Talk:Seth Abramson

Elliot Rodger controversy
Hi all, to try and avert an edit war and perhaps help focus on the detail points at issue, I have tried to rewrite the paragraph as a kind of "middle way" to meet everybody's concerns. If I have done wrong, I'd appreciate it if you could explain your reasoning here rather than in the edit comments. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit looks fine. Lovetohave (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Minor query: should the second "killings" be changed to "event" (first sentence of graph) to avoid having the word "killings" twice in one sentence, and in close proximity. Lovetohave (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest keeping "killings" so as not to confuse the event with the publication date. I feel the section would benefit from some additional quotes of exactly what the thrust of the criticism was at the time (especially the timing), as reported by Flavorwire here, and The Missouri Review here. Esmeme (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like a consensus was reached on this language back in mid-2014. Steelpillow (Talk) has now added an additional link criticizing the text (Flavorwire), and that seems sufficient, especially as the other link was to a blog (not The Missouri Review itself) and other sources looking with more favour upon the work (e.g. Los Angeles Review of Books) are altogether absent. Current language looks fine, second "killings" seems gratuitous and an error of style rather than a clarification. I don't doubt anyone reading the sentence would understand "event" to mean the specific event referenced less than ten words earlier. Lovetohave (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On edit: the backlash to the backlash appears to be here: http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/poetics-tragedy/. The author criticises the critics as such: "absent from every piece of writing about the poem — from 140-character, hashtagged takedowns to longer, more sophisticated responses like that of Sims — is discussion of the poem itself as poetry, as an aesthetic work demanding, as all serious art does, the careful critical attention that lies at the heart of the literary discipline. The objections to “Last Words … ”, that is, suffer from the same carelessness of which Abramson himself is accused, foregoing sustained intellectual discussion of the poem — as misogyny, as response to tragedy, as art — in favor of a reactionary political correctness that masks itself as progressive or feminist concern for the victims but in fact occupies a rather conservative position with respect to art and culture. The outcome of such a position is the categorical dismissal of art that takes risks, art that challenges the canons of what can and cannot be said in a poem and who can — or cannot — say it." But I think if we add this the section becomes an unwieldy mess. The edit by Steelpillow (Talk) keeps the minor nature of the event in view. It appears not to have been referenced anywhere on the Internet since the two or three days it was discussed in May 2014. Lovetohave (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I just copyedited out the second "killings" without muddying the meaning. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Elegantly done. Cheers. Lovetohave (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Missouri Review site is the same blog as the one quoted in the MFA Research Project section of the page, so should that passage also be removed? I get the impression that some of the previous editing on this page (much of it having since been confirmed as sockpuppetry) has applied different standards when it comes to widespread criticism as opposed to very selective praise of Abramson's work. That event and its repercussions do not appear to have been minor, hence his publisher's response, as discussed on the talk page above. Esmeme (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you prefer a return to the consensus of mid-2014, that was an edit I attempted. Instead, a link was added (I believe by you) to a website that skewers Abramson (Flavorwire), and Steelpillow (Talk) preserved that addition, and I've not challenged it in my edits. I'd think that sufficient to meet your concerns. As for The Missouri Review, I suppose I do (reviewing the citation) distinguish between an essay penned by the Managing Editor of the magazine and one written by someone identified as "today's blogger." In any case, it seems Steelpillow (Talk) has resolved the issue, indeed the phrasing now appears more critical of Abramson than it did when the consensus language was achieved in 2014. Lovetohave (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As for repercussions, I had to look up what you meant, or could intend, other than the Omnidawn statement criticising the piece, which is already in the article. I'd assumed from your comment there were some lasting repercussions I had overlooked. Instead a Google search immediately returns this: http://omnidawn.tumblr.com/post/87431642548/a-clarification-regarding-our-statement-on-seth. Are you looking to add this clarification to the article? This would seem to indicate that the entirety of the repercussions you cite are already in the article, however. Lovetohave (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Steelpillow (Talk), it appears that, to the consensus previously reached in 2014, an additional critical cite has now been added, and this is sufficient for me and I think for you. Do you concur that the issue is resolved? Would like to move on to other matters. Lovetohave (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of getting dragged into this again, aside from pointing out that the only users who previously argued against the inclusion of such criticisms, namely Festal82, Burks88 and ClaphamSix above, all turned out to be sockpuppets, who sought to create the illusion of consensus where there was none. The repercussions to Abramson's piece that I was referring to were both the quantity and severity of the criticisms and the fact that his own publisher felt the need to publicly condemn his actions. Esmeme (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think we are in disagreement here that the publisher's condemnation is noteworthy and should be in the article, and as noted your addition of the Flavorwire citation underscores the severe response the piece received. Those items are present now, and as I have no interest in any other dramas, it does seem the graph as constituted suffices. Lovetohave (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the point made by that a little more clarity on the social nature of the transgression - especially it's timing - would be useful here. Lacking any good, reliable evidence of its literary significance, I do not think that any comment should be made on the poetry itself, as that is not the issue at stake. My suggestion would be to add a sentence along the lines of "Both the re-use of the killer's words and the timing of the post, so soon after the killings. caused offence." and add a cite to Christopher Kempf's piece because it begins with a good summary and context of some key criticisms. Meanwhile, you are of course free to move on, in which case I am sure that Esmeme and I would do our best to meet your concerns here (I know from past experience that Esmeme is fundamentally reasonable about these things, though still wary after their treatment at the hands of a very nasty sockpuppeteer). &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Steelpillow (Talk), I think the language you mention is sensible, I only wonder, when three citations in the graph already make the point you propose adding, what use the addition would be. I suppose some clarity on the status of the 2014 consensus would also be helpful, as it seems the proposal now is to dissolve it. My edit had returned the graph to the prior consensus, yet I am not hearing why that consensus is no longer sufficient. It does not seem there have been additional developments. Lovetohave (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree . This would be an excellent way to summarise the social nature of the controversy, as clearly detailed at the start of Kempf's piece. Esmeme (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree also, as it does seem an excellent summary of the Kempf piece. While I'm not certain it's necessary given the present citations, it's sensible in any case. Lovetohave (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Change made. Cheers. Lovetohave (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And tinkered with, grin. There is a case to be made that the paragraph is now over-cited, but I don't think we need to discuss that - just remove any cites we consider unnecessary, should we feel inclined. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
To explain my edits: I added a section of material in which the subject is discussed as writing unusual political content by a host of major media sources and personalities. It was fully sourced, and clearly noteworthy given that the outlets weren't just discussing the subject but calling his work unusual. That section was completely blanked by as "chit-chat." I took issue to that and acted badly, removing an entire section that was, in fact, chit-chat on blogs about topics I think anyone would agree were of non-national significance (some bad poem the subject wrote a couple years ago and some silly article he appears to have written about a movie last year). When I blanked that section,, no doubt trying to be helpful, so I intend no disrespect, restored the two chit-chat items and removed the entire section I'd added that was actually sourced and discussing major media attention for the subject. I then made other edits to improve the accuracy of the article, for instance Mary Gannon was not the researcher for the rankings (the paragraph that typo is in clearly says Abramson was), and those edits, even correcting which publisher published one of the subject's books, were likewise removed. So at this point two definitely accurate corrections of the article have been removed, along with a fully sourced section that discusses major media attention to the subject on an unusual topic/situation. And I've been accused of having an "agenda." I'm just trying to make well sourced and noteworthy additions to an article. Can someone explain what the concerns are? I feel like, though I did act stupidly, there would have been no edit war if had just allowed the new section on an obviously notable topic and allowed me to correct a couple errors I found in the article. SanFran55 (Talk) 14:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If it helps, this is the material that blanked summarily as non-noteworthy "chit-chat" (compare to the other two paragraphs on Abramson's writing for The Huffington Post, which  supports I guess, and I don't care about, but appear to be on (not) major topics discussed by (not) major sources.) How is that material noteworthy if the below material isn't, I guess I'm asking ?


 * WARNING You need to stop edit warring or you could find your account blocked from editing.
 * Also, please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: . This helps the rest of us know who is posting here. Then, my own talk page is not the place for a split discussion, so here is the post you made there:
 * So, to the issue in hand. There is nothing of significance in using an election campaign for literary experiments. It really is not biographical material. Lots of unusual things happen in the world, few of them rate encyclopedic interest. The remix is notable only for the offence it caused. The Star Wars nonsense is only notable for its poster child status in our response to film criticism, and I think you are probably right that it is now fading into insignificance. You need to demonstrate a similar wider significance for the election poetry if you want it to stay. By all means seek further input to this discussion if you disagree, but do take care to obey the policies and guidelines and don't get yourself banned or you won't be able to win any arguments. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Numerous media outlets of national significance found Abramson's particular take on how to conduct political commentary significant, or else they wouldn't have written about it. And in fact the comments I quoted emphasize how and why these major media outlets think the political commentary is in fact unlike anything they have seen previously. Meanwhile, bad poems get written in the millions daily I'm sure, and people get offended by them in the millions. Here, I really don't care if that material about the poetry stays, I'm just pointing out that some not noteworthy blogs taking offense to a poem is nothing like as significant as noteworthy national publications calling an author's political commentary experimental and even a new genre of writing, political fan fiction. And the evidence that there was major offense taken to whatever that poem was is minimal, unlike the volume of evidence major media found the subject's political writing noteworthy. I actually think the Star Wars content is more justifiable because it's on a topic of national interest, ie the biggest grossing film of all time. I am really struggling to understand your reasoning, which is conclusory. Also, don't you have to explain blanking a section, rather than me having to explain why I added fully sourced material involving major media commentary on a biographical subject? --SanFran55 (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess my point is, New York Magazine, The Washington Post, The New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, Jonathan Chait, David Wiegel, and others of note in U.S. media said something was significant, you said "nothing of significance here" as though it were self-evident. Meanwhile, you're calling "of note" negative reaction to a poem by a writer on Flavorwire, and saying that you blanking an entire section isn't "edit warring" while someone trying to insert a fully sourced section with major media sources is. You need to explain more. What is your counter-proposal on how to source all this major media attention for the unusual political writing of this subject? And can you direct me to the standard you're citing in saying that any negative response to a poem someone writes is immediately encyclopedically noteworthy?--SanFran55 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to give you a hard time here. I see that you're saying I need to establish "wider significance" for the subject's political writing that would match a single writer on Flavorwire disliking a poem. OK; I'm trying to do that. Here's what I have: "Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine called the writing 'a cult-favorite series of Bernie [Sanders] delegate-math fan fiction.' Chait noted that Abramson's 'series of alternative analyses of the Democratic race....[are an] experimental-poetry approach to electoral forecasting.' While David Wiegel of The Washington Post observed that Abramson had 'become a popular pro-Sanders columnist,' another reporter for the newspaper, Philip Bump, took issue with Abramson's analyses, calling them 'empty theory, unproven...but innovative.' The Atlantic, citing an article by Abramson in which he referred to his writing on the Democratic primary as 'experimental journalism,' attributed Abramson's articles not to his political leanings but his self-identification as a 'metamodernist' creative writer. Politico concurred, referring to Abramson's political commentary as 'verses from the abstract.'" So The Washington Post calls it "innovative," New York Magazine says it's "experimental-poetry [political commentary]," which is not a thing--ie it's a new thing--and The Atlantic says it's political commentary undergirded by some sort of newfangled philosophy. Can you explain why this doesn't establish the same level of noteworthiness as Flavorwire saying a poem was in bad taste in the generalized way many critiques of bad poetry do? --SanFran55 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to give you a hard time here. I see that you're saying I need to establish "wider significance" for the subject's political writing that would match a single writer on Flavorwire disliking a poem. OK; I'm trying to do that. Here's what I have: "Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine called the writing 'a cult-favorite series of Bernie [Sanders] delegate-math fan fiction.' Chait noted that Abramson's 'series of alternative analyses of the Democratic race....[are an] experimental-poetry approach to electoral forecasting.' While David Wiegel of The Washington Post observed that Abramson had 'become a popular pro-Sanders columnist,' another reporter for the newspaper, Philip Bump, took issue with Abramson's analyses, calling them 'empty theory, unproven...but innovative.' The Atlantic, citing an article by Abramson in which he referred to his writing on the Democratic primary as 'experimental journalism,' attributed Abramson's articles not to his political leanings but his self-identification as a 'metamodernist' creative writer. Politico concurred, referring to Abramson's political commentary as 'verses from the abstract.'" So The Washington Post calls it "innovative," New York Magazine says it's "experimental-poetry [political commentary]," which is not a thing--ie it's a new thing--and The Atlantic says it's political commentary undergirded by some sort of newfangled philosophy. Can you explain why this doesn't establish the same level of noteworthiness as Flavorwire saying a poem was in bad taste in the generalized way many critiques of bad poetry do? --SanFran55 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I will edit down the previous section I added to something much tighter that emphasizes the "experimental" and "innovative" and "anti-Establishment" nature of the writing, thereby establishing the "wider significance" you are asking for. I will add it back in and you can discuss your concerns here. Blanking the addition by simply saying "it's not significant" isn't right when major media disagree with you. --SanFran55 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would advise you against that. Better to post it here first for further discussion, rather than to show too much aggression. Just friendly advice. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything significant in election cycle meta-press recycling. It can use a mention, but a play-by-play of everything is WP:UNDUE. Further, your claim of not edit-warring is false. After I directed you to start a Talk page, you did so, and while I was waiting for you finish factoring your comments, you reinserted the questionable material. This is prima facie edit-warring and, incidentally, 3RR which is a blockable transgression. As a point of advice, pasting solid blocks of endless text and quotations does not make your argument stronger, but in fact, weakens any coherent thing you may be trying to say because it disincentivizes a reader from parsing through it. Especially when it is repeated or is the very material whose inclusion is being debated and thus is already familiar. Also, note that the article's subject is also a notable poet and author and that is why the "bad poetry" is mentioned, despite your prestigious opinion of it. JesseRafe (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm learning here, and I appreciate the advice. Would it be all right to write a two sentence summary of the content, which you said could use a mention, and post it here for review? I want to do this the right way. --SanFran55 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So it won't seem sneaky, I want to note that I just fixed a few minors errors in the article that do not have to do with what we're discussing. I hope that's OK. It looks like there is no page for 1990s Dartmouth alumni, which the subject's UNH page says he is, so I don't know what can be linked to there. I just changed it to "Dartmouth college alumni," which does have a page. --SanFran55 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the significantly edited-down content I'm proposing (emphasizing key terms re: significance like "cult-favorite," "alternative," "experimental," "innovative," and "metamodernist"):


 * The Huffington Post

During the 2016 Democratic primary, Abramson authored what Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine called "a cult-favorite series of Bernie [Sanders] delegate-math fan fiction." Chait noted that Abramson's "series of alternative analyses of the Democratic race....[are an] experimental-poetry approach to electoral forecasting." While David Wiegel of The Washington Post called Abramson "a popular pro-Sanders columnist," another reporter for the newspaper, Philip Bump, took issue with Abramson's analyses, calling them "empty theory, unproven...but innovative." The Atlantic attributed Abramson's articles not to his political leanings but his self-identification as a "metamodernist creative writer." --SanFran55 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Citations:


 * UPDATE: It doesn't sound like anyone is too concerned about this abbreviated version. Happy to wait a few more days for input, but as Jesse Rafe, mediating a dispute between myself and Steelpillow, said (of the proposed new topic in the article) "It can use a mention...", and Steelpillow himself said I should use this space to create a resolution, and now I have and no one else has suggested different language or opposed this language, I'll assume we can go with this unless I hear otherwise in the near-term. --SanFran55 (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd hardly describe it as "mediating" between us. In fact I have been waiting for other comments in order to help avoid that impression. Points: The Huff Post should be consigned to the cites, much of Abramson's stuff appears there. Also, the named critics can be similarly consigned - they are there only to validate the claims they make. But even having said that, Abramson may well be "a popular pro-Sanders columnist" and using that as a platform for his contentious metamodernism "experiments", but I still see nothing to demonstrate that this is of encyclopedic value. Artistic people do wacky stuff all the time. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, artists do wacky things all the time. As do politicians, media celebrities, and athletes. And when those things are deemed, by some of the largest media outlets in the world, "cult-favorite" and "alternative" and "experimental" and "innovative," they end up on Wikipedia. Except that with artists it is a much bigger deal when they are noticed and called unique by major media because artists get a fraction of the media attention those other groups do. The subject of this article wrote an obscure "wacky remix" and it appears from the history that you spent many days ensuring it was catalogued here because it made a minor stir in a small corner of the art world. Now major media has considered the subject's journalistic work similarly unusual and noteworthy and your response is this. Your position lacks credibility and consistency. You sought no consensus for your blanking of the section, but now demand consensus for even an abbreviated, fully sourced version to return. In any case, a third party has said the issue "could use a mention," so at this point the debate is over language. I proposed new language, feel free to counter-propose. But we're not waiting for a fourth party to weigh in on noteworthiness, as there's no need: Jesse, myself, and much of U.S. major media says it is noteworthy. --SanFran55 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Huffington Post
I'd like to add the edited, significantly shortened paragraph above (the one that begins with "During..." and ends with "creative writer"). Jesse Rafe agreed this content should appear in the article in some form, and this is a significantly edited version of the original, longer paragraph. Right now the article has sections on several of the subject's major activities, and given that much of the national attention the subject has received has been for several distinct "events" on The Huffington Post, what I'm proposing is a section entitled "The Huffington Post" under which we put the paragraph above and the two other (existing, already in article) paragraphs about the subject's activities at The Huffington Post (one about a controversial remix and one about Star Wars). My proposed edit of the original paragraph about The Huffington Post has been up here at the Talk page for weeks now without comment or controversy. Jesse and I think the content should be in, Steelpillow that it should be out, and with no one else weighing in it seems fair to put the content in now on that 2-1 vote, especially as it is edited from its earlier length in response to Steelpillow's concerns. I am also trying to address Steelpillow's concerns about "consigning HuffPost to the cites" by proposing, instead, that we create a natural grouping for major stories involving the subject that originated via the subject's work at The Huffington Post. We've already had another editor (not me, Steelpillow, or Jesse) note that a section titled "Controversies" is less helpful than situating these events under a broader header relating to the subject's life, and for me the obvious header is "The Huffington Post" as that is actually the common denominator here. I'll wait a few days before making this edit to allow for comments on this proposal. SanFran55 (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I see nothing notable in the linking of controversies to a particular publication. It's like adding a section on Nature to a notable scientist's page because that's a "common denominator" where their papers were published. Nor is the fact that Abramson publishes in the HP notable in itself (unless a reliable source explains its significance). 2 to 1 is not a "consensus", that requires more contributors and/or evaluation of the strength of the arguments. Please check out WP:CANVASSING before you go wild on that. Also, as your edit history shows you to be a single-purpose account and you are so keen to see the HP in lights here, can you confirm that you personally have no conflict of interest in all this? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Steelpillow, in that I see nothing here to demonstrate that this is of encyclopedic value. I also think that the Star Wars content's notability is tenuous at best, as I can't see any wider or lasting significance demonstrated here. The Elliot Rodger controversy does, however, as I outlined above, demonstrate notability in relation to the subject of the article, due to his own publisher disowning his actions, which is why this is included in the 'controversy' section. I oppose changing the section title to 'Huffington Post' for the same reasons as Steelpillow. Esmeme (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. At the time, I supported inclusion of the Star Wars publicity stunt "metamodern experiment" as it seemed to be drawing plenty of comment, but if Film School Rejects is the best source available for its literary impact I don't think keeping it is tenable any more. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll certainly have to wait to act on that, as you wrote above, minutes ago, that 2-1 isn't enough of a consensus to change the article without more input. I assume that standard applies to all changes. SanFran55 (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We now have three of us agreeing that it is unjustifiable - including you when you wrote disparagingly, "And a page that discusses a single fanboy article on Star Wars because it was mentioned by Film School Rejects?" I have changed my mind and I now agree with you on this one. I see no consensus issue here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can absolutely confirm that. And actually I'm not keen on HP highlights at all, as I've said in the past that an author's old publisher saying they don't like an article by a former author (or editor) isn't encyclopedic material, and no one has shown any precedent for Wikipedia featuring that sort of content. What I've said instead is that the HP becomes relevant when an article written there is talked about by big time media. You have the opposite test, that the less people are talking about an article the more that article should be put in an encyclopedia, so I would love to hear how that makes any sense explained. You seem determined to police this article in a way that maintains negative information about the subject and blocks (usually through section blanking) any neutral coverage. SanFran55 (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't be absurd. There is no point in my engaging with such demonstrable failure to assume good faith (qv). &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Staged works vs interviews
On Wikipedia, as in the real world, an "interview" is one person asking another about stuff and giving them an opportunity to reply. A prepared performance with an agreed dialogue is a staged work and not an "interview". It may be staged to appear as an interview, but to claim that it is a real interview is like claiming that the War of the Ring was a real war. If you disagree, DO NOT EDIT WAR (this is your second warning now) but discuss it here first. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Twitter Following - Trump stories
I think there should be some mention of his Trump narratives - as covered here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/liberal-fever-swamps/530736/ &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  19:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Tweets about Donald Trump, and conspiracy theory
Under the heading "Tweets about Donald Trump", the article states "Several media publications have described Abramson as a conspiracy theorist...". There are two citations for this claim. The first is an article in the Atlantic Monthly titled "Why Bogus News Stories Are So Hard to Stop". The only mention of Abramson in that article is the following phrase near the bottom: "...there’s a growing group of outlets and journalis—well, media personalities catering to progressives. This constellation offers everything from improbable stories (Palmer Report) to bizarre conspiracy theories (Seth Abramson) to outlets that aspire to be 'the Breitbart of the left' (Shareblue)." I don't see this as being a description that Abramson is a conspiracy theorist; it's really more of just name-checking him, relying upon unnamed secondary sources. And it's interesting that the two other people listed in the Atlantic's description both have sources provided (Palmer Report and Shareblue), but none for Abramson. The second source (the New Republic) is a bit longer; it devotes a paragraph to Abramson, focusing on a string of Tweets from Abramson on March 23, in which he asserted "The plot to sell America's foreign policy for foreign oil and steal an election in the bargain began at the Mayflower Hotel" and "So other than the RNC and suspicious Trump Tower meetings in December, the Mayflower Speech should get the most attention in Congress" -- from which the New Republic selectively edited off the more significant portion -- "So other than the RNC and suspicious Trump Tower meetings in December..." (emphasis added). I don't have a dog in this race, and it's not my ambition to "sanitize" Abramson's credibility, merely to point out that his being characterized as a "conspiracy theorist" is supported on such weak grounds that they could apply to literally anyone who makes a claim that may or may not turn out to be factually accurate. The standards used would surely qualify every president since Carter (and perhaps even him) of being a "conspiracy theorist" for having drawn inferences and presented them as true. So I think that the section should be either better-sourced, softened, or removed. Bricology (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits by single-purpose account
There are a number of problematic edits by a SPA (all of the edits are inaccurately classified as "minor" edits):


 * The SPA keeps edit-warring a description of Abramson as a "journalist" (the editor has at other times added "investigative journalist"), which Abramson clearly isn't. Abramson is a "columnist" - he writes columns. He does not report anything. This is very simple.
 * I have tried to politely note to you that this is false, as whether you admire it or not, Proof of Collusion is a work of journalism that is not a "column." Thus the broader term "journalist," which encompasses many different roles, including both columnist and others. SanFran55 (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The SPA also edit-warred a description of Abramson as an "editor" into the lede. However, it is very common for professors in the social sciences and humanities to be editors, and it's trivial to mention this in the lede. The body already mentions that he's edited books. It also feels trivial to describe a professor in the social sciences or humanities as an "author".
 * I have noted, again politely, that very few academics are editors and that editing a "Best American" anthology is a noteworthy nonacademic role that your edits would erase, it appears because of animosity toward the article subject. SanFran55 (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The SPA is also edit-warred a misleading quote from IHE which tries to suggest Abramson isn't a conspiracy theorist because he's always arguing against pro-Trump conspiracy theorists.
 * This is simply untrue. I agreed with you that the quote was "misdescribed" and reorganised its framing. You for some reason thought the quote needed to be erased. I think your animosity and tone here suggest you are not seeking to make objective edits. By comparison, you added a scathing review of Abramson's book and I had no issue with it because while I am a fan of Abramson's writing I do not, in fact, want this article to be anything but accurate. SanFran55 (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The edits by the SPA should be reverted in full. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

400 tweet long thread about Mueller Report
This guy's famously long Twitter thread should be included in this article as an example of his work. The thread is as long as a novel and a fine example of investigative reporting into the most important U.S. political news of our lifetime. The thread received thousands of views, educating people about the important truth of the report, fighting back against misinformation. His thread even trended on Twitter, with thousands of tweets about it! It is clear from these things that this thread is one of his best, most important, and most popular works. It deserves a section in the article under "Career". 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C1 (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I have now submitted this proposed change, I am hopeful that it will be approved. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:4E (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I accepted it and made some minor edits. Eman  235 / talk  08:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently my edit was reverted because it wasn't "notable" enough. This reason doesn't make sense. The thread is one of his most popular works and gave him a bunch of attention. It is no less notable than his other works mentioned in the article. 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:1C (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It has now been claimed that my sources weren't good enough. Why weren't they? They were from his verified Twitter account, and the tweets I cited backed up what I was saying 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:66 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)l
 * Are there any secondary sources discussing his tweet? Anyone can publish something on Twitter, and things can go viral quickly. Does not make the author or content notable. If, however, the tweet is discussed in secondary sources (ie, news sources), then it can become notable to include. Spyder212 (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It's WP:OR ... your own investigation and judgment about the merit and popularity of his thread. And I say this as someone who follows Seth and has read all 451 tweets in that thread. But neither my opinion, your opinion, nor the opinion of any other editor is relevant -- that's not what Wikipedia is based on. Your entire first paragraph above is out of place on this page. -- Jibal (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I found a news source TV that ran an article about the thread. I reinstated my section, but this time added that new source. With that secondary source, the section now reaches Wikipedia's standards for notability, so it should stay. Any objections or ideas for changes? 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:94 (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

2016 Democratic Primary Writings
I've re-added the 2016 writings and critique that were removed in this edit. Abramson got a lot of attention for his 2016 Democratic Primary writings; they deserve mention here. --2600:8805:3B08:1800:A9A5:131A:561D:9CA2 (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have an association with Abramson? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Criticism
I propose adding a Criticism section to this page. In addition to the Eliott Roger controversy, more recent issues have arisen involving his use of an unreliable source and not correcting the record when brought to his attention (Ken Vogel's Politico piece, specifically regarding Alexandra Chalupa). Disclosure: I'm a sponsor of independent media co-hosted by Chalupa's sister, therefore it might be better if someone else adds this to the article page.

DavidBoudreau (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is a thread explaining more of the details regarding criticism around his mischaracterization of Chalupa: https://twitter.com/palimondo/status/1199136853275947008 Also, it's probably a good idea to offer more of an explanation somewhere about what Abramson means by "curatorial journalism" (as opposed to background of regular journalism). DavidBoudreau (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would be a good idea in itself, per WP:CRITS, but I do think a section on Reception would be a good idea. Right now the article is littered with references to how Abramson's work has been perceived by others, as a whole and not in a chronologically relevant way. It would clean up the article to break them all out into a new section. — Wingedserif (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be WP:BOLD and do this. — Wingedserif (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

COI noticeboard thread
Telmo6T's editing has been noted at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard; this is a WP:SPA editing only this bio. I've warned them about COIs. Their first edit was to remove a critical quote from the Washington Post and their most recent edit was to remove as "vandalism". While it may not belong in the lead, this is a high-quality commentary on Abramson's work that should be included. Fences &amp;  Windows  16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I will partially restore the WaPo quote and start a discussion about expanding the lead. Politrukki (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Inadequate lead
The lead does does adequately describe the subject's life and works per MOS:BLPLEAD. A year back, I tried to remedy this by adding a short blurb:

Abramson is mainly known for writing a) poetry and b) Twitter posts (and books of Twitter posts) about Trump–Russia collusion theories. I know more about the latter (and I'll admit that if sources have touched the former, I have skimmed those parts). Politrukki (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support that lead addition w/ the changes of 1. deleting "dramatic" (I'm just not sure that's the right word to sum up his style; maybe "sensational"?) and 2. moving the citations down to somewhere in the article, so the lead still follows WP:LEADCITE. To your last point, I think this article remains something of a mess to write because Abramson regularly uses his credentials as a poet to support his non-fiction writing and vice versa—but whether both are really part of what makes him notable is hard to say. — Wingedserif (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. Just to be clear, my example was not meant to be a specific proposal, rather than road sign. Per LEADCITE inline citations in the lead may only be omitted in specific instances. If a statement in the lead is even remotely controversial, you can be sure that a drive-by editor will challenge the content sooner or later. Politrukki (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Every aspect of your proposal would violate MOS:BLPLEAD. The word "dramatic" is your editorializing, as is calling "stories" works universally classified at nonfiction. Neither of the sources you cite call Abramson a "conspiracy theorist." One says that he developed a theory about an alleged criminal conspiracy but does not call him a "conspiracy theorist," which has negative connotations the Washington Post deliberately avoided, and the second source puts Abramson in a category that includes three possible entrants: self-proclaimed expert, citizen journalist, and conspiracy theorist. You deleted a forthcoming nonfiction book by Abramson entitled "Citizen Journalist" from the article and then declared that The Guardian meant to put him in the conspiracy theorist bucket even though it didn't say that. Moreover, under MOS:BLPLEAD there is no place for opinions in a lead, only facts. So if you want to include that Abramson is a NYT bestselling author, you can. If you want to include that he has the top-ranked Substack in the "Culture" category in the United States, you can. If you want to call him an "award-winning" poet, you can. Or, the lead can be left as it is. UTorontoPHD (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have edited the lead to include only facts and only that for which Abramson is known. He is not known for his poetry and to say someone is "known" for a social media account is not helpful, as it would mean putting a mention of every social media account with a large following in the lead of their WP article. The lead as written neutrally describes the subject of Abramson's books (without the editorializing of "dramatic," "sensational," or "stories," which all violate WP:BLP and WP:OR) and notes that they are "bestselling" simply as a way of underscoring how they came to be notable. The only other endeavor for which Abramson has received substantial attention is his Substack website, as it is the top-ranked site in its category nationally. UTorontoPHD (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Wingedserif, on removing the Substack mention. I was "meh" on it as soon as I wrote it. Until a WP:NOT source speaks to this, it shouldn't be in the lead. Agreed. UTorontoPHD (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've tried to be careful with this article because it seems to have had a history of WP:BLPSPS or stat-like sources added for promotional purposes. I do disagree with you that a BLP lead can never describe a writer's style—if there are enough sources, I think it's OK that we follow them—but I'm sure we can reach a good compromise for the lead. — Wingedserif (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that a lead can describe a style if there's consensus. With Abramson there's not only no consensus, but almost every source proposed is describing Abramson's social media, not his books. For instance the Washington Post and Guardian links proposed above not only didn't say what the OP represented, they were published before the books they supposedly described. I am a fan of "Reception" sections to do the complicated work of explaining how authors are received. Leads present separate dangers such sections do not. UTorontoPHD (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed the two listings in the "Awards" section for which I could not find citation. UTorontoPHD (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A couple of examples:
 * "known for his infamously long Twitter threads about Trump and Russia, leveraged his online following into two book deals with major publishers" – Time
 * "One of the most prominent Twitter-thread stars is Seth Abramson, who came to the fore around 2017" – Columbia Journalism Review (excellent source for expanding the article, with the caveat that Lyz Lenz is not staff)
 * and so on...
 * There are very few people who are notable for writing long Twitter threads. Abramson is one of them. Politrukki (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First, WaPo writes "reframing a complex tangle of public reporting on the Russia scandal into a story so simple it can be laid out in daily tweets — and so dramatic his fans can't stop reading, even if critics point out the plot holes". [emphasis added] If Abramson's Russia "story" is to be considered just one story, then I'll guess "stories" is incorrect.Secondly, WaPo also writes "The New Republic and Atlantic have both dismissed the professor as a conspiracy theorist." In other words, WaPo does call Abramson a "conspiracy theorist", but attributes the claim to two outlets that are cited further into our bio.Thirdly, The Guardian mentions four names that are labelled as "self-proclaimed experts, citizen journalists, and conspiracy theorists". Abramson fits all boxes.Finally, even though I have defended my previous edit, the blurb was meant to be an example for opening a conversation, not final proposal. I understand that my point was perhaps not so obvious. There are dozens of options that are better than my example or current live version, which is not completely bad. Politrukki (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused about what is being left in or cut out of this article. Nearly all positive blurbs of books are being removed. Nearly all mentions of publications are being removed. Formally announced forthcoming books have been removed. The subject's bar status has been removed. But an obscure negative review of one of the subject's books from a Scottish reviewer is kept in. An obscure dispute between the subject and a prior publisher is kept in. And all of the comments here exhibit hostility toward the subject. When I try to participate in a neutral way in editing this article, I receive a threatening message on my user page. Can I ask what is going on here? It is common to put in a WP:BLP what bar an attorney belongs to. It is common to say which publications a freelance journalist has published in. It is not common to cite obscure foreign reviews of U.S. books. It is not common to cite petty disputes between an author and his publisher. And it is not common to threaten editors who make neutral reviews. I am trying to figure out why the only information being removed from this article is information that (conceivably, I suppose) could lead to a reader of the article viewing its subject in a neutral or positive light. And the only information being added (or oddly kept, despite being not notable or important) is information that is negative. Then, when editors arrive with a different view, they are threatened. This is not OK and has to stop. I will be editing this article neutrally and I urge others here to do the same, however much you may hate the subject of the article. UTorontoPHD (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, as a neutral editor I do agree with some of the edits that have been made here. The success of the podcast should only be included if it has been written about by a third party that is notable, which it would be, I'm sure, if the podcast's "rankings" were high enough. As for the bar status, I saw no effort to see if that information is available online before it was deleted. As for publications, a short list is appropriate for any freelance journalist or author, but not a long one. Obscure reviews or petty events from years ago should be removed. UTorontoPHD (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done my best to fix some errors introduced by other editors, e.g. a broken cite, overlong quotes, temporal issues (the article was written in a way that appeared to make Avi Self's December 2017 article a review of a book published a year later), and WP:N issues (I wouldn't put The Huffington Post in a list of notable publications in place of The Dallas Morning News). I will look to see if there is any evidence of bar status online. If not, it can't be included in the article as there is no sourcing for it. As noted, I've stuck with U.S. book reviews and removed soap opera content from years ago that fails WP:N. The many other edits by OPs look good to me. UTorontoPHD (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Politrukki is claiming I made a "promotional edit" to the article as part of some sort of harassment campaign I don't understand. I clearly wrote here that that edit was a bad edit and that I was glad it was removed because, while accurate, it did not have a WP:N source. If you look at my edits here, I have consistently agreed with edits by others, including when they remove content that could be deemed (I suppose) favorable to the article subject. Meanwhile, Politrukki came here because he wanted to call the article subject a "conspiracy theorist" in the lead of the article, offered two sources that didn't say that, when contested gave his opinion (contra WP:NOR) that the article subject was a conspiracy theorist, then went to a third editor to claim that an edit I disavowed as awful proves my bad faith. What the heck is going on with you people? Judge my edits, many of which support the pruning of this article and the removal of unwarranted promotional content, by their merit, rather than miscasting my actions while seeking to add WP:OR to this article. UTorontoPHD (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * UTorontoPHD, I explained in my edit summary why removing an unsourced bar status sentence met WP guidelines, and you've responded by assuming that I hate the subject of the article. I removed it after being unable to find an independent source to verify the information, not out of spite. Please don't assume editor motivations unless they're continually disruptive; it's just not productive... (I know it's not fun to get talk page warnings from people, but it's also common here; it's not meant to be threatening.) — Wingedserif (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right. I apologise for questioning your motives. I was distressed by what felt like an attack on my user page. As to "foreign," that was terrible of me to use that shorthand as I did not mean it as it was taken. I meant that it was a non-US reviewer writing for a publication that is not well known outside Scotland, but more importantly writing about US politics using the Scottish legal system as an analogy, which I assumed others would also see as problematic since Abramson is a US attorney. If you strongly feel the source is notable and that an analogy between the Scottish legal system and the US legal system is the ideal review for a book of this sort rather than seeking a more notable source, by all means reinstate the quote. I am not trying to be disruptive and respect that others have different views. UTorontoPHD (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, I couldn't find a source on the bar status either and agree it should therefore not be in this article. UTorontoPHD (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)