User talk:WaverlyR
David Lehman has confirmed that all potential selections go through him before heading to the Guest Editor. And he has said that he himself participates in selecting the poems that become potential selections and go to the Guest Editor. So your edits under the premise that only Guest Editors make editorial decisions is belied by the public statements of Mr. Lehman himself, not to mention the introductions to the BAPs that Mr. Lehman has written. Criticisms of the BAP are relevant to discussion of its critical reception, and have been documented here with examples. Readers can decide for themselves whether the information is relevant to their own views of the series. But simply deleting items which are negative re: the BAP, as you have now done more than once, will lead to a report to officials at Wikipedia for persistent vandalism, and a request that your account be suspended, please realize this.Burks88 03:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no source for the claim that Lehman prescreens all selections. David Lehman has said many times in many public places and in writing that the guest editor makes the selections. He or she may ask for Lehman's input but is not bound by it. Do you honestly think that Ashbery, Hall, Graham, Strand, Simic, Gluck, Ammons, Howard, Rich, Bloom, Tate, Hollander, Bly, Dove, Hass, Creely, Komunyakaa, Hejinian, Muldoon, Collins, and McHugh, took marching orders from Lehman? Would they sign on to a project that bears their name and relinquish control? Have you asked any one of them? Have you asked Lehman? Unlikely.(WaverlyR 14:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
Sorry, but this is incorrect. I own every BAP since 1988 and the introductions *do* establish the editorial process. Moreover, I know people who read for the series. Readers submit their hopefuls to Lehman, not directly to the Guest Editors. And Lehman also is eligible to submit poems to the Guest Editors, and does. Indeed, the introductions of the *Guest Editors* confirm this. There is much to be found in the introductions, including the fact that one year a Guest Editor admitted to reading *himself* only 40 journals for possible selections--out of the more than 500 in existence, at least 250 of which are print journals with long-standing reputations. In any event: specifically I point you toward the introduction for the first year of the BAP, as absolute proof of the misleading nature of this statement: "David Lehman has said many times in many public places and in writing that the guest editor makes the selections." You are playing with words here: yes, the Guest Editor makes the final selections; no, that does not in any way prove that Lehman *doesn't* pre-screen; and yes, he *has* admitted to doing so, in the BAPs themselves; and yes, I know, moreover, from my own investigation that he does.Burks88 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I own every BAP since 1988 and can tell you with absolute certainty that not all selections go through Lehman before going to the guest editor. Poems get to the guest editor in many ways. The guest editors don't stop their independent reading and suspend the exercise of their own taste during the year they edit the volume. Of course Lehman sends poems to the guest editor but not all poems that are chosen are pre-screened by Lehman. You are simply wrong and one must wonder why you are invested in this position and why you hold the guest editors in so low regard. Furthermore, in re: your edits about bloggers: You are in violation of the Wikipedia policy on verifiability and use of reliable sources. To continue to cite unreliable sources is to put yourself at risk for being barred from further editing. WaverlyR 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
As David Lehman's wife there is significant question as to whether you should be editing this entry at all. In any event, at no point has it been suggested that Guest Editors do not have the authority to select poems without the aid of Lehman; you indicated "the guest editor makes the selections" in a context which intimated that Lehman is not the primary screener, which he is, and you know that. Your comment about holding Guest Editors in low regard is nonsensical; saying that Lehman is the primary screener does not diminish the talents of the Guest Editors. Though I would note you have attempted to delete a link which opines that one of the Guest Editors selected a poem for the BAP by a student of hers who had never published a poem before until her poem--which appeared next to the Guest Editor's in AQR--showed up in the BAP. I imagine you would also try to delete a link by the former editor of Salt Hill who opined that a poem from his journal was accepted for BAP simply because it referenced a David Lehman poem. Regardless, until you can explain how the TSE link does anything but gather information *directly* from the BAP editions your edits will constitute vandalism. I've reported you twice, am waiting on a response, and will report you a third time if you do not a) explain how "verifiability" can apply to a section of an entry called "critical reception of the series," and b) explain how the information at the TSE link, taken *verbatim* from the information contained in the BAP editions themselves, is unreliable. If *one* of the TSE links troubles you, say so--but your wholesale deletion of all such links is what brands your actions as vandalism. Finally, it is amazing that in the section entitled "critical reception of the series" you inserted an extended quote from Lehman, the man who created the series--not a critic--but are now on some sort of crusade to eliminate links by poets who have publicly criticized the series and whose blogs receive more unique visitors per month than the BAP has purchasers in any given year. Burks88 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You continue to make assumptions that are wrong in nearly every particular (sadly I'm sure you're right that more visit the blogs you're thinking of in a month than buy The Best American Poetry -- or all poetry books combined -- in a year). I have no interest in engaging in an editing duel with you. This obviously means a lot more to you than it does to me. WaverlyR 11:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Waverly -- I think the best thing is to let things slide for awhile. Things are actually not that bad in the article as it stands (there is no longer the rogue's parade of wives, e.g.), and I think the best solution might be to turn off wikipedia (or work on something else) for a few months. Other people will show up, make edits, that kind of thing, and left alone articles usually improve. This may sound patronizing, but the "tips" link after my signature may be useful; in general, the best results are achieved by being a bit "zen" about it all. Sdedeo (tips) 17:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, good luck. I have a feeling that what I've suggested (relying on secondary sources) will be what the mediators suggest, but it seems like some people want to argue the point further. Sdedeo (tips) 16:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look
[edit]I've brought the BAP matter to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Please take a look at that and feel free to comment there. I suppose I am criticizing both of you for being contentious, but please don't consider that a condemnation -- I think it's hard not to be contentious when you care about something a lot, as both of you do. And I do think you've both improved the article. At BLP they only rule on content, and especially with newer editors, if they disagree with anything you've done, you shouldn't consider it a criticism, only their application of Wikipedia rules. Noroton 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. The BLP posting was so long and involved that it might take a while to get a response. I don't think we can reduce the size of the list of journals. I was initially very dubious about it, but as I thought about it, it seems to me a case can be made for it. It's unlikely that this article is going to get so long that it would ever need to be removed for space. I didn't know it was you who added the wives. Another good edit! Ideally, at some point I'd love to have a description of the forewards and introductions of each issue in each issue's article (hint, hint!). When I can find my volumes of the series, I'm going to add some of that. Noroton 22:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The case is open. Best wishes with it. DurovaCharge! 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)