Talk:W. H. Auden/Archive 7

GAR review for August 2015, last reviewed in 2009/2007
A number of issues have appeared in the GA article for Auden which appear to warrant attention and an update review from experienced Wikipedia editors. This article for Auden has not been reviewed for Good Article status since 2009 and appears to have suffered from some editorial drift over the years. Wikipedia standards for GA articles have also been strengthened since 2009 and although the article may have been peer acceptable according to 2009 standards in the first decade of Wikipedia, it does have several issues to look at enumerated below according to udpadted 2015 standards for peer review at Wikipedia. Among the issues in the current version of the article is that of hagiographic and demi-hagiographic issues (WP:Puffery) related to phrases resembling "Auden was the greatest author of the 20th century" and similar formulation throughout the article. Also, for a GA article, the article seems to have comparatively very few references compared to articles for other well known poets such as Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman. The list of issues to check is as follows;

(1) Is the article well written. Although the article appears to have been once well-written by 2009 standards, there has now accumulated a good deal of editing "drift" which has weakened the article. The hagiographic references need to be substantially tempered as mentioned above. Although some of these may be easy fixes, for example, "Auden was the greatest author of the 20th century" to "Auden was among the finest poets of the 20th century", the other issues of WP:Puffery need to be addressed. No one needs to claim that Auden was superior to Robert Frost, or that Auden was inferior to Wallace Stevens. It is sufficient to identify him as among the accomplished poets of the 20th century.

(2) Factuality and accuracy. For a GA article there appear to be comparatively few references for justify the very "high" reading of Auden that is presented in the article. Many major essays about Auden over the years normally covered in the biographies written about Auden are ignored completely. Christopher Isherwood from 1937, John Hollander's fine essay from 1967, Harold Bloom's 1968 essays, etc. These appear to be completely elided and missing. In addition, the current article appears to be highly selective in only choosing to cover references that are complimentary to Auden throughout, with only one bare sentence at the end of the article which makes a vague reference to some critics of Auden (this seems related to the Hagiography issue and WP:Puffery already mentioned). The extensive literature over the years of Auden criticism appears to be largely unaddressed in the article because of its limited selection of reliable sources.

(3) The important issue of comparing the quality and originality of Auden's early poetry and writings to his later poetry and writings has been largely ignored. The current format of the article distinguishes chronologically the different decades of Auden's writings, but does not address the important issues of multiple critics and even friends who saw much unevenness in the high quality of his early writings in comparison to the general perception of a weaker quality associated with his later writings (see Harold Bloom 1968 article among others).

(4) The comparison of Auden and Yeats needs to be revisited substantially. The current article does not appear to be in a format which would allow an unbiased reading of this issue which by general consensus in academia appears to move more in the direction of Yeats's centrality as opposed to Auden's centrality. The more apt comparison is usually made between Auden and Hardy, in dealing with precursors to Auden's poetic skills and talent, however the article appears to lack in either of these important discussions. The Yeats-Auden comparison is an important one to cover in a GA article which represents itself as being comprehensive and encyclopedic. Perhaps even more central to Auden himself, however, is the importance which Hardy's poetry had for him both at the aesthetic level and at the level of his poetic accomplishment.

(5) Is it broad in its coverage. The current article is not broad in its coverage. The current article appears to be highly selective in the sources it uses, apparently closely related to the current article's issues with Auden hagiography and WP:Puffery.

(6) Aside from the important Isherwood essay on early Auden, there is also the important Auden essay by Frederick Buell titled "Auden after the Thirties", which does not receive attention in the current article. The transitions of Auden quality and creativity in writing shifted significantly during the progressing decades of his life, and this shift in quality and creativity has very slight coverage in the current article. The current article seems to lack the references and reliable sources needed to accomplish this type of encyclopedic coverage of this important topic to Auden scholarship.

(7) Another important comparison of Auden poetry which is not covered adequately in this current article is that of the comparison of Auden with Hopkins. This important comparison has been studied by such scholars as Wendell Stacy Johnson in his notable essay titled "Auden, Hopkins, and the Poetry of Reticence". This is an important topic and comparison in Auden studies which is all but ignored in the current article as it stands at this moment.

(8) Does it follows a Neutral point of view. The current article, although once fairly well written, does not make a fair presentation without bias but instead presents a hagiographic view (WP:Puffery) of Auden as if only of his finest attributes selectively collected together. The current article does not adequately cover the important comparison to Yeats (by general consensus Auden seems to fall somewhat short of this), nor to contemporary comparisons of Auden as to either Wallace Stevens, or Robert Frost, or other Auden "contemporary" poets of accomplishment, where Auden sometimes does better and sometimes not as well.

(9) The long list of unaddressed major essays and books on Auden not covered in this GA article warrants some concern in its own right. To start such a list would include the following significant contributions to Auden scholarship which are not covered in the current article: (1) "The Pattern of Personae" by Justin Replogle; (2) "Only Critics Can't Play" by John Bayley; (3) "Artifice and Self-Consciousness" in the book The Sea and the Mirror by Lucy S. McDiarmid and John McDiarmid; (4) "An Oracle Turned Jester" by David Bromwich; (5) "The Rake's Progress: An Operatic Version of Pastoral" by William Spiegelman; (6) "Auden's Revision of Modernism" by Edward Mendelson; (7) "The Orator:Portraits of the Artist in the Thirties" by John Boly; and (8) "Disenchantment with Yeats: From Singing Master to Ogre" by Edward Cullen. This is a short list of the many important items of Auden scholarship over the years not covered in the current article.

(10) Is the article stable. The current article appears to be stable in terms of a absence of recent edit controversy or edit disputes at Wikipedia.

(11) It is suggested that someone with experience in editing GA articles for Wikipedia assess the current merits of this Auden article based on various concerns listed in the above references.

If any clarification of any of the items above is needed please mention them in the space below or during the regular review process. MusicAngels (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these extensive observations, which I hope to consider making use of in the future. In the meantime, I would have no objection if the "good article" rating were removed if there should be a general consensus (not merely the view of one editor) in that direction. Macspaunday (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Interested in the change made under (1) above as the previous wording was supposed to be referenced. Did you check the wording in the reference before changing it? Whatever we should use the wording given in the reference. Keith D (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've included some observations in the GA reassessment page and hope the discussion (if any) might continue there. - Macspaunday (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is a sentence like this "The comparison of Auden and Yeats needs to be revisited substantially." part of a Wikipedia page? It was recommended to me that I visit this page and several other pages. Who is MusicAngels and why are these debates being played out in this arena? Students come to Wikipedia for facts and my sense is that facts are what Wikipedia does well. To "revisit the comparison of Auden and Yeats" ought not to be part of WIkipedia's purview. In my opinion of course. Signed, TVW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.88 (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

First sentence in lead
I saw the request for reassessment, then re-read the article. A few days later I saw the exchanges on the reassessment page and realized a few things: one, that the level of expertise in the subject matter among the editors is above mine, so I would leave that kind of reassessment and any possible revisions or additions to others, two, that the reassessment doesn't seem to be going anywhere at present, and three, that the things I notice when reading articles and often fix are places where the prose doesn't sound quite right. On the other hand, I realize that anyone with expertise in literature knows what good writing looks and sounds like. So, tentatively, meekly, in front of all you literature experts, I'd like to suggest a small change in the wording of the first sentence of the lead. Right now, the first sentence reads:


 * Wystan Hugh Auden[1] (/ˈwɪstən ˈhjuː ˈɔːdən/;[2] 21 February 1907 – 29 September 1973) was an Anglo-American poet,[3][4] born in England, an American citizen (from 1946), and often regarded as being among the greatest poets of the 20th century.

If we remove the somewhat distracting pronunciation guide, superscript numbers and birth and death dates, the sentence reads:


 * Wystan Hugh Auden was an Anglo-American poet, born in England, an American citizen (from 1946), and often regarded as being among the greatest poets of the 20th century.

I think the sentence is trying to cram in too much information, and it reads like an old Model T trying to get started.

Because it says he was an Anglo-American poet, I think "born in England, an American citizen (from 1946)" can be left out. The details that explain "Anglo-American" will be given later in the article. I think the first sentence, already containing some distracting material, should read as smoothly as possible to make it easy for a reader to get into the article. I suggest the following:


 * Wystan Hugh Auden was an Anglo-American poet who was often regarded as being among the greatest poets of the 20th century.

I even wonder why past tense is used. Present perfect tense would sound correct:


 * Wystan Hugh Auden was an Anglo-American poet who has often been regarded as being among the greatest poets of the 20th century.

The word "being" could be left out:


 * Wystan Hugh Auden was an Anglo-American poet who has often been regarded as among the greatest poets of the 20th century.

Corinne (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestions; thank you. I've adapted the last and simplest version, but the dates (and pronunciation in doubtful cases) seem to be Wikipedia standard and ought to be left in. The detail about being born in England and an American citizen after 1946 is there in the infobox and the main text and needn't be in the first sentence. All the footnote numbers are distracting, but they're the result of years of wrangling over "Anglo-American," "English," "American," etc., arguments that finally stopped after the footnotes got added. So, distracting as they are, they probably do more harm than good. I've always been slightly bothered by that over-packed first sentence. Thank you for taking the trouble to sort it out! - Macspaunday (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I added a parenthesis about his American citizenship to a later paragraph that began with his growing up in Birmingham. Now the English-then-American trajectory is in the opening section, but doesn't clutter up the opening paragraph. Thank you again, Corinne! - Macspaunday (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I found the lead terribly misleading and believe that the "greatest" line isn't really necessary. The poet's work and the length of the biography and work speaks to the issue of "greatest" so such adjectives aren't really necessary.  Poetic1920 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Poetic1920 I think you're right about removing the "greatest" line. Why not remove "esteemed" also (or maybe replace with the less emphatic "widely esteemed")? - Macspaunday (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Macspaunday Thank you I did. I read it again this morning and there was too much "grad student thesis" in the lead--scholarly critique rather than solely introductory material. The body of the article is the place to offer critical views.Poetic1920 (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Poetic1920 - I hope you'll continue this process of tightening and tautening, which certainly improves the page. I hope you might open a talk page for yourself as a place for future discussions (or at least to avoid those red links here). - Macspaunday (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Macspaunday -- good idea. Away today but will pick up editing this week.Poetic1920 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Harold Bloom and Helen Vendler
(Moved here from my Talk Page: Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Your edit at Auden I have had to undo since you are attributing Harold Bloom's words to me. Though flattering, this is not any credit that I can take, so I need to do a friendly undo to restore proper attribution to Bloom. If you have any questions about the edit please bring them up here and I'll try to get make. Cheers. MusicAngels (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But there is no need to revert the links I added, is there? I've restored the quote, although it's still very unclear to me who's quoting whom, and why. Poems, like songs, are generally given in quotes, not in italics, unless published as books in their own right. A better place for discussion might be at the article Talk Page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are again attributing the Bloom material to me which I have quoted correctly and which you are attributing as my words. Please return the quotes where I put them to properly attribute what Bloom has written. Regarding your comment about poems in Italic that is true in general, but that is not how Bloom wrote it in his quote, and the Bloom version is how he wanted it written.


 * Occassionally, a poem's name will also appear as the name of a book of poems, and in those cases when the book of poems is being referred to, then the Italic version is to be preferred. Please return the quote to the way Bloom wrote since that was and is his preference. Your added link are a benefit and you can certainly return them, I did the undo because your edit was not attributing Bloom's words to Bloom. Please return the quote marks, etc, as I requested, thanks. MusicAngels (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it's necessary to preserve text italicization in quotes, unless the meaning depends on it. It's just a style choice. But I am quite happy to take advice from other editors. As I said above, it's very unclear to me who is quoting who and why. Please go ahead and make this clearer, if you can, by restoring your original punctuation if necessary. Perhaps part of the problem (for me, at least) is the mixture of single and double quote marks. But I'm also still unclear what point is being made and why. Perhaps you could elucidate? If you have a source for a book, or books, with those names, by all means add them. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This should be simple. I will try to put it into blockquote format on the page so that you see it clearly. You are of course a gentleman and a scholar for putting this on the Talk page here. Please look at the blockquote when I post it, this is a friendly blockquote only so that you see what I am talking about. MusicAngels (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Alas, being a Wikipedia editor, I count myself as neither. I copied here in the hope that other editors. for more expert than I, could contribute. A blockquote makes it much clearer (although a block quite does not need itself quote makes) apart from the truncated and embedded poem lines - well that's Bloom's decision so we can't change that I guess. In Praise of Limestone is given already as a poem title, with quote marks - and that fits with its article. But if you think this is so important to Bloom, so be it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still pondering the change of tense to present in this paragraph, after the previous introductory paragraph closed in past perfect tense. And that work by Bloom was 35 years ago? - I have restored the author link and year of publication that, for some reason, you reverted for a second time, and I've also added the publisher. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think Bloom and Vendler deserve any more pride of place than the score of other important critics. I think leaving in such a long quote is subjective.  Bloom is particularly a matter of debate among scholars and I don't think Wikipedia needs to enter the fray.  He is just one of many many others, as is Vendler. Poetic1920 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If I may: I don't think Bloom is "just one of many others", and neither is Vendler--their reputations are among the highest. But that doesn't mean we need this long, convoluted quote just to say that "Bloom likes the earlier stuff better". In addition, and this makes me question the GA status a bit, the Bloom book, Wallace Stevens: The Poems of our Climate, is not given a full bibliographical entry. It says 1980, so it must be the Cornell edition. Finally, the paragraph starts rather abruptly, "Two of these exceptions"--the phrase itself refers to the first part of the last sentence of the preceding paragraph, and that's quite awkward. (And of course the title of the poem should not be in italics.) Ah, I see now that Poetic1920 has taken care of these matters elegantly: thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That paragraph with the long quotation was added after User:SilkTork confirmed the GA rating, and was not added by me (I'm the editor who has done much of the recent work on the site). As you say, Poetic1920 has fixed the problem, though it still might be possible to improve the flow of the sentences slightly. - Macspaunday (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was also a bit wary of such an addition so soon after GA had been concluded. The year of publication and publisher of that Bloom book were simply my guesses, based on a quick web search. I do not have that book and so cannot confirm that the quote was accurate. The OP did revert that date twice, as part of larger reverts, but did not explicitly challenge it. But as you say, it’s gone now anyway. I thought the Bloom book would be a useful addition in any case. But I see that he already appears earlier in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's at least two editions; the earlier one is 1977--or 1976, I've seen both dates. Given how academic reprints are done it's likely the page numbers are the same; unfortunately my library doesn't have it or I would have checked. Thanks Martin, Drmies (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that the quote has gone, of course, I suspect that quoting any single page number is a bit misleading. I guess an entire chapter, if not the whole book, supports Bloom's argument that Stevens beats Auden? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

,, The sentence about Vendler and Bloom has some problems that aren't entirely easy to solve, and any help and advice would be welcome. First, there is no source (and never was a source in any earlier edit) for Vendler's views on the matter; she may very well hold the view attributed to her here, but I don't remember seeing it in print, and, unless I've forgotten something, she hasn't written at any length about Auden.

Next, Bloom does hold the view attributed to him here, but the (deleted) quoted passage doesn't express it, so the footnote as it stands is no longer relevant. I'm fairly certain I can find a source for Bloom's view that early Auden is better than later (it's likely to be in the New Republic review that I cited elsewhere on the page, but I would have to look it up again to make sure; and that view is almost certainly in the introduction to his 1980s collection of critical essays, which I can also check).

What I propose doing is remove Vendler's name unless someone can find a suitable source, and change the footnote reference to one that matches Bloom's view on early and later Auden. I would also merge the content of the new sentence more smoothly into the existing text.

I'm going on and on about this one sentence because the editor who originally added the longer passage about Vendler and Bloom has a history of getting into disputes that only get settled when an admin intervenes. That editor has now been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for disruptive editing, but there's always a chance that they will be back, and it would help to have consensus (perhaps including an opinion from an admin) on anything that contradicts that editor's edits. Also that editor got into two disputes with me, and I don't want to take any action that might be interpreted as action taken for personal reasons, rather than action taken as the product of clear consensus. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha--I'm sorry to say that I think this was bound to happen. (I assume we're talking about MusicAngels, and that they added the disputed language? I never checked to see who added it.) Well, I don't think you're going on and on--it's fine with me, it's important. This article is one of the most important poets in the English language and we need to get it right. Moreover, Vendler's opinion carries a ton of weight, and we should not ascribe anything to her that isn't rigorously verified, out of respect to her and to the BLP. I don't think you need an admin (or me as an admin) to justify changes: WP:V ought to be enough. Thank you all: I appreciate all the work you're doing to get this right. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, you guessed the identity of the editor who got all this started. It's not exactly a surprise... I won't have access to Bloom's anthology until tomorrow, and will also see if I can find anything relevant from Helen Vendler; she generally writes almost entirely in praise of the poets she writes about, so I tend to doubt anything is out there that supports the problematic edit, but it's worth looking for. Will get this sorted by tomorrow, and meanwhile, thank you for the good words! - Macspaunday (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Vendler is the kind of scholar who makes you want to read someone you dislike, though I have yet to follow her to Eliot. Brr. Do I have to? I suppose I do. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * After the ferocious bullying I got farther up on this same page from an editor we've been alluding to, the absolute last thing I'm going to do on Wikipedia is tell anyone that they "have to" do anything...!! But Eliot really is even greater than his reputation. By the way, I'm reading Robert Crawford's new biography of him right now - Crawford is a very fine poet in his own right - and it's quite wonderful to watch him showing Eliot's verse emerging from personal experience in a way that no one had shown before - exactly what a literary biography ought to do. (Just remembered that this is getting off the topic, but it is a "talk" page.) - Macspaunday (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoa, I didn't see the earlier comments. If I had known about this earlier I might have acted on it then; you may know that I acted administratively, so to speak, on some of the editor's contributions. The strikethrough was wholly inappropriate. I'm glad, though, that normal editing procedures (and some patience) prevailed--with thanks to SilkTork and Sadads. I need you to know, though, that is all prose: he is a closeted admirer of Thackeray, and I wouldn't trust him near real verse. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll pick this up at your talk page before someone complains that I'm getting completely off the topic...! - Macspaunday (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Macspaunday -- thank you for the alert. I was going to weigh in to say that as important as Vendler and Bloom are (both carry "a ton of weight" as User:Drmies rightly says), neither is an important Auden scholar. Neither has authored an important work on Auden. Neither come up on lists of important Auden scholars. I would consider Vendler a scholar of Shakespeare or George Herbert or Keats or Yeats or Heaney or Dickinson or Stevens but not Auden particularly, except in passing. Bloom has even less to say particularly about Auden. Neither of them ought to be given special treatment here, despite their weight.Poetic1920 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. the "editor in question" seemed to have an emotional attachment to Bloom. His trail of abuse included accusing those of us who aren't Bloom fans (and Bloom is demonstrably controversial) in violation of Wikipedia's policy on living persons or WP:BLP, which seemed to be utterly insane.  One can find Bloom's work tiresome and old fashioned without being in violation of policy, certainly. Poetic1920 (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You won't get any argument from me on anything you just said. As you say, Helen Vendler has (as far as I know) never written more than a brief allusion to Auden (and without any specific content, she probably doesn't belong on this page), and Harold Bloom (who can be magnificently illuminating on poets whom he admires) never said much about Auden except that he was too religious-minded and that Stevens was better. There's already a quotation from Bloom earlier in this section as an example of critics (like F. R. Leavis) who thought Auden was no good. Unless anyone objects, the whole sentence might best be deleted, finally clearing up a disruption by the editor we've been writing about. The basic point that many readers prefer the earlier poetry was most famously made by Larkin in the UK and Jarrell in the US, and they're both cited in the existing text. - Macspaunday (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)