Ezra Pound

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've lost perspective and it needs looking at before deciding whether to take to FAC. It's a long page, so huge thanks in advance to the person who does the review!

Thanks, Victoria (tk), SlimVirgin, Ceoil 23:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

I may or may not come back to do a fuller review (too busy this week), but I noticed some things:

  • I left during the the arb case and when I came back I promised myself to stay away from i-box discussions for at least 6 months. I'm not thick-skinned enough for it, and would like to stick to that rule. That said, I think this is an article that might eventually be worth discussing in a calm, civil, manner and I'd probably invite other editors who've not edited the article to participate. Next summer maybe? Or in a year or so? Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've shrunk them. Prefer to keep rather than changing quoted text and as your comment shows, they give a glimpse of the man. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made preliminary pass to weed these out – still needs a bit more, but thanks for mentioning. That's useful. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost certainly pre-1923, but the Beinecke file lacks a date. The image has been removed from the article at least once, but was published as a postcard and I believe this is one of the images we did have approved by a copyright expert some years ago. I need to find those discussions, but if memory serves, in the end we decided on the FUR. I might contact the Beinecke at some point in regards to a couple of other images (the modernists are difficult in terms of images) and will keep this in mind. Thanks for mentioning. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was published (i.e. not just a personal photograph), as a postcard even, I think ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) would apply if this was published outside the US, and ((PD-US-1923)) if in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks very like a free image, especially if it is generally agreed to date to before 1923. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it has an article now, so I've linked. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Insane asylum"? Thinking about what to put here … Victoria (tk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "Controversial friendships and release" for now. Still thinking about this. Victoria (tk) 21:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very useful comment – it's a new section and still finding its place. I've tweaked a little for the moment, but need to do a bit more work there I think. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical reception" now. Victoria (tk) 22:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've trimmed out the "External links" (and thanks for the reminder!). I think here, you're referring to the "Works" section? I wouldn't mind moving back to the bibliography page, keeping some "Selected works" on the bio page, but don't want to make a unilateral decisions without agreement. Awaiting opinion from SlimVirgin and Ceoil. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil trimmed out. Might take another go to trim down more. Still thinking about this. Victoria (tk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for these Curly Turkey – some good points here. Will be working through slowly. Victoria (tk) 17:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More turkey

Lead
  • Some are needed to cite the quotes. I'll sort out when the lead settles. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not really. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think that requires some clarification. Why would he remain dormant for the remainder of the decade? That's surprising, especially given how productive the Modernists were (or are perceived to have been) at the time. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, misunderstood. The sentence reads: "where throughout the 1930s and 1940s he embraced Benito Mussolini's fascism, expressed support for Adolf Hitler" > so, no, he didn't embrace facism fully yet in the 20s. The 20s was a somewhat dormant period for him; a time when he worked with Hemingway and Joyce in Paris, moved to Italy, wrote an opera, children were born and so on. But I understand what you're asking for now - we can slip in something about the 20s being a quieter decade than others. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Copy/paste error. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't checked the source, but if the sentence ends with the period, then I'd place the period inside. Will check. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, compare these examples:
      • Notable crank Curly Turkey wrote, "Pound's use of typography in his prose often makes him look like a 16-year-old stoner on Usenet who has just discovered the caps lock key."
      • Notable crank Curly Turkey wrote that Pound's frequent use of capitalization to emphasize words in his prose "makes him look like a 16-year-old stoner on Usenet who has just discovered the caps lock key".
In the second sentence the period "logically" belongs to the encompassing sentence. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about that particular quote, but just noting here that logical punctuation requires that we use the punctuation of the source, and aesthetic that we place periods and commas inside regardless. Also, "nevertheless" refers back to "His political views ensure that his work remains controversial ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"requires that we use the punctuation of the source": only in the sense that you don't alter it (e.g. replacing the period with a comma, if the sentence were to continue—in which case, obviously, the only place you would put the comma would be outside the quotes, and thus, also, the period). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MOSLQ: "This punctuation system does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside the quotation marks all the time but rather maintaining their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which I interpret as "don't move or replace the original punctuation", which having a period outside the quotes wouldn't do. What's happening in such a sentence is that you're slicing a juicing string from the original and transplanting it into a new sentence. The final period is not a part of that slice. Look at it this way:
  • The Turkey stated, "Pound's the shit, y'know?"
  • The Turkey stated that Pound was "the shit".
In the second case, quoting the original punctuation is obviously wrong. The period punctuations the enclosing sentence. Whether the original sentence was closed at that point or not is beside the point—whether the original sentence was finished or not is completely irrelevant. It would be silly instruction creep to say that the period must be outside the quotes in this case (as it must), but if the original were The Turkey stated, "Pound's the shit." that we'd then put the period inside the quote. It's not the original sentence's termination that is being quoted, and it is not the original sentence but the containing sentence that is being punctuated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked Tony1 to weigh in. He knows this stuff fairly well. Victoria (tk) 05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony1 decided not to answer the ping, and I'd posted but got caught in an edit conflict the other night that MOS:LQ also says: "When a quoted sentence fragment ends in a period, some judgment is required". So I've split the difference and pulled the punct outside of the quote marks for fragments, but invariably there will be inconsistencies imo. (And no need for my opinion re LQ here). If I know the sentence ends in a full stop because the book is sitting on my lap and I can see, I prefer to include the punct w/in the quote. Fwiw. Victoria (tk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony's got a message on his page that he doesn't normally take part in reviews that aren't at FAC. I've seen him fail to respond to similar requests before. I think he may assume people should have read his message and thus just ignores such requests. Let's just assume I'm right and everyone else is wrong and call it even. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that out - I did miss the message there. The rest works for me! Victoria (tk) 23:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll swing back by for changes to the lead later. I'm not a great lead writer. Victoria (tk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a few things to be sorted on the lead; haven't forgotten! Victoria (tk) 21:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life (1885–1908)
  • I'll have to try to pin this down, otherwise will remove. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tytell says "Lion" so I took guess and linked to English ship Lion (1557) but don't know much about ships and haven't a clue if this is right. The dates fit. Victoria (tk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Written in 1913 and revised 1918 - trying to track down a source I can view, and is for the moment commented out. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being obnoxious. Could be a candidate for the trimming shears. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or clarifying by adding something like "tried to annoy the professor by ..." That he would be so obnoxious I think would be good to include (gives us insight into his character).
  • Yes, and because it was cold, and parochial etc etc. Can spin it out a bit if unnecessary. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would like to get into the sources again because most of them mention the landladies who were scandalized. It's a minor detail, but thinking about it. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would expect the sources to name them, but an encyclopaedia article is meant to be comprehensive, not exhaustive. The names are trivial in the context. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more later ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London (1908–20)
  • I didn't write it, but doesn't the "but" function as a coordinating conjunction? Without it, there'd be a run-on. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's describes as a 72 page book in green wrappers. Yes, he had a 100 copies printed but the first 20 were trimmed out incorrectly by the printer and he sent them to his family, I believe. It's quite a rare book. I can swap out the source if needed. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If twenty of the hundred copies were given away, then obviously a hundred copies were not sold at six cents, were they? And I can't help feeling that the "72 pages" thing is trivial—it draws attention to itself, and makes the reader want to think there is some significance to the number. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to my dictionary if an adjective should be "excommunicate" Victoria (tk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might do. Not been changed since 2010, but one never knows. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, probably. Will check for sources because would want to turn it blue. Victoria (tk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, refs got messed up in that section. Will get it sorted. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As soon as it was published. Sorted now. Victoria (tk) 20:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed Yeats. I think two instances of Pound in a single sentence is too many, but will try to swing through to re-cast. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title of the class but later became an a book. Will work on this. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decided to follow your suggestion. Might add a bit more to it to spin it out. Victoria (tk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to get to this NYT article but it wants a subscription. Sorry. We can trim, if you think necessary. Victoria (tk) 21:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found more elsewhere and spun out the section a bit. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably added this when I wrote Murasaki Shikibu and was going through a waka stage. Will rework. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Broadened the link for now, but would like to watch this lecture to see whether Arrowsmith specifies. If so, I'll narrow down again. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Ukiyo-e per the source (Arrowsmith). Victoria (tk) 22:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, "ukiyo-e" vs "nishiki-e" is a quibble—most Western collectors were interested in the nishiki-e, and I don't see any evidence of Pound being the hardcore sort of collector who would've been interested in the less colourful examples. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrowsmith made an exhaustive search of the records there and has documented the prints they looked at. I've tried to find on the British museum website the one that he speculates may have been the inspiration for the "Metro" but it's not included in their digital images. In his lecture he's fairly clear that it's "ukiyo-e", and the less salacious, if that's what you're suggesting, as the shunga were kept locked up. Though one never knows. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yikes! I think you've read an awful lot more into the word "colourful" than I meant—nishiki-e were the full-colour ukiyo-e prints that became popular after the 1760s. There was a century of ukiyo-e before then, but they tended to be monochromatic, or made use of an extrmely limited palette (usually only one or two extra colours, if any). It was the nishiki-e that caught the eyes of Western collectors—Sharaku, Hokusai, Utamaro, Hiroshige. All I was saying was that "ukiyo-e" was correct, but so was "nishiki-e" (since nishiki-e are ukiyo-e).
      Can you share the details of the print you're looking for? Maybe I can help track it down. After all, they're prints, so they often appear in multiple collections (so it's not necessarily limited to the British Museum). Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks for the suggestion. I found it on g-images, [1]. The curator Laurence Binyon described it as an apparation, apparently. It's not one we have on Commons. Victoria (tk) 21:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has to be a crop—any print will have a prominent seal of the artist. Let me see if I can find a better image. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • How did you search for that image, by the way? If it was based on a description, here's a similar Harunobu. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrowsmith showed it in his lecture and I looked on Commons, then at the British Museum, and then simply searched g-images on Harunobo's name b/c I knew I'd recognize it. Thing is though, I'm not sure whether it's worth spending too much time on b/c it's speculation on Arrowsmith's part. Aldington did mention specific prints in letters and those have been matched to poems, but Arrowsmith says Pound was much "cagier" in that regard. I tried again to find it and can't find that particular link, but here's one from the Met, [2]. Victoria (tk) 23:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it's not a crop, but I find that hard to believe. Is there a hidden signature? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never mind, it looks like this print indeed has no signature on it. I can't find an explanation for it, but it looks like some prints went unsigned. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry I'm going on about it. I've been working on the ukiyo-e article, and have been uploading a lot of images. I was surprised such a prominent image wasn't on Commons, so I wanted to find a high-quality one to upload. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I used to have ukiyo-e on watch and was stunned when I looked at it - very nice job. It is a nice image and if you upload I would use in the "Metro" page. Victoria (tk) 23:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted - haven't fixed b/c there will be others with the number of contributors working the page. Would like to get them all in one go. Victoria (tk) 21:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I believe it's correct to say it was at that period, but maybe SV or Ceoil can chime in here. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be "true", but it will certainly leave a lot of readers' heads scratching as to what it means for a movement to be "ideas about language". In other words, the sentence isn't reader-friendly. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've spun this out a bit. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the pronoun - thinking about the rest. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would need a source for that. Looking. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arrowsmith lecture linked above is really quite excellent and explains well imo. The intent wasn't to copy forms but rather to meld eastern with western or vice versa. The poem is 18 syllables and I suspect probably intentionally so. If I find something to cite that, will slip it in. Unfortunately I can't view Arrowsmith's book, which I suspect would go more in-depth. Victoria (tk) 01:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like a bit got lost – will have to search. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, rather than strict translations he essentially re-wrote. The translations need work. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight tweak, but probably another candidate for the trimming shears. Victoria (tk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find this anymore - think it got fixed. Victoria (tk)
  • I hesitate (greatly) to put "Pound critic" or "literary critic" in front of all the critics because it becomes redundant. SV or Ceoil? Victoria (tk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I totally sympathize, but at the same time, this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has a reputation of quoting "reliable sources" with opinions from random people. How much confidence should the reader have that this isn't the quote of some pop star who happened to have read "In a Station in the Metro" in university, and made some pithy comment in passing in an interview in Rolling Stone? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael J. Alexander is linked two sentences up so we know he's not a random person we brought in off the street. That said, since this is a collaborative effort between three editors, we can change throughout if all agree. The sources are fairly exhaustive and quite reliable. If not, and if reliability is something I don't seem to understand, then I've been doing the wrong thing for too long and it's time for me to hang up my Wikipedia hat. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're misreading what I've said. The vast majority of readers will not know who Victoria is, or even that she has made any sort of contribution to this article. Further, there are plenty of very notable people with their own articles who talk about things far outside their field—I remember Johnny Rotten going on in his autobiography about how great Shakespeare was. Not an approriate source to quote, but very Wikipedia to see such a person quoted. More importantly, though, I think it's important to let the reader know why we are quoting a particular person, especially if they are not well known outside their field, and telling us who they are, I think, is a sufficient and appropriate way to do it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we're all editing at the same time we can discuss how to deal with this. Or Ceoil and SlimVirgin can chime in here. Btw - small request, I'd prefer if in your post above you change the name to match my username or simply to "Victoria". I didn't want to take the liberty to change it myself. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victoria, thanks for the ping. I can't see a problem with attributing the view to Alexander. His name is linked at the top of the same paragraph, unless I've misunderstood what's being discussed. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks SlimVirgin - I missed your post but I'm glad you posted. I realize I'm the one who must have misunderstood. I assumed it was Alexander's credentials that were being asked for, i.,e "Pound scholar Alexander". I hadn't realized it was as simple as whether or not to attribute. That's a simpler issue. CT, am I right about that? We're supposed to get snow again tomorrow so am hoping to address the issues not yet done. Victoria (tk) 02:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you were right the first time (credentials). We shouldn't assume readers will know who these people are, as little aesthetically pleasing as it may be. There's no attribution issue—it clearly states "Alexander writes". If Alexander is mentioned earlier, then it would be best to qualify him there. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not aesthetics but because on recent FACs the feedback has been to remove. That's why I'd like input from the others. But it's an easy fix. I'll be adding others (scholars) tomorrow, so I think it's best to do in a single edit from top to bottom. Victoria (tk) 03:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have sprinkled credentials throughout. May have missed some, but will pick them up on subsequent passes. Victoria (tk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed "meaningless" but want to get back into the sources for this so as to get it right. Victoria (tk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through a number of sources and have made a small tweak to the wording. Victoria (tk) 23:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break here. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley

Putting down a marker that I'll gladly review the article during the weekend. As it's a whopper I may need several nibbles at it. Back soonest. TTFN. Tim riley (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid another whopper! Thanks so much Tim, can't tell you how I appreciate people taking time to review. Victoria (tk) 00:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As always, my first pass is for typos only. I've amended a few, and Americanized a few British spellings in the main text (I hope I am right in assuming AmEnglish is correct for this subject). Will be back with comments on the prose shortly. Tim riley (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. Yes, I think we should use Am English – I never notice the discrepancies and need another eye for that. Thanks for the typo fixes too. Victoria (tk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin

Hi, not sure what to do at the moment, in case I restore things that were removed on purpose, so I've been taking a back seat. Re: alt text, there's no need for a long description, and in fact people with sight issues have complained about long alt text, so one word is enough just to stop the screen readers from repeating the caption apparently (when I last checked; things may have changed, I don't know).

Re: the lead, I would restore the bit about him helping his friends, because that really sums him up. (Hemingway wrote of him in 1925: "He defends [his friends] when they are attacked, he gets them into magazines and out of jail. ... He writes articles about them. He introduces them to wealthy women. He gets publishers to take their books. He sits up all night with them when they claim to be dying ... he advances them hospital expenses and dissuades them from suicide.")

Also, I would simply say: "He spent months in detention in a U.S. military camp in Pisa, including 25 days in a six-by-six-foot outdoor steel cage that he said triggered a mental breakdown, "when the raft broke and the waters went over me." I wouldn't add: "He described the experience as." These are just my preferences, though. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I remember about alt text too. I made a copy/paste error on the lead and somehow muddled the two versions, but fixed now I think. I've mentioned the EH quote on the talk. Victoria (tk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've just noticed that I fixed everyone's dashes with my last edit! [3] I must have clicked on the script by mistake. Apologies! :) SlimVirgin (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the least of our worries. :) Victoria (tk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. My removals were basically to do with narrative flow; given that Pound was such a complex character I found quotes in the lead (Hemmingway) lacking context and confusing to the central trust of the article. Also the endless publishing details; more suited to a sub-article or list of works of some sort. If the the removals can be better woven into the text, I have no objections. I'm being bold in other words, but aint proud; its for us here to decide. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I'm inclined to trust your editorial judgement, so please dont feel you might be stepping on toes or anything. Ceoil (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I'm worried about doing anything in case Victoria is pulled in several directions so I thought we could wait until the peer review is over, then discuss any final copy-editing (if wanted). Maybe we could talk about the lead at the final polishing stage? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I accept your points on the lead you mentioned on the talk. The only thing I was caucious about was the Hemmingway quote. But anyway, onwards ;) Ceoil (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Curly Turkey is finished, which I hope not because some good points have been uncovered <hint><hint>, I'll take a step back to collect my very fragmented thoughts after immersing myself a little too much in the Pound lit. over the last week or so. Victoria (tk) 18:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I think we need to regroup and talk things through outside of PR. Victoria you did really well here responding, and the article benifted significantly. Ceoil (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy closing down here and turning over to you and SV for now. I tend to work harder than I should anyway and the aftermath isn't always nice. A small break would do me some good and the two of you are the better writers for the copyedit, which I guess would the next logical step. Victoria (tk) 20:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Crisco

This is going to be over a period of several days. Hope you don't mind. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'll take all the comments about the lead from the PR and add to the discussion on the talk page. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it works with dashes. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, just jumping in here. Dashes would reduce it to: "Pound's first trip overseas came two years later when he was 13 ... who took him to England ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you're right. It's not an appositive so I've reverted. Let's leave it for the moment. Victoria (tk) 22:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When in doubt, do without"? Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, needs to be made consistent. Something will be fixed, either B.Phil, or MA. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about this. If he hadn't actually been standing at the scene of on attempted assassination he might not have felt the need to flee. Thinking about this. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See long conversation above with Curly Turkey. It's newish scholarship, speculation only with Arrowsmith admitting that Pound was "cagey" about his sources. I'm not completely convinced it should be there, but having worked on Hemingway, whose word is often taken with a grain of salt about his own work, it seemed interesting to add. I think if it's tantalizing here, better to move out and expand in ""In a Station of the Metro". Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the next few days I hope to rework some of the translation sections slightly based on newer scholarship to clarify. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not. Nice link though! Explains the title! I'll comment below about the paucity of daughter articles. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's mentioned again toward the bottom of the article when Pound visited NY before his death to see it exhibited. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice, tantalizing the reader. Will have to get there later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doubtful but maybe. Certainly to everyone else. This is well-known and in the all the bios and imo written as delicately as possible here. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add to Dorothy's article. They were estranged and she died in England. Don't know where she was buried though. Will have to find. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very engaging read, and I've chuckled in places. Don't worry about my nit-picks... you've already hooked me. More on the morrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, helpful remarks. Regarding the redlinks - there would be many! Curly Turkey picked up on a few as well. The Wind Among the Reeds is a redirect and it's been on my to-do list for years; all of Pound's major works should have separate pages imo and I'm inclined to keep the link to Cathay as it is until that's rectified. A number of pages were created during the last round of work on this page and hopefully more will be again. That's about all I can say. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't say it's a good idea at all to keep the link to Cathay, since it's obviously not the Cathay the text is referring to. There's a Cathay (disambiguation) page that has a link to ''[[Ernest Fenollosa|Cathay]]'', a book of poems by Ezra Pound—which is a horrible idea. I think this is problematic enough to warrant an emergency stub (would it be something like [[Cathay (poetry)]] or [[Cathay (Ezra Pound)]] ...? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see how much help I can give with what's on the internet. Should at least be able to get start-class articles out of a couple of these. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, nice! I might get to Cathay at the end of the work-week, but at the moment want to keep with the main page. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very stubby Cathay (poetry collection) created. If I've named the page wrong, we can move it. I have tons to add to this, but don't want to lose the thread on the main page yet. Victoria (tk) 01:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A useful stub. I'll let you focus on the main page and try to expand the Cathay article (later, after PR is over) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or not. Anyways, we now have a start-class article on William Brooke Smith. There is a Find-A-Grave entry that is quite enticing, here, but I cannot confirm in other sources that this is our Smith. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More from Crisco

  • Adding Mary de Rachelwiltz as a red link. She was a scholar in her own right and deserves her own page. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difficult situation and the reason comprehensiveness is important (also it's spun out a bit more in Dorothy's article). The child wasn't Pound's, didn't grow up with them, but had Pound's name (and I've changed the link to reflect that). Beyond what's in this article and Dorothy's, the quote about his letter to his parents, nothing else is written about this situation. It's a reason I decided to add biographies to the scholarship section. Omar only died recently, but perhaps when Moody finishes his volume about those years, it might be explained better. Or not – because they seem to have been extremely reticent. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did a "find" on Radio Rome and came up empty? Anyway, should be Rome Radio. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was from a wealthy Youngstown Ohio family and earned money in her own right. If anything else, the opposite. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer to this comment and the one above: I've recast somewhat. I don't know what happened to the family who raised Mary, but she went on the convent school and joined her mother in Venice, and stayed with Olga when she had to leave Venice. I see what you mean - seems odd that at 19 Mary didn't know that Ezra had another family, but he essentially kept two households, one with Dorothy and one with Olga, so until that point Mary hadn't been told. She might have suspected, but that's outside the sources and guesswork. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not totally - he really wanted the war to end. Anyway yes, he was serious. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried but came up with a very strange result because of the 6 x 6. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last few sections

  • I've trimmed out a bit, but imo these sections are necessary and, with a technician like Pound, hard to avoid to some extent. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that it's necessary. I was actually thinking of links. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunno, form = fugue. Anyway, tweaked. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will have to made consistent throughout - thanks for noticing. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, sources I've been looking at suggest that Gaudier-Brzeska was more of an influence on Pound than this article conveys. Worth including? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing anything about his sexuality in the biographies or literature, unlike Hemingway, where it is mentioned. I checked all the bios and Carpenter, never one to mince words, says Pound was "appalled" by some Audrey Beardsley pics Smith gave him. What Smith gave him for the first time in his life was a very avant-garde view of art - beyond that, dunno, but wouldn't want to add anything without being able to lean heavily on a source. I have streamed Gaudier-Brzeska back in - that got lost to the trimming shears! Again, though, Pound felt Gaudier-Brzeska was immensely talented and he was absolutely appalled and then devastated that a talent such as his was lost to trench warfare. It was a bloody war; many many lives lost and had an enormous effect. Gaudier-Brzeska was deeply in love with his female companion, some 15 years older, if I remember correctly, so again, would want a very strong source to lean on to add something like this. I could be wrong though and so invite others to comment. Thanks so much btw - these have been very valuable. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always a pleasure. If most mainstream scholarship does not discuss it (and, indeed, I only found the two, though that was more of a casual search than anything) then I agree Pound's sexuality does not need discussion here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category