Talk:United States Poet Laureate

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Poetry Mid‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

List order[edit]

The list is currently in reverse chronological order, which makes the note regarding the change of titles somewhat confusing. I think it will be more clear to sort in in regular chronological order. Jonathunder (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Collins Controversy[edit]

When Billy Collins was appointed to the position, a group of poets and critics associated with the POETICS list protested by voting for an anti-laureate. Anselm Hollo was elected to this position.

This statement raises more questions than it answers, and IMO should be developed or removed. Why did this group protest the Collins appointment? I went to the POETICS list and read their posts, and all I can figure is that they thought Collins was politically conservative (several of the posts referred to Collins as a "Bush II" appointment) or maybe his poetry wasn't sophisticated enough for them. A bit more development would help explain why this event is significant enough to be included (if indeed it is). Thanks. Easy2Slip (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I just read Anslem Hollo's "anti-laureate" acceptance speech (see link) and found no mention of Billy Collins; the controversy seems to be more about how laureates are selected than who is selected. If that is the case, the statement from the Wikipedia article should be reworded; otherwise it seems as if the POETICS people had a personal gripe against Collins. Easy2Slip (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment. The PLOTUS is not appointed by the president, although many believe it to be the case. It is not much of a controversy and should be removed. There have certainly been greater controversies in the history of the position (the redbaiting of William Carlos Williams or the attempts to remove James Dickey. The Collins case was more a push for stylistic diversity. Collins was very popular in the position.--Splendoroftheirroots (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was last discussed in 2009 but no action taken. I also agree this "anti-laureate" issue is not prominent enough to be included in the article. The organization seems to be limited to The University of Buffalo, and is under review itself for not being notable enough for its own article. Also, per discussions in the Billy Collins article, it was decided not to include it there either. Removing it for now. --Bridgecross (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

o

Copied[edit]

Most of this information is copied word-for-word from the Library of Congress's website. I don't know Wikipedia's policies on this, but I assume it should be rewritten or reworded...? DoubleEmblem | Talk 15:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not the case that works of the U.S. Government are in the public domain? Qaz (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Rod[edit]

Quote: "the nation's official lightning rod for the poetic impulse of Americans"

Huh? What is that supposed to mean?

Thmazing (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was some attempt at poetic vandalism. I removed it.

It's not a great line but I've heard it before and think it was a line from a PLOTUS. But it needs to be sourced.--Splendoroftheirroots (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who WAS the first United States Poet Laureate?[edit]

There is a large amount of confusion on Wikipedia as to whether the appointment of Poet Laureate in the United States was created in 1937 for Joseph Auslander or in 1986 when Robert Warren was appointed. All that happened in 1986was that the title of the appointment was changed to include the words "Poet Laureate", whereas before it had just been "Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress". This is very unclear and, for example, leads to doubt as to whether Rita Dove was the first African-American woman to be appoointed (as is claimed) or whether it was Gwendolyn Brooks.Barmispain (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Poet Laureate → Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress – I realize that Wikipedia:COMMONNAME would seem to apply here but the common name is just a shortening of the actual name and per the common name guidelines, it seems ambiguous. I'm resisting being WP:BOLD and just changing this, because it should be non-controversial, but I didn't want to offend anyone who might not feel the same way Cat-five t c ---- 08:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Current name of the article is the common name. Against WP:COMMONNAME & WP:CONCISE -- Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per common name and concise. I also don't know why the nominator feels the current title is ambiguous. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 18:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.