Talk:New Formalism

message: Added to User:Averykrouse/Desk RJFJR 14:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup taskforce

message: What are your credentials, other than you have finished high school?
The pared down version tells us all we need to know and offends noone.
For now I suggest we leave it as is.Liteditor
:My credentials are that I am currently studying English and American Literature and Language at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and have been using Wikipedia since 2004 with a history of solid edits, including much work on POV and cleanup. I would seriously doubt that this page gets many page hits and it is therefore not necessary to blank it every single time while it is being disputed. If you feel that something is incorrect, please list the faults here and we will attempt to correct them. Otherwise, you are leaning toward the line of three revert rule and I do not wish to see you blocked. Please be civil and remember that Wikipedia is not the place to prove a point. Thank you. --Avery W. Krouse 20:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Credentials

message: Snicker
Quite frankly, oh nameless commenter, it was requested on my desk that I come help edit this page. I am a Cleanup Taskforce participant, not an edit war mediator. I will not get involved in this process if it is only going to cause conflict and strife. I am not an arbitrator nor a mediator, get one of those for yourself. I'm a copyeditor. --Avery W. Krouse 21:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impressive Credentials, Avery

message: I understand.  Well, I look foward to working with you. (Liteditor 23:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi

message: Hey, yeah, Avery took this article of his desk and it has now been passed onto me.  
I suppose that I'm expected to say why I should do this - well, I am in high school and 15 years old BUT I have been published and go annually to different university courses in Sydney for gifted high schoolers.  Im not bragging and I'm sure that other people could do this as well, if not better than me.  But I am willing to have a try and do my best. 
I'm going to try to improve this as much as possible.  So I would like to know what people here would like to see done to the article.  Will be jotting some stuff here for myself.Banana.girl 08:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Banana.girl ... I've been doing my best to expand this article, but I am a little worried that I may only be representing part of the movement: this worry comes from the fact that around the time Avery got involved there was a lot of seemingly heated reverting going on, particularly in respect to a list of prominent poets.  Before the article was semi-protected my edits were generally being reverted (by anons or brand new users) and labelled as either 'vandalism' (which they obviously weren't) or as 'pov' (which was certainly not intended).  — Stumps 08:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello 

message: If you can do any of these things, please do. If you can think of other things for the list, please add them. Thanks Banana.girl 13:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good ideas.  However, I think we need to be a bit cautious about having a simple list of New Formalist poets ... that is what seemed to cause all the trouble a few weeks ago.  I've been trying to simply mention people who have a verifiable historical role in the movement.  One approach I am trying is to create entries for specific anthologies, and we can list the poets there.  For example, see Rebel Angels: 25 Poets of the New Formalism.  Hope this helps — Stumps 13:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Having gone back and read the article, in the light of my comment above, I now feel a little uncomfortable about the list of poets who appeared in the first issue of The Formalist ... inclusion in that particular issue of that particular magazine probably doesn't make anyone 'historically significant'.  I'll try to get around to creating an entry for the magazine and moving the list of names there. — Stumps 13:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Things to be done

message: Today I have added a reference to the Robert Fitzgerald Prosody Award and the list of anthologies that were used in the 'Defining the Canon' seminar at the 2004 West Chester Conference.  That seminar also came up with a draft list of the Top Ten New Formalist Poems:
*'Sapphics Against Anger' by Timothy Steele
*'Welcome to Hiroshima' by Mary Jo Salter
*'The Ballad of Aunt Geneva' by Marilyn Nelson
*'First Poem for You' by Kim Addonizio
*'E.S.L.' by Charles Martin
*'Song of the Powers' by David Mason
*'Air View of an Industrial Scene' by Andrew Hudgins
*'Supernatural Love' by Gertrude Schnackenberg
Of course the very idea of such a list is a bit silly, and the process by which it was arrived at was quite possibly rather political and polite.  I wouldn't want to elevate the importance of this list by simply pasting it into the article, but I wonder if this is another way in which we can legitimately list some poets without expressing noticable POV??? — Stumps 17:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info 

message: This might be helpful ... suggested Reading for New Formalism from North Dakota State University:
*Bruce Bawer. Prophets and Professors. Story Line Press, 1995.
*Philip Dacey and David Jauss, eds. Strong measures: Contemporary American Poetry in Traditional Forms. Harper and Row, 1986.
*Ariel Dawson, “The Yuppie Poet.” AWP. Newsletter. May 1985.
*Tom Disch, The Castle of Indolence, Picador, 1995.
*Wayne Dodd, Toward the End of the Century. University of iowa Press, 1992.
*Frederick Feirstein, ed. (With Frederick Turner), Expanseive Poetry. Story Line Press, 1989.
*Annie Finch, ed., A Formal Feeling Comes:Poems in Form by contemporary Women. Story Line Press, 1989.
*_____. Beyond the New Formalism. Story Line Press, 1997.
*Dana Gioia, Can Poetry Matter? Graywolf Press, 1991.
*Paul Lake, “Toward a Liberal Poetics.” Threepenny Review. Winter 1988.
*_____. “Verse that Print Bred.” Sewanee Review. Fall 1992.
*David Lehman, ed., Estatic Occassions, Expedient Forms. Macmillan, 1987.
*Brad Leithauser, “Metrical Illiteracy.” New Criterion. January 1983.
*_____. “The Confinement of Free Verse.” New Criterion. May 1987.
*Keith Maillard, “The New Formalism and the Return of Prosody.” Antigonish Review. Winter 1995.
*James McCorkle, ed., Conversant Essays: Contemporary Poets on Poetry. Wayne State University Press, 1990.
*Jarman, Mark, and David Mason ed., Rebel Angels. Story Line Press, 1996.
*Robert McDowell, “The Poetry Anthology.” The Hudson Review. Winter 1990.
*Robert McDowell, ed., Poetry After Modernism. Story Line Press, 1990.
*Wade Newman, “An Interview with Frederick Turner.” Soutwest Review. Summer 1986.
*Wyatt Prunty, Fallen From the Symboled World: Precedents for the New Formalism. Oxford, 1990.
*Robert Richman, ed., The Direction of Poetry. Houghton Mifflin, 1988.
*Ira Sadoff, “Neo Formalism: A Dangerous Nostalgia.” American Poetry Review. January— February1990.
*Timothy Steele, Missing Mesures: Modern Poetry and the Revolt Against Meter. University of Arkansas Press, 1990.
*Frederick Turner, Natural Classicism. Paragon House, 1985.
*Diane Wakoski, “The New Conservatism in American Poetry.” American Book Review. May— June1986.
*David Wojahn, “’Yes, But . . .’: Some Thoughts on the New Formalism.” Crazyhorse. Spring 1987.
... — Stumps 10:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Reading 

message: Great work stumps!  I am currently doing some research into the topic.  This weekend(as in now!) I only have to write a 500 word rationale so I am free to do work on this article all weekend! Thanks for your great work!!!Banana.girl 11:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow - Great Work!!

message: I have recently expanded the article considerably, and have attempted to express a neutral point of view, and only document verifiable facts with references.  Of course, I may well have omitted information that I am unaware of, which may give the article an unintended bias.  I am interested to know if anyone currently thinks the article is biased.  If so, let's try to make it balanced; if not, let's remove the pov tag. — Stumps 15:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. Stumps 06:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is POV still disputed? 

message: I'm going to try to get some sections into this.  When looking at it - it just looks like a whole heap to read.  Banana.girl 22:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree.  I've had a go. — Stumps 06:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: Perhaps we could create a list of New formalish poets and poems in a new page.  it could hardly be classed as pov then? could it?
Banana.girl 07:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a promising idea ... I'm not sure whether to simply do a 'poets and poems of ..' page, or to hang it on the hook of the (fairly academic) discussion of 'canon formation' whjich I believe is a recurring theme at the West Chester Conference.  I'm trying to get a little more historical information from the Conference administration at the moment.  I'll also try to have a look around Wikipedia for any parallels. — Stumps 07:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of poets 

message: I've for the time being reverted the following additions, added by an anonymous user ... on the basis that I suspect they violate NVOP, pushing exclusively Lewis Turco's place in history ... the text of the additions was as follows: "The first book to be published in the movement was Lewis Turco's T'he Book of Forms, A Handbook of Poetics (E. P. Dutton) in 1968. It went into a second edition, The New Book of Forms (University Press of New England), in 1986 and The Book of Forms, Third Edition (UPNE) appeared in 2000. ... A formalist college textbook, also by Turco, Poetry: An Introduction through Writing (Reston) appeared in 1973 ...  Beginning in 1983 and continuing through 1986 Lewis Turco began to mention the new movement "Neo-Formalism" in his annual poetry roundups, 'The Year in Poetry' in The Dictionary of Literary Biography Yearbooks (Gale Research)". Stumps (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As material was reinstated by user Lewis Turco I have now had a first attempt at reworking the text a little to fit into the flow of the paragraphs, and have moved some of the more peripheral material into footnotes.  Not sure if I've got the balance right yet. Stumps (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provisional reversion of Turco material 

message: I have put the entry back as some one said it is not about formalism but the entry  is about formalism in that formalism is about metre and so any thing not written in metre is not poetry-by the standard definition of poetry.
the entry reads
POETRY-OR-PROSE-POETRY-IN-DECLINE-THE-RISE-OF-PROSE-OR-THE-END-OF-POETRY
"A critique which shows that according to the standard definition of poetry ie in metre free verse is not poetry and those who write it ie Walt Whitman , T S Eliot etc are not poets. Thus most modernist poetry is not really poetry at all but only prose"
:I reverted your edit before seeing this comment here. Please use edit summaries when editing so this could be avoided in the future. As for the content of the edit, this wikipedia article is about the New Formalism movement, not a debate about whether formalism (or rather, non-formalism/free verse) in general is valid poetry or not. Besides being badly written and using an inline external links instead of reference (see WP:ELPOINTS), it is just not needed. Putting that in here just seems to be soapboxing. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Free verse is not poetry and those who write it are not poets

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on New Formalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060721070940/http://www4.ncsu.edu:80/~alfrench/Writing/DISSERTATION.pdf to http://www4.ncsu.edu/~alfrench/Writing/DISSERTATION.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I rolled the article back to the last version before K1ngstowngalway1's (and also K1ngstowngalway's) edits, as, to be frank, I don't think their edits have improved the article. 
:*Older Version that I have rolled back to
:*Version with K1ngstowngalway1 edits and large amount of quoiting and Original research
Please discuss. Pinging . --- Possibly (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Rolled back to prior version

message: I have seen some users argue about the paragraphs citing Goia or citing things about Goia. I think those should be kept, as Goia is an important player in New Formalism. 𝕋𝕙𝕖ℙ𝕝𝕒𝕟𝕖𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕒𝕟 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Goia