This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the T. S. Eliot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was reviewed by The Guardian on October 24, 2005. Comments: It was rated 6/10. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 4, 2018. |
I reverted this edit which had the edit summary "Although he was born American, he was not American as he renounced his citizenship". My edit summary was "he was American until 1927 and certainly well-known as a poet by then". Why is this considered problematic? Happy to see a more neutral short description if one can be agreed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
As currently written, the first sentence to this article reads as follows:
Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965), "one of the twentieth century's major poets", was also an essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.
Now, I may be gravely mistaken, but I don't quite believe this makes complete grammatical sense. One cannot have an "also" without earlier having an object, right? As written, it's missing. Now, I'm more than willing to accept edits, but I'd like to propose that the sentence be changed to something like this:
Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965) was "one of the twentieth century's major poets", as well as an essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.
Really, the biggest issue, for me, is that the "also" be removed. (The quotation is in a strange spot, too, but that's not a major issue.)
As a courtesy, I'm tagging Epinoia, and anyone else who wants to join. Thoughts?
I don't see a problem with the sentence as it stands, he was a major poet and also an essayist, etc. - "as well as" is pretty much synonymous with "was also" and I don't see an advantage in changing it - I would prefer to leave the sentence as it stands - the reason the way the sentence was written was to avoid edit wars over nationality; American, British, American-born, etc. - perhaps the "was" is in the wrong place, it should be before the quotation:
Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965), was "one of the twentieth century's major poets", as well as an essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.
- cheers - Epinoia (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965) was "one of the twentieth century's major poets" as well as an essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.
@Martinevans123: - that quote is unsourced - I always thought it came from the Modern American Poetry site linked in ref [2], but I checked and it does not originate there, but I think it's obvious to say that Eliot was one of the twentieth century's major poets - perhaps change the first sentence of the lead to:
Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965) was a poet, essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.
and change the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead to:
One of the twentieth century's major poets, Eliot attracted widespread attention...
- I think his status should be mentioned in the lead, even if it is not in the first sentence - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The 1,100+ letters that Eliot wrote to his confidante Emily Hale, which were sealed for 50 years, have now been opened and are currently being scanned for publication. So you’re probably going to want to make some substantial changes to this article in the near future! - Hux (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Rather than a huge indent I'm putting this note here. Absolutely the article needs updating ASAP. Not just because of the Hale letters at Princeton but in larger part perhaps because of the public post (on the web) of a statement from Eliot about the letters. I'm putting useful links here but don't have the time (or editing expertise) to update the main article. 1. Statement from Houghton Library, Harvard, with the original note from Eliot: http://blogs.harvard.edu/houghton/the-love-of-a-ghost-for-a-ghost-t-s-eliot-on-his-letters-to-emily-hale/ 2. A more streamlined post from the TS Eliot Foundation: https://tseliot.com/foundation/statement-by-t-s-eliot-on-the-opening-of-the-emily-hale-letters-at-princeton/ 3. A news article (one of several) about the release last week. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-50975555 Happy Editing! gobears87 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
From Vivienne’s Wiki page: Carole Seymour-Jones writes that [Tom & Vivienne] first met in London in March 1914 at a party in a hotel. Seymour-Jones writes that he was first introduced to her at a lunch party in Magdalen College in or around March 1914.
From Vivienne’s Talk Page: According to most sources, it was March 1915, and they married three months later. (This was my own contribution).
From Eliot’s Wiki page: Eliot was awarded a scholarship to Merton College, Oxford, in 1914. He first visited Marburg, Germany, where he planned to take a summer programme, but when the First World War broke out he went to Oxford instead.
And…
Eliot wrote to Conrad Aiken on New Year's Eve 1914: "Oxford is very pretty, but I don't like to be dead.” Does this relate to 31/12/13 or 31/12/14?
Some consensus required, I think. Valetude (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)