Talk:Trees (poem)/Archive 1

Content transferred from Joyce Kilmer during revision AUG2012

per comment at Talk:Joyce Kilmer, I am being WP:BOLD by removing the section from Joyce Kilmer and making this redirect a full article. Also adding wikiprojs above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Pre-emptive discussion of Scansion/analysis and WP:OR

I am posting this here pre-emptively in case anyone may think that the content in the scansion and analysis section regarding assessments of iambic tetrameter, syllable counts, and catalexis was original research. I assert, per WP:NOTOR and WP:SYNTHNOT, that these are facts that can be deduced/observed by any reasonable person looking at the work with a basic knowledge of poetry or access to reference works defining poetic structure. The material within the article constitutes a basic analysis and categorisation of a primary source, i.e. the poem, without extraneous interpretation. I've gone to great care not to go beyond a basic analysis, and to back up that analysis with reliable secondary sources, per WP:PSTS. Any claims that I've made about the poem in this section would be easily verifiable based on looking at the poem and comparing it to the definitions of in a glossary or dictionary of poetic terms or in any number of monographs on rhyme, meter, and poetic form. Thanks. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And yet...

The characterization of the 11th line as acephalous, while defensible, is in my view not the most likely. If "Poems" has 1 syllable, then, yes, the line is acephalous; but I believe a 2-syllable pronunciation is more common -- as evidenced by line 2 where "poem" is plainly 2 syllables. Though I've been unable to find precisely germane statistics, in general I believe that acephalous lines are not terribly common in literary iambic tetrameter (L'Allegro and Il Penseroso notwithstanding), whereas Tarlinskaja (1976, p 262) finds that Romantic and Victorian iambic tetrameters exhibit initial reversals in about 9% of lines (almost on the nose for 1/12). There's little doubt in my mind that the line exemplifies an initial reversal (or initial trochee, whichever you like):

 / ×  ×    /    ×  /     ×    /
Poems are made by fools like me,

The subsequent notes about signalling a conclusion are just as apt with this scansion. I will just mention that even if my scansion is not accepted I recommend removing the reference to Robert Wallace's "anacrusis"... because Wallace is a moron. "Anacrusis" means, and as far as one can tell has always meant, "an EXTRA syllable added to the beginning of a verse" -- exactly the opposite of Wallace's gratuitous re-definition, as is pointed out by Dana Gioia on page 77 of the same book. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Asked for some comments on how to improve/finish up the article

Comments from User:SilkTork

===Your opinion requested on Trees (poem)=== Last August you did the GA review on Joyce Kilmer, and I enjoyed working with you during that process. I have taken a few weeks in writing an article on Kilmer's most remembered poem, "Trees" and was hoping to prepare it for an FA or GA nomination in the near future (I'm leaning towards FA knowing there would be a bit more work, but know it could pass GA relatively easily now). I was wondering if you could take a little time out of your busy schedule to examine the article and suggest how I can improve/polish it before making the nomination. I appreciate it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC) I've had a quick look, and it seems quite tidy. I would recommend nominating it for GA, as FA reviewers sometimes comment negatively when an article is nominated directly for FA bypassing GA. The analysis section relies heavily on Winchell, who - though the poem appears to move from youth to old age - asserts that the stanzas could be read in any order. Might be useful to have a few more critical opinions. I also wonder if that Scansion and analysis section might be better placed after the writing section. Logically, the poem needs to have been written before it can be an analysed. I also question the use of the tree image. As that is not the tree that inspired the poem, it is a little misleading to use it. The size is also large - such images should not be forced in the body of the article. And the caption is rather long. You also need to disambiguate which Sir John Suckling is being referred to. There are also a couple of paragraphs in the parodies section that need sourcing. There is also an unsourced opinion: "However, as this quotation cannot be found in McMillan's book, Davenport must be in error here" which might be mistaken. Davenport seems to be paraphrasing what McMillan is saying on page 127 in which she is talking about those who hate machinery, such as William Ruskin. Given that there are little areas which can be tidied up on a quick glance, a thorough review would be beneficial. I am already tied up with a review of Fyodor Dostoyevsky‎, but when that is completed, and if nobody has picked up the Tree review in the meantime, I would take it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC) It will probably be about a week or two before I propose it for GA, so you have time to finish up Dostoyevsky. Thanks for taking a look at it--I wanted a new set of eyes on it because I've been working on it for several weeks now and might not notice things, so I knew that your keen eye and love of poetry would bring out some great suggestions. I appreciate it. I switched the writing and scansion sections per your suggestion, and disambiguated the two Sucklings. The McMillan-Davenport commentary was material that I haven't figured out what to do with that or to look in the original text to comment on either's work. I inherited that paragraph from older versions of the article (and material originally in Joyce Kilmer), and still have to take a close look at. I asked a local historian in Mahwah for a picture of the house the Kilmer's owned where it was written, and I'm trying to find a fair-use Kilmer Oak photo from New Brunswick. I keep running into one theme in the scholarship...the lack of it because most scholars don't take Kilmer and his work seriously enough to analyse it, so I might be stuck with Winchell. I'll keep you updated. Thanks again. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote

Should be removed; see Wikipedia:HATNOTE#Disambiguating_article_names_that_are_not_ambiguous Red Slash 07:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

And I continue to disagree, strenuously. There's a disambiguation for Tree and Trees. Both are very common words. There are 43 articles disambiguated at Tree (disambiguation). Per WP:RELATED Disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title. This case, the term "Trees" has 8 articles at Tree (disambiguation), to wit:

• "Trees" (poem), a poem written in 1913 by Joyce Kilmer (1886–1918)
• Trees (folk band), British folk band
• Trees (band), one-man new wave band
• The Trees (novel), a 1940 novel by Conrad Richter
• "The Trees" (Rush song), a song on Rush's 1978 album Hemispheres
• "The Trees", a song by British pop band Pulp
• "The Trees", a song by English electronic duo Autechre
• Slang term referring to Cannabis, especially if intended for sale

As we can see, there are several articles, including books, songs, and the poem, that use the name "trees" per WP:RELATED: This guideline does not discourage the use of disambiguation hatnotes in a situation where separate topics are related, but could nonetheless be referred to by the same title and would thus qualify for disambiguation, such as a book and its film adaptation.

Which would apply to the guidance at WP:HATNOTE#Examples of proper use#Linking to a disambiguation page advising: When a term has a primary meaning and two or more additional meanings, the hatnote on the primary topic page should link to a disambiguation page

And in the section you cite, A hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous -- songs, poems, lyrics, etc. are always confused, it wouldn't be the first time on Wikipedia. And here, we have Kilmer's poem which was set several times as a song.

Per WP:TWODABS -- If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that. and If a disambiguation page is needed, but one of the other topics is of particular interest, then it may be appropriate to link to it explicitly as well as linking to the disambiguation page.

I always find it preferably to err on the side of giving the readers more options--and with a common word like tree or trees, the 43 pages on the disambiguation page for the term, including several that are songs/lyrics/poems, this is one of those times. On the other hand, You might want to read ALL of WP:HATNOTE next time, since other sections were more than relevant to placing and keeping a hatnote--relevant to the present situation.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Very exhaustive, certainly, but there are no other poems with this name on Wikipedia. You say that even so, it may still be a bit ambiguous. Alright, I'll take your word for it and leave it up. Have a great day, and thank you for your politeness. Red Slash 08:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trees (poem)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 01:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this nomination. Initial comments should be posted within the next 24 hours. --1ST7 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I did some minor copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review:

1. Well-written

   • One issue with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch: "Ironically, Kenton Kilmer points out that while his father was..." Please reword this phrase.

• Done (09SEP13) replaced "points out" with "stated" per MOS--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Verifiable with no original research:

   • The last two sentences in the second paragraph of "popular appeal" need a citation.

• Addressed (09SEP13) - removed editorial judgment. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

1. • This also needs a citation: "Despite this, the popular appeal of "Trees" continues—much to the chagrin of critics."

• Addressed (09SEP13) - removed sentence that was an editorial judgment.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Broad in its coverage:
2. Neutral:
3. Stable:
4. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

Aside from these few things, the article looks ready for promotion. These issues shouldn't take long to fix, so I don't think it's necessary to put the article on hold. Thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Congratulations, and thanks again for your work. --1ST7 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Superman II's critical commentary of this poem

I removed an extensive quote from Superman II regarding this poem, and it was reverted. Is Superman II so well-regarded as a source of poetic critical commentary that we must include this? What is the justification for keeping this lengthy excerpt over anything else, given that the quote is just one of a million pop culture references to this poem? How does this help the user to understand the subject better, other than learning that a scriptwriter somewhere didn't like it? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I consider it worth discussing and including, and while you might write it off as "nerdery" other editors have appreciated its inclusion. It is among the more prominent pop culture references and depicts a consistent attitude about the poem. Its inclusion does not violate the MOS guidelines concerning such material and has been crafted to comply with the MOS. Your anti-nerd deletionist mentality is sadly in the minority and seems more driven by a subjective preference against such discussion rather than a rational argument based on Wikipedia's content policies and precedent. Thanks for your drive-by comments. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for the intemperate edit summary. Next, nobody who has seen my bookshelf could possibly label me anti-nerd; I'm more pro-careful-inclusion-of-encyclopedic-content. Finally, a talk page discussion is the very opposite of "drive-by".

Back to the topic, what I'm specifically objecting to is the inclusion of the lengthy quote from the movie. Given that the movie's treatment of the subject is already documented in the body text, how does the full quote enhance the reader's understanding of the subject? How does Jor-El's explanation of what an education crystal is enhance the reader's understanding of "Trees"? And if you want a rational policy based discussion, how about GA criteria 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I assert that including a movie script is unnecessary detail (and yes, I realize that this article just passed GA review). Or how about the principle of no undue weight, which seems contrary to giving full colored-box treatment to a quote from a movie. Or how about that of original research; I actually don't see a source here that backs up your statement that Superman II is a particularly prominent reference. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you have a skewed, narrow understanding of criteria and policy. I disagree that it would be an unnecessary detail--if you discuss a poem's popular reception, a more-than-fleeting mention in a major film production that lambasts a poem as essentially saying "a poem dumb people love" is a prominent example of that popular reception and more than mere trivia. Using a formatting scheme to raise the profile of a quote is not undue weight, and if you think it is, then about 100,000 articles on Wikipedia need revision for highlighting quotes. Your argument is quite frankly ridiculous at face value. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Orange Suede Sofa, The quote from Superman II is appropriate, especially considering that its in a section about parodies of the poem. It's not unnecessary detail, as it is a single excerpt from one well-known movie. If every parody or adaptation of the poem was listed, then it would be excessive detail, but that's not the case here. It's not original research, since its not being used to draw conclusions that aren't supported by references. Nor is it undue weight since the article is not being biased toward a particular viewpoint, and the information from Superman II is a small part of the total article. DavidinNJ (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I think it's fairly clear that Lex Luthor is referring to Cocker Spaniels loving actual trees, not the poem. In a sarcastic, deadpan response to the remark "I love ″Trees″ ". He's not at all saying that dogs would appreciate the poem. Though he is implying that trees are a stupid and unworthy thing for any half-decent poem to be about. Spaniels, like all dogs, love trees because they're something that dogs piss on. 188.29.165.144 (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Broken source link and missing cap

The inset poem is sourced to two links.

(1) The PoetryFoundation link is broken, and now at https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/browse?volume=2&issue=5&page=8

(2) Both sources (the one above being a facsimile of the 1913 original publication) have a capitalized "Summer", not "summer" as in the current text.

So I'm now going to fix both. 62.147.27.7 (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trees (poem). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211104641/http://www.cooknjaes.rutgers.edu/news/release.asp?n=403 to http://www.cooknjaes.rutgers.edu/news/release.asp?n=403

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)