Talk:Billy Collins

Title

I'm wondering about the section "...as the eleventh Poet Laureate of the United States..." This seems somewhat confusing, as really Billy Collins was the forty-second or forty-fourth Laureate in all but name alone. Further, even taking the starting point as the switching from the term Consultant in Poetry to Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry, Billy Collins was the fourteenth Poet Laureate. The calculation of eleventh seems to be leaving out the 1999-2000 Laureates, the only year to include more than one, of Merwin, Dove, and Gluck.

I'm not sure how best to rephrase this, but I do think the confusion should be addressed. I believe most people think of Poet Laureates as a tradition dating back to at least the early half of the 20th century; the way this is written, Frost would not be considered a Poet Laureate, nor would Kunitz. Indeed, William Carlos Williams, referred to as a Poet Laureate in the Life section, would have to be the negative-twenty-first Poet Laureate by the reckoning used. That just seems strange to me.

Kalisti 07:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Work Section

As to the above problem perhaps something like "the eleventh Poet Laureate (or the forty-fourth if poets with the former distinctio Perhaps the cover of "The Best Cigarette" would be public domain since the recording it? I don't know the details of that, however.

JKillah 15:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I will check if i have any suitbale photos that I have taken of him, but there should be a book jacket photo that can be used as others have here with the annotation "This work is a copyrighted publicity photograph. It is believed that the use of some such photographs to illustrate:

• the person, product, event, or subject in question
• in the absence of a free alternative,
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. --Ronkowiki 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference Copy

Wasn't this entire article copied and pasted from reference.com? Fallen111 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)fallen111Fallen111 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It wasn't. Reference.com is using content from Wikipedia.

Fair use rationale for Image:Picniclightning.jpg

Image:Picniclightning.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Picniclightning.jpg

Image:Picniclightning.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

External link to interviews are not spam

NOTE TO shelfskewed... Apologies if we have broken rules but we do not believe we have done so... Does adding author interviews fall under the spam rules (they are Q&As with said authors)? For example, you have left interviews with other entities under said articles (Guernica, Powells, NPR, etc...) Again, since the magazine is not for profit and posting author interview with the article subjects is not spamming. Again, we mean no harm but honestly believe that said interviews with these subjects should be included among the links and since the authors are speaking for themselves are valuable for wiki users.128.172.155.42 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.155.42 (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, we didn't mean to cause offense (or commit an offense). Per your instruction, we'll propose the external links on the subject discussion page. Again, apologies if we ruffle any feathers... and thanks for educating us on the issue.128.172.155.42 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Critical Reception"

No offense to whoever wrote that section, but that's a little biased. Even if many scholars view him as "too accessible," I doubt their reasoning is as assanine and pretensious on its face as "the readers connect with the poems and understand them." Id like to see proof someone has actually used those words. Even if you dont agree with the "too accessible" criticism, it's probably unfair to say anyone who's ever made that criticism thinks poems should have no personal connection, a claim which the writer of this section makes-SF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.201.106 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"who are you"

Dear Sir Check out Wiki's article on Poet Robert Peters and you'll see there is a wonderful quote by Billy Collins showing significant impression. Also Billy Collins had done an interview with Robert Peters printed in one of RP's volumes of poetry GAUGUIN'S CHAIR. Billy Collins would never categorically deny taking courses from Poet Robert Peters at UCR when it is absolutely true. Who are you? Why don't you have a bio on your talk page so other folks would know something about you? Pjt48 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

76.5.42.243 user's name

It would be nice of you to log in and share something about yourself. I'm not going to undo what you had undone regarding " Rivers" influence on Collins. What gives you the right to determine what is "extraordinary" influence and what is not? Poet "Rivers" is Peters, at least get that right. Stating the fact that Peters was a professor of Collins in by book is not considered a "plug" and "inappropriate". I do think you are somewhat of a bully who can't identify yourself for proper & civil discussion. What is wrong naming a professor who Collins once had because other professors aren't named? It would be integral part of Wiki's article on Billy Collins to include poets who may had a minor or major impact on him. Pjt48 (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate that you seem to have an intimate connection with Robert Peters. I am focused on Billy Collins and what is proper and fitting in his wikipedia entry. Collins studied literature under Peters. He named Peters in an interview as being the first to teach poetry in a certain way that made sense to Collins. But for you to insist on adding Peters here as a major or even minor influence on Billy Collins is wrong. Peters taught literature. Collins is famous for WRITING poetry, not for reading it. Had Peters been an influence on Collins's writing, your inclusion of Peters would be proper. Had Peters been an influence on Collins's writing, it wouldn't have taken two more decades for Collins to reach maturity as a writer (finding his writing "persona") and to gain an audience. Can you try to look at it from that perspective rather than trying to hitch Peters to the Billy Collins train? This reminds me of people saying that once they hit it rich they found out how big their family is or how many people think they are their "friends." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.42.243 (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Kind Sir: I am not going to log in to Wilipedia, as I never have, but I do note your animosity toward me. I also note that you said above that you would not undo what I had undone regarding Peters influence on Collins. AS a reader and all-around sleuth regarding Collins's work, I must conclude that you are indeed the longtime lover of Mr. Peters and THAT is your impetus for going back on your word again and again, much less going back on the wikipedia rules. Just know this: though you don't know whether I am female or male, I will live longer than you. We all have our secret strengths. Maybe I am a writer. Maybe when you and Mr. Peters are long gone, I will feel comfortable penning this story, the story I have been busily clipping and archiving.

Why would you cotinue to insist something as insignificant as what brand pantihose Marion Cunningham wore? The result will be the same.

But PLEASE tell Wikipedia who you are and how you think Wiki is meant to be a shrine to your lover.

You may get laughed out by the academics first, and then by everyone else after that.

"But if i hire you, you can't pull a Paul Trachtenberg on me; it might come into play." _{Subscript text} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.42.243 (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

76.5.42.243 relationship to Collins

Young lady you have no reason to be defaming me as being a plugger or a hitcher. My contribution to Collins article is innocuous insertion of his past when he was a student, giving other readers of this article more factual information about that time of his life. What is your relationship to Collins? I don't know why you are quibbling with me and insisting of deleting my contribution. It's been there for sometime until you came into the scene. I don't want to be dragged down by your picayune reason for your deletion. Pjt48 (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion:Reading some of the things claimed when the link to Peter's was removed you would think that he was being cited as a major influence in the article. This is not the case. Perhaps the wording could be changed slightly to his "His professors at Riverside included Robert Peters." This is biographical information and should be kept. Yaris678 (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Civility and recent coments

In light of recent comments made on this page, I ask that the editors here take note of our policy on civility and act accordingly. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Gamaliel,

Pjt obviously has personal reasons for wanting to include Peters on the Billy Collins page. I urge you to look at the wikipedia page on Robert Peters that Pjt made. It's a shrine, not a wikipedia "factual" entry. He wants to spill it over onto the Billy Collins page, and it's not proper. Peters was insignificant, as evidenced by the fact that the ONLY time Collins ever mentioned him was in the article Pjt cited. I have read everything on Collins, and what I found was that Coleridge influenced his work, not Peters. This is ridiculous that someone's friend insists on doing this-- even though he said back on Sept. 26 that he wasn't going to change his entry again, wasn't going to add Peters to Collins's page, but he has, more than once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.42.243 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Peters page has some issues, and I'm going to do some work on it. As far as the issue of Peters on this page, Peters may be an insignificant figure in Collins' life or he may be an influence like Coleridge. Either way, it will be settled with sources, not by attacking each other. We have a rule of thumb here called "assume good faith" that asks editors not to impugn the motives of other editors. Whatever Pjt's motive, let's please assume s/he has the best interests of this article in mind. Gamaliel (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel. I also think that 76.5.42.243 is overstating the claims that were being made for Peters's influence. It merely stated that he was a lecturer. This is a basic biographical fact. We don't list every lecturer but I think we can mention all lecturers who are notable. This is not the same thing as having had a large influence. Peter's is notable enough to have his own article. One sentence that says he was Collins's lecturer does not seem over the top. Yaris678 (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

External link to www.billy-collins.com

An anon IP has deleted the link to www.billy-collins.com with the edit summary "billy-collins.com is out of date, incomplete, and useless". A cursory glance at the site in question confirms that it has not been kept up-to-date; no external link is 'complete', whatever that means; but it is far from useless, as there appears to be lots of good info there. There seems to be no justification for its deletion, as it supplies additional information to the interested WP reader. I'll restore the link now, and hope the IP will engage here before attempting to remove again. Anyone else have thoughts on keeping or deleting the link? --Yumegusa (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PL Objections

In the Wik article on U.S. Poet Laureates, there is a sentence saying that a number of poets protested when BC was selected and evendesignated an anti-PL. I was curious why there would be a protes, so I went to the most likely place to find out, the BC Wik site. Alas, there seems to be no mention of the action. In fact, all I see is a comment on this talke page about critical reception (apparently referring to now-deleted material). Could some-one in the know please enter a short discussion of the protetst? Kdammers (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

All I could see was a small protest by Anselm Hollo and the University of Buffalo - mentioned on Hollo"s page. They don't believe in laureates generally, it seems and set Hollo up and the "anti-laureate". Nothing against Billy personally. From what I see, I don't think it's worth going into.Spanglej (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If it doesn't warrant going into here, then it certainly doesn't warrant inclusiion on the PL page, right? Kdammers (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

AQR

The AQR webpage states "Billy Collins is a contributing editor to Alaska Quarterly Review and most recently guest edited our spring & summer 2000 poetry section." It's hard to see how they could lie about such a thing - it's very bold of them, if they are lying. It's hardly worth getting into a wobble about but I'm curious why - someone - is so anxious to insist that he had nothing to do with AQR. It's easier to have a discussion with signed in folks. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Strange Lack of Collins's Personal Information

I'm intrigued by the lack of personal information about Collins, of the type that is usually supplied by a Wikipedia article. The point is not whether we should WANT to know about a subject's marriages, divorces, number of children, concubines, foreclosures, drinking problems or whatever, but that these facts traditionally are included (ideally, with citations.) . That type of treatment may be kind of messy, but it actually deals with the subject's life instead of a dry list of awards. Unless Collins has more marriages than Liz Taylor and more children than Octomom, I'm not sure why he would mind. Younggoldchip (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)younggoldchip

Feel free to add it any time. Span (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates and tables for short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)