 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editThis is basically nothing but florid praise for Wilbur, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't write the most of this text, but I tend to agree with what was written. I do know someone who hates Wilbur's translation of Moliere though. Go ahead and change what you think is inappropriate. I think the qualifications in the second half of the second paragraph are appropriate: he is sometimes considered too lightweight because he is easier to read, and comparison to Auden or Frost is apt. --Chinasaur 09:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
His translation of "The Misanthrope" and "Tartuffe" are excellent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.108.63 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 30 January 2005 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
editThis article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Copyright problem
edit
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) 14:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Nutcracker
editThe Nutcracker (2012) was just removed from the section Poetry collections on lack of evidence of its existence. I do see a reference to it at Richard Wilbur's page at the Library of Congress Website. Since Wilbur was Poet Laureate -- a position at the Library of Congress -- I would expect this site to be authoritative. However, this is just about the only reference to it, and The Nutcracker is conspicuous by its absence at Amazon, Bookfinder, and WorldCat. If anyone knows what's going on here, please chime in! Phil wink (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Attribution
editReferences copied from Richard Wilbur to Richard Wilbur Award See former article history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)