Talk:Barrett Watten/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Barrett Watten. 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/20060905174026/http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Epoetry/watten.html to http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~poetry/watten.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630065810/http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/posts/post34.html to http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/posts/post34.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220115333/http://www.english.wayne.edu:80/fac%5Fpages/ewatten/ to http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/
 * Added tag to http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/review.asp?id=79713''Detroit

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barrett Watten. 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/20060220115333/http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/ to http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Contentious material has been challenged and removed.
Please do not add this back without exemplary sourcing and with attention to avoiding undue weight. Challenged material should not be added back without a consensus to do so.  Dloh Cier  ekim  15:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2019
I wish to remove the following from near the top of the article:

This an attack on the subject. It is potentially libelous, and -- most obviously -- it violates NPOV.

I would like you to remove it, or to allow me to remove it, & then to lock the site again. I note that I am not the subject, not related to the subject. I am aware, however, that Watten has retained counsel to rebuff these allegations. Historyofpoetry (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✔️  General Ization Talk  16:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Editors and General Ization,

The deletion rationale by Historyofpoetry does not hold up under any amount of scrutiny. 

There is no attack on the subject, and there is no possibility of libel; it is clearly not libelous to say Please reconsider your decision to lock this page, as it is being done in the personal interest of Watten, not in the interests of Wikipedia's objectivity. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not place unsourced allegations in articles or in talk pages. Such content must be impeccably sourced, and Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet that publishes allegations.  Dloh Cier   ekim  16:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Could you please attempt to explain negative BLP, particularly unsourced negative BLP better than I can?  Dloh Cier  ekim  16:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * {reply|Stophidingbehind}} Once you have a consensus to add the material back.  Dloh Cier  ekim  16:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (fixing ping)  Dloh Cier  ekim  16:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, Because it is in the personal interest of the other editor to silence this content, I do not believe consensus will be possible. Alternatively, if I am able to produce sources that are in line with Wikipedia's expectations, would that prove Historyofpoetry was at fault in the "edit war," and his edits would be removed? Should I simply make an "edit request" on the page in question? --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If I can explain a little more, the accusations would under the umbrella of contentious material. For these kind of updates, we MUST have a reliable source to validate this, and not a blog post or a private investigator website. These currently are unsourced allegations, however if there was a source, such as a media outlet reporting this, then it could be seen as a reliable source to add this info. Please also bear in mind however the idea of undue weight for allegations such as these, and to prevent this from becoming the focus of the article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi -- I stop by only to note that it is by no means "in the personal interest of the editor to..." do anything whatever in respect of this Wikipedia page. I am not the subject of the page, & the redacted-because-offensive content neither references me nor is addressed to me nor could lead to me in any way. My edits had the sole purpose of bringing the page in line with Wikipedia policies. Indeed, I would appreciate Stophidingbehind ceasing to address any of her comments to me as a person -- someone with some stake in a conflict of any kind whatever. It's just not the case. Historyofpoetry (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that more contentious material has been added to this article. The material appears to be a clear violation of NPOV. It notes that allegations have been made, which appears to be true, then explicitly supports the truth of of whatever has been alleged by reference to a "blog" explicitly (and anonymously) created to be an attack on Watten (the site does not hide, but rather features this intention) & which, moreover, includes material unrelated to the allegations (!) contributed, it seems, by Watten's peers & rivals in the contentious (!!) world of literature), while it offers no method by which a person might contribute material in rebuttal of any of its attacks (not even in a comment thread) or add a post from a different point of view. Taking another close look, I can find no way for anyone to post any material with any purpose other than to damage Watten. The contentious material that has been added to the article on Watten also references and links to piece of journalism: an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, hence I took a quick look at the article. From its headline, to the graphics on the page, to the first sentence of the article, guilt is presumed. Guilt of... something. I have no knowledge of any kind of the "situation on the ground" at Wayne State University, nor, from reading the article, is the University specifically acknowledging any allegations against Watten (as the contentious material claims).

I apologize for writing at length. This does not appear to be material appropriate for Wikipedia. IMO it should be removed and the article locked. Historyofpoetry (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The Chronicle of Higher Education article is behind a paywall, so I can't evaluate what it says. However, I agree that the text that was added to the article is inappropriate for the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi -- Rereading my contribution above, I realized I need to be more specific. The newly added contentious material is contained in the 3d & 4th sentences of the first paragraph of the article on Watten. The third sentence of the paragraph refers to an allegation as if it were an existing thing "...a decades-long history of...." The fourth sentence suggests that a (seemingly minimally-researched?) journalistic article has "corroborated" this history and that Wayne State University has stated that it is investigating this history. Having read the sources to which these sentences link, they do not support these claims. Whoever it is who edited the article to introduce this material would seem to give evidence of a stake in some kind of contention involving the subject of the article. Where is the required NPOV? Nowhere evident, alas. Once again, I request these sentences be removed and that the article be locked. Thank you. Historyofpoetry (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.223.168 (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion: the new information, clearly relevant and credibly sourced, would be more appropriately expanded upon in another section and only given a brief mention in the intro? While "historyofpoetry" is committed to claiming there is a violation of NPOV, this would appear to be provably false: The Chronicle is a highly respected news source, and the article includes direct mention of the investigation brought by Wayne State. Perhaps different wording would address the problem, though I have trouble finding an "assumption of guilt" in the Wikipedia edits beyond maybe my sloppy syntax. I will be adding an edited version of my previous addition and will attempt to work toward a consensus with historyofpoetry in our talk pages. Stophidingbehind (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi -- wow! Without any knowledge whatever of anything internal to Wayne State, I nonetheless have no trouble recognizing a vendetta when I see one. Complete with what seems to be the idea that *I* am "Barry" (...Watten, I assume? Apparently the writer knows him well enough to call him by a nickname.). Apparently, the writer assumes that no one but Mr. Watten would want to rid Wikipedia's pages of contentious material? In service of this vendetta, the writer copied into this talk page the entire text of a (presumably) copyrighted article. I don't see how anything could be more obvious than that it is utterly, astonishingly(!) inappropriate to do that. I've removed it. I have no doubt that this person will do it again. I hope something can be done to make this stop. It's tiresome to monitor it as I have taken it upon myself to do. Historyofpoetry (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi History! I did not add the article's text. I have edited the article again in compliance with NPOV & WP:UNDUE, addressing both your concerns and Wikipedia guidelines. I do hope we're able to discuss a consensus either here or on our talk pages. I would ask that editors and admins who are viewing this disagreement understand these additions are not made in bad faith and consider whether there is justification to remove if they are credibly sourced and compliant. Thanks! Stophidingbehind (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

deleted message from... Historyofpoetry (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , the editor you're addressing has been topic-banned and is unable to respond. This page is here purely to discuss the article's content, actual and potential. If you have any kind of conflict of interest yourself in relation to this topic, you should avoid editing the article, and you should consider avoiding the talk page too. Please read WP:BLPCOI. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * -- Thank you for the information. I have simply deleted my lengthy address as inappropriate for this page. Thank you as well for pointing me to WP:BLPCOI, which I have read. I have neither a conflict of interest *nor any interest at all* in editing the article. I have removed obviously contentious material, nothing else.

As a neutral party, professionally aware of the article’s subject but not well-acquainted, I find this dispute curious: when serious allegations against a public figure are publicized in the press, Wikipedia typically tracks the controversy as it unfolds. It appears to me that both Stophidingbehind and Historyofpoetry have an axe to grind (on May 15, one editor is aware the subject has hired a lawyer and the other seems to have inside information about a forthcoming article); while I presume the redacted edits violated NPOV, I would think coverage by Academe’s most venerable news source and an investigation by a University for misconduct do deserve mention in the biography of a professor. The page history suggests there are more than these two editors interested in updating—perhaps some of those others should work toward consensus, wherein the allegations and publicity are acknowledged, but not given undue weight nor presented as fact. Conflictorabuse (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * — Conflictorabuse (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I do not have an axe to grind, I am not biased, I am not part of any campaign: I'm just trying to update this article so it is accurate. Stophidingbehind (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Page protection
I've fully protected the article for three days. That time should be used by uninvolved editors to decide whether to add any of this material to the bio. That discussion should include whether the existence of one reliable source is sufficient for this kind of material, and, if so, how it should be summarized. Anyone involved in this situation in real life has a conflict of interest, and should not edit the article. Please read WP:BLPCOI carefully. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability
The sources for this article are so poor that it isn't easy to see what makes him notable enough for an article? If this was at AFC for example I would decline it. Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Theroadislong in fact, the information I added to this article carried the only reliable source on the entire page. Curious that it was deemed "contentious" and not-neutral and in violation of Wikipedia policy to the point that I've been banned from editing. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about the subject of this article or any controversy regarding it. It is extremely poorly sourced, I have searched for possible sources and these are what I have found, once the article is unprotected perhaps they can be used to re-write the article.


 * https://www.chronicle.com/article/I-Was-Sick-to-My/246413
 * https://www.dispatchespoetrywars.com/dispatches-news/the-barrett-watten-nathaniel-mackey-encounter/
 * http://poeticsresearch.com/article/luke-harley-reviews-barrett-watten/
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/poetry-and-language-writing/just-rehashed-surrealism-the-writing-of-barrett-watten/2D63BF1916A64EB9AAB0171BECAE8BA7
 * http://americanpoetry.usal.es/poets/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=770

Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The first of those was cited before, but it's behind a paywall, so I can't verify what's in it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * C.Fred, this is an accessible link to the first of those found on Theroadislong’s talk page — [redacted] Chronicle article] Conflictorabuse (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And now having seen the content at that link it doesn't appear to be useable, it consists only of allegations. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the link to the Chronicle article at Dropbox per Wikipedia:Copyrights because I very seriously doubt that the copyright holder has authorized placement of the article there. - Donald Albury 11:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look, on the grounds that SarahSV mentioned it on another page, and since I've sent her far more complicated disputes in the past, I probably owe her a favor (or twenty).
 * Whether this person is "notable" (that is, an eligible subject for a separate article, as opposed to, say, a paragraph or two somewhere in the Language poets article) is the place that I started. The answer is... probably.  We tend to be lenient with academics, even though it introduces all sorts of horrible problems about deciding what's fair to include, and if you use that lenient standard, then he probably qualifies for an article.
 * As for the allegations, I recommend against including it today. My reasons for this include the fact that Wikipedia is a work in progress, and that There is no deadline for including potentially damaging allegations.  In other words, this got published barely two days ago.  There's only one reliable source talking about it (so far).  There's no good reason that it needs to be represented in this Wikipedia article today.  There's no harm in waiting until, say, three sources have talked about it.  And maybe even until something has happened beyond "allegations were made public", e.g., if the employer's investigation is completed.
 * And when that time comes, assuming that it results in a decision to include information about this, I ask that you please be careful to identify the allegations more specifically than "abuse" or "harassment". The reader should be left with no doubts that the allegation is that he pitches temper tantrums, because the usual type of "abuse" and "harassment" of female complainants by a male academic that we read about in the news is quite a different type of behavior.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the possible sources listed by User:Theroadislong. I'll skip over the Chronicle article, and give some comments on the other sources. Note that literature is not my area, so I know nothing about the reliability of the sources, and find many of the details esoteric.
 * The item from Dispatches from the Poetry Wars covers a dispute between Watten and another scholar. I do not know whether the site qualifies as reliable enough to meet BLP standards as a source. The Editorial Crew page lists editors, executive editors, and contributing editors, but I can not tell what kind editorial review is practiced. While the description of the dispute in Dispatches may provide some light on the allegations in the Chronicle, it may not be usable in Wikipedia.
 * The review of Watten's book from the Journal of Poetics Research discusses some of Watten's academic disputes with other scholars, but I don't see any relevance to the issues raised by the Chronicle article.
 * The link to Poetry and Language Writing is to an abstract for an article that is apparantly a discussion of Watten's views on another scholar, and I see nothing in the abstract relevant to the curent dispute.
 * The biography of Watten at American Poetry might be useful for developing this article, if we are satisfied that it meets RS for BLP, but has nothing relevant to the allegations in the Chronicle.
 * So, I think we can say that Watten is known for getting into academic disputes with other scholars, but anything more than that will depend on how we handle the Chronicle article, pending more definitive information from other reliable sources. - Donald Albury 19:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Substantial Controversy
Here's a link: https://www.chronicle.com/article/I-Was-Sick-to-My/246413

[Redacted, BLP violation]. This seems notable enough, but I'm not very familiar with the restrictions on BLP so I'm not comfortable adding the information here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TricksterWolf (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing
To repeat some of the advice from above, we require high-quality sources for biographies of living persons, particularly for anything contentious. No self-published sources are allowed, unless written by the subject of the article. Anything contentious requires high-quality, independent secondary sources, such as news reports (but no tabloid journalism) and academic journals. Please see WP:BLP for the policy and WP:BLPSPS for the section about self-published sources. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Truly wild the degree to which the extensive sourcing on this story, including the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, has been consistently flagged and quibbled to nothing, and now that an official finding by the University has been established, another weasely loophole has been established. Perhaps someone who has continually reverted these extensive edits could do the work to put the Chronicle article information into the page in a way that will satisfy their pedantry. Infocidal (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the latest addition to the article as not properly sourced. I also took myself off to my local community college and with the help of the librarian located a year's worth of back issues of The Chronicle of Higher Education. It is a venerable publication read by administrators and faculty country-wide, and is as dependable as the New York Times. After looking through some issues I note that it is doing more investigative reporting of campus issues than it used to a decade ago. After reading the article that has been used as a source here, this is what I propose to add:


 * As outlined in a report in The Chronicle of Higher Education, over the years Watten's temper and hostile behavior had made many students and faculty uncomfortable. Fearing retaliation few had filed formal complaints. In the spring semester of 2019 several graduate students complained to the administration, including the filing of a Title IX complaint and a workplace violence complaint. Unhappy with the response, they set up a blog to collect accounts of his behavior toward students and faculty. In May the administration notified the English department that they had hired an independent investigator. Eighteen members of the English faculty requested that Watten be removed from contact with graduate students and his office moved elsewhere.


 * , will this do? I cannot find reliable sources for any later developments. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for removing the latest edits and for doing the work of finding a source. I don't want to become involved here as an editor, so I'm pinging the editors who commented before. hi everyone, I'm hoping you might be able to help form a consensus about how to handle this matter. There was a development in the case last month, reported only on Twitter. The sole secondary source is still the Chronicle article from June. The question is whether, and if so how, to add anything about it. SarahSV (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If it was reported only on Twitter, we have a problem. Either the tweeter (1) is not a reliable source or (2) is a reporter but their publication rejected the story, which raises the question of what the flaw was. Whichever is the case, though, tweets alone aren't enough to go by. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * and all, the issue is not the twitter source but the Chronicle source for the earlier material and the text of the addition I have proposed above (and will turn green for emphasis). Thanks for looking at this. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said in June, the question is how to handle the Chronicle article. Nothing else offered so far seems relevant. My wife used to read the Chronicle on a regular basis. If she still has an account with them I'll take a look at the article. - Donald Albury 01:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * C.Fred, just to clarify, when I said the development was reported on Twitter, I should have made clear that it was one of the involved parties who tweeted about it. As for the Chronicle article, someone on WP:RX might have access. SarahSV (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My wife lost access to the Chronicle when she retired from the college, so, sorry, I can't see the article. - Donald Albury 01:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * If only reported in a single source, I would not include it. We need confirmation from more outlets. While it is true that we cannot always meet the "no harm" standard, we need to avoid even the appearance of recklessness. A single source? No. We need confirmation, and not a tweet from a involved party. And not a reprint of the original story that someone ran with but did not corroborate. --  Deep fried  okra    02:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still inclined to wait for a second source. It might be excellent reporting, and it might be unimpeachably accurate.  CHR is a good source, but it's still a single source, and a single source is still not a lot to hang WP:DUE weight on.  If it's worth mentioning, it'll turn up in a second decent source, at least in a passing mention along the lines of "investigation underway" or something.  I checked the (three) local newspapers, and his name doesn't appear in the search results at all.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm of a mind that we need a second source before we re-add this information. This is a serious claim, and should not be taken lightly in the least. With confirmation from a second source, and not Twitter, I would be comfortable in adding this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have come to share your concern about putting in what we have now, though I think Chronicle coverage is reliable enough alone. Usually Chronicle stories are able cover both sides in depth; this was able to cover only one plus a lawyer's statement. If the university is not willing to go on record about the result then I don't think it should go in without other sources. I have a note on my talk page that the Chronicle is doing a follow-up story, but with lawyers involved that remains to be seen. The first source that I saw online about Watten back in June was a small item in a Chronicle "Transitions" section (not needing a subscription to read) under the heading "Investigation". The section has been amended, moved to a later date, and the item is no longer online. It is not in the print version either. Whether the Chronicle can get a statement from the university or not there will eventually be other sources we can use as other campuses take this as a basis for their own investigations.


 * To other watchers of this page, I will say that I share your concern about what happened but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publication mechanism. While sexual harassment on campus makes news, bullying of students, in this case primarily of women, doesn't. It is not going to be picked up in the mainline press. But because of people being willing to push this investigation through the climate will change across the academic community. That is what matters, not having it prominently in a Wikipedia article. While the Chronicle runs articles to help academics with their careers, its primary subscriber base is administrators. They are aware of the liability they face for allowing a hostile environment. As Watten's lawyer pointed out in the last paragraph of the Chronicle article, the university was aware of these issues when they granted him tenure. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "It'll change the industry" means that the information belongs in another article.
 * However, a change in the terms of his own career belongs in the article that describes his career, and that's what the recent article from CHR reports:
 * I don't see a way to avoid mentioning this, at least at the extremely minimal level of "As of 2019, he no longer teaches or advises any students". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a way to avoid mentioning this, at least at the extremely minimal level of "As of 2019, he no longer teaches or advises any students". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Can I get some direction to where it says that we need two published articles to post available information, or why the accusations and findings against Watten are being given less weight than other information allowed on living people wikipedia pages? Infocidal (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PUBLICFIGURE, part of our policy on biographies of living persons, which says, "If you cannot find reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." - Donald Albury 20:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, there are two Chronicle stories by different reporters (though note that more minor public figures can hide behind the single publication reporting on their behavior because there is only one publication that regularly reports on their behavior), there is the Wayne State finding document, which on its own is worthy of entry here and has been verified by the University itself, regardless of whether the finding is itself accurate, and there are several statements from concerned third-party sources, like the Graduate Employees Organizing Committee. It is hard not to come to the conclusion that the reason this information is not on the page is because of freaks and fanboys who insist that no material, no matter how well-documented, will be added to the page. Infocidal (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But the information is on the page. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Revised proposal
With the new article I am proposing this be added. I'm asking at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) for editors with access to the publication to take a look.
 * As outlined in a report in The Chronicle of Higher Education, over the years Watten's temper and hostile behavior had made many students and faculty uncomfortable. In the spring semester of 2019 several graduate students filed new complaints with the administration. Unhappy with the response, they set up a blog to collect accounts of his behavior toward students and faculty. In May the administration notified the English department that they had hired an independent investigator. In November the university informed Watten that he was banned from teaching and his office would be moved to another building. Watten's faculty union, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), filed a grievance citing lack of required due process and requesting that the restrictions be withdrawn.

StarryGrandma (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have access to the Chronicle of Higher Education through a university library account, and can confirm that it says what is claimed above. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Me too. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The bits about the blog and notifying the English department feel like trivia. Maybe just reduce it down to "students complained, university acted, union is appealing"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll leave out the bit about notifying the English department. However the blog is not trivia. I can expand it if you think is sounds trivial. It was the very public blog with contributions from people now all over the country that compelled the university to do the investigation after years of complaints did not have any result. So leaving that out would be misleading. I agree that we don't need all the details from these two long sources and can keep to the basic facts. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason that it feels unimportant (for this article) is because the university's sensitivity to bad publicity doesn't sound like it really tells the reader anything about the subject of this article. However, you've read the sources, and I haven't, so I defer to your judgment.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can someone add this already? Infocidal (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * StarryGrandma did five days ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

BLP
I'm active as an admin on this article so I don't want to make editing suggestions, but I have a concern about policy. So far as I can tell, Watten is not a celebrity academic whose situation might be written up by the New York Times, which would make a decision about this material much easier. He is a private person, and therefore WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE applies:

"Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. ... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."

"Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." Are two articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education, but not elsewhere, enough to say that the material has been "treated with special care"? In addition, was the second Chronicle article fairly summarized? It discussed a campaign again Watten, aspects of which aren't mentioned in the WP summary. We saw that getting this material into Wikipedia seemed to be part of the campaign. At first it was added based on a tweet, then it was based on the first Chronicle article, then before the second Chronicle article was published, one account asked two editors on their talk whether a second Chronicle article would be enough. It's troubling that having the material added here seems to have been a goal.

I'm pinging and the editors I pinged before:  SarahSV (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Get rid of it. Even two Chronicle of Higher Education articles are insufficient. That's not at all significant coverage, let alone for negative material. To my way of thinking, it would need thorough coverage, not passing mentions, in several major media outlets, and even if repeating such content is not effectively actionable (the plaintive loses) the defendant (sing along if you know the words) has still been subjected to the expense and horror of defending their action/inactions (or the actions/inactions of their organization), either in deposition (been there, done that) or in court. Aside from that thoroughly self-serving motivation, I strongly believe in not doing unnecessary harm to anyone, especially society's pariahs and outcasts. It is far better, if one is to err, to err on the side of not defaming someone.--  Deep fried  okra    21:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh dear God I spent a lot of time over the weekend dealing with the aftermath of a likely UPE claiming their client was being defamed by Wikipedia editors paid to do so. Perish the thought, and well out of my league. ANd again, the best way to avoid an accusation of wrongdoing is to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing. --  Deep  fried  okra    21:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . I try not to do that. Can't always help myself.--  Deep fried  okra    21:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely satisfied with what we've got so far, but I think it would be inappropriate to start an article by saying "Barret Watten (born October 3, 1948) is an American poet, editor, and educator..." without also noting that he's been banned from teaching at his university. Even though he says it's unfair for them to have banned him, and no matter what the cause of the banning was, everyone agrees that it actually happened.  We either have to stop calling him an educator ("...and former educator"?) or clarify that he's a teacher who's not allowed to teach right now.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ...assuming they haven't reinstated him yet. https://clasprofiles.wayne.edu/profile/ad6155 lists a couple of classes under "Currently teaching".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Watten is a Professor at Wayne State University. That would seem to qualify him as "an educator" whether he is teaching now or not. Would he not be an educator if he were on sabbatical? How about in the Summer, when he might not be teaching? Btw, does not the term "banned" which you use several times describe a more definitive circumstance than that which exists? I.e., has Watten been "benned?" Or, has he been "suspended" while an investigation is in process? I don't know the answer. If the latter, however, then clearly that is not being *banned* & it is not a settled situation. Of course, if Watten is fired from his post as Professor, it will be appropriate to change the terms in which he is described. Make sense? Historyofpoetry (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

28 January 2020
I find the following odd for an encyclopedia article: "As outlined in a report in The Chronicle of Higher Education, over the years Watten's temper and hostile behavior had made many students and faculty uncomfortable. In the spring semester of 2019 several graduate students filed new complaints. Unhappy with the response, they set up a blog to collect accounts of his behavior toward students and faculty."

Does this not seem to presume a fact about Watten? I.e. "temper" & "hostile behavior." Are these not actually the opinions of these students etc.? I.e. rather than settled fact. It seems that something more like the following would be appropriate: "In the Spring semester of 2019, several graduate students, considering Watten's behavior towards them to be hostile and his manner to reflect a temper, filed complaints... etc."?? Is not some version of this this off the cuff language more appropriate -- assuming it is accurate to the circumstances. That is, it does not seem appropriate that the article should present the opinions of an unnamed "many students and faculty" as if they reflected a settled reality rather than being, well, a set of opinions... or maybe even one side in some kind of academic in-fight?

Were I to read a newspaper article written in this manner, I would regard it as "yellow journalism;" how much less appropriate, therefore, to read this language in an encyclopedia article?

If the article were editable, I would make a change along the lines mentioned above (giving more attention than I did above to find appropriate language). It does seem that the conflict mentioned merits some kind of description but surely not a description that begins by affirming the POV of one side in a dispute. Am I incorrect about this? Historyofpoetry (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , do you have access to the text of the Chronicle articles? They are reporting pieces, not opinion pieces. "Temper and hostility" is not an interpretation limited to students. According to the Chronicle: "Colleagues braced themselves for his red-faced fury, which occurred unexpectedly. These alleged altercations — with a fellow tenured English professor, the director of graduate studies, department heads, and junior-level faculty members — all followed a similar course. Watten, triggered by an offhand critique or remark, would launch into profanity-laced tirades, looming over whoever seemed to challenge him." I think we can solve your concerns while still keeping the paragraph brief by changing "As outlined in a report in The Chronicle of Higher Education, over the years Watten's temper and hostile behavior had made many students and faculty uncomfortable." to "As outlined in a report in The Chronicle of Higher Education, over the years Watten's behavior, allegedly short-tempered and hostile, had made many students and faculty uncomfortable." StarryGrandma (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , that would be an improvement to be sure. But, unless I miss my mark, it retains a prejudicial intention. It seems appropriate to report facts, to be sure. E.g. "the Chronicle article reports allegations by some Wayne State University students & faculty that Watten ...x, y or z" is a factual statement (assuming it is accurate as to the allegations, which I don't know but also don't mean to doubt). This strikes me as about as far as an encyclopedia article can go. Beyond that (certainly in the current version but also the one you suggest), the impression is given that the author of the article has a stake in the conflict. Now, perhaps it is only a matter of your personal conviction. I don't mean to suggest that you are one of the students or faculty members who are in conflict with Professor Watten, in which case I should think it would be utterly obvious that you have no business editing an encyclopedia article about him! But whether simply convinced or an active participant, the current language, & also your suggested version, do seem to indicate an intention to use the article itself to convict its subject. Would you say that is accurate about you? That you have a position on this conflict? That you have, indeed, an intention to use the article to damage Professor Watten? I ask, because (obviouly) I may be wrong. Feel free to correct me. Historyofpoetry (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , among other things I edit articles about academics, especially if they need references. I am here because I seem to be the only one with access to the articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education. That newspaper is covering the issue in detail because of its implications for administrators on campuses all across the country. Bullying on campus has become a hot issue, and administrators are finding that in the present climate they have a legal liability if they allow a hostile work environment. You have come to this talk page upset that we are saying too much. Others have come to this article upset that we aren't saying enough. The page is under protection because editors wanted an entire section devoted to this.


 * Unlike the sexual harassment allegations that many campuses are dealing with, this one is about behavior in public, not just behind closed doors. So the allegations are not just a "he said, she said" thing. And it is a fact that many people reported being made uncomfortable. The issues in the dispute are how uncomfortable is too uncomfortable and what can or should a university do about it. You seem to think that Watten's general temper and behavior are in dispute. Watten does dispute the individual findings that came out of the investigation. But as Watten's lawyer told the Chronicle: "Wayne State knew about Barrett, knew about his character and his personality when he was tenured," Golden said. "That was fine with them, but now they have their head in the sand when it comes to protecting him, a tenured professor." StarryGrandma (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This would appear to be another attempt to get allegations against this fellow into the article about him. I find it difficult not to conclude that you have, as it were, an axe to grind, -- i.e. that you have a position in re: this conflict and may even be involved in it. Is that the case? Historyofpoetry (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see that you are upset about the events. I assume from your insistence that I must somehow be involved that you are not near an academic campus and do not have access to the sources. The Chronicle is in the library of every university, college, and community college in the country and sits on tables in administrative waiting rooms in campuses everywhere. The newspaper is careful in its reporting and has already pulled its first unreferenced mention of the investigation from its website. I believe the summary I have provided here is brief but accurate and relevant to his career as a professor. The findings of the investigation are in dispute and should not be described here, which is why the article and this talk page are protected. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)