Talk:T. S. Eliot

Opening Paragraph

The author has asked in the hypertext of the opening paragraph to exclude any mention of Eliot's American origin from the opening sentence. But it is a standard feature of Wikipedia biographies to give nod to the country of one's birth (see talk on the Harry Houdini biography. Inasmuch as he was not British until adulthood, I propose identifying him as American-English in the opening sentence. ````

Please, no. The lede has been crafted through many years to keep edit wars to a minimum. If you are interested in the topic at all you will see that Eliot was born in America in a few sentences. Saying American-English will lead to English-American to British-American to British to English to American and on and on. I've often thought it would be fun to say he was a British playwright and an American Poet ("But in [my poetry's] sources, in its emotional springs, it comes from America") but I've held back. You can too. WikiParker (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Eliot is clearly an American writer, despite taking British citizen late in life. It, therefore, makes better sense to describe him as an American-born, British essayist, etc. He spent the formative, first 25 years of his life in the United States. Henry James is described as an American author. I note that Samuel Beckett is not called French, despite writing in French and residing there for the last 50 years of his life.

I fail to see why this small change shouldn't be made. This is a fairly small matter of emphasis. Rwood128 (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Would the following revision be acceptable? I've tried to produce a more neutral statement; an attempt avoid the ambiguity surrounding Eliot's national identity!

Thomas Stearns Eliot, OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965), was born in the United States, and lived there until he moved to England in 1914. He became a British citizen in 1927. Eliot was an essayist, publisher, playwright, literary and social critic, and "one of the twentieth century's major poets". Rwood128 (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The above just states the facts. If there is no further comment I will revise the lede. Rwood128 (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I reversed the content (see edit summary). Not attached though, if there is no agreement for that move.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC))

Jacob Epstein

I'm removing the new section titled "Jacob Epstein." While filled with factual, cited information this is an encyclopedia article, a synopsis, and I doubt the information is even deemed important enough to be placed full biographies. And, by the way, it's Eliot, not Elliot. Perhaps the material is a better fit for the Jacob Epstein page anyway. Or Eliot.com may be able to do something with it. WikiParker (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Epstein is a very notable sculptor and I'm very surprised the article now makes no mention of him at all. I think perhaps a trim would have been justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the removal - it doesn't contribute anything to our knowledge or understanding of Eliot - the addition was mostly about the history of the sculpture which is irrelevant to Eliot's life - and the addition was stuck right in the middle of the "Life" section giving undue weight to something minor - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all statues made of notable people are irrelevant to "our knowledge or understanding" of their lives? If so, I think you'll be busy elsewhere. WP:UNDUE can be addressed by reducing the amount of material as well as wholesale removal? But I'd have no problem with moving it from the "Life" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If you trouble to read the main work I cited, which is newly published, it talks about the fact that the relationship is not cited in past biographies; hence my inclusion of the quote, from a noted Eliot scholar, that the bust "intimates that great scholarly insights may yet be garnered from the Eliot-Epstein connection". This is not just a signifiant artwork; it is an a significant artwork, an edition of which Eliot purchased as a gift for his own wife (and which they subsequently displayed in pride of place in their own home); it is a work by a Jewish friend of someone known for alleged anti-semitism; and it is an artwork bequeathed by Eliot's widow, in his memory, to an institution named after him. Of course it should be included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

In which case its position, in the "Life" section, seems perfectly appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this is somewhat significant given Eliot's relationship with his wife and given the reputation of the sculptor. This is more than trivia. Unless there's a concern I could revert in a few hours.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC))

I have not been convinced. Eliot had many friends that had significance in his life, even Jewish ones. He was the subject of many portraits both painted and photographic. He had correspondence with many contemporary writers. I'm sure that he gave many gifts to his wife. Do these all get a paragraph? I agree that the Epstein information is not trivia; it is worth being online but it does not belong in this article. WikiParker (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Who were they? And where are the enduring works of art they created, inspired by Eliot? Perhaps they deserve a mention too. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

- Suggestion - could we start a new section titled something like "In art" or "Portraits" and list the sculpture by Epstien along with the paintings by Wyndham Lewis, Patrick Heron, and other notable artists? - perhaps under the "Honours and Awards/Other honours" section - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In theory a gallery of portraits would be nice. In practice almost all would still be under copyright protection so links would have to be given. I'm sure Wikipedia could get away with links to pages but I have doubts about links to images by themselves. Then their are museums like the National Gallery that hold many portraits of Eliot being collected together with pages that only contain one image. That might be a bit strange. I'm neither for nor against at this point; I'm just thinking aloud. WikiParker (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2019

Further Reading: Norbert Nail: „Dieses ganze System von Beamten und Professoren“ – Der Dichter T.S. Eliot über Marburg und Deutschland [1] 84.138.226.224 (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion this is not worth adding to the English article because so few will find it useful. WikiParker (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done I agree. Not very useful. I realise that Norbert Nail is cited at a number of articles, but he is currently not a notable author at en.viki. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Short description

I reverted this edit which had the edit summary "Although he was born American, he was not American as he renounced his citizenship". My edit summary was "he was American until 1927 and certainly well-known as a poet by then". Why is this considered problematic? Happy to see a more neutral short description if one can be agreed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

- see earlier discussions on this Talk page Nationality in the lead and Opening Paragraph (and there are probably more archived) - the short description is problematic because there are those who insist Eliot was an American poet and those who insist he was a British poet - there have been numerous edits and reverts to the lead describing him as an "American-born British poet" and many other variations, none of which have achieved consensus - for a short description it would be best to leave the nationality out altogether - perhaps say he was a Modernist poet or a significant 20th century poet or something like that - I can't tell you what to do, but putting the nationality in the short description will not be constructive - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No objections to "Modernist poet or a significant 20th century poet or something like that". I still think the original removal was not justified by that rationale. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence

As currently written, the first sentence to this article reads as follows:

Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965), "one of the twentieth century's major poets", was also an essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.

Now, I may be gravely mistaken, but I don't quite believe this makes complete grammatical sense. One cannot have an "also" without earlier having an object, right? As written, it's missing. Now, I'm more than willing to accept edits, but I'd like to propose that the sentence be changed to something like this:

Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965) was "one of the twentieth century's major poets", as well as an essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.

Really, the biggest issue, for me, is that the "also" be removed. (The quotation is in a strange spot, too, but that's not a major issue.)

As a courtesy, I'm tagging Epinoia, and anyone else who wants to join. Thoughts?

Re-pinging @Epinoia: as it didn't work originally. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The sentence as is is grammatically correct as far as I know, but I have no problem with changing to another version as long as content is not changed.Littleolive oil (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the sentence as it stands, he was a major poet and also an essayist, etc. - "as well as" is pretty much synonymous with "was also" and I don't see an advantage in changing it - I would prefer to leave the sentence as it stands - the reason the way the sentence was written was to avoid edit wars over nationality; American, British, American-born, etc. - perhaps the "was" is in the wrong place, it should be before the quotation:

Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965), was "one of the twentieth century's major poets", as well as an essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.

- cheers - Epinoia (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Epinoia: This is also acceptable to me. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The Epinoia version is good, though the first comma should be removed and probably the second comma too, to give:

Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965) was "one of the twentieth century's major poets" as well as an essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.

Ralbegen (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to piss on the collective chips here. But surely the quote, perhaps also with its context, needs to appear somewhere other than just in the first sentence? There's not supposed to be anything unique in the lead section? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ralbegen: Yes, that is much better; I didn't see the first comma there (the second can stay). However, Martinevans123 raises a good point about the usage of the quotation, which might be better placed elsewhere, or otherwise given context, perhaps? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)