neither is a letter referring vaguely to "the suicide poem" sufficient.  "Suicide" is the most prominent word in the title.  It's like remotely mentioning that Mozart was an alcoholic, then mentioning a letter from Mozart to his sister talking about "Figaro" and with no context whatsoever trying to tie it in with "Mozart was an alcoholic and his alcoholism influenced his characterization of Figaro.  The logic doesn't follow.  It's not a modus ponens. What's the context of the letter?  If you're not quoting the letter here at length to support your position, providing a context which we can use to forward this point in the article, I greatly doubt it has anything to do with connecting Anda Kilmer's suicide to Joyce's work or life. You need a source that says a.) Kilmer's writings were influenced by his brother's suicide, or b.) Kilmer's life was led in a certain way because of the impact of his brother's suicide.  Heck, we don't even know for sure if there was a suicide, as there hasn't been a reliable source stating that there was one. Everything else you've provided to substantiate this has not substantiated the point you want to make. And as to your thoughts about WP:WINAD, go ahead an ignore clearly-written policy. We'll let admins deal with that. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you won't provide a reliable source, the fact that you ignore wikipedia policy with reckless abandon, the fact that you will likely continue to fight this even after the matter is settled is far more disturbing. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Anda's suicide: Focus on Featured article criteria
Since the article is GA, the focus now becomes FA criteria only. Featured article criteria provides only two basis for including the brother's suicide in the article at this GA to FA stage of the Kilmer article: item 1.b major fact or major fact or details about a major fact and item 4. necessary detail. Whether it is a major fact or detail is determined by published treatment of the issue. From what has been presented, the brothers suicide may not be a major fact or detail about a major fact under item 1.b of Featured article criteria. The only other reason to address it at this GA to FA stage of the Kilmer article is Item 4 of Featured article criteria. Item 4 deals with staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Item 1b of Featured article advice expands on FA criteria 4 and states "A featured article should cover all facets of the topic in relation to their importance to the overall topic. No one sub-topic should dominate the article unless it is clearly the most important part of the topic. In accordance with summary style, excessive details beyond what carefully prioritized balancing would call for should be moved off to sub-articles and only summaries should be left in the main article. More important subtopics warrant longer and more detailed summaries, while less important ones should have shorter summaries. This is the part of being comprehensive and NPOV that is most commonly missed. It involves repeatedly prioritizing what information is most important, and leaving the rest to other articles." Featured article advice Item 1c states "Evidence to support particularly significant or possibly contentious points should be cited directly to the most reliable source available. (e.g., how does Hillis treat Anda's suicide?) Couching your discussion in terms of the FA criteria may help this discussion move along. -- Jreferee 23:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the article about "Joyce Kilmer" or is the article about "The writings of Joyce Kilmer"? The inclusion of facts now seems to be based on how the fact affected his writing, not whether the fact fits into the narrative that is his biography. Which is the focus of this article? We seem to be excluding information, such as his brother's suicide because they did not affect his writing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On review of the above Wikipedia information, I agree that how Anda's suicide affected Kilmer may not resolve this issue. Per FA advice 1b, featured articles should cover all facets of the topic in relation to their importance to the overall topic.  Anda's suicide may be a facet of the Joyce Kilmer topic.  If so, the Wikipedia coverage should be in relation to its importance to the overall Joyce Kilmer topic.  Per FA advice 1c, "evidence to support particularly significant or possibly contentious points should be cited directly to the most reliable source available."  Hillis Bio-Bibliography is being used in the Wikipedia article as the most reliable source on Kilmer.  It seems that a way to resolve this issue for the Wikipedia article is to determine how the Hillis Bio-Bibliography treated Anda's suicide in relation to its importance to the overall Hillis Bio-Bibliography. Hope this helps. -- Jreferee 02:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If we rely to heavily on Hillis, as the major source and as out style guide, the article will be a Readers Digest version of the book rather than an independent work from multiple sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First, the Hillis Bio-Bibliography doesn't cover the suicide at all. It doesn't even mention it once.  So I can hardly see how this "facet" fits into Kilmer's biography, much less Kilmer's writing if the only real piece of scholarship to dissect Kilmer in the last 50 years ignores it.  Heck, we don't even know if there was a suicide because find-a-grave.com is not a reliable source.  I treat it with skepticism because a.) Hillis does not mention it and b.) this could turn out to be a John Siegenthaler, Sr. fiasco if we find out there was no suicide down the line after someone gets pissed off.  After all, find-a-grave has less guidelines for inclusion than Wikipedia.  And considering the overall topic is his life and his life is notable because of the writing, it's self-evident that in order to be covered it would have to impact one or the other, and if it impacts one or the other it, by the dictates of logic, it impacts both. Right now, the article covers both to a great extent given the extent of Kilmer's notability. Second, As to the Hillis thesis itself, it has its pros and cons. Pro, Hillis was a family member (by marriage) who had access to papers, letters, manuscripts, that are not publically accessible.  The con, is that we'll never know how much pressure from family did he have to sanitize or conceal certain aspects of the history. Third, Hillis is unfortunately one of the only pieces of scholarship on kilmer to come out in the last 50 years.  Heck, there isn't even a recent collected edition of Kilmer's poetry.  You'll find him anthologies, but no "collected poems".  The only one available is a reprint of the posthumous compilation edited by Kilmer's friend Robert Holliday.  The biography covers all of the facets of the topic that are supported in the document trail uncovered so far.  If something comes up connecting suicide to his writing, or impact on his life, then by all means include it.  But right now, we have a couple of misleading attempts at working it in by Alansohn with no verifiable substance.  I've been searching for recent dissertations or theses on Kilmer and his work, but in the last 10 years, nothing has really come out.  This will, it seems, be "undiscovered country" for an ambitious graduate student. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the Hillis Bio-Bibliography doesn't cover the suicide at all (doesn't even mention it once), FA advice 1c, would appear to exclude the information from this GA article. As for the Hillis reference, please discuss above under item 4. Review each claim in the article. Thanks. -- Jreferee 17:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Like the barking dog in Sherlock Holmes, its absence gives it significance. As a devout Roman Catholic a suicide was a stain on the family, and out of deference seems to have been omitted. Even the living Kilmers prefer not to discuss the details. This shouldnt be a hagiography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither should it be unsubstantiated rumour and uncorroborated assumption. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 08:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the rumour and what is the assumption? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First, no one's provided a reliable source stating there even was a suicide, except a wholly unreliable statement on find-a-grave.com, which until sourced properly is akin to churning the rumour mill. And you're assuming that absence gives significance when it could also be quite safer to assume the opposite, and assuming that I wrote or intend to write a hagiography (even though when you look at some of them, the biographies of saints can be really scandalous...especially a few I can recommend to you regarding Saint Athanasius). Hey, if these things could be verified and reliably sourced, I'd be all for it. Otherwise, it's rank speculation that crosses the line into violating policies above-mentioned, the least of which is WP:OR. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Anne Kilmer Hillis here. I helped my husband, John Hillis, with that biobibliography some 45 years ago. My father, Joyce's son, Kenton Kilmer, did not tell us about Anda's suicide until many years later; some time in the '70s. (At what age would you tell your children that your father's brother and both your mother's brothers committed suicide?) I have contacted Frank Russo, who posted the findagrave item. He got some information from a folder he found in the New Brunswick Library, he tells me, and some from interviewing Dad. I notice that the text he posted is largely derived from an item in a family tree I prepared some 20 years ago. Unless there is more information elsewhere, we're left with my father's unsupported word about the suicide, and every link leads back to that. It is probable that the suicide was hushed up at the time (1899). The hotel would have wanted that, as well as the family. this is what I have:

Andy Frederick Kilmer was born January 12 1873 in Binghamton NY. Was educated in the High School of New Brunswick, NJ, Rutger's College Preparatory School and Rutger's College, class of 1896. Served an apprenticeship to the printing trade and passed to journeyman printer.

March 30, 1894, married Rebecca Ellen McLean of New York City. He is now engaged in the advertising department of the Brunswick Pharmacal Company (Johnson and Johnson, NY). The editor will add, and not because he is a nephew, that he is a young man of exceptional capability and enterprise. -- Hist. of Kilmer Family

Kenton Kilmer (Daddy) told me the sad story of Anda's death. [He was named after his grandfather, Anda Kilburn. His father called him Freddy as a joke.] When he was a lad, he was in love with a girl whom his family deemed unsuitable. So he was sent on the Grand Tour to forget her. While he was gone, she died. The woman he married, Rebecca Ellen McLean, looked exactly like his lost love. They had a daughter, Eleanor ... Anda killed himself at 26 at the Clarendon Hotel, Philadelphia. Sept. 9, 1899.

John Covell tapdances around the issue, when he says that Joyce and his mother remained in England when Anda died, while Fred went home to deal with things. Joyce's mother, Annie Kilburn Kilmer, says they came home in July. So I don't know.

I cannot imagine that Anda's (alleged) suicide was not in Joyce's mind when he wrote the "Suicide poem," but I cannot prove that it was. The poem was not about Anda. In a letter, he discusses it cheerfully with his mother.

As for the notion that Joyce had a death wish and deliberately cast himself into danger, I've just read through Xeroxen of his letters from the Front, many passages omitted by Bob Holliday from the book, no serious feet of clay, and Joyce hadn't a notion that anything bad could happen to him. He occasionally suggests that he might get a good wound that would allow him to go home early, but he never seems to think that he could actually die. Thirty-one, all that testosterone, bless the boy, he hadn't a clue.

"For it is wrong for a poet -- especially a Gael -- to be listening to elevated trains when there are screaming shells to hear, and to be sleeping soft in a bed when there's a cot in a dug-out awaiting him, and the bright face of danger to dream about, and to see." March 12, 1918, letter to Aline.

That's not a bad explanation, but I think Joyce explains it best in "The Proud Poet":

It is stern work, it is perilous work, to thrust your hand in the sun

And pull out a spark of immortal fire to warm the hearts of men

But Prometheus, torn by the claws and beaks whose task is never done,

Would be tortured another eternity to go stealing fire again.

--Joyce Kilmer Akilmer 10:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Make lead section concise
It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;

8. Make lead section a summary
It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;

9. Make lead section prepare reader for higher detail level in main body
It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;

10. Confirm hierarchical headings system
It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings.

11. Confirm that table of contents is substantial
It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).

12. Confirm images are subject appropriate with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.

13. Confirm appropriate length for topic (check amount of kilobytes used, too).
It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Outside comments
This article came to my attention today and I have a few comments to offer. Regarding the specific issue of the brother's suicide, it would cross the WP:NOR line to make the connection between that event and Kilmer's writing unless a better citation is forthcoming. It would, however, constitiute a fairly aggressive policy reading to delete all mention of the event in absence of such a citation. Over at Mary_Shelley the article mentions two suicides, one by her half sister, without asserting any direct connection to her creative work. At Kelsey_Grammer the page outlines the grisly deaths of several of this living actor's immediate relatives, yet the only one that had a direct effect on his career was the rape and murder of his sister. These are important life events. A better approach would be to give the brother's demise a one sentence mention without speculating on its connection to Kilmer's creative output.

The bitterness with which editors have contested this point, as well as several elements within the article, suggest to me that this is symptomatic of a broader and rather erudite campaign to rehabilitate Kilmer's reputation through Wikipedia. Although the article does acknowledge that little of Joyce Kilmer's work is remembered, and that his best known work is lightly regarded and parodied, it nonetheless editorializes in a pro-Kilmer manner. I'll point to a couple of illustrative examples.

There have been several variations on the text, including many parody texts substituted to mimic Kilmer's seemingly simple rhyme and meter. Why the word seemingly? It carries the critical implication that "Trees" has some hidden depth yet fails to cite any actual critic who makes such an assertion or explains what that deeper meaning would be. Ernest Hemingway's prose is simple, yet critical consensus is that his simplicity wields elemental power. George Orwell's Animal Farm is a simple story, yet critical consensus is that it encapsulates a searing criticism of communism. Kilmer's work does not enjoy comparable recognition. Rather, the consensus appears to be that he is among the weakest poets to have been widely anthologized - perhaps the Ausonius of American letters. So any suggestion that "Trees" has deeper merit, or that Kilmer's other creative or critical works deserve reevaluation, needs to be sourced with rigor and presented with the weight due a minority view.

A random sampling of the citations does not evince such rigor. What I see instead are some rather dry factual sources and unsupported editorializing. Indeed, the article's mention of the reference I know best certainly polishes up Kilmer's image to the maximum extent. I happen to be a Columbia University graduate and a former member of its Philolexian Society where I attended the annual Joyce Kilmer Memorial Bad Poetry Contest. While it is true that Kilmer was a former officer of the club and it is true that this is a literary society (of sorts), these are also the sort of people whose idea of holding a symposium is to revive the classical tradition of wearing togas and getting drunk. They honor Kilmer by excavating such dreadful gems as Warren G. Harding's love poems to his mistress before they meander across the street to the West End Gate bar. Some of this tone reflects itself in the society's website, which the article misses almost entirely. Only the name of the event itself - which probably can't be dignified - remains to suggest that this is the literary equivalent of the Darwin Awards.

In fairness to the editors here, a lot of work has gone into this page. If I had done the good article review I would have given extensive notes rather than an actual GA award. It's definitely an above average article. It also definitely isn't all that close to being featured. Percy Bysshe Shelley and Emily Brontë both died younger than Kilmer, yet neither Wikipedia biography laments how much better they might have become. WP:NPOV is in serious peril when a biography about a minor poet suggests instead that he is underappreciated. This has been done in a fairly sophisticated manner here, yet that sort of campaign usually stalls at GA level: and yes, to call a spade a spade this does strike me as a campaign. The year 1913 approached Kilmer in trials of suffering and faith but also in success is a sentence that asks the reader to root for him. He may have died a hero's death, but that doesn't improve his writing one whit. The poetry of Charles I de Valois, Duke of Orléans stands on its own merits, not because he was wounded and left for dead at the Battle of Agincourt.

What could set this article on the track to actual featured status is to acknowledge these elements openly and explore them with appropriate balance. What serious critics have evaluated Kilmer? How has his reputation changed over the decades? Is there any actual trend toward reevaluating his lesser known works? Or if the critics really do neglect him, then how is it that a single poem continues to be so well known? Durova Charge 04:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Mary Shelley and Kelsey Grammer articles are not endorsed by WikiProject Biography for the purposes of comparison on this subject. But thank you for pointing them out.  We don't even know there was a suicide and if there was, it's hardly relevant, and I (and a few others) have argued that genealogical trivium is best omitted per WP:WINAD. When this article is unprotected, I'll probably remove the adjective "seemingly" per your suggestion, though I disagree with your reading too much in between the lines about "implying a deeper meaning."  I disagree with your doubts about NPOV and "reviving" Kilmer through Wikipedia.  Writing a decent biography of Kilmer on Wikipedia likely won't have that effect just as writing about Bernhard Riemann won't get the Riemann hypothesis proved and neither is it going to make me a young Felix Mendelssohn reviving the legacy of Johann Sebastian Bach.  Also, chances are your unfamiliarity with several of the sources cited by this article leads you to mischaracterize them as dry and that the writers (me, especially) are "editorializing."  Though, the 1913 line has been raised as a section that needs rewriting, it was most likely the result of my inability to write a decent transition than an attempt at giving this article a "win one for the gipper" appeal. Thank you though, for some insightful questions by which I can address my intended expansion of "Criticism and influence" with renewed vigour. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to have given the article a thorough review or to be an expert on all things related to Kilmer. I don't think it should be necessary to route comparable examples through Wikiproject Biography, but if you insist try this GA.  What really caught my attention at this page was the abrasive tone of the talk pages.  That degree incivility rarely happens at an article of this quality so I looked for a common thread or an underlying cause.  What I observed is that the article does have a sympathetic slant.  Perhaps the stigma attached to suicide has something to do with that being a bone of contention?  This situation doesn't look like a deliberate astroturfing the way NPA Personality Theory had been before it got deleted.  Yet parts of the article do stray from the appropriate tone and the piece as a whole could get into its subject with more depth.


 * I suspect a typical reader (at least a native English speaking reader from North America) would recognize Kilmer's most famous poem from grade school and wonder why they had been taught it. That question has several sides.  How did "Trees" gain that much exposure and retain it for so long?  How did Kilmer go from being a rising young figure of American letters to an object of parody and neglect without actually being forgotten?  Go into the serious criticism to the extent possible, yet from my vantage Kilmer is possibly of greater interest as a social phenomenon.  Despite being lampooned by Ogden Nash "Trees" is one of those poems that just doesn't go away.  Has anyone done a critical study of the publishing industry or the primary and secondary education system that perpetuates it (stripped of its biographical and literary historical context)?  Why this poem and hardly anything else of Kilmer's or of other young aspirants who published in the same periodicals at the same time?  Step away from the edit disputes and dig into those issues and you'll be on the way to a real featued article.  Regards,  Durova Charge 05:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Further advise
The outsider comments provide significant direction. You may want to slice up the outsider comments and repost each comment to a position that is below one of the above 13 Bringing this article up to FA status items. Doing so will help the editors of this article to keep the discussion focused and to keep the article focused on the FA goal. -- Jreferee 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The regular contributors are welcome to do that if they find it helps. Best wishes all.  Durova Charge 03:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Alfred and Joyce
"Joyce was named Alfred Joyce Kilmer after the Rev. Dr. Alfred Stowe and the Rev. Dr. Elisha Brooks Joyce (1857–1926), two consecutive rectors of Christ Church, the oldest Episcopalian parish in New Brunswick, where the Kilmer family were parishioners.[7] Rector Stowe served from 1839 to 1883, and Rector Joyce, who served the parish from 1883 to 1916, baptised the young Kilmer.[8]" This appears to be incorrect. He was named for "Alfred R. Taylor" who served as assistant minister under minister Elisha Brooks Joyce (1857–1926) according to the Middlesex County Heritage Commission. They are forwarding the reference by snail mail. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They aren't called "ministers" in the Episcopalian church. Joyce is a "Rector".  If the Taylor reference is the case, he would likely have been a "Curate", if not a "Deacon" or "Subdeacon". Look forward to the source. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 02:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oddly, when you go to the Joyce Kilmer birthplace in New Brunswick, run by the Middlesex County Heritage Commission...they say he was named for two "Rectors" at Christ Church on the tour and in their pamphlets. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 10:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It now reads: "Joyce was named Alfred Joyce Kilmer after Alfred R. Taylor, the curate; and the Rev. Dr. Elisha Brooks Joyce (1857–1926), the rector of Christ Church, the oldest Episcopalian parish in New Brunswick, where the Kilmer family were parishioners." according to Durin of the MCCHC; and Brudner of the JK Centennial Commission.

Kilmer's Trees poem in film
I have included a section on Kilmer's Trees poem and its use in the movie Superman II. Marlon Brando originally shot his footage in April 1977 and would have appeared in this movie. Richard Lester in 79' reshot this footage with an unknown British actor. This film would end up one of the most controversial movies of all time, but not because of its content, but its directoral contribution. To this date, no single movie has had as many different versions (official and unofficial). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.165.35 (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Some ideas
Here are some ideas I have for the article now that it is unprotected (see also my Peer Review comments here, in many ways I consider these comments a continuation of the Peer Review). I am mostly addressing points of contention from before.

1) Although many biographies of Kilmer are listed at the end of the article, Hillis is the main biography source that is cited. I think that in order to meet WP:NPOV requirements, other biographies should be referenced as well (not just listed at the end).

2) As far as Kilmer's siblings go, I had also thought of putting the information into a note, but would use the Notes template (see for example El Greco, for a very nice example of this). Basically at the first note you put, then below you have a section labeled Notes and the first note is a.  . This would address the concerns about breaking up the narrative flow, while still providing the information in the article to the interested reader. I prefer a note to a ref as it makes it clearer this is not just another ref (superscript letter vs. number).

2a) I would still argue for more information in the body of the article about his siblings. The sentence in question currently reads "Kilmer was born on December 6, 1886 in New Brunswick, New Jersey, the fourth and youngest child of Annie Ellen Kilburn (1849–1932) and Dr. Frederick Barnett Kilmer (1851–1934), a physician and analytical chemist employed by the Johnson and Johnson Company and inventor of the company's baby powder." which to me gives a far different impression of him growing up as the baby of the family with three older siblings than was actually the case. Kilmer grew up with one sibling who was quite a bit older and became an only (living) child at age 13. How about something like this instead (edit away): "Kilmer was born on December 6, 1886 in New Brunswick, New Jersey, to Annie Ellen Kilburn (1849–1932) and Dr. Frederick Barnett Kilmer (1851–1934), a physician and analytical chemist employed by the Johnson and Johnson Company and inventor of the company's baby powder. Kilmer was the fourth and youngest child, but two of his siblings died before his birth, while his eldest brother Anda died in 1899 aged 26, when Joyce was thirteen years old.[Note A then gives the names and years of the other siblings and the suicide info if that is deemed verifiable]. Note that the current ref note gives no source for the sibling info or suicide. I think the fact that the father was a physician and chemist who invented J&J baby powder bit gives a reader some idea of the family (probably well to do, different than a factory worker at J&J for example). Likewise the sibling info gives the reader some idea of his early life (growing up with three older, live siblings is very different than growing up with one much older sibling who dies when you are 13).

2b) I think the note could also be used for the Rutgers Oak story, currently ref #40 - observe that a note can have a ref in it.

3) As for who he is named for, I note that User:ExplorerCDT is busy in real life and has had a funeral to attend, so I want to hear his input on his source for the other Alfred. The article currently reads "Joyce was named Alfred Joyce Kilmer after Alfred R. Taylor, the curate; and the Rev. Dr. Elisha Brooks Joyce (1857–1926), the rector of Christ Church, the oldest Episcopalian parish in New Brunswick, where the Kilmer family were parishioners. [8][9] Rector Stowe served from 1839 to 1883, and Rector Joyce, who served the parish from 1883 to 1916, baptised the young Kilmer." Note that the second sentence still refers to Rector Alfred Stowe and so is confusing. Assuming there are two different verifiable stories as to why he was named "Alfred" and both agree on "Joyce", then why not something like this (again edit away, just a suggestion): "All sources agree he was given the middle name 'Joyce' for the Rev. Dr. Elisha Brooks Joyce (1857–1926), the rector of Christ Church, the oldest Episcopalian parish in New Brunswick, where the Kilmer family were parishioners. According to Durnin, his first name was for Alfred R. Taylor, the curate of Christ Church at the time, while according to Source X, it was for the Rev. Dr. Alfred Stowe, who served Christ Church as rector from 1839 to 1883.[appropriate refs]" I said Source X as I am not sure which of ExplorerCDT's sources it is. As noted above, citing other biographies may clear this up too.

4) There is a "new" picture of him on Commons - let's add it to the article. I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 19:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Buried
The article states, "His body was carried in and buried by the side of Ames." What does this mean? Kilmer was buried in Oise-Aisne American Cemetery and Memorial in Fere-en-Tardenois, France only 800 yards from where he was killed. What is Ames? ++Arx Fortis (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Who, not what. I assume Ames is another soldier from the unit who was killed shortly before Kilmer, and that Kilmer was buried beside this person Ames. The next paragraph makes it very clear where Kilmer is buried: Kilmer was buried in the Oise-Aisne American Cemetery and Memorial, near Fere-en-Tardenois, Aisne, Picardy, France. Although Kilmer is buried in France in an American military cemetery, a cenotaph is located on the Kilmer family plot in Elmwood Cemetery, in New Brunswick, New Jersey. A memorial service was held at St. Patrick's Cathedral in Manhattan.[33] I do not have access to the reference cited (Duffy). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Purple Heart Medal
In the data column on the right side, it states that Sergeant Kilmer was awarded the Purple Heart Medal. That is impossible, as the Purple Heart Medal was not reinstated as a medal until the early '30s by Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur. At that time, living recipients of the Wound Stripes from the World War could apply to have their stripes replaced by the new Purple Heart Medal. Sergeant Kilmer would have been a recipient of the Wound Stripes - a small chevron worn on the left sleeve of the Army tunic. As he was KIA during the war, neither he, or his family would hav ebeen eligible to 'trade in' the old badge for the new medal. I recommend that the entry be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.26.214.162 (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted contrast?
"Despite its deceptive simplicity in rhyme and meter, "Trees" is notable for its use of personification and anthropomorphic imagery: " I don't understand this sentence:  why is the simplicity (in r&m) contrasted with the use of personification? Personification and anthropomorphic imagery are not rare nor necessarily "unsimple" devices. Would we say that despite its simple rhyme and meter, "Humpty Dumpty" is is notable for its use of personification (or ovumification, depending on one's take of the poem and perspective on poetry)? Kdammers (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)