Talk:Seth Abramson/Archive 4

COI edits

It is pretty obvious that a series of edits were made by IPs which served to help turn an encyclopedic article into a resume; I do not doubt that there is a conflict of interest here. I have no intention of placing "COI" or "like resume" tags on the article, but to justify that I have trimmed the article of some all-too obvious resume-like information, including long lists of publications and interviews. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of resumes; if this information is returned, the article will have to be tagged to help ensure that other editors will help clean it up again. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were definitely problems with this article. I think the one concern is that this article was rated a Start-Class article and you have removed material which senior WP editors requested in order to make the article a Start-Class article. Technically removing that material would constitute vandalism if it would lower the rating of the article. Specifically, the blurbs were fully cited and were requested by senior WP editors assessing the article quality and should be retained. Likewise, at least a few poem links must be returned, as these were also required by senior WP editors and were part of the Start-Class assessment. The list of publications was obviously absurdly long and needed to be cut by 80% or more. The question is whether, without any indication that this person has published extensively in major media, you are simply creating a WP:NOTABILITY debate which would have required voters to have access to the material you just deleted summarily.Burks88 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added back in a very small percentage of several of the sections removed. 70% of those sections remain cut. If this is a problem please discuss it here. What was added back in was required for the article's Start-Class assessment. It seems to me three poem links would also be warranted, but I have waited for your input. Hopefully discussing this here avoids any kind of editing battle. That clearly is not necessary given the several year history of the article and the involvement of dozens of distinct WP editors in creating the article.Burks88 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see any point at all in the reinstatement of those blurbs. That's pure resume writing, or, to put it less kindly, pure vanispam. What are they even reviews of? Why are they not used to say a few words (a few!) about the book in question? Such things are not necessary at all for any kind of assessment, except for the assessment that ends up with "like resume" and "peacock" tags. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see what the you're saying, the problem is this: When the Start-Class request went out, the response was that a Start-Class document of a writer must contain some comments on the work of that writer by others. None of those are blurbs, actually -- a key difference I think you're missing. One is a comment by the poetry editor of the top literary magazine in the U.S. (Share), one is a comment by the top avant-garde literary critic in the U.S. (Silliman), one is a comment by the top reviewing organ for poetry collections in the U.S. (Publishers' Weekly). I don't know what your experience in the field of contemporary American poetry is, but quite literally these are not blurbs (they are reviews) and they are exactly the sort of high-level commentary on the article subject that caused the article to become Start-Class. Not sure what else to tell you? Burks88 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am there with you on most of the other cuts. All the journal publications of poetry, all the magazine publications of prose, 70% of the interviews and essays and even two of the five reviews of the article subject's work. So I don't mean to sound recalcitrant here. But I also was around when the Start-Class designation was given, and while I would have been the first to remove any "blurbs" (back cover material) in the article, these are reviews and they establish WP:NOT along with some of the other items. "Blurbs" are comments on one's work solicited by an author; reviews are editorial decisions being made by others independent of the article subject that the subject's work is worth commenting on. This is especially important if there is going to be no mention of the subject's numerous WP:NOT publications anywhere in the article. Burks88 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--Sorry, but they are blurbs in the way that they are presented. You have addressed who said what in which venue (and I dispute that PW is the top reviewing organ for poets, BTW), but you have not addressed what my concern was (I didn't complain about who said it): These long, all-too long block quotes (see WP:UNDUE) are simply chucked into a section without even the vaguest mention of what books are being reviewed. Now, you may well say that Start Class requires some criticism, but I don't think that this is what Start or Any Class requires. As I suggested above, if these references (with MUCH shorter quotes) are brought in to verify things in the text, that's a different matter. It may well be "high-level commentary", but not in this way. And, BTW, I do know a thing or two about modern American poetry, but this is not the place for my resume. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If you can, give me like 24 hours, and I will try to bring those quotes down to a more manageable size and with some indication of what they are describing by inserting them in the text proper rather than a separate section. I did not mean to disparage your poetry knowledge. I should have restricted my comment to simply distinguishing between a blurb and a review. Burks88 (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, Burks--it is true that I prefer teaching dead poets. I'd like to see a good article on this guy and all the others, but it's been my experience that there are very few in-betweens--in between a meaningless stub and an all-too long resume. I'll see also if I can dig something more up. Thanks, and my apologies if I was a bit curt. I need more sleep and less poetry. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have made the changes - removing the "Reviews" section entirely, incorporating truncated versions of three of the five quotes into the article proper, and reducing the "Selected Poems" section to just four recent works. Hopefully this looks good to you also. I feel pretty good about it - it really improves the article, I think, just as you said it would. Burks88 (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot better--thanks. I'd give you a sticker if I could. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abramson's Huffington Post blog/role

The article previously stated that Abramson "is presently the chief contemporary poetry reviewer for The Huffington Post". However, none of the sources cited mention such a role, and I am unable to find any sources that do so, other than Abramson's own LinkedIn page (and another page that appears to simply be quoting this Wikipedia article).

There has also been discussion over on the Metamodernism talk page about the nature of Abramson's articles on the Huffington Post, and all the evidence indicates that his column should be referred to as a blog.

Each of Abramson's articles prominently displays the words "The Blog" at the top of each page. [1]
Abramson's name appears in the "Blogger Index" here.
Abramson himself calls his Huffington Post column "a blog" in a radio interview here at 5m10s. The full quote is: "I think that's a matter of some dispute, but I think you'd probably call it a blog. As you know, the setup of the Huffington Post is rather confusing, and there's a lot of news articles on how it's all set up, but I think you'd call it a blog. I guess that's safe for now."

Given the way the Huffington Post operates, it is unclear by what process these articles are edited, and by whom, if at all. For these reasons, I have changed the relevant passage to "Abramson currently writes a contemporary poetry review blog for The Huffington Post" to accurately reflect these facts. Esmeme (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about "chief"; reworded the sentence to avoid the "blog" question--largely because two link-banners appear atop every article on HuffPo: one that says "The Blog," and one that says the relevant section of the site (Books, Entertainment, whatever). By way of example, this article by the current United States Secretary of State John Kerry (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/two-hours-from-now-we-vot_b_2237058.html) features the very same "blog" banner above his article (as well as, again, a second banner above it for the section of the site his article appeared in), and Kerry is in the "blog index," et cetera--but no one would call Secretary Kerry a "blogger," we'd simply say he wrote an article for The Huffington Post. In any case, the issue is avoidable here simply by rewording the passage. P.S. Given that you yourself refer to it as a "column," above, that too is an option if neutral terminology is needed. Festal82 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would plainly be a logical fallacy if one were to suggest that Abramson shouldn't be called a blogger simply because John Kerry writes a blog on the Huffington Post. Note that Kerry's are indeed referred to as "Blog Entries" here, and pages from other sections do not feature the words "The Blog" on them, as you erroneously state, such as the lead story currently on the front page of the site here. Also, note that WP:ORS points to concerns about the Huffington Post as a WP:RS. Esmeme (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup following confirmed Sockpuppetry

As a result of a sockpuppet investigation, several major contributors to this page, Festal82, Burks88, Xxreindeer, and others have been blocked indefinitely due to confirmed sockpuppetry, most conspicuously on this article and on the metamodernism page. These sockpuppets were actively trying to unduly position Seth Abramson and Jesse Damiani's writing on Wikipedia, including content from a number of suspected hoax articles posted on the authors' Huffington Post blogs.

This article currently reads like an autobiography, and needs editing to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and sift out the non-notable content that unnecessarily clutters the page. Please help to remove any content which is not encyclopedic, and any promotional external links in accordance with the external links guideline. Esmeme (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Excessive Links

Per header tags, I removed more than half of all links in the article, as these were clearly excessive and in many cases suggested an autobiographical exhaustiveness entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Also removed (as WP:TOOSOON) a long section on an Internet dustup that happened less than 90 days ago; most of the comments on that situation appear to have been on blogs or single-purpose websites that are not recognized WP:RS. I think we'll have to see if there's any longterm notability here, as I want to be particularly careful given that this is a WP:BLP. A Google search for any current mention of the dustup brings up nothing, suggesting we have a WP:BLP issue here. Actually the last (i.e. most recent) blog mention I found was just 10 days after the dustup, suggesting this is one of those ephemeral online brouhahas that often plagues WP:BLP on WP. As Abramson seems to stir up strong feelings among some, the danger of WP:TOOSOON material appears to be high here. ClaphamSix (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the reference to the statement by Omnidawn, since it has reliable WP:RS secondary sources such as The Poetry Foundation. The fact that Abramson's own publisher felt the need to issue such a statement demonstrates the notability of the controversy, thus I believe warranting inclusion on a WP:BLP. Further press coverage, for example in Flavorwire here, and The Missouri Review here, would appear to confirm this. Esmeme (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]