Talk:William Cullen Bryant

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Charmedforsure.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Publication date of Thanatopsis

I corrected the date from 1811 to 1817. The North American Review was first published in 1815. Bryant's poem appeared in 1817, vol. 5, issue 13, pp 338-339.

More Poems?

Could we get a few more examples of some of his poems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimaran (talk • contribs) 00:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a more informative opening?

The 'topic sentence' at the top is bare-bones, offering no qualitative assessment, no interesting twist, no clue about why Bryant mattered, which he did, although I can't remember why offhand (that's what I came here to rediscover but haven't so far, after three or four minutes of slow reading). Then the next paragraph is genealogy, utterly irrelevant except maybe to his direct descendants, although a mention of Mayflower would let us know he had roots in New England puritanism I guess. THEN begins the biography, which is fine I guess but something about his main adult accomplishments, a sentence or two, should come before, no? Was he a crusading editor who argued powerfully for Emancipation, or a wimpy establishment type who shied away from controversy but did great work in building up a well-run newspaper or something? Did his youthful poetry set a new high standard of grace and power for the next generation of American poets to emulate, or was he soon dismissed as a fusty old has-been writing in a pompous archaic style? The thing is, about a few minutes on the page, and "above the fold" (opening sections one sees first) I feel I ought to know at least something to connect Bryant with his times, with history, with culture, something to grab my attention and give me an image of who he was. I say this because I remember that once many years ago I did spend some time reading a long article or two about him and was surprised to to be very interested in the guy for some reason.. but now it seem an effort to go back and read the rest ... Booorring. He deserves better. Someone who knows and cares about him should come to his rescue. Chelydra (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Okay went back, and the place where I gave up in exasperation is where the article takes a turn for the better, and then it keep on improving to a lovely and moving conclusion. And I can see that this is a very difficult man to summarise in one sentence at the top, so three or four sentences are called for, and even those will be difficult to make interesting enough to pull in casual readers, unless perhaps they include a famous or memorable line of his verse to give a taste of why he DID matter, and matter quite a lot. OKAY... Just wandered off to the article about the guy who accused Bryant of stealing everything he wrote. THAT guy was basically an arrogant nobody, best known for befriending Poe, but HE gets the kind of opening that Bryant deserves - about 4 sentences of overview which is expanded but not exactly repeated in the text following - just as it should be - and the body of the article opens well and flows well. (Interesting to look at the concluding paragraphs side-by-side, but that's because of the contrasting content, not the style.) So if that schmuck rates a first class opening, surely the noble and refined Bryant can at least get an okay opening... Chelydra (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Your complaint is the incomplete lede? This whole article is barely in its beginning stages. I wouldn't recommend updating the lede until there's actually a decent article beneath it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

WM. C. Bryant & Co, Printers

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dfzg9t6HyIUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Cullen Bryant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528075426/http://www.csustan.edu/english/reuben/pal/chap3/bryant.html to http://www.csustan.edu/english/reuben/pal/chap3/bryant.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is there nothing in the article about William Cullen Bryant's opposition to high government spending and taxation?

As a large part of William Cullen Bryant's time as editor of his newspaper was taken up campaigning against high government spending and taxation, I would expect to see something in this article about him, that covered this area of his work. But there is nothing - why?90.220.133.91 (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)