Talk:Poetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poetry is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 27, 2004.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 15, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
March 3, 2005	Featured article review	Kept
November 16, 2005	Featured article review	Demoted
July 4, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
March 24, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects
Click on [show] for further details

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

	This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
FA	Poetry has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Langlit article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is related to the WikiProject Poetry. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. Visit the Poetry Portal.
	Current activities:	Shakespeare's Sonnets - Blake's Mythology - Jacopone da Todi - List of years in poetry
	Poetry stubs:	Finnish poetry - Golden Age of Russian Poetry - Italian poetry Edit

[edit] Achives

Archive through Jan. 12, 2005

[edit] Is MacLeish's poem really ironic?

MacLeish's Ars Poetica, cited in the article, is described as being "ironic." However, I read it as a straightforward imagist poetic credo from a practitioner of modernist verse.

The definition section on this article is much improved from when it was a miscellaneous grab bag of quotes from various poets. I think it might actually be closer to a NPOV definition than the Britannica's. Evan Donovan 04:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I just read the poem through a few times, and, well, yes, I find it ironic to write that a poem should be wordless, or to say (assuming we still read poetry out loud) a poem should be mute; and the general tone strikes me as ironic ... Of course, the problem is, when this kind of point is raised, we're supposed to find some authority on it and not just do our own reading. A quick google of ars poetica and irony or ironic mainly shows up with a bunch of term papers making a similar point - nothing worth relying on. Hmmm. May have to think of a good MacLeish scholar to peruse. Interesting point. I do see your point. Sam 04:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, too. The claims of the poem are obviously not to be taken literally, but if they're ironic, they're ironic in the same sense that Auden's statement "Poetry makes nothing happen" is. Both are making a serious point, using paradoxical language. Perhaps "paradoxical" would be the best word. The general tone of MacLeish's poem reminds me of what Douglas Hofstadter says of Zen in Godel, Escher, Bach: the goal is to "break the mind of logic" by making statements that, on the surface, seem incomprehensible. Evan Donovan 18:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Barring input from other parties, paradoxical it is. Good change! Sam 19:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external links

what is * CUE: A Journal of Prose Poetry, it seems to be adding no useful resources to this page?

I'll delete it. Sam 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link removed.

Hi, I'm the publisher of MUGround poetry magazine, which has been in operation since the late 90s. I recently added a link and it was removed. Any reason? Anything I can do to get the link to stick? Thanks, kpaul

MUGround doesn't (to me at least, and I wasn't the one who removed the link) seem to sufficiently noteworthy to get on a list of about 6 poetry "organizations and publications" .. but then I also have my doubts about including American Poetry Review, Contemporary Poetry Review, and Miami Poetry Review. It is not unreasonable for wikipedia to provide some sort of "writers' resources" information somewhere. I do not know if this exists yet but such a place might be more appropriate. Of course wikipedia isn't an appropriate place for advertising or "link-spam", and adding information about oneself and one's own noteworthiness will often end in the changes being reverted, by other more 'objective' editors. — Stumps 17:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, and I see what you're saying. The sites I saw were more 'traditional' though and didn't represent some of the great, small poetry communities on the web. Maybe another section for 'independent/online poetry journals or communities'? Also, if I collected what I think to be the best three or four of these sources in addition to mine, would that help some? There's a whole other world of poetry out there that isn't represented here... Thanks again.

I could see adding something like this where there was a rationale behind selection and some level of policing to avoid it getting out of hand - I've identified some criterion I'd use for links on this site. See if you think they work, and if there is a case for these. Though, like stumps said, it may make more sense to have a separate wiki page devoted to a topic that could cover these kinds of organizations. Sam 14:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipoetry

An idea for a collective poetry writing wiki.

At the moment in the sandbox poetry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Poetry – it says – ‘do not edit other people’s poems’. This seems out of the spirit of Wikipedia. Surely there are on the Web, or can be created on Wikipedia an area for merely mere to display their poems. However, in keeping with the wiki-mentally a collective-poem writing exercise seems the way to go.

How would this work?

As with other pages, you put your content on the page, and other people can add, edit, copy, reorganize etc. History can be kept – poems can split in two like a forked path – and join together like tributaries to a great river.

There could be a place to put ‘ideas’ probably in prose for poems. You could start a poem and ask others to complete it. It could be subdivided into narrative, didactic, humourous, epic, ‘hip-hop’ etc. poetry. And themes: death, Renaissance, Internet, nature, revolution!

What precedents?

If I understand it well, ancient poetry was made in a similar collaborative effort. There was not one version of a poem, but the poems were turned by different tongues and progressively modified – whilst retaining the same central story. This I believe is how much early Homeric poetry was created, the difference being we will be using our keyboards.

What other projects?

It could be envisaged that this format if successful could be used for other story-telling formats in prose.

London boy (london.booy@yahoo.co.uk)

Comments:

Collaborative translation of poetry and other classics is something that has been kicking around a while with little interest generated ... see [1] and [2]. The idea of a collaborative poetry platform is quite interesting ... I imagine that the very idea of collaboration would work to exclude a large number of would-be-poets, but it is hard to guess what sort of result there might be ... I am reminded of the Yellow River Concerto, which is often attributed to the Yellow River Composers' Committee. — Stumps 16:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Renga! Sam 18:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions of poetry

The quotes from Frost and Sandberg, without explanation, are not particularly helpful. They seem more suitable for wikiquote. I'll put this page on my list to work on. Evan Donovan 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate Links

I regularly remove external links on this page that point to sites that display copyright protected poetry under the guise of being "user created". I also regularly remove external links on this page that point to an individual poets home page. Am I interpreting the External links style guide correctly in doing so? (i.e. point 5 under "Occasionally acceptable links" and presumably 3 and 9 under "Links to normally avoid"). --Bhabing 15:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Added to the list of external links on this page that I am removing (unless someone out there corrects my interpretation) are blogs and message boards (violating #10 on External links); links that are aimed at a single sub-types of poetry as they should go on pages dedicated to those genres, nationalities, or ethnic-groups; sites featuring poetry as just one genre among many; and finally, I am viewing liks with blatantly misleading titles (general when the site is specific) as attempting to sell the site, and therefore also against the guidelines. --Bhabing 18:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add Smithsonian "The Music in Poetry" link?

Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. Our most recent issue is titled "The Music in Poetry." The lesson plans introduce students to the rhythms of poetry--to the idea that poetry has a rhythm--by focusing on two poetic forms that originated as forms of song: the ballad stanza, found throughout British and American literature, and the blues stanzas of Langston Hughes. An online version of the issue is available for free download at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/music_in_poetry/index.html

Accessible from this page is a free audio site that Smithsonian Folkway Recordings set up to accompany the issue. Students can listen to musical ballads and blues and compare them to the poem.

If you think that visitors would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include a link to our site. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention.

It looks useful; I think you should add it. :-) Ruakh 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I outlined some criteria below that I'd apply, and I think this makes it. The site is clearly notable and credible, it has information not available elsewhere on wiki, it is non-commercial; my only concern is whether it is indeed general or whether it belongs on another page relating to poetry. But I'd like to see it somewhere. Sam 14:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external link

Do you think that Poetry Talk would be worthy of putting in the external links section?

I'd like to see Ergo Poetry in the list. Unlike some of the others listed, there are no ads on the site! Thanks.

First, thanks for asking. I would be opposed to adding each of the above. I did not find on either an "about" tab that stated clearly who was running the site and what each site's purpose is, and believe it is impossible to determine the notability or credibility of the site without knowing who is running it and why. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to discuss here. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~) so we know who is leaving the note. Thanks, Sam 14:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I'll work on getting an about page up, although I notice most of the smaller poetry e-pubs are gone? Granted it isn't notable yet, but we're working on it. Thanks. Kpaul.mallasch 15:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Criteria

I hate cleaning links off here, but it's got to be done or we'd have more links than text. I think we should identify criteria for listing links here, so it's clear what gets deleted and what gets discussed. Some ideas: (1) links should be general, since this is the Poetry page, and links relating to, for example, Latin American poetry or British poetry should be on a page devoted to Latin American Poetry or British poetry; (2) links should be to sites that are non-commercial; (3) linked sites should be notable, (4) linked sites should be credible; (5) linked sites should add resources, insight, perspective or detail not available on wikipedia (e.g., original research, copyright material, etc.); and (6)where a link inside wiki is possible (e.g., Poetry Magazine), we should switch from a link off wiki to a link on wiki. In figuring out whether something is notable, credible, non-commercial, etc., we should be looking to clear statements of ownership, policy, and affiliation on the sites themselves at an absolute minimum. Sam 14:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring: Summary Style

I starting restructuring this article to reflect summary style, so that some of the other very good poetry related pages are brought together here. I think "form" and "history" each need a lot of work, and am working on some ideas in my own sandbox. Feel free to contribute ideas there as well as here; I'll incorporate some of that material with the material that's already here as its ready for prime time (or as I need to fill in a newly created heading like "stanza"). Sam 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandburg quote (again)

I see someone in the archived talk page raised the same issue, but there was no reply. The Sandburg quote in the intro doesn't really seem to be up to the standard of the rest of the article. Is there a particular reason for including it? It just seems a bit silly ... at least in isolation. Stumps 15:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It and the Frost quote should both be moved or deleted: neither is a real definition, though the Sandburg quote is phrased as one. (Incidentally, this was also mentioned on this page; see #Definitions of poetry, above.) Ruakh 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and unless someone raises an objection soon, I'm just gonna change them when I have a chance (unless, of course, anyone wants to beat me to the punch). Sam

The deed is done. I moved the entire paragraph to the "Nature of Poetry" and pulled out Sandburg's line (it's better read with the whole poem anyway); that Nature of Poetry section still needs work. Sam 19:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] - "written"

I removed the term "written" from the lead sentence. I thought it too restrictive in either sense. Poetry is not always in writing, and exists in cultures without writing: oral poetry exists. Nor is it necessarily composed in advance; it is possible to improvise poetry. Smerdis of Tlön 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Sam 19:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping a lower profile

JA: Level 1 headers are not supposed to be used interior to articles. Right now there's a 1 without a 2 in the rhyme scheme section, so the outline depth can be decreased there. Jon Awbrey 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nature of Poetry - Help! Featured Article Time?

I've done some work on the Nature of Poetry, but it remains the weakest section in my opinion. Can anyone add some discussion of non-Western aesthetic traditions here? Are there other pages, like the Aristotle's poetics pages or the Ars Poetica page, that should be referenced in this section?

I'm thinking that once the Nature of Poetry section sees some improvement, it would be good to submit this article for featured article status - are there a couple of people who will commit to helping follow up on the suggestions that result from the FA process? I'll help. Sam 13:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam and external links

I note this article has seen yet another influx of linkspam, with the current spammer not only adding his own but deleting others (such as the link to Poetry magazine). It strikes me that it's about time to clean house on the external links and limit them to the truly useful. I do find Poetry magazine useful, and think the Paris Review would also be useful. Bartleby, the Library of Congress, Project Guttenberg, and most of the major journals strike me as useful. While the "Bob's Byways" link has a pretty good collection of definitions, I think they are all in Wikipedia at this point and it's time for that to go. Are there others people want to keep or get rid of? I've leave the discussion alive here for a while, and then start cutting unless there is consensus otherwise. Sam 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] writing it

Scince I have learned about poetry, and even more how to write it, I don't even need to journal anymore it is a great way to convay (sp?) your feelings into a beautful (sp?) way.Tennislachica 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry and wit

Why doesn't this article say anything about the close relationship between poetry and humor?--BMF81 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because there isn't one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KenFehling (talk • contribs) 04:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Alliterisen

I edited out a description of a minor form developed by one poet from the summary of forms - the inserted material made up the entire article on the form. I think we should also eliminate Acrostic - the description is not terribly interesting, and there is already mention of acrostics in the visual presentation discussion.

Sam 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Zart

... Ridiculous. Discuss? Greenagain 05:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pure spam. Sam 13:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

A lot of good work has gone into tightening up the language and clarifying and focusing the language. I've restored one paragraph I thought was important, with some changes to clarify it, and changed the form of the lead back to the default, which I think looks better. Also, a section on fables was added to the discussion of forms recently, and I don't think it belongs there (fables are not forms of themselves, but are a genre cast in various forms), but do think we should preserve the thoughts somewhere. Any ideas as to where it would fit right? Sam 14:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genres

The idea of a subsection on Genres for the fables discussion is great - I don't want to interrupt the editing, so I'll just kick in a few ideas here and come back sometime to work on them. I think it would be best if this were like the "forms" discussion, examples of different genres rather than an attempt to exhaustively list them. We need a general discussion of what a "genre" is. Some of the one's I think of worth potentially worth expounding on include Epic poetry, Hymns/Psalms, and Verse drama; our selection should bring out examples that are important in every major literary culture. It may be worth a quick review of the different pages devoted to poetry of various cultures to see what gets emphasized. We may also want to look back at the rest of the article and think about how to weave in some thoughts about genre in the broader discussion. As always, we'll need to come up with some cites - I'll come up with a few of those. Nice work. Sam 18:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protect from vandalism?

The "Poetry" article continually attracts vandals, wasting much time to revert grafitti. Is it perhaps time to start protecting this article by blocking editing by unregistered users, or by some other means? logologist|Talk 21:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I first came on this page looking for what wikipedians had come up with for a sensible definition of "poetry" and found the page vandalized. The frequency with which this page attracts vandals seems unusual to me, I support requesting semi-protection. Massimamanno 01:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected. logologist|Talk 21:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HAIKU

Requesting link to haiku page. Haikus are a form of poetry

"Haiku" is available through "Poetry terminology," listed under the "Poetry" article's "See also." logologist|Talk 04:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/e/Talk%7EPoetry_2b20.html"