Talk:Annabel Lee

message: -Please do not get rid of the external youtube line a good friend of mine made that video and I think it belongs here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.236.52 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, actually this article was quite helpful in understanding the poem. To truly comprehend a poem I believe we must know the background, I am very thankful that wikipedia has such an article.
I'm wondering if it's really necessary to have so much of the poem repeated in the article. In its current format the article just seems clunky, with half of the poem itself used as reference in the "Structure" section, and then the entire poem posted beneath that. I think much of the information used in "Structure" could be explained just as well with more original wording and use of quotations. Anyone else agree? intooblv 13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree whole-heartedly. This article is a pain to navigate. I can appreciate that people like to see the poem, but I think a link to Wikisource is just fine. Maybe quote a couple lines from each version to show the comparison, and with some good encyclopedic writing. Midnightdreary 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Poem Text 

message: there are two different versions for the last words of this poem and I don't know which one is correct :
"in her tomb by the side of the sea" or "in her tomb by the sounding sea"
:You are correct-there exist many different versions of this poem. Both of the versions that you mentioned are correct, as the article addresses. Joshualouie711 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different versions ? 

message: A major theme of the work are the obvious references to necrophilia near the end which need to be mentioned. - 24.82.19.65
: No, thanks. Those who think it's implied are happy to think so; those who understand poetic language needn't wade through over-literal giggling about taboos. - DavidWBrooks 12:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if your English teachers are notable sources. :) I have come across few academic writings that address this particularly theme. But remember not to read everything Poe writes as autobiographical, and consider looking into the true story of his life rather than assuming his "reputation" as being mentally unstable is true. :) --Midnightdreary 19:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes 

message: I made a massive edit to this page tonight. I hope it cleans it up and keeps the page useful. I maintained the great analysis that was on here before, but removed the text of the poem that was spliced into it. I also removed the original full text, merged the "see also" section into the "References in popular culture" section (which I also divided into subheaders and organized). I added "Publication history" and dicussion on the poem's "Inspiration" (with sources). I also plugged the Wikisource link right into the "Summary" section so it's readily available for people who come looking for that (based on prior comments on this talk page). Whew... I think it works well, but I'm a little biased. Thoughts are welcome!! Midnightdreary 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive overhaul 

message: The article was informative, but I believe more information based on the actual analysis of the poem should be added. Background information is always interesting but for one who is looking for a good analysis/interpretation of a poem such as this one, a page with more about the poem and less about the background would be great. 68.223.62.214 17:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, go for it. Find some sources and add away! -Midnightdreary 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Information 

message: It looks like an editor recently tried to tag this article for NPOV concerns (but messed up the tag). I didn't want to just revert because the editor may have a valid concern. If nothing else, it merits a good once-over to see if we're complying with NPOV standards. The article seems fine to me, but I'm hardly the final authority (and I am aware of a particular bias I have). Any thoughts? -Midnightdreary 04:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that nothing seems to violate POV in this article. That, along with the lack of explanation given by the editor who posted the tag seems to provide enough grounds to remove it. If the editor in question returns to dispute this, he can of course indicate his grievances here- Patrolmanno9 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good -- many thanks! -Midnightdreary 23:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: There's at least 1 musical setting. Shouldn't it be mentioned, perhaps in the influence section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.142 (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean there is a musical adaptation of "Annabel Lee" or a song that is vaguely inspired by "Annabel Lee" that has very little to do with the poem? Either way, I don't see how it's too relevant to the encyclopedic entry on this poem. If it were used, it would have to include a reference from a reliable source. Maybe I could direct you to Edgar Allan Poe and music instead? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are at least 2 settings of the words of this poem to music, by Leslie & Dilworth. Surely an article specifically about the poem ought to mention them. 11:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you have sources that say that the music is actually inspired by this very poem, feel free to add it in. I'm not familiar with it myself. See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR for policies on references. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Quick note: sure enough, the Dilworth version is already mentioned in Edgar Allan Poe and music. That article is supposed to be the sort of clearing house for this sort of thing. This particular article should really focus on analysis, poetic structure, etc. Musical adaptations seem sort of ancillary. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song 

message: An unregistered editor has consistently added a YouTube link to the "External links" portion of this article. The video in question is apparently homemade and in no way notable. I have removed it several times, as has a bot. We must use discretion when added external links, lest everyone who ever uploaded a reading of "Annabel Lee" have their YouTube link added as well. This is, ultimately, of no relevance to this article. If I wasn't trying to assume good faith, I might suggest the editor is violating conflict of interest because they are the person in the video. I see no other reason why this editor - whose IP has made no other edits to any other article on Wikipedia - would be so insistent on this link to a non-notable, low quality, homemade video of some generic human being reading this poem in no particular interesting or exciting way. Can someone weigh in on this? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we all have a say here - which is why I put this up for discussion, and did not remove the latest addition of the link. I didn't say that audio or video adaptations are never relevant. I'm saying that this particular video is not notable or special in any way ("I like it" is not a good response; you're always welcome to share it on Facebook or Twitter). There are thousands of adaptations of Poe's works. We do not need to feature all of them, especially amateur ones. Don't forget too that this is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of stuff related to a given topic. Seriously, I have this question: What's the big deal that you're pushing this so much? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: +1. I removed it ; as a VIDEO (homemade or not) it does not provide anything more than the already existing AUDIO link does. See WP:EL, please. And I am absolutely sure Midnightdreary -although I do not know him/her, that is- did remove the link in perfectly good faith. --210.159.191.239 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Answering this spliced comment by moving to the end... Actually, yes, there was a bunch of stuff wrong with adding this link. For one, admitting you put it here because you are friends with the creator is a conflict of interest. External links are not an indiscriminate collection of links. Finally, in general, we have to be discerning about YouTube links. I hope this helps. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a sort of  Edit notice to the page concerning that issue.--182.163.42.40 (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube video