Talk:Peter M. Sacks

[Untitled]
Cutting and pasting this foetry stuff all over the wiki is pushing it in terms of undue weight. I have reverted to anonymous IP's version, which gives it the weight it deserves: a mention in passing. If Sacks was not a professor at Harvard and a many-times published poet, then maybe this event would be a big deal, but it's not; of the presumably hundreds of articles on his work and life, all we have for foetry is a few mentions in the press. Stawiki (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Let me guess. You're also "anonymous." As you probably know, this was a front page article in the Los Angeles Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education. It also appeared internationally in at least 10 different countries' media outlets. It was and is an important story and the paragraph is balanced with Sack's statement and the Chronicle of H.E. perspective.

As for the cut and paste, I placed that excerpt here and here only. "All over the wiki" is a gross and inaccurate exaggeration.

Bluehole (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bluehole -- let me guess as well; you're Allan Cordle, the guy who ran foetry, and with a vested interest in promoting your work around wikipedia now that you've turned off the site. I suggest you back off and let other people decide how much of your prose they want to cut and paste from page to page; you've done this on at least three articles (the foetry.com article, where it belongs, and Jorie Graham's article as well.) Stawiki (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good guess, bad spelling. I have no desire to "promote my work." Please see the 2nd para on this page. Bluehole (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you willing to compromise? I think the way to do this is the edit I first went to, which mentions the controversy and your foetry site without repeating information from this page. I think this is how we should handle this issue on both Sacks and Graham's pages. Stawiki (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Can you direct me to that edit again please? I do think it would be good to have the article and/or documents that Foetry obtained linked as references. What do you think?

This is the edit I suggested:. I've made a similar edit to Graham's page. I suggest you put all your foetry material in the foetry.com article. Stawiki (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no reference to the Foetry article nor to the documents listed as references. Any ideas? Bluehole (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I can mention foetry as the source of the accusations in that sentence. I think that solves it; let me know and I'll make the edits and we can be done. Stawiki (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Bluehole (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. Real pleasure to work with you. Stawiki (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Information
(the following had been originally posted in response to the following edit summary by 98.194.88.78 "Deleted everything added by the editor of Foetry. It is a false allegation. It belongs in the Graham bio if anywhere. Please block the person posting this comment. He is e-stalking Graham." dated 17 March 2008.) The information listed came from mainstream sources, and is cited. If you can cite sources with different information; please do so. I don't think I could be said to be "e-stalking Graham;" since until yesterday I'd never even heard of her. I'm sorry about your involvement with ethical issues at the University of Georgia Press; as far as I can tell, your part in the affair, consisting of submitting a manuscript, seems to be blameless. Nevertheless, it's part of history. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Anonymous editor 76.30.6.181 has repeatedly changed the word "revealed" to "alleged" in the sentence "the website Foetry.com revealed [4][5] that she judged the University of Georgia Contemporary Poetry series contest that selected Sacks's manuscript "O Wheel" as the first place winner." The word "alleged" is a poor word choice here.  Since editor 76.30.6.181 apparently feels very strongly about keeping the word "alleged," instead of starting a serious edit war I left the word alleged in its place, and then added a sentence clarifying the status of the allegation with a link to the Open Records Act documents, which include both the orginal documents, and also an ex post facto justification memo in which Bim Ranke attempts to provide "context" for the apparent breach of ethics. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Weasel wording? or reasonable correction?
OK, Wikipedians, a question on this one. The text "the allegation was shown to be true when documents were released by use of a Georgia Open Records Act request" was changed by anonymous editor 76.30.6.181 to "the allegation was shown to be partially true when documents were released following a Georgia Open Records Act request."

So, is this one a reasonable correction in wording? Or is it more of the (continuing) attempts to trivialize the facts and put a favorable spin on things here? In other words: revert? Or let it ride? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)