Talk:Poetry of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Poetry of the United States is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 6, 2005.

Poetry of the United States is part of WikiProject Poetry, a WikiProject related to Poetry.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Peer review This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] "Bradstreet" picture

This looks like a generic 19th or early 20th century magazine illustration based on no particular resemblance to Bradstreet. I suggest dropping it.--PhD 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)PhD

According to the identified image source, that's supposed to be her. Of course, the source itself does raise some copyright questions. --Evb-wiki 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] older entries

I'm curious as to why Dr. Seuss isn't mentioned. He's probably the most popular and well known American poet. Don't ignore him just because he wrote children's books.

He might even be the most popular and well known American verse writer, but I doubt he would have called himself a poet. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:26, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article introduction sucks!

I wanted to feature this article on the main page, but the introduction is horrible - it has nothing to do with the article. Furthermore, it contains a MAJOR factual error -- the history of poetry in English begins with the establishment of the colony that was to become the United States of America.. Really? Shakespeare predates colonial America; ditto for John Donne. I'd be quite grateful is someone knowledgeable would rewrite the introduction. →Raul654 03:37, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify - the introduction is a two sentence blurb that says American poetry began with the founding of America? So? It's obvious and really doesn't say a whole lot about American poetry. IMHO, there's really nothing there worth putting on the main page. Could someone please summarize the article - that's what the first paragraph should do. →Raul654 03:49, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
The intro no longer says American poetry began with the founding of America. Also, it is an explanatory intro to the article on the page, not the intro to the article. Maybe the test is that it it is deleted entirely, will it be missed.. Maybe not. CheersMoriori 03:57, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
"The intro no longer says American poetry " - I'll assume you meant to say "The intro no longer says english poetry", so yes, that's an improvement, but that doesn't really get to the heart of my objection. The first paragraph of any article should introduce the topic and summarize the article. Compare the introduction of this article to the introduction over at English poetry. While the English poetry intro isn't the best I've ever seen, it's miles ahead of what we have here. As it is, I can't feature this article on the main page, because there's no summary to us there. →Raul654 04:04, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
I assume that when you posted that you hadn't actually read the amendment I was referring to. Moriori 07:14, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but now half the introduction ("Poetry was created by Native Americans ...United States of America") is completely irrelavant to the article. And I re-iterate my objection above - there's really nothing in this introduction that pertains to the article itself, and there's no way this can be featured on the main page. →Raul654 15:58, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not so worried about main page feature as Wikipedia looking as if its competently produced and contains accurate and comprehensive information. The article is clearly not a comprehensive coverage of poetry of the United States because it does not fulfil the heading Poetry of the United States. Unless the heading is amended, the page has to explain that it is only for a certain period of American history. Why not change the page title to "United States poetry in the English language" and rewrite the intro? Cheers Moriori 22:33, May 8, 2004 (UTC) . Afterthought, if you want to see an article that needs attention, have a look at Israeli attack on USS Liberty. It's a mess. I'd like to have a go at editing out the repetitions and unsubstantiated claims, but the POV pushers are too daunting. What a shame. A casual visitor to Wikipedia could be forgiven for happening on that article, seeing it for what it is, and then concluding that Wiki is not a reliable source of information. All the time on Wiki seems to be to and froing about three reverts, instead of ensuring the articles are actually worth inclusion. It's good to see you are trying to fix the poetry page. Moriori 22:33, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
A "comprehensive" look at American poetry could probably fill several books. The content here is (IMHO) pretty good - all the stuff I would expect to see is here. I like the article in general, but the first paragraph isn't what it should be. →Raul654 04:00, May 9, 2004 (UTC)


I have tried to address this problem just now. Filiocht 09:05, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A bit elitist, no? (a simple desultory philippic)

How can we have an article on poetry in the United States that does not even acknowledge the existence of vernacular forms such as rap, slam poetry, or the cowboy poets (we apparently don't even have an article on the last) and (as far as I can tell on a quick read) does not acknowledge that there is even one significant poet working in the United States who writes in Spanish, Haitian Creole, Cajun French, and Native American language, or, indeed, anything but English. As far as I can tell, Native Americans appear only as a subject matter. I see that Bukowski somehow snuck in the door, good for him, guess it helps to be published by City Lights. Apparently being primarily known as a musician doesn't rule one out of being mentioned, but (picking three musician/poets) can anyone seriously argue that John Cage (who is mentioned) is more important as a poet than Bob Dylan or Patti Smith (who are not)? As a composer, sure, but as a poet? And when the article speaks of "the emergence (italics mine) of African-American poets such as Langston Hughes... and Countee Cullen", it is as if African-Americans in America were not writing poetry until white people noticed them. -- Jmabel|Talk 08:59, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Unashamedly elitist, I would have thought. Pop culture gets loads of coverage on Wikipedia, nice to see an article that looks at the stuff that is left out. Cage is hugely important as an influence on later poets who used chance proceedures. Dylan is a great song-writer, but the jury is out on him as a poet, and I speak as a fan. Afro-American poetry may have been going on for a long time, but it emerged into the mainstream in the 1930s, that's a fact. Patti Smith a poet??????? The article covers the main traditions as reflected in any major anthology of American poetry. Unfortunately, a sentence pointing out that Native Americans were creating poetry long before the white man came has been deleted (it was the very first sentence in the article!). On behalf of isolated higbrows everywhere. Filiocht 09:29, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
Patti Smith was a much-published poet, and in the usual sorts of places poets published, before she started performing with guitarist Lenny Kaye and, over the course of about 2 years, evolved into a rock musician. Several of the songs on her first album are adaptations of pieces that started as published poems before she ever was doing music. -- Jmabel|Talk 21:03, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

There is no real solution to this: an 'academic' article on any area of poetry is going to be selective in some way. I have on my shelves The Outlaw Bible of American Poetry, which would probably be good to add on the list of poetry anthologies at some point. That is, my solution is not to carp about academic judgements, but to enable the addition of as many 'minor' poets as possible hanging off various collections. That seems to me to be the way forward as encyclopedia.

Charles Matthews 11:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Academic". Perhaps, but then... E. A. Robinson? Certainly a popular rather than an academic poet, and also getting out that annual book of poetry under exactly the same economic pressure that a songwriter or rapper has to get out the next album, with comparably uneven results. And Filiocht says "the jury is out" on Dylan as a poet: well, I'd say that most (but not all) of his first-rate work is from the 1960s and mid-1970s, but (given that I just mentioned E. A. Robinson) let's take two poems in the same mode: can anyone seriously say that "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" can't hold it's own against "Richard Corey"? And the former is generally considered relatively minor Dylan, while the latter is among Robinson's best-known work.

Also, you'd never know from the article that there was an economic context in which it becomes possible to become a professional poet. No mention of book publishers (the discussion of the Beats doesn't even mention City Lights Press), magazines (not even the New Yorker), circuits of readings, the rise of grants, the gradual opening of the academy to contemporary poetry. I'm not saying that there is anything in the article that doesn't belong there, I'm just saying that the article is very narrow, especially for something with featured-article status. Yes I'm glad to see stuff in here that's not all pop culture (look at my own contribution list if you doubt the sincerity of that), but this is a "top-level" article and it doesn't even offer links to other articles where one might get a less drawing-room-and-classroom-oriented view of the subject. -- Jmabel|Talk 21:03, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Why not add some? I think you'll find that there is a list of small presses, and having started it I'd be delighted to see it built up. I doubt whether 'Poetry of the United States' should be mentioning individual small presses, but they are certainly encyclopedic under some circumstances (such as you mention).

Charles Matthews 21:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I hesitate to try to write about this because I'm just plain not expert on it... but somebody must be, and when I read this article, based on what I know (which is probably about average for an educated layman) it looks (presumably inadvertantly) slanted. So I'm raising my issues, hoping someone else will be inspired to write about some of this. Ironically, I may know more about Argentine poetry than American.

While I'm on it: virtually nothing in the article about the role of criticism and anthologies in the making and unmaking of reputations and careers. Nor a link to anywhere one could learn about it. -- Jmabel|Talk 21:54, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "metric" as a noun

Several passages use "metric" as a noun where I would use "meter". Is "metric" really correct here? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] weirdnesses in the article

  • 'L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry is extremely writerly, ' - I do not recognise the word 'writerly'
  • 'her poems were typically New England' - that does not mean anything to many readers
  • 'not unambiguously aligned with high modernism' - huh?
  • 'pushed the boundaries of the American idiom in the direction of demotic speech' - huh?
  • 'professionalisation' - is that really a word?
Well, 'huh' is demotic, as in the language of the demos. Writerly, yes that's a word. Professionalisation is a word. Charles Matthews 22:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't know who made the first comment above, but Charles, "huh" isn't in the article! Maybe you understood "not unambiguously aligned with high modernism", but I have no idea what it means. If "writerly" is a word, it isn't a very well known one (indeed "demotic" and "demos" would be unknown to most - though as I was one of the few who did Greek at school, I know what they mean). I've never heard of "professionalisation" before. In summary, this poorly written article is inaccessible to most readers. jguk 22:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think of either "writerly" or "professionalisation" as obscure (and no, I'm not the author). "Writerly" gets 60,400 Google hits; the first batch mostly refer to this as a translation of Roland Barthes' "scriptible"; one of that first batch is Britannica using it in an article title. Barthes' meaning would appear to match with this usage in the article. "Professionalisation" or "Professionalization" are also pretty common: 77,600 and 178,000 Google hits respectively. Nearly all of the early hits seem to be in the sense used in the article.
Yes, we should expand on "typically New England" for the sake of non-U.S. readers. Charles's point in saying that "huh" is demotic isn't that "huh" is (or should be) in the article, but to point out that you were using demotic speech in asking your question about demotic speech. "Demotic speech" means the speech of common people, as opposed to more formal or academic speech. Yes, the term is probably obscure enough to deserve to be clarified (although it is precisely the correct term in talking about the history of poetry and should be explained, not replaced).
"There were poets active in the United States in the first third of the 20th century who were not unambiguously aligned with high modernism," is not a great transition sentence, and should probably be improved, but I think its meaning is perfectly clear: it is a transition sentence from talking about a group of poets who were unambiguously aligned with high modernism to talking about several who were not. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:23, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
I can only quote from Ezra Pound: Buy a dictionary and learn the meanings of words. Filiocht 13:13, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
jguk, the point was that you didn't know what demotic meant, but you used demotic speech such as huh?. It was a teasing way of explaining the word. That said, you've pointed out a couple of places that could be imrpoved, as you're correct that articles should not descend into jargon (but sometimes they must use it regardless, unless you're doing the Simple English explanation of Simple Relativity ...). --Dhartung | Talk 21:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Intellectual arrogance is a good way to get a first at Oxford, but not the best approach for an international encyclopaedia. See: Wikipedia:Explain jargon. jguk 20:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can't tell from either of the comments that follow mine whether they agree or disagree that we should keep these words but also explain them and that we should improve the transition sentence. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:03, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
I think some of words debated here should either go or be explained in the article. "Modernism", for example, I think is best explained. It's a useful term when discussing poetical styles. "Writerly" (as mentioned above by another editor)is surely best left out. The sentence you quote yourself is not a very good sentence stylistically. I'm sure there's a better way to convey the same sentiment. jguk 21:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can I point out that the Wikipedia:Explain jargon page actually says

The Wiki format allows you to do this more easily than could be done on paper. You can simply make your jargon terms links to articles explaining them; you can then link to that same explanation from many places.

This article does, for example, link to an explanation of modernism in English poetry.

Charles Matthews 21:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a case of using commonsense. I should have quoted Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Think of the reader, which discusses this point in more detail and states:
Where possible, avoid using jargon. But again, consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and so technical details and jargon, linked to articles explaining the jargon, are appropriate.
But an article entitled "Rap music" is likely to be read by laymen who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to more detailed information if available. If any jargon that is used, a brief explanation should be given in the article itself.
This article title clearly falls within the remit of the second paragraph quoted above. jguk 22:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well OK: that's your page, written within the past week, and you're entitled to quote it. Like it says at the top, not 'policy'. Charles Matthews 06:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's an interesting approach: find an article that has some words in it you do not understand, declare yourself to be the 'Ordinary Reader', write a page outlawing words you do not understand, return to the article in question and quote your page and your position as the OR to label it badly written and unintelligible. I repeat, modernism, demotic, writerly and professionalisation are all perfectly good words and exactly the words that are needed here. That leaves the ambiguity around 'typically New England'; not much of a basis for declaring the article crap and listing it on WP:FARC, is it? Filiocht 16:08, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] FA status challenged

See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates -- mav 03:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More distinctions should be made

Instead of lumping all the early 20th c. poets together, shouldn't it be pointed out that Stevens and Crane were going in the opposite direction of Pound and Williams? I think every English scholar recognizes this. Some even trace it back to responses to Emerson: Poe, Melville, Pound, Eliot, Williams, Penn Warren and others are anti-Emersonian; Whitman, Dickinson, Stevens, Crane, Ashbery are pro-Emersonian.

May be a fair point. It might also be better placed on the Ralph Waldo Emerson page, I guess. Charles Matthews 09:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the notion advanced by the anonymous poster above is Harold Bloom's notion. It should therefore be placed on his page, in my opinion. Hydriotaphia 04:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
...and appropriately cited. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
With some evidence that Pound, for instance, ever cared about Emerson at all. Filiocht 08:28, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Pound had characteristically wrong-headed ideas about Emerson. Hydriotaphia 09:04, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A better (LOL) intro

Poetry in the United States began with the creation of the United States, thereby making all poetry written within its bounds at the time fall under the same geopolitical distinction. -==SV 00:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hmm?

What grants this article 'featured' status? By virtue of it being a nice back rub for America? It is vaguely written and wholly amusing (in a tragic way). There is too much of a lean towards American born articles on the front page. I'm sure i'm not the only person to have noticed this. --AeneasMacNeill 10:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A voting process is what grants Featured status. Check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates to see how the process works. You will find links to the FA criteria etc. there, too. If you think the FAC page rubs any backs, take it to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, it's not any too relevant on this page. You are cordially invited to join in the voting and be a part of the decision-making about Featured articles! Bishonen | Talk 12:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slam

Glad to have this in here but it was added anonymously and without citing sources. The following two sentences, in particular, would seem to call for citation: "Concurrently, a Chicago construction worker named Marc Smith was growing bored with academic poetry readings. In 1984, at the Get Me High Lounge, Smith devised the format that has come to be known as slam poetry." -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

While it is true that Marc Smith started the current poetry slam format and that part of the statement just needs a citation. It should also be stated that Marc Smith only modified a current poetry reading situation that existed in the Chicago area where two poets would stand in a boxing ring in boxing gloves and trunks on occasion a go 10 rounds or so (it varied) with each other reading. With a huge audience participation. Some of this information has been recounted on http://www.e-poets.net/library/slam/converge.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.215.193 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title wrong

The title of this article should be American poetry and not "Poetry in the United States" that could apply to any poetry here. Like English Poetry or Greek Poetry, the title should more accurately read "American Poetry". What do others think? --Northmeister 21:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this is an old one, but he makes a good point. Not to split hairs, but I think it's permissible to have poetry of any national origin in the United States so, in theory, this article implies it is about the reception of all world poetry in America. Perhaps a renaming is worth considering? --Midnightdreary 22:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Still old, but still relevant. I did a search for "American poet" from the left nav bar, and there were 16 articles that ranked above this one. While I understand there is academic debate, I've found this article to be very informative; I think it should have taken top billing in my search results.

As the previous posters note, changing the title would likely expand the topic outside of the canon. This article could then grow in length, or it could become a subpage of a larger topic. Either way, visitors looking for "American poetry" or "American poets" would be more likely to find this article quickly.

KayCee Cat (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adelaide Crapsey

Is Adelaide Crapsey really a major enough figure to merit mention in this article? We're not trying to list every poet in U.S. history. - Jmabel | Talk 07:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FACT check

As of the time on this post, every date in the World War II and after section has bee methodically checked (I even had to contact http://www.poets.org to have them correct stuff). All dates of birth and death (where applicable) are now correct in this section. Also, all of the Black Mountain poets' stuff is correct. Most of the other stuff has been checked. The only exception is the paragraph on the Small Press poets. I can't wait until it's not poetry stuff for the WP:FACT collab. Good luck. --Ali'i 16:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! A Musing (formerly Sam) 18:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry of the United States

Hello You seemed to be informative about reverting drastic revisions back to the original article. This unknown person called poetactionboy [1] seemed to taken upon himself to do drastic revisions with the article on Poetry of the United States. I do my share of editing many articles but I don't how to revert unsourced revision back to where the article was before such drastic revision. Can you give me any advice on this matter? Thank you for your careful scrutiny on your other reversion. Pjt48 (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the changes as a whole... [2] he moved and combined sections rather and did some minor grammar changes. Not being a specialist in poetry, American or otherwise, I recommend you take a good look at the changes as a whole and discuss it with him on the talk page of the article or his talk page the parts that you are having trouble with. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir I see you did substantial amount of revisions on the article of "American Poetry". You seemed to be quite knowledgeable of the steady stream of American poetry history. However you did considerable deletions in the midst of your sequence of revisions. I know that no single person can arbitrarily and objectively make perfect the most accurate account of such a broad subject and article such as American Poetry. I would like to know more about you and why don't you log in and indocrinate a user page. You will no doubt have other users questioning your contributions. You do know when you make drastic revisions you need to have reliable citations to reinforce your objectivity. One has to be watchful not to be too opinionated. I would like to discuss with you for instance why you deleted references to Small press poets and iconclastic poets such as Robert Bly, James Dickey, Robert Peters and other minor maverick poets. You had deleted my entry of including these major poets. It would nice to know more about your arbitrations and who you are. Again it is evident to me you do know the American poetic scenes quite acutely and I do admire your ability of consolidating this article that you took considerable liberty of incorporating your stances on American poetry. You made the article cleaner but it's your deletions of certain writers and movements I'm curious about. Sincerely Pjt48 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pjt48. Thanks for the kind words. I'm not sure in what sense Robert Bly and James Dickey are "iconoclastic" or "minor mavericks." Bly is probably one of the most influential critics and translators of the last 30 years, and I didn't delete him, but rather re-incorporated him (prominently) into the already existing paragraph about Deep Image poetry. Bly's work on Iron John, while interesting, seems more relevant to self-help than to poetry. And I find it hard to imagine the author of a best-selling "Deliverance," and judge of the Yale Series of Younger Poets, as a maverick. Dickey belongs, I'd argue, in the first paragraph of the Post-War section, with Jarrell and the other soldier-poets of the 40's and 50's. As for Peters, this article was the first I'd ever heard of him -- which may just be a reflection of my own ignorance; he sounds like an interesting and worthwhile poet, and I'll certainly go explore his work. And I would argue that the Small Press poets by their very definition aren't yet prominent enough to warrant attention in an article meant to give the broadest possible outlines of 300+ years of US poetry. But, as I suggested in the article's talk page, the obvious solution is to create a series of sub-articles in which these and related movements might be discussed in proportion to their significance. Does that sound reasonable? Poetactionboy (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello Pjt48. Thanks for paying attention. I'm sorry if I've done injury to any of your hard work. Most of what I did was regrouping and cleanup -- I realize some of it's not yet sourced, but I'm looking for the right links. It did seem to me that some of the material on the page was poorly sourced or completely unsourced, and some of it seemed to fall outside general notability guidelines. Why not incorporate them into a separate page on alternative poetries (along with slam, online 'zines, etc.?) Poetactionboy (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Poetactionboy I do hope other folks well versed in American Poetry would enter the discussion of what poets are notable be them major or minor and have these voices included in "Poetry of the United States". It is very important to get a more comphrehensive survey of the world of American poetry and its history apart from the traditional, academic standardized perspectives. The recorded survey has to be more inclusionary rather than exclusionary. For example, could one accept the resourceful fact that a American poet such as Charles Bukowski is now considerable force to be considered as a viable and integral part in American poetry history whether his impact is academic or nonacademic? Pjt48 (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pjt48. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was meant to be an encyclopedia, a repository of common or collective knowledge -- which, however boring that might sound, simply reflects the broadest possible consensus. That consensus might, or might not, be academic (whatever that means), but it's undeniably traditional, in the sense that tradition is what is generally considered worth of carrying over. I don't imagine it, in short, as a sort of revisionary vehicle by which individuals might right the perceived wrongs of history, or make the canon more "inclusionary." BTW, I think the inclusion of Bukowski is perfectly sound -- he probably is, after all, one of the most widely-read poets of the last 30 years -- but then why not make the next logical step, & include Rod McKuen? (which I'd also be totally in favor of). In the end I don't think our personal opinions about who's major and who's minor are really that important. What I think this article needs is really a sensible distribution of emphasis. In the 300+ years that poetry has been written in the US, I think most of us would agree on the importance of Whitman and Dickinson, but even the reputation of poets like Eliot and Pound, once considered unassailable, is coming up for question. So, I'd argue that the article should focus on the interrelationship of general trends, rather than be a list of related individual or sui generis poets. I propose a solution: why not create a series of sub-articles (Modernism, Post-War, Contemporary) in which these issues can be expanded upon at greater length? Poetactionboy (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Poetactionboy

This was the section that I did that you deleted from the Poetry Article.

"During this time frame there were also major independent voices who defied links to well known poetic movements and forms. Robert Bly became famous for Iron John: A Book About Men and arguably a cultural phenom for liberating American men to be sensitive to their gentler selves. James Dickey became famous for his best selling novel Deliverance, but had already established himself as a poet and literary critic. Robert Peters, greatly influenced by the Victorian English poet Robert Browning’s poetic monologues, became reputable for executing his monologic personae like his Mad King Ludwig II of Bavaria into popular one man performances. He, like Dickey, also established himself as an acerbic literary critic. Then there were original minor voices with their own poetic niches, like Wilma Elizabeth McDaniel known as “dust bowl” poet and Alfred Starr Hamilton comparable to the English poet John Clare for being supported by other poets for their genuine poetic gifts."

As you can see I didn't mean to imply That Bly or Dickey were "minor mavericks". I guess my syntax in my last note to you was misleading. The sampling "minor Mavericks" were meant to be applied to "Hamilton" and "McDaniel". I truly appreciate your stance that the Wiki article on "American Poetry" should be similar to fashioning the entry like a standard enclopedia would do in terms of "the broadest possible outlines". I thought my contribution would just be a tad more inclusive with these three well known poets including Robert Peters. I do acknowledge that you did incorporate reference to Bly elsewhere. I also realize as time goes on there will be other wiki contributers editing this article of concern without the "broad possible outlines" in mind. I trust you do have this "Broad" sense of awareness of what it takes for the article to maintain this set standard. I do hope others will join us with discussions of what inclusions to this article would meet the wiki's criteria. Your points are all well taken including your suggestions of "series of sub-articles". I also sense you are fair mindedness in exploring the trends, movements, waves, forms of American poetry and its poets. I just feel there is a place for revisionism when comes to including poetic stuff that may of been excluded from the "broad" standards of inclusion. I appreciate your expertise and again I hope more poetic folks will join us making "American poetry" article first rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjt48 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Pjt48 (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)