Talk:E. E. Cummings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the E. E. Cummings article.
Article policies
Good article E. E. Cummings was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia CD Selection E. E. Cummings is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!

Contents

[edit] English (use of)

As stated below, forms with "ize" are not American; they are just good English, which has been preserved more faithfully in the USA (and Canada?) than in its country of origin. It is perhaps even regrettable that we allowed the superfluous "u" into such words as "colour" ("color") this side of the Atlantic. I doubt I'll find much support for this view, but I would have preferred to see "Cummings's -----" rather than "Cummings' -----". My understanding, since leaving primary school, where bad English is instilled in most British children, has been that "s' -----" is used for plurals, e.g. "the bishops' statement on heresy". I've also seen special cases argued (by different two people) for "Jesus' -----" or "Moses' -----" (not both) as the sole exception. I disagree on that point. I always write "Jesus's". I can't remember the last time I wrote anything about Moses. Still, I doubt if many people agree with me, but I happen to think that "Cummings's (something)" would be better.--AlexanderLondon 11:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mini-anthology

I'm thinking of creating several pages for some of Cummings's most well-known works and linking to them, probably through a new "selected poems" section. However, this would be the first time I've done this particular type of page creation (individual works by the same author), and I'd prefer to get it right. I thought about expanding the article in wikiquote, and just letting our current wikiquote link serve the same purpose, but it seems to me that wikiquote is more oriented toward the most famous snippets rather than full poems with over a half-dozen lines. Wikisource has a lot of collections by poets, but I think they might need to be totally in the public domain by virtue of being dead 100 years, and Cummings only died in 1962. Any thoughts would be appreciated Draeco 15:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe that most works published before 1922 are in the public domain, but I could be mistaken...
All works published in the U.S. prior to 1923 are in the public domain. See this handy chart by Laura Gasaway, law librarian at the U. of North Carolina. Thanks to the Sonny Bono act, unless the copyright holder failed to renew (under the previous law), no work published in the U.S. since 1923 will enter the public domain until 2019 (until the author specifically puts it there). — OtherDave 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SOMEBODY PLEASE FIX THE ITALICS AND LINEBREAK

i didn't realize my browser was mucking up the wiki formatting that i attempted with the poetic excerpts i recently added to the wiki. will someone please fix them? (italicization, and line breaks). I'm sorry for the temporary mess.

Anyway, I've also contributed (what i think are) are a few important comments about the poetic or artistic continuity that ee took part in, and his influences (mainly stein). 128.119.233.79 05:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] his actual artistry, racism

ee cummings's most significant accomplishments seems to always get overshadowed by his "typography" and "punctuation." so i've added in a few sentences about his idiosyncratic syntax, along with what i think are two perfect examples. anyone who's familiar with the bulk of his work over the course of his life knows that the unique grammatical aspects are more omnipresent than the poems of wild typography and punctuation. "grasshopper" gets the limelight though, oh well.

(i also mentioned blues forms and acrostics: you can verify it by looking up "i'm very fond of blackbean soup", and... he wrote at least one acrostic for one of his wives or lovers, i just forget which.)

also i'm pretty sure he'd get a kick out of the wikisteward who went (is going?) on the campaign to constantly revert the wiki back to Cummings's "PROPER i.e. BRITISH" english. which is laughable. dear person: you're obviously unfamiliar with ee's views on SNOBS and prudes.

about racism: it's discouraging that a lot of seemingly heroic people are pathetic racists. but, it's hard to say that just because a particular poem characterizes a (hackneyed) racist view, the poet himself is a racist. it's hard to tell what his intentions were, especially considering his usual outspoken opposition to warfare, butchery, groupthink, and other social diseases, which might give him the benefit of the doubt, but i don't know. i'm inclined to think that "they sO alive" is a lampooning of a stereotypical/xenophiliac social view. i'm more confused about the "anti-semitic" poem. 128.119.232.167 06:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

E.E. Cummings or e.e. cummings? Danny

e. e. cummings would be correct in this case, but that won't stop the system from changing it to "E. e. cummings". I don't think there's any way to force a lower case character in the initial position. Eclecticology 10:26 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)
Bummer ... :-) Danny
This link to Not e.e. cummings goes to a veritable talk page of Cummings scholars on the topic of his name. Virtually all of them favor the conventionally capitalized name, as does the scholarly E.E. Cummings Society, which actively pursues malefactors, and Cummings' widow. The page is most entertaining, as it seems that people will cling to the "e.e. cummings" spelling. And, after you've digested that, check out the followup link, More not e.e. cummings which includes an amusing 5th-wave cartoon on the issue. Ortolan88 13:10 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)

On the topic of his accused "racism" or alleged "anti-semitism", this couldn't be farther than the truth. Cummings adored humanity & it is a shame that some of those who read his poems that are rich with dialect can't see the irony & mockery of it all. Not to mention everything he published was before the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, words like "nigger" & "jew", which Mr. Cumming does indeed utilize, were not as politically incorrect as they are today. They were still frowned upon, but his usage of offensive words does not make him a bigot, ESPECIALLY when he utilizes such words in purposeful Southern dialects. Nathan 19:21 Jun 19, 2007.

[edit] e. e. cummings vs. E.E. Cummings

While this topic was discussed, no consensus was made. The previous comment notes that te lowercase was only a cover idea and was never intended to remain that way forever, but in the article it states that the lowercase is the "proper" way to spell it. Either way, I would just like a decision so that either "proper" can be removed, or given the wrongtitle template and the article added to the Wikipedia:List of pages whose correct title is not allowed by MediaWiki page.

Abracadabra. "Proper" is gone, replaced by "traditional affectation". There's nothing "wrong" about the title "E. E. Cummings". - Nunh-huh 05:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In nearly every E.E. Cummings book currently in print it states that it was Mr. Cummings's publishers who changed his name to all lowercase; it also states audibly in the 'Poetry Speaks' series that Mr. Cummings "disliked this contrivance on the part of his publisher". We should stay accurate to what the poet himself wanted, not what his fans & exploitative publishers prefer. Nathan 19:23 Jun 19, 2007

I have to agree with Nathan. The publisher can change his name as much as they want to, but that doesn't change the man's name. If you want to write an article on e.e. cummings, you should spell his name the way they found it proper. Many other famous people in history have changed their names and in most biographical articles they are referred to as their chosen name, not their birth name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.98.113 (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation again

Aren't we going to stick with whatever the person used themselves in cases of contention? That would be E. E. Cummings. I'm going to be very bold and move the page, but I'll keep an eye on this page in case someone wants to discuss this further. --fvw* 17:58, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

I've fixed the redirects to this page. Many of them were still pointing to to old location, resulting in quite a few double and triple rediects. It's cleaned up now, but What links here should be watched, as many editors will be inclined to lower case this name. Jonathunder 20:30, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
Oops, thanks! I'll keep an eye on it. It should only create single-redirects though, so it wouldn't be a huge problem. --fvw* 23:26, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

This page seems to move back to e. e. almost of its own accord. I'm sure that it's been moved to E. E. several times in the past. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:11, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

OK, Here's the problem as I see it. I was taught (in a modern poetry class) that for whatever reason (either a stylistic decision by a publisher or an error) at one time his name was written in lowercase and it stuck. Obviously I have seem many books using that form, some published while he was alive and he clearly did not object.

So I happen along this page, and it simply states that it what I learned is wrong. This is unsatisfying since it opens more questions and provides no clarification, and no real resolution. I have to come to the talk page to find out information that is as central to the biography as the mans name!!!

I would never change or move this article since I do not have definitive information, but all you people that care enough about the man to edit -- well, you should research this and put it in the page or the page is kind of useless. In other words STOP FIGHTING. STOP PONTIFICATING. START RESEARCHING. Makes me want to subscribe to encarta. jcp 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism/Anti-Semitism

I had never heard those before, and the offsite refference only says, "His later, more conservative poetry came under attack for anti-semitism, a charge that is still debated," with no refference to racism at all. Now I am not an expert on his oevre, but I (a Jew) have not read anything that seems anti-Semitic, and don't really think, short of a specific example (because this alledgedly comes from his work and not his demeanor or anything like that), that the criticism of anti-Semitism should be in there. Jacib 03:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll get on it. I have his Complete Poems, I'll look up the one in question. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poems in question, as to anti-Semitism and racism

[edit] As to anti-Semitism:

a kike is the most dangerous
machine as yet invented
by even yankee ingenu
ity(out of a jew a few
dead dollars and some twisted laws)
it comes both prigged and canted

[edit] As to racism:

theys sO alive
(who is
?niggers)

Not jes
livin
not Jes alive But
So alive(they

s
born alive)
some folks aint born
somes born dead an
somes born alive(but

niggers
is
all
born
so
Alive)

ump-A-tum

tee-die

uM-tuM
tidl
-id

umptyumpty(OO---

!

ting
Bam-

do)

,chippity.

BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the style of English

You cite a line in policy, "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another," which you are responsible for having broken and instead you wish to apply it to one who corrects it to reflect the proper style.

The earliest version I find (unless there is a technical problem preventing me from accessing versions prior to this date) was written with American spelling (e.g. "summarized") and the article continued in this fashion literally for years in revisions, including those you contributed, with the addition of "capitalization" in an edit entitled, "capitalisation clarification" (which would seem to come from a British English speaker who recognized the style of the article), except for this edit which added "recognisable" and "satirise" (and hence did not "conform to" the style in which the article was "predominantly written" at which point you seized the opportunity to revert original American English to the British style and have reverted any deviation since.

Now, you may have felt it your duty since at least October 9, 2004 to evangelize on behalf of your preferred style, but unfortunately for you, "blankfaze strongly supports the use of proper British English spelling throughout Wikipedia" is most emphatically not what the Manual of Style prescribes. Rather:

Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country.

E. E. Cummings is an American figure.

If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please don't be too quick to make accusations!)

You have done this starting barely over two months ago. And lastly:

If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

The first contributor I find, from four years ago, wrote in American English.

Therefore, it should stay in the present style. --TJive June 28, 2005 13:50 (UTC)

  • It should not. Cummings is not an "American" figure. He is American. He is, however, an international literary figure. He spent sizeable portions of his life living abroad. E. E. Cummings is not a topic specific to a particular country. Therefore the MoS guideline you cited has no bearing, really. What's more, Cummings himself almost always uses proper (and by that I mean British) English in his works. Therefore, it should stay in the former style. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 28 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)
Your justification is reduced to petty semantics if "international literary figure" is the best justification for the use of a non-American style of English for an "American poet, painter, essayist, and playwright", as the article states. The word "figure" is merely a summation of his achievements.
Take a given example in the MoS, the closest relevant one:
article on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: UK usage and spelling
Tolkien is a British figure as that is his country of origin, even though the attendant subject, Lord of the Rings, is indisputably an international phenomenon (and I would wager, though this is tangential whether true or not, that his creations are even more successful in the US than the UK). Hence, it is most appropriate that an article on Tolkien and his work be written in British English and for E. E. Cummings and his work, American English.
It is completely irrelevant what sort of style Cummings did or did not use at any point, as he did not start this article or contribute to it any form that I am aware - perhaps you are able to demonstrate otherwise?
It is also now apparent that, as your user page (and behavior in this regard) indicates, you are not prepared to approach the issue of English styles in anything close to good faith objectivity. You prefer British English as the "proper" form, and so whatever justifications may be thrown out for its use in any case, it is merely secondary to your goal to make British English widespread regardless. --TJive June 28, 2005 14:29 (UTC)
    • Cummings is an American writer, no matter where he spent part of his time; I seem to remember him spending remarkably little time in Britain. By the same logic, maybe James Joyce is an American figure because he spent much of his life outside Ireland? As for suggesting Cummings' own writing style as a model, should all uppercase letters in the article be changed to lowercase? There are so many things wrong with this article (see the link to its failed Featured article candidacy [above] for a selection) that squabbling over which style of English is "proper" is a bit silly, frankly. There is no such thing as "proper" or not when it comes to this UK/US English debate. If the article could be comprehensive and literate in either dialect, then it would be a big improvement on the incomplete article we have now. Filiocht | Talk June 28, 2005 14:35 (UTC)
I agree with Filiocht insofar as there may be the need for greater attention as to the content of this article, but it is not a particular interest of mine so I necessarily leave that to those such as Blankfaze who do. What I am contesting is solely the clear misuse of style, a point which Filiocht seems to agree on. --TJive June 28, 2005 14:43 (UTC)
I would note a third possibility here, which is that the usage of neutral, equally applicable terms (or phrases altogether) go in place of the contested forms. This is not necessary, but I would support it as a compromise. --TJive June 28, 2005 14:46 (UTC)

I do not go around the wiki pushing my beliefs. I don't go around nitpicking. But I am going to make a stand here. I will continue, to the upmost degree that I can, to revert this article to the BE version. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 28 June 2005 18:49 (UTC)

What justification have you other than taking personal offense from my remarks? Honestly. This site could do with a little more integrity and a lot less petty obstinance. --TJive June 28, 2005 21:58 (UTC)
User:Blankfaze, can I ask why? Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 07:23 (UTC)
Because I have seen this happen at a number of other articles, users who have put absolutely zero work into the article come around and try to in bad faith push and enforce things like spelling. This article belongs in BE. I will stand up for that. I've been almost conflict-free in my tenure here, but I will get into one over this article if I have to. By the way, TJive, you have reverted this article three times in the last 24 hours, which is a violation of Wikipedia policies. I have reported you for it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 09:40 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Three revert rule
Don't revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.'
I'm afraid three is what is allowed, though it should be noted that my first was not a revert as I went through the actual article itself to change the spelling, which included a few more words than on my previous edits. As an administrator, you should know better.
By the way, this page does not belong to you and anyone has as much the right or ability to edit as the other. I am staying within the rules (as I understand them) whereas you are not. Please quit treating this as your pet project. --TJive June 29, 2005 11:00 (UTC)
I'd like to go on record as saying that TJive is correct, and you, Blankfaze, don't have a leg to stand on in regards to the Manual of Style, article history, nationality of subject, and plain common sense. Therefore, I will also revert your peculiar attempts to unilaterally bully your usage preferences through. So do the math, guy -- any edit war you start, you lose. --Calton | Talk 29 June 2005 13:27 (UTC)

Blankfaze, I would love this article to be properly spelt, but I'm afraid the MoS is against us here. This is an American author. If he personally used proper spellings, then maybe you could make a case, but I don't think he did. If you want to fight the good fight against Websterisms, then I advise you to go and edit our numerous articles on the European Union, where proper English is official (due to Irish and UK membership of the EU), and remove the aberrant spellings that Americans have inserted into some of them. As long as you edit articles on US authors, I don't think you are going to get anywhere.

In addition, please note that -ize is not an Americanism. We may not use it much in the UK, but it is the original spelling, and correct. Many British academics use it. It's not a Websterism (a spelling deliberately invented to be non-standard as an expression of petty nationalism). — Chameleon 29 June 2005 14:53 (UTC)

Boy, it would be nice if the devs could come up with some setting in prefs that would standardise spellings according to one's preference. That way I wouldn't have to look at bastard spellings, and you all could choose to look at bastard spellings. It would be happiness for everyone... BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 15:43 (UTC)

  • I agree to that, minus the snide commentary. --TJive June 29, 2005 16:22 (UTC)
OK, I'm impressed that he used proper spellings, though I bet he used incorrect spellings too (I am not very familiar with his work, but he seems to have made up the rules of spelling and grammar as he went along). This makes me more keen on seeing non-US spellings in this article. However, I don't think it will convince other people here.
As for -ize, of course it is correct. It is the preferred spelling of the Oxford English Dictionary! It derives from the Greek -ιζειν via the Latin -izare. -ise is a comparatively recent variant. You should accept my compromise (?compromize ☺) version.
And it's not "Vive la revolucion!". It's ¡viva la revolución! if it's supposed to be Spanish, and vive la révolution ! if it's supposed to be French.
I think that spellings are too complex to be properly dealt with automatically. On Spanish grammar, I could give examples such as "¿De qué color es? – What colour is it?" and some people would see "¿De qué color es? – What color is it?" and others would see "¿De qué colour es? – What colour is it?". Both intolerable! — Chameleon 29 June 2005 15:54 (UTC)
    • compels me with the color of its countries, [1]
    • clothed with incognizable amethyst. [2]
    • 'WE had succeeded, my friend B. and I, in dispensing with almost three of our six months' engagement as Conducteurs Volontaires, Section Sanitaire Vingt-et-Un,. Ambulance Norton Harjes, Croix Rouge Américaine, and at the Moment which subsequent experience served to capitalize had just finished the unlovely job of cleaning and greasing (nettoyer is the proper word) the own private flivver of the chef de section, a gentleman by the convenient name of Mr. A.
    • Thither I led the tin-derby, who scrutinized everything with surprising interest.
    • He handled his picture sacredly, criticized it with precision and care, finally bestowed it in his inner pocket.
    • After a few minutes we reached the station, which I failed to recognize. [3]
    • In British English, the spelling with -ize is traditional, and is still preferred in many conservative quarters, for example at the Oxford University Press. But the newer spelling in -ise is now widespread in Britain and is preferred in other quarters. British writers may use whichever spelling they prefer, unless they are writing for a publishing house which insists upon one or the other.[4]
    • – flamurai (t) June 29, 2005 15:51 (UTC)
Comment in the margin: it's common practi... it's really common for publishers, trans- and cis-Atlantic alike, to bring their authors' spelling into line with in-house rules. So arguing about whether EEC used proper or improper spellings based on published editions (and more so on c&p'd web sites) is kind of a red herring. –Hajor 29 June 2005 16:13 (UTC)
Further for the fact that Mr. Cummings is not writing this article, as I said before. --TJive June 29, 2005 16:22 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice to those supporting the use of American English for this article, even though I myself am British and prefer to read British spellings. There is no justification in the manual of style or article history for this to use anything other than American spellings. I would encourage rewriting as much as possible to avoid the need for either, but I can't see what you can do with a word like watercolour/color, other than just changing it to a less specific term like painting, and I would strongly oppose losing specificity for the sake of stylistic preference. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 1, 2005 10:41 (UTC)

That was the main block to compromise I immediately noticed as well. Chameleon keeps emphasizing the point on the appropriateness of the -ize, -izable, etc. forms, and honour and favourite can simply be done away with. So far it seems that Blankfaze is more interested in battle and martyrdom. --TJive July 1, 2005 15:47 (UTC)

[edit] Damn protection

I hate page protection, even when it's my version that's protected.

I want to make the following edits:

  • Put   in the spaces in the guy's name (I'm seeing "E. E." on one line and "Cummings" on the next)
  • Add Image:EE Cumming's signature.png to the section on his name.

— Chameleon 29 June 2005 16:08 (UTC)

I'll mention again that some of this could be eliminated by a rewording. However, I find it odd that you changed all of the -ize and -izable forms except for recognisable. --TJive June 29, 2005 16:29 (UTC)
That's because I didn't do it by hand. I did a search-and-replace for words ending in -ise and -isation. I didn't notice the -isable.
Incidentally, that raises the question of the spelling of that verb. I've never known why "recognise" is always included in the group of verbs that can be spelt with either -ise or -ize when it is clearly not derived from -ιζειν (we say "recognition", not "recognization", don't we?). Like the -ish of "finish", "vanish" and "perish" or the -ise of "advertise", the suffix on "recognise" is from the inchoative infix -iss- found in certain forms of certain verbs in (Old) French (finisse, vanisse, périsse, advertisse...). There's no justification for the zed. Oh well. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 16:52 (UTC)
BrokenSegue, you put "E. E. Cumming's" in the article. His name already has an -s at the end, so it should be "Cummings'" or "Cummings's". I have to admit that it seems he put a superfluous apostrophe in his signature, though. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 17:08 (UTC)
I figure that's the dot for the i, which is contained somewhere in the swoosh. I have a similar feature in my signature. – flamurai (t) June 29, 2005 17:41 (UTC)
No should be about it. He is not a plural, so it should be "Cummings's", as it is "Jones's", or "Davros's". The only exception in English is where there is a "iz" sound at the end, like "Bridges'". I'm not going to edit it, just pointing the rule. --khaosworks June 30, 2005 07:25 (UTC)
I have changed it to "Cummings'", to be consistent with the rest of the article. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 08:01 (UTC)
Surely consistency does not extend to perpetuating a punctuation error? (he said, staying out of the BE and AE spelling quagmire) --khaosworks June 30, 2005 08:08 (UTC)
With all due respect, this is not a spelling mistake, it's just a personal preference thing. That's why I went with the style already adoptes in the article. To quote the MoS "Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. However, if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with Achilles' heel." Given the level of language-based dispute here already, I cannot see that it would be anything other than counter-productive to start making changes that would be potentially controvertial and that have no MoS support. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 08:16 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I sounded at all chastising - I didn't intend to, really. That there is already a language dispute here is why I wasn't bold to leap in and edit the page myself. I'm aware that common English usage is inconsistent on this score, but being the grammar oberst that I am (not quite anal enough to be a fuhrer yet), it occasionally grates. I'm happy to simply point out the technical error and leave it to consensus. --khaosworks June 30, 2005 08:32 (UTC)
The problem with keyboard communication is that one often comes across with an unintended tone of voice. I certainly try not to take offence easily, because I know I am as likely to be giving offence to others unintentionally. I hope we all share a concern for the highest possible standards of writing, it is crucial, especially in this kind of dispute, to achieve consensus whenever possible. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 08:53 (UTC)

Am I to understand that this page is protected because of an edit war over the use of Commonwealth English in an article about an American writer? Or is there more to this debate than can be seen on this page?—Theo (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that's correct, though there is some dispute as to whether Cummings should be seen as an American writer or as a writer who happens to be American. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 1, 2005 13:29 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that both "Cummings’s" and "Cummings’" are correct. You should write what you say. Some people would say the former; some, the latter. — Chameleon 1 July 2005 13:35 (UTC)

Please explain the sense in which Cummings was not an American writer. He was born, educated, married, lived most of his life, did most of his work, and died there. Of his 27 published works, only one was first published outside the USA.—Theo (Talk) 1 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

[edit] Je me rends

BLANKFAZE | (что??) 1 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

Finally, some sense. Although choosing a picture of the Nazis surrendering might not be the best choice. GreatGatsby 2 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

Blankfaze:Thank you. GreatGatsby: I am imagining that your comment about the witty picture was in the same spirit of fun. I have now unprotected the page. —Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)

So that's it, then. Blankfaze admits to being a Nazi. It is as I suspected. --TJive July 2, 2005 18:50 (UTC)
Haha. TROLL. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 2 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)

OK, chaps, that's enough! Let's get on with improving the encyclopedia. Which leads me to the next section. Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements

The FAC and PR comments suggest that we need to increase the analysis of Cummings' work. Filiocht suggested that there should be more about his relationship with Schofield Thayer (his first real publisher as a writer and patron as a painter), his influences, and his legacy. Can we address these now? —Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

  • It's Scofield, firstly — secondly, yeah, the article needs more about that. Cummings had an affair with and latter briefly married Thayer's wife Nancy. Cummings' relationship with Thayer is out of my region of expertise, though, so there's not a whole lot I can add. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 2 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

I have made a number of additions, most notably a bibliography. Note that Tulips and Chimneys was published in 1923, not 1926 and I have made that change in the Wikipedia stub as well. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poem Titles

None of the poems referenced in the article have actual titles. The reason that each poem is 'fittingly titled' its first line is that they do not have titles, and everyone simply refers to them by the first lines. Very few of Cummings' poems--Puella Mea, Epithalamion, and a few others--have 'official' titles. The index of The Complete E.E. Cummings is by first line, because they have no titles.

The following is what I feel should be changed to reflect this, although with the current sentence structure I don't want to take it on.


Some of Cummings's most famous poems do not involve much if any odd typography or punctuation at all, but still carry his unmistakable style. For example, the aptly-titled "anyone lived in a pretty how town" begins:

anyone lived in a pretty how town (with up so floating many bells down) spring summer autumn winter he sang his didn't he danced his did

Women and men(both little and small) cared for anyone not at all they sowed their isn't they reaped their same sun moon stars rain

"why must itself up every of a park" begins as follows:

why must itself up every of a park anus stick some quote statue unquote to prove that a hero equals any jerk who was afraid to dare to answer "no"?

[edit] Confusing start

"His publishers and others have usually echoed the unconventional capitalization in his poetry by writing his name in lower case, as e. e. cummings; he didn't approve." Is somewhat confusing. Did he want them to spell it with lower case letters or not?

No he didn't. What the statement is saying is that Cummings, who often didn't capitalize in conventional manner in his poems, did not approve of publishers' carrying this idiosyncracy over to the spelling of his name, which he capitalized in normal fashion. With that clarification, read the statement over again. I think it's pretty clear.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E.E. Cummings page

This page was very informative. Thank you to whoever wrote it! e.e. cummings is a very good poet and I'm glad I got to hear more about him!

[edit] Possible typo on date?

The fifth paragraph under Education and Early Career begins "In 1920, Cummings enlisted..." Might this be meant to be 1917? (Otherwise, he'll have enlisted (up to) three years after his arrest, which was "just five months after his belated assignment".)--66.28.250.194 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Claudius Reich

[edit] Should this page be moved to E.E. Cummings?

I have rewritten the Name section of the article to reflect better what is actually said in the Friedman source(s) (only one of which was cited before my edit). But a new question is introduced. Since this article is named "E. E. Cummings" rather than "e. e. cummings" solely because of the Friedman arguments (any technical impediments have long since disappeared), should the page not actually be named "E.E. Cummings" (no space between the initials), since that was indeed what Cummings wrote his French translator was his preference, and since most other "initialed" names on Wikipedia bear no space between the initials? (There are some exceptions--J. R. R. Tolkien, M. C. Gainey...) Robert K S 13:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there are, and always will be, exceptions, I'd say no. —OtherDave 20:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization of sections

I find the current article's sections to be somewhat confusing to navigate, as they lack the intuitive feel of other organizations. The information should reflect a more chronological order. More than halfway through the article, it gives his birth information? And within the 'Personal life' category, his death is listed before his marriages? The information is all there, it should just be reorganized. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 07:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I am not sure if this article still meets GA status. It needs more images, a better introduction, a biography infobox, and many more references. In addition, the article has poor organization. While it has good information, the article still needs work. It appears to have fallen to B-Class, so I have nominated it at Good Article Review. Raime 12:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

    • This article has been delisted from WP:Good articles by unanimous consensus. The review can be found here.
    • The article was delisted for the following reasons, which should be addressed before renomination:
      • The article's introduction is very poor, and does not adequately summarize article. See WP:LEAD.
      • There are external links within the text that need to be removed, according to WP:EL.
      • Many more references needed. Referencing is too light throughout article, with many areas being completely unverifiable. See WP:V.
      • Writing is very poor in most places. The article needs an infobox to go along with WP:Biography standards, and the text should be in somewhat of an order. The current article is very hard to follow, and below-average for the prose of a Good Article.
      • One non-free image (Image:EECummings.jpg), used prominently in the article, is in need of an adequate fair use rationale.
    • Once the above concerns are met, and the article is improved, it can be nominated gain at Wikipedia:Good article candidates. Raime 03:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth date

The article lead has October 14 as his date of birth, and the infobox has September 14. Which is it? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed the infobox date to October after finding it listed as such in a few apparently independent online sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.115.34 (talk • contribs) 2008-04-19T14:38:13