Talk:The Best American Poetry

message: There has been a request for a third opinion here.  I am concerned that this article is bordering on editorial and that the choice of words imparts a non neutral point of view in a few cases.  There are also some sentences in the current version which should require reference footnotes.  A mere statement of fact that editors are including the works of relatives seems valid if this is verifiable; however, the implication of systematic nepotism seems to be original research.  Using blogs as sources is not forbidden but not encouraged.  I believe that if there is a notable controversy here, there will be reputable and verifiable third parties discussing the issue in the press.  --Kevin Murray 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past, I had put some similar information in this article (or perhaps one of the year articles) and it was taken out (by WaverlyR? I forget). I looked into the matter at that time and reviewed Wikipedia policy and I came to agree that (a) sources such as blogs are strongly discouraged, but more important, (b) they're pretty much forbidden when we're talking about negative information on living people, as per the very serious requirements of WP:BLP. I could find no sources in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources that made these types of allegations. I strongly feel that any criticism of the series from reliable sources should be noted to the extent that it is prominent criticism (if it can be reliably sourced). But when I looked online for that criticism, I didn't find it. If it can be found, I'll strongly support its inclusion, just to make the article neutral. But without reliable sourcing, Wikipedia won't allow negative information and plenty of editors will enforce that. Noroton 22:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noroton, thanks for weighing in.  At the risk of seeming coy--I agree with you, and I hope my edits reflect that.  Any references to "allegations" have now been removed, as has any reference to blogs.  The sole remaining question, as near as I can tell, is whether it is acceptable to do in the "critical reception" section of the article what is done repeatedly in the rest of the article: cite information from the source material without providing a link, because, well, it's taken from the source material. You're correct that WaverlyR has consistently removed negative information about the series from this entry; the problem is, we're no longer talking about "negative" allegations--we're talking about information which simply "is," inasmuch as it's taken directly from the source material.  These spouses were selected, the source material tells us so, and it does not tell us (as WaverlyR would have it), why they were selected, so my edits do not speculate, they merely indicate a selection was made, they don't put words in the guest editors' mouths (e.g., "[the work of their spouses] met their standards for excellence," see previous WaverlyR edit).  Likewise, while I *do* agree with WaverlyR that one or two versions of the BAP reference getting "advice" from a person rather than assistance--and so, I've made the necessary edits to that effect--I can see no reason, nor has WaverlyR ever provided one, for why this information isn't in the exact same category as Lehman's recitation of the "rules" of the series--which are not on-line, but which all three of us (you, me, WaverlyR) can see are listed in Lehman's introductions to the source material, and so we don't remove that info for "lack of citation."  Why this other data, re: assistants/advisors, doesn't get the same treatment, can only be explained by WaverlyR's campaign to remove any intimation of, I don't know, what he/she sees as "oddness" in the selection process of the series Burks88 07:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reader coming upon Burke88's conclusory statement about Lehman's acknowledgements would not be able to check its accuracy unless he or she had every volume of the book and read through every acknowledgement page and table of contents. This seems to be asking too much of the reader and to violate Wikipedia's NOR policy.  Furthermore, my efforts have been to remove matter that violates Wikipedia policy and, in moving a paragraph out of the critical reception section to the introduction section, to improve the article overall. I have made no attempts to remove material that is properly cited.  Burke88 has repeatedly mischaracterized my behavior here and elsewhere. I would like to remove certain postings on this discussion page and wonder if that is OK.  They could be moved to my talk page, which seems where they properly belong. Finally, while I see we are making progress, I am concerned that this article will require constant policing and wonder if its content can be locked at some point. WaverlyR 10:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Kevin.  As I understand your 3O it would be OK to write "The Best American Poetry series publishes a variety of poems chosen by a guest editor each year that does ABC and XYZ. . ." (This would be the synthesis of the source material.) But the statement that "X% of Y is Z" based on an individual's reading of the source would be considered original research and thus unacceptable. Is this correct? WaverlyR 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the present edits reach the consensus I see above.  The two reviews of the 2004 and 2007 editions have been moved to the appropriate pages, the Hass comment about process is fine where it is now, and I'm certainly willing to settle for having the properly-worded statement about assistants/advisors--which, as it stands now, rightly notes that Lehman thanks both categories of persons--in the process section, not the critical reception section.  Between what Kevin seems to be saying (use your best judgment) and Noroton seems to be saying (it would be fine if all the assistants/advisors were listed), I think where we're at now is a pretty decent middle ground: i.e., the point about the advisors/assistants is not belabored by listing all the advisors/assistants (which could easily be done), nor does anyone have any reason to dispute the accuracy of the information.  I'd agree with Kevin that dividing 12 by 29 is original research in a sense--it's a computation--but I don't sense much disagreement with the notion that simply stating that twelve of the twenty-nine have been published in the series is information taken directly from the text and that the only "research" being done is reading the source material.  It's no different than saying the main character of a novel is ________. WP does not require a citation for that information in the entry for the novel in question because the entry is about the novel and so the source material is an implicit cite.  So too, here.  I'd like to think we've reached a resolution here, and I for one would be thrilled to put this issue to bed. Burks88 05:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list should go in or there should be no such statement.  And the list needs a date because this page may not always be kept current.  By my count Lehman thanks 38 total in his acknowledgements.  And the sentence with this information has to be changed.  The beginning "While Lehman has . . . " implies a connection that may or may not be there and is thus not neutral. WaverlyR 11:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong.  And these juveniles games are extremely tiresome.  He thanks 38, 9 of whom, as you well know, are from Scribner or publicists.  The sentence clearly says "advisors and assistants" and so the number, as you've now confirmed, is correct, and you know it's correct.  You are playing games.  Moreover, while I could put the list in and it would take three seconds to do, what's the purpose?  You will merely remove it and develop a new argument against it, which has been your technique from the get-go.  To list all 29 advisors and assistants is to belabor the point unnecessarily.  Moreover, to remove the "while" is to make it absolutely unclear why that information is relevant in the first instance, which is of course precisely why you removed the "while."  Without the "while," a reader has absolutely no way to make sense of that information being there, as in the English language we use "transitions" between sentences.  Like "while."  Your repeated obstruction is odious, and its intentions so transparent it's remarkable no one has put a stop to it yet. Really! Burks88 18:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Burks88, WaverlyR is right here, and I'm pretty sure you know what s/he's talking about. You just can't go about making an argument (e.g., Lehman is a nepotistic creep) without back-up sources, even if it's contained in adverbial phrases and insinuation. As I've suggested below, it may not be hard to find a few reliable sources that claim cronyism and then to base the rest of the passage on that, but you can't go about doing what you're doing right now. While I confess I find watching you two go at it pretty fun, the remnants my of wikipedia conscience force me to say that you need to try something other than slanging each other on the talk page and repeatedly removing and reinserting each other's information. Sdedeo (tips) 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Burks88, I have to agree that we need the lists of assistants in order to make any statement about how many had their poems in later editions. The statement would also need an "as of" phrase to indicate how current it is. We're close to the edge of W:OR by even putting the lists in a footnote or two, although we're still on solid ground there. It seems to me that if we present the bald facts to readers, you will have made your point in the most effective way possible and be on solid ground with respect to Wikipedia policies. Since we have no Wikipedia-reliable sources to draw the conclusion, we can't draw any conclusion. Readers will draw their own conclusions. I agree with everything WaverlyR says in her 11:44 post just above (except the accuracy of her count, simply because I can't confirm it now). It seems to me that we have a consensus here allowing you to make the point you wanted to make with, really, only minor concessions on your part to conform with Wikipedia rules. I know it's not easy to resolve these conflicts without getting irritated, but if you keep cool now and type the lists into a footnote or two, you'll have achieved more than a lot of editors do in similar situations. Noroton 19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noroton, thanks for the advice.  I'll admit I'm still flabbergasted by all this, but I've done as you advised and listed all the assistants and advisors, followed by a list (without editorializing of any sort) of which assistants and advisors have appeared in the series. Burks88 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: ===definitely not OK===
While Lehman has indicated on repeated occasions that excellence is the only criteria for selection for Best American Poetry, of the forty-five contributors to the volume from New York City, 43 live in Brooklyn, and two live in Queens. In 2003, John Milton (who lives in Brooklyn) published John Keats, who also lives in Brooklyn. In 1989, William Carlos Williams (who lives in Brooklyn) published Allen Ginsberg, a Brooklyn resident, and in 1999 Ezra Pound in Williamsburg published four poems by writers in Greenpoint, Park Slope and Bushwick (which is practically Brooklyn these days anyway.)
===still not OK===
Of the forty-five contributors to the volume from New York City, 43 live in Brooklyn, and two live in Queens.
===OK===
In a series of editorials, the Queens Avenger has alleged that the Best American Poetry is biased in favor of Brooklyn residence. The Avenger noted that of the forty-five contributors to the volume from New York City, 43 live in Brooklyn and two live in Queens. Lehman has indicated on repeated occasions that excellence is the only criteria for selection for the anthology.
Hope this helps, Sdedeo (tips) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little ironic, isn't it. It's not the information that's the problem, it's that the information (which all concede to be accurate) hasn't been synthesized by a publication with an editorial structure.  I say "ironic," because we're all Wikipedia editors, and any one of us represents an editorial structure because we can determine whether or not the information is accurate by reviewing one another's work.  So, to summarize: If A publishes his friend B in an on-line journal, and B alleges cronyism explicitly using the 12-of-29 figure which is inarguable fact, no problem.  If B adds the same inarguably accurate information, without any explicit allegation of cronyism, to a Wikipedia entry, and Wikipedia editors A, C, D, E, and F confirm the accuracy of the information, it's a horrible faux pas. [And in each instance, the "information" is merely taken directly from the source material].  Is it any wonder this strikes me as mindless adherence to some arcane form that doesn't actually make logical sense?  I'm still not clear, either, on which Wikipedia policy establishes this absurd reliance on single-editor publications of source material information rather than Wikipedia-verified publication of source material information.  Honestly, if a single person in an on-line journal made such an allegation, I would consider it less reliable than facts being presented (sans allegation) in a Wikipedia article, with oversight not by a single editor (who, in the on-line journal, could just be a buddy of the writer) but dozens of Wikipedia editors. Burks88 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sigh.  I was the one who removed, ultimately, the allegations of cronyism.  They were replaced with data, sans editorializing.  Yet it's like that never happened.  Because some don't like the implications of the data, it is decried as "claiming...cronyism."  Which, patently, it does not, nor does the word "cronyism" (or, the word "allegations") appear anywhere in the entry as I've edited it. Burks88 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sdedeo, I admire your attention to policy, but we editors are supposed to be even more attentive to the spirit of policy, and Burks88 is violating neither. We are here to present reliable facts, whether or not they may lead readers to negative opinions on a subject. There is no question about the reliability of the facts (assuming Burks88 has presented them accurately, but they can be checked). As I read the addition now, no original research has been done because information has only been selected. Editors are not only allowed to select information for articles based on what they think is important, but they are essentially obligated to do so. I've just reread WP:OR, particularly the "primary sources" section in WP:PSTS and the "Origins of this policy" section, which seems to deal with the purpose and spirit of the OR policy. Please take a look: the concern is about editors presenting their own personal conclusions in articles, not presenting simple facts that anyone can verify. We are always selecting facts for inclusion into articles. Noroton 04:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not list all the contributors who are black, who are women, who live in Brooklyn? That's different from whether assistants have had their poems included. Inherent in the idea of a "Best of" series is what constitutes "best", what criteria are used and whether the judges are judging based on some kind of merit. Bringing in the idea of what other characteristics we could consider about contributors is just that: bringing in an idea. If the series were titled "The Best Poetry From All Around New York State", in which the volumes were supposed to reflect some kind of geographic consideration, then it would be inherent in the subject that we tell readers how many were from Brooklyn as compared with elsewhere, and as long as we source it, we shouldn't need to have a secondary source for it. If it were "The Best Poetry From American Ethnic Groups" we'd want to know how much each group was represented because it's a natural, obvious question to ask. Original research involves going beyond simple reporting of relevant facts. Since we have a "Best of American Poetry" series, we are naturally interested in whether the editors are, in fact, looking for "the best". If there's a reason to list all the contributors that were assistants, it would appear in a reliable source. No, we often take information from primary sources that doesn't appear in secondary sources. Noroton 16:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first two sentences just above give me something to think about. I'd find it more comfortable to let the whole thing drop, but I've got some problems with the way the page looks now. Actually, they're problems a bit separate from what's been discussed so far. I'm starting a new thread about them. Personally, I won't object to archiving at this point, but you may want to see the new thread first. Noroton 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: examples

message: In a series of editorials, the Queens Avenger has alleged that the Best American Poetry is biased in favor of Brooklyn residence. The Avenger noted that of the forty-five contributors to the volume from New York City, 43 live in Brooklyn and two live in Queens. Lehman has indicated on repeated occasions that excellence is the only criteria for selection for the anthology.
Hope this helps, Sdedeo (tips) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little ironic, isn't it. It's not the information that's the problem, it's that the information (which all concede to be accurate) hasn't been synthesized by a publication with an editorial structure.  I say "ironic," because we're all Wikipedia editors, and any one of us represents an editorial structure because we can determine whether or not the information is accurate by reviewing one another's work.  So, to summarize: If A publishes his friend B in an on-line journal, and B alleges cronyism explicitly using the 12-of-29 figure which is inarguable fact, no problem.  If B adds the same inarguably accurate information, without any explicit allegation of cronyism, to a Wikipedia entry, and Wikipedia editors A, C, D, E, and F confirm the accuracy of the information, it's a horrible faux pas. [And in each instance, the "information" is merely taken directly from the source material].  Is it any wonder this strikes me as mindless adherence to some arcane form that doesn't actually make logical sense?  I'm still not clear, either, on which Wikipedia policy establishes this absurd reliance on single-editor publications of source material information rather than Wikipedia-verified publication of source material information.  Honestly, if a single person in an on-line journal made such an allegation, I would consider it less reliable than facts being presented (sans allegation) in a Wikipedia article, with oversight not by a single editor (who, in the on-line journal, could just be a buddy of the writer) but dozens of Wikipedia editors. Burks88 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sigh.  I was the one who removed, ultimately, the allegations of cronyism.  They were replaced with data, sans editorializing.  Yet it's like that never happened.  Because some don't like the implications of the data, it is decried as "claiming...cronyism."  Which, patently, it does not, nor does the word "cronyism" (or, the word "allegations") appear anywhere in the entry as I've edited it. Burks88 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sdedeo, I admire your attention to policy, but we editors are supposed to be even more attentive to the spirit of policy, and Burks88 is violating neither. We are here to present reliable facts, whether or not they may lead readers to negative opinions on a subject. There is no question about the reliability of the facts (assuming Burks88 has presented them accurately, but they can be checked). As I read the addition now, no original research has been done because information has only been selected. Editors are not only allowed to select information for articles based on what they think is important, but they are essentially obligated to do so. I've just reread WP:OR, particularly the "primary sources" section in WP:PSTS and the "Origins of this policy" section, which seems to deal with the purpose and spirit of the OR policy. Please take a look: the concern is about editors presenting their own personal conclusions in articles, not presenting simple facts that anyone can verify. We are always selecting facts for inclusion into articles. Noroton 04:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not list all the contributors who are black, who are women, who live in Brooklyn? That's different from whether assistants have had their poems included. Inherent in the idea of a "Best of" series is what constitutes "best", what criteria are used and whether the judges are judging based on some kind of merit. Bringing in the idea of what other characteristics we could consider about contributors is just that: bringing in an idea. If the series were titled "The Best Poetry From All Around New York State", in which the volumes were supposed to reflect some kind of geographic consideration, then it would be inherent in the subject that we tell readers how many were from Brooklyn as compared with elsewhere, and as long as we source it, we shouldn't need to have a secondary source for it. If it were "The Best Poetry From American Ethnic Groups" we'd want to know how much each group was represented because it's a natural, obvious question to ask. Original research involves going beyond simple reporting of relevant facts. Since we have a "Best of American Poetry" series, we are naturally interested in whether the editors are, in fact, looking for "the best". If there's a reason to list all the contributors that were assistants, it would appear in a reliable source. No, we often take information from primary sources that doesn't appear in secondary sources. Noroton 16:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first two sentences just above give me something to think about. I'd find it more comfortable to let the whole thing drop, but I've got some problems with the way the page looks now. Actually, they're problems a bit separate from what's been discussed so far. I'm starting a new thread about them. Personally, I won't object to archiving at this point, but you may want to see the new thread first. Noroton 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OK

message: Sourced material has been added to the Criticial reception section, but most of the additions don't meet WP:Reliable Sources standards.
:(a) It seems to me that a good case can be made that the Briggs Seekins material is reliable enough (because he's someone who's been published and is writing about what he experienced first-hand at Salt Hill, and he's writing appeared in an online publication that seems to have editorial supervision), but the hunk of quoted material is too much copyright infringement for Wikipedia (see [[WP:Copyright). I notice in googling around that Seth Abramson's blog has an interesting and amusing discussion about quoting from this very same piece by Seekins, but Wikipedia copyright policy is one of the great gods we bow down before here, and the great gods won't permit it. I'm going to rewrite and remove most of the quoted chunk.
:(b) The Daily Cougar stuff is not acceptable as a reliable source and must go. I've added a bit more from the Academy of American Poets Web site and that can replace some of it, but we can't use a college paper as a source. And the idea that the 2007 volume has "unprecedented" cronyism is not backed up by the Daily Cougar article, which cites one instance, in itself questionable. McHugh picked an unknown poet from her native city? That's nowhere near conclusive. As I've pointed out before, Wikipedia forbids us from offering negative information from non-reliable sources. We simply can't do it.
:(c) Edward Short in The Weekly Standard doesn't seem to be saying what we say he's saying about "approved poets". The way I read Short's comment, in context, is that Lehman's poets in the Oxford anthology are "approved" because they previously appeared in the BAP anthologies. That's a criticism of the Oxford anthology, not BAP. The "dubious" adjective is certainly about BAP, but it isn't explained by Short. I don't see enough substance here to make the quote worth using.
I'm immediately removing the Daily Cougar comments as per WP:Biographies of living persons policy (as an attack on McHugh and others). I'm going to rewrite that chunk of Seekins'. I'll hold off on the Short comment in hopes I can be shown that my reading of it is wrong. All this is subject to consensus, of course. Noroton 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noroton, we may already have addressed these issues, but: I agree the Cougar observation about McHugh should go; I disagree that the rest isn't usable, reliable, and relevant, so I've reinserted it.  I'm sure no one would refuse to have The Harvard Advocate used as a cite, for instance--this is a massive college publication with an extensive editorial structure and oversight (as we saw in the recent CSU anti-Bush editorial fiasco) from the University as well.  I disagree w/ your interpretation about the Short quote--he's saying that Lehman has a list of "approved poets" and he links up this observation with the observation that the BAP is a "dubious" publication.  I've kept it in.  We'll have to tinker with the Seekins quote--he is clearly making a point in his editorial about Lehman and how the Duhamel poem got into BAP--and why--and the quote we use from him must reflect that, otherwise the quote is meaingless and irrelevant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burks88 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some problems with the article as it stands now: Sourcing

message: Sdedeo, you removed this paragraph:
:In 1989, Donald Hall selected a poem by his wife Jane Kenyon ; in 1990, Jorie Graham selected a poem by her then-husband James Galvin ; in 2001, Robert Hass selected a poem by his wife Brenda Hillman ; and most recently, in 2006, Paul Muldoon selected Stacey Harwood, the wife of series editor Lehman, for inclusion .
Your edit-summary comment was: this is definitely OR; we really need a secondary source. Please tell us: By "secondary source" do you mean someone has to say that these guest editors included their wives? If so, please explain why you accept the list of people Lehman thanked but not this information. I think the reasoning for keeping wives and assistants is identical.  Or is your only objection that we haven't established that these people are wives? Because its easy to source the wives part (except for Stacey Harwood). Noroton 21:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting tedious. I will say this one last time: searching the list of contributors for suspicious activity is original research. All you have to do is find a reliable source, and you can include the information. Take my word for it, or edit-war each other until you figure it out. I am taking this page off the watchlist, and will not be involved further. Sdedeo (tips) 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Husbands and wives

message: Given the ongoing disputes over this article, I've asked for WP:CEM between Burks88 and me. I hope that Burks88 will agree to participate. If he or she does agree, please visit the WP:CEM page and sign.  In the meantime, please stop editing this page.WaverlyR 13:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Community Enforceable Mediation

message: FYI, I have spent the past 10 years or so maintaining a database on BAP.  Tables are available at
http://www.jefferybahr.com/Publications/BAPRanks.html
http://www.jefferybahr.com/Publications/BAPPoetsAll.html
and an old analysis at:
http://www.jefferybahr.com/Publications/BapStats.html
These may be of value or at least worth of citation.
Regards,
Jeffery L Bahr, PhD  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.181.168 (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Independent Sources of BAP Data and Analysis 

message: I suggest we cut the long list of magazines. It adds nothing. Span (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Magazine listing