Talk:American poetry

message: I wanted to feature this article on the main page, but the introduction is horrible - it has nothing to do with the article. Furthermore, it contains a MAJOR factual error -- the history of poetry in English begins with the establishment of the colony that was to become the United States of America.. Really? Shakespeare predates colonial America; ditto for John Donne. I'd be quite grateful is someone knowledgeable would rewrite the introduction. →Raul654 03:37, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
:Allow me to clarify - the introduction is a two sentence blurb that says American poetry began with the founding of America? So? It's obvious and really doesn't say a whole lot about American poetry. IMHO, there's really nothing there worth putting on the main page. Could someone please summarize the article - that's what the first paragraph should do. →Raul654 03:49, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
::The intro no longer says American poetry began with the founding of America. Also,  it is an explanatory intro to the article on the page, not the intro to the article. Maybe the test is that it it is deleted entirely, will it be missed.. Maybe not. CheersMoriori 03:57, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
:::"The intro no longer says American poetry " - I'll assume you meant to say "The intro no longer says english poetry", so yes, that's an improvement, but that doesn't really get to the heart of my objection. The first paragraph of any article should introduce the topic and summarize the article. Compare the introduction of this article to the introduction over at English poetry. While the English poetry  intro isn't the best I've ever seen, it's miles ahead of what we have here. As it is, I can't feature this article on the main page, because there's no summary to us there. →Raul654 04:04, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
::::I assume that when you posted that you hadn't actually read the amendment I was referring to. Moriori 07:14, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
:::::Yes, but now half the introduction ("Poetry was created by Native Americans ...United States of America") is completely irrelavant to the article. And I re-iterate my objection above - there's really nothing in this introduction that pertains to the article itself, and there's no way this can be featured on the main page. →Raul654 15:58, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
::::::I'm not so worried about main page feature as Wikipedia looking as if its competently produced and contains accurate and comprehensive information. The article is clearly not a comprehensive coverage of  poetry of the United States because it does not fulfil the heading Poetry of the United States.  Unless the heading is amended, the page has to explain that it is only for a certain period of American history. Why not change the page title to "United States poetry in the English language" and rewrite the intro? Cheers Moriori 22:33, May 8, 2004 (UTC) . Afterthought, if you want to see an article that needs attention, have a look at Israeli attack on USS Liberty.  It's a mess. I'd like to have a go at editing out the repetitions and unsubstantiated claims, but the POV pushers are too daunting. What a shame. A casual visitor to Wikipedia could be forgiven for happening on that article, seeing it for what it is, and then concluding that Wiki is not a reliable source of information. All the time on Wiki seems to be to and froing about three reverts, instead of ensuring the articles are actually worth inclusion. It's good to see you are trying to fix the poetry page.  Moriori 22:33, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
:::::::A "comprehensive" look at American poetry could probably fill several books. The content here is (IMHO) pretty good - all the stuff I would expect to see is here. I like the article in general, but the first paragraph isn't what it should be. →Raul654 04:00, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
I have tried to address this problem just now. Filiocht 09:05, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article introduction sucks!

message: See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates -- mav 03:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: FA status challenged

message: Poetry in the United States began with the creation of the United States, thereby making all poetry written within its bounds at the time fall under the same geopolitical distinction. -==SV 00:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A better (LOL) intro

message: What grants this article 'featured' status? By virtue of it being a nice back rub for America? It is vaguely written and wholly amusing (in a tragic way). There is too much of a lean towards American born articles on the front page. I'm sure i'm not the only person to have noticed this. --AeneasMacNeill 10:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A voting process is what grants Featured status. Check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates to see how the process works. You will find links to the FA criteria etc. there, too. If you think the FAC page rubs any backs, take it to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, it's not any too relevant on this page. You are cordially invited to join in the voting and be a part of the decision-making about Featured articles! Bishonen | Talk 12:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: hmm?

message: Glad to have this in here but it was added anonymously and without citing sources. The following two sentences, in particular, would seem to call for citation: "Concurrently, a Chicago construction worker named Marc Smith was growing bored with academic poetry readings. In 1984, at the Get Me High Lounge, Smith devised the format that has come to be known as slam poetry." -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
:While it is true that Marc Smith started the current poetry slam format and that part of the statement just needs a citation. It should also be stated that Marc Smith only modified a current poetry reading situation that existed in the Chicago area where two poets would stand in a boxing ring in boxing gloves and trunks on occasion a go 10 rounds or so (it varied) with each other reading. With a huge audience participation. Some of this information has been recounted on http://www.e-poets.net/library/slam/converge.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.215.193 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slam 

message: Is Adelaide Crapsey really a major enough figure to merit mention in this article? We're not trying to list every poet in U.S. history. - Jmabel | Talk 07:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Adelaide Crapsey]] 

message: This looks like a generic 19th or early 20th century magazine illustration based on no particular resemblance to Bradstreet. I suggest dropping it.--PhD 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the identified image source, that's supposed to be her. Of course, the source itself does raise some copyright questions. --Evb-wiki 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bradstreet" picture

message: As of the time on this post, every date in the World War II and after section has bee methodically checked (I even had to contact http://www.poets.org to have them correct stuff). All dates of birth and death (where applicable) are now correct in this section. Also, all of the Black Mountain poets' stuff is correct. Most of the other stuff has been checked. The only exception is the paragraph on the Small Press poets. I can't wait until it's not poetry stuff for the WP:FACT collab. Good luck. --Ali'i 16:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! A Musing (formerly Sam) 18:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FACT]] check 

message: Hello    You seemed to be informative about reverting drastic revisions back to the original article.   This unknown person called poetactionboy  seemed to taken upon himself to do drastic revisions with the article on Poetry of the United States.   I do my share of editing many articles but I don't how to revert unsourced revision back to where the article was before such drastic revision.  Can you give me any advice on this matter?  Thank you for your careful scrutiny on your other reversion. Pjt48 (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at the changes as a whole...  he moved and combined sections rather and did some minor grammar changes. Not being a specialist in poetry, American or otherwise, I recommend you take a good look at the changes as a whole and discuss it with him on the talk page of the article or his talk page the parts that you are having trouble with. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Pjt48. Thanks for the kind words. I'm not sure in what sense Robert Bly and James Dickey are "iconoclastic" or "minor mavericks." Bly is probably one of the most influential critics and translators of the last 30 years, and I didn't delete him, but rather re-incorporated him (prominently) into the already existing paragraph about Deep Image poetry. Bly's work on Iron John, while interesting, seems more relevant to self-help than to poetry. And I find it hard to imagine the author of a best-selling "Deliverance," and judge of the Yale Series of Younger Poets, as a maverick. Dickey belongs, I'd argue, in the first paragraph of the Post-War section, with Jarrell and the other soldier-poets of the 40's and 50's. As for Peters, this article was the first I'd ever heard of him -- which may just be a reflection of my own ignorance; he sounds like an interesting and worthwhile poet, and I'll certainly go explore his work. And I would argue that the Small Press poets by their very definition aren't yet prominent enough to warrant attention in an article meant to give the broadest possible outlines of 300+ years of US poetry. But, as I suggested in the article's talk page, the obvious solution is to create a series of sub-articles in which these and related movements might be discussed in proportion to their significance. Does that sound reasonable? Poetactionboy (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello Pjt48. Thanks for paying attention. I'm sorry if I've done injury to any of your hard work. Most of what I did was regrouping and cleanup -- I realize some of it's not yet sourced, but I'm looking for the right links. It did seem to me that some of the material on the page was poorly sourced or completely unsourced, and some of it seemed to fall outside general notability guidelines. Why not incorporate them into a separate page on alternative poetries (along with slam, online 'zines, etc.?) Poetactionboy (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  Hello Pjt48. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was meant to be an encyclopedia, a repository of common or collective knowledge -- which, however boring that might sound, simply reflects the broadest possible consensus. That consensus might, or might not, be academic (whatever that means), but it's undeniably traditional, in the sense that tradition is what is generally considered worth of carrying over. I don't imagine it, in short, as a sort of revisionary vehicle by which individuals might right the perceived wrongs of history, or make the canon more "inclusionary." BTW, I think the inclusion of Bukowski is perfectly sound -- he probably is, after all, one of the most widely-read poets of the last 30 years -- but then why not make the next logical step, & include Rod McKuen? (which I'd also be totally in favor of). In the end I don't think our personal opinions about who's major and who's minor are really that important. What I think this article needs is really a sensible distribution of emphasis. In the 300+ years that poetry has been written in the US, I think most of us would agree on the importance of Whitman and Dickinson, but even the reputation of poets like Eliot and Pound, once considered unassailable, is coming up for question. So, I'd argue that the article should focus on the interrelationship of general trends, rather than be a list of related individual or sui generis poets. I propose a solution: why not create a series of sub-articles (Modernism, Post-War, Contemporary) in which these issues can be expanded upon at greater length? Poetactionboy (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Poetry of the United States]] 

message: I don't know how to make a new Wiki page but should there be? Toodle007 (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be a Native American Poetry section?

message: :"The history of American poetry is not easy to know. Much of the American poetry published between 1910 and 1945 remains lost in the pages of small circulation political periodicals, particularly the ones on the far left, destroyed by librarians during the 1950s McCarthy era."
"Not easy to know"? That seems rather subjective. Much of the poetry published anywhere before the advent of the internet remains lost in the pages of periodicals with small circulations or little poetry collections few people bought, but so what? I think the idea that most American poetry c. 1910-1945 (why so specific? and why didn't they "get" anything past 1945?) was completely annihilated by McCarthyite librarians is rather ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.198.151 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American poetry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715140622/http://www.qunl.com/rees0008.html to http://www.qunl.com/rees0008.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American poetry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429081726/http://www.poets.org/poets/index.cfm/ to http://www.poets.org/poets/index.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It smacks bizarre that Bob Dylan's name appears zero times in such a lengthy article about American poetry. If I'm counting right, he is the only American poet to win the Nobel Literature Prize. Is this elitism or oversight? Lukacris (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Bob Dylan? 

message: An article of this length should have far more citations than it does. Perhaps the first five paragraphs and last five paragraphs of the article are cited well, but the entire section on "modernism and after" has exactly zero citations, and in other sections there are no citations for perhaps five or six paragraphs at a time. I'm going to put a 'needs additional sources for verification' template up, because, especially for an article of this importance, this needs to be fixed. Dinithi2 (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of citations 

message: As previous commenters have noted - why aren't less traditonal forms of poetry (e.g. rap and Bob Dylan) more represented in this article? Especially given the the latters status as one of very few American Nobel laurates within poetry. And in the last section "American poetry today" why is Amanda Gorman not mentioned? She is perhaps the only contemporary poet to have broken into mainstream attention. Which is a huge accomplishment - given the 2020 shitstorm. This seems, atleast to the untrained eye, classic wikipedia bias at work! i.e. glorifying academia and failing to include non-white perspectives.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KFML2000 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of perspective? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Tswolfestudent (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ENGL A120 Critical Thinking