Talk:T. S. Eliot

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)

@Martinevans123: - that quote is unsourced - I always thought it came from the Modern American Poetry site linked in ref [2], but I checked and it does not originate there, but I think it's obvious to say that Eliot was one of the twentieth century's major poets - perhaps change the first sentence of the lead to:

Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (26 September 1888 – 4 January 1965) was a poet, essayist, publisher, playwright, and literary and social critic.

and change the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead to:

One of the twentieth century's major poets, Eliot attracted widespread attention...

- I think his status should be mentioned in the lead, even if it is not in the first sentence - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm amenable to that. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Martinevans123, Ralbegen, and Epinoia: So, it's been a month, and there's been no further discussion since the last update. Absent additional discussion below, I was considering moving forward with Epinoia's changes above. Are there any objections? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I'd agree he was "one of the twentieth century's major poets". And his status certainly needs to be included in the article somehow (notwithstanding the views of other, more modern, poets). But that claim should not go in without a source. Proposed lead sentence looks fine to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Attention T.S. Eliot wiki editors

The 1,100+ letters that Eliot wrote to his confidante Emily Hale, which were sealed for 50 years, have now been opened and are currently being scanned for publication. So you’re probably going to want to make some substantial changes to this article in the near future! - Hux (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

And you're probably going to want to help! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Um, the letters are not going to published in the near future. According to Princeton University Library "The Eliot letters are under copyright until 2035 and will not be available for access online. Researchers can access the collection on a first-come, first-served basis in Firestone Library’s Special Collections, located on C floor." BabelStone (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

But secondary sources will cover the letters, and that's what's important in any case. So it won't be immediately or in 2035; it's just a matter of waiting. Ralbegen (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

John Haffenden, who has been editing the letters of TSE, wrote on Twitter "Point of information: T. S. Eliot's letters to Emily Hale are to be published by Faber & Faber on behalf of the Estate of T. S. Eliot, almost certainly in 2021 -- so no one will need to wait until Princeton Univ publishes them online in 2035." https://twitter.com/johnhaffenden/status/1213851304918953986 WikiParker (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Rather than a huge indent I'm putting this note here. Absolutely the article needs updating ASAP. Not just because of the Hale letters at Princeton but in larger part perhaps because of the public post (on the web) of a statement from Eliot about the letters. I'm putting useful links here but don't have the time (or editing expertise) to update the main article. 1. Statement from Houghton Library, Harvard, with the original note from Eliot: http://blogs.harvard.edu/houghton/the-love-of-a-ghost-for-a-ghost-t-s-eliot-on-his-letters-to-emily-hale/ 2. A more streamlined post from the TS Eliot Foundation: https://tseliot.com/foundation/statement-by-t-s-eliot-on-the-opening-of-the-emily-hale-letters-at-princeton/ 3. A news article (one of several) about the release last week. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-50975555 Happy Editing! gobears87 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

p.s. edit to add: I see now the page is semi-protected - & fwiw I think that's a good thing gobears87 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Eliot’s movements 1914-15

From Vivienne’s Wiki page: Carole Seymour-Jones writes that [Tom & Vivienne] first met in London in March 1914 at a party in a hotel. Seymour-Jones writes that he was first introduced to her at a lunch party in Magdalen College in or around March 1914.

From Vivienne’s Talk Page: According to most sources, it was March 1915, and they married three months later. (This was my own contribution).

From Eliot’s Wiki page: Eliot was awarded a scholarship to Merton College, Oxford, in 1914. He first visited Marburg, Germany, where he planned to take a summer programme, but when the First World War broke out he went to Oxford instead.

And…

Eliot wrote to Conrad Aiken on New Year's Eve 1914: "Oxford is very pretty, but I don't like to be dead.” Does this relate to 31/12/13 or 31/12/14?

Some consensus required, I think. Valetude (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)