Talk:The Best American Poetry

Verifiability and citations
Before making changes or adding citations, note the Wikipedia policy on use of verifiable sources: WaverlyR 00:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your vandalism has been reported. You know full well that for sections pertaining to "critical reception" the verifiability policy applies in a fashion other than how you are employing it. Moreover, since virtually all of the information regarding cronyism is taken directly from the BAP itself--its listing of Lehman's assistants, its bios, its listings of journals--one cannot merely link to the BAP page. The only *possible* link is to a site that has compiled the data from the BAPs. But then, you want to create a catch-22 where it's *impossible* for this information to *ever* be cited, don't you? Burks88 18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The "critical reception of the series" section has been amended to reflect data taken directly from the series. It does not speculate on reasons for the data, beyond identifying trends. That the wife of the series editor appeared in the series, where the series editor is the primary screener of selections (but does not make final selections), is a notable fact, however one interprets it. Given that Lehman has indicated thousands, if not tens of thousands, of poems are read for each issue of the anthology--and only 75 get in--the selection of his wife, who does not meet the notability criteria for a writer on Wikipedia, and has not published extensively elsewhere, is relevant to criticism of the series. The same can be said for those who have assisted Lehman with the production of the series, as well as those who have worked with or studied under Lehman. Whether or not the trends are dispositive is beside the point (though mathematically, they are "statistically significant"); the point is that criticism of the series is based on this information. While the blogosphere may not a preferred citation, previous edits of this entry prove that if it were necessary to establish (for the "critical reception" portion of the entry, not the entry proper) the above criticism as pervasive in the only sphere it is alleged (in the article) to be pervasive--the blogosphere--it would be a matter of picking which high-traffic links (of the dozens available) to select, and not whether any could be found. On the blogosphere, it is simply the case that discussion of the BAP does not occur outside the context, or exclusive of the backdrop, of persistent allegations of cronyism against the series, and that it is the data that fuels this speculation, not whimsy or fancy. Burks88 22:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The link in the section described above does not lead to support for Burks88 claim. See Wikipedia policy on original research:
 * "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."
 * "Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies"


 * WaverlyR, thanks for quoting the policy. It confirms that the information previously contained in the entry should be readmitted, as it is published information rather than unpublished.  You are in violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.  Facts taken directly from the source material are being cited and you are removing them not due to inaccuracy but because the source material cannot be cited without a copyright violation--and you are using that catch-22 to subvert one of Wikipedia's principal foundations: assume good faith; in other words, if you know the information to be taken from the source material (and you do; you've already indicated you own all of the source material, as I do) and you know it to be accurate, do not remove it. Burks88 17:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Donald Hall selected a poem by his wife Jane Kenyon for Best American Poetry 1989, Jorie Graham selected a poem by her then husband James Galvin for Best American Poetry 1990, Robert Hass selected a poem by his wife Brenda Hillman for inclusion in Best American Poetry 2001, and Paul Muldoon selected a poem by Stacey Harwood, wife of David Lehman, for the 2006 edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaverlyR (talk • contribs) 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Burks88 implication, above (paragraph 3 line 5), that Wikipedia's notability criteria for a writer should determine one's eligibility for inclusion in the Best American Poetry is an interesting one. I wonder how many poets chosen to date would meet that standard and how in the future it would affect the eligibility pool.WaverlyR 12:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think you know very well that's not what I said. The clear "implication" was that the selection of Harwood, wife of the series editor--out of a pool of 10,000+ poems--would have been less shocking and hyper-coincidental if she had been, or was, a notable poet who had (as I actually wrote) "published extensively": though, even then, the selection would have been shocking in its audacity.  Please don't put words in my mouth; I mean what I say, I don't need you to interpret it for me. Burks88 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
There has been a request for a third opinion here. I am concerned that this article is bordering on editorial and that the choice of words imparts a non neutral point of view in a few cases. There are also some sentences in the current version which should require reference footnotes. A mere statement of fact that editors are including the works of relatives seems valid if this is verifiable; however, the implication of systematic nepotism seems to be original research. Using blogs as sources is not forbidden but not encouraged. I believe that if there is a notable controversy here, there will be reputable and verifiable third parties discussing the issue in the press. --Kevin Murray 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, thanks for your input. I guess what confuses me is this: the various entries to the series list the assistants to the series editor. Then, the Table of Contents link WaverlyR removed says who's been published in the series. So it's not original research to indicate that 12 of the 29 individuals listed in the source material as assistants have been published in the anthology. If WaverlyR wants, I could just list all 29 assistants and then link to the Table of Contents, but that seems a waste of space so I was trying to condense it. I think WaverlyR's main point is that unless a text is on-line and is cited to in a manner consistent with that, you cannot reference its contents without it constituting original research. The problem is that it would be a copyright violation for the work to appear on-line, so WaverlyR's policy--which is not Wikipedia's--would make certain information from the source material unsourceable. Normally, what Wikipedia editors do, as I understand it, is they remove information from the source material if it is inaccurate. WaverlyR has not said the information is inaccurate, just that it can't be cited properly and thus can't be included. That's a catch-22 which can't be allowed to stand. Burks88 16:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, Forgive me for asking you to weigh in again here. The links that Burks88 included in his section took a reader to the website of Best American Poetry. I couldn't find any listing of any assistants there. Nor is there a research document that demonstrates the relationships that Burke88 is trying to establish. It's my understanding that Wikipedia would accept research that has been published by a reputable publisher. If Burke88 publishes his findings, Wikipedia would have no objection. I can't say if Burke88's assertion is accurate or inaccurate, just that he or she has been unable to support it in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies on verifiability and original research. Finally, Burke88 has added a new paragraph to the "critical reception" section that doesn't seem to belong there and with a link that doesn't take the reader to the source of the Hass quote. And I wonder if you could be more specific about where the article borders on editorial and which sentences need reference footnotes. Thank you for your time. WaverlyR 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

One final note: I've just taken a quick look at 4 issues of BAP (I'm away from my complete library); one person only is named as an assistant whom Lehman thanks in his acknowledgement page. I don't know the source of Burke88's information.WaverlyR 17:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The source of the information is 20 years of BAPs. If you review all the BAPs you may (in fact, will) be in a position to confirm. Incidentally, the assistant information was in fact published, on a blog that claims to receive 100,000 visitors a year. You deleted that link and are now saying that it's okay? You continue to refuse to say whether the 29 assistants, 12 published data is accurate or not. You continue to refuse to explain how we could ever quote from any text as Wikipedia editors, unless--as you require--that text is available online. You do not seem to understand how Wikipedia works: you delete inaccurate information. None of the information in the entry is inaccurate and all has been taken directly from the source material. It is wonderful--not horrid--that no one has yet violated the copyright of the source material such that the entire text of the source material is available on-line. Burks88 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In the past, I had put some similar information in this article (or perhaps one of the year articles) and it was taken out (by WaverlyR? I forget). I looked into the matter at that time and reviewed Wikipedia policy and I came to agree that (a) sources such as blogs are strongly discouraged, but more important, (b) they're pretty much forbidden when we're talking about negative information on living people, as per the very serious requirements of WP:BLP. I could find no sources in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources that made these types of allegations. I strongly feel that any criticism of the series from reliable sources should be noted to the extent that it is prominent criticism (if it can be reliably sourced). But when I looked online for that criticism, I didn't find it. If it can be found, I'll strongly support its inclusion, just to make the article neutral. But without reliable sourcing, Wikipedia won't allow negative information and plenty of editors will enforce that. Noroton 22:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Noroton, thanks for weighing in. At the risk of seeming coy--I agree with you, and I hope my edits reflect that.  Any references to "allegations" have now been removed, as has any reference to blogs.  The sole remaining question, as near as I can tell, is whether it is acceptable to do in the "critical reception" section of the article what is done repeatedly in the rest of the article: cite information from the source material without providing a link, because, well, it's taken from the source material. You're correct that WaverlyR has consistently removed negative information about the series from this entry; the problem is, we're no longer talking about "negative" allegations--we're talking about information which simply "is," inasmuch as it's taken directly from the source material.  These spouses were selected, the source material tells us so, and it does not tell us (as WaverlyR would have it), why they were selected, so my edits do not speculate, they merely indicate a selection was made, they don't put words in the guest editors' mouths (e.g., "[the work of their spouses] met their standards for excellence," see previous WaverlyR edit).  Likewise, while I *do* agree with WaverlyR that one or two versions of the BAP reference getting "advice" from a person rather than assistance--and so, I've made the necessary edits to that effect--I can see no reason, nor has WaverlyR ever provided one, for why this information isn't in the exact same category as Lehman's recitation of the "rules" of the series--which are not on-line, but which all three of us (you, me, WaverlyR) can see are listed in Lehman's introductions to the source material, and so we don't remove that info for "lack of citation."  Why this other data, re: assistants/advisors, doesn't get the same treatment, can only be explained by WaverlyR's campaign to remove any intimation of, I don't know, what he/she sees as "oddness" in the selection process of the series Burks88 07:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A reader coming upon Burke88's conclusory statement about Lehman's acknowledgements would not be able to check its accuracy unless he or she had every volume of the book and read through every acknowledgement page and table of contents. This seems to be asking too much of the reader and to violate Wikipedia's NOR policy. Furthermore, my efforts have been to remove matter that violates Wikipedia policy and, in moving a paragraph out of the critical reception section to the introduction section, to improve the article overall. I have made no attempts to remove material that is properly cited.  Burke88 has repeatedly mischaracterized my behavior here and elsewhere. I would like to remove certain postings on this discussion page and wonder if that is OK.  They could be moved to my talk page, which seems where they properly belong. Finally, while I see we are making progress, I am concerned that this article will require constant policing and wonder if its content can be locked at some point. WaverlyR 10:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Drawing conclusions from the information in the source material is beyond the scope of WP. Quoting a reliable and verifiable source which draws a conclusion is appropriate.   Researching through the text of the subject publications to develop statistics and relationships among the data is original research.  In a way people who summarize plots are violating OR as they are selectively interpreting with their own perception, although they quote the subject as their source.  Of course there has to be some synthesis of the source material or we become plagiarists.  Good judgment must be used, and we have to rely on consensus among our editors to be the deciding factor.  --Kevin Murray 14:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Kevin. As I understand your 3O it would be OK to write "The Best American Poetry series publishes a variety of poems chosen by a guest editor each year that does ABC and XYZ. . ." (This would be the synthesis of the source material.) But the statement that "X% of Y is Z" based on an individual's reading of the source would be considered original research and thus unacceptable. Is this correct? WaverlyR 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would not violate WP:OR in any way (and it would be a valuable addition to the article) to have a list of assistants who were (a) thanked by Lehman in one book and (b) whose poems then appeared in another volume of the series. As I read WP:OR, there is no prohibition in providing readers with lists as long as the information is presented without a conclusion. We list things all the time. We can even take it one step further without violating WP:OR by summarizing that list to say "X assistants have later had their poems appear in the series." We could go further and list the total number of assistants who have appeared in the acknowledgements, with or without poems that later appeared in the series. Then we could summarize that by saying "A total of Y assistants have been thanked by Lehman in the acknowledgements." We could then present the lists in a footnote or two. We could even say: "Out of the Y assistants who have been thanked by Lehman in the acknowledgements, X have later gone on to have poems included in a subsequent Best of American Poetry volume." I don't think it would really violate the spirit of WP:OR if we tacked on a clause to that sentence such as, "Z percent of the total." No conclusion is drawn from the source material, but information relevant to the subject is fairly &mdash; and simply &mdash; presented. Getting information from sources and presenting it is what we do. As long as we don't present a conclusion or go beyond summarizing, we're not doing original research, it seems to me. Noroton 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK Noroton thank you for writing a thoughtful response. I would caution that Lehman clearly distinguishes his sole assistant from those he thanks generally for assistance and suggestions and ideas. In general,seems like one would welcome the opportunity to point, say, a potential employer to WP to confirm one's association with a presitigious publication like BAP and its much admired editor. WaverlyR 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the present edits reach the consensus I see above. The two reviews of the 2004 and 2007 editions have been moved to the appropriate pages, the Hass comment about process is fine where it is now, and I'm certainly willing to settle for having the properly-worded statement about assistants/advisors--which, as it stands now, rightly notes that Lehman thanks both categories of persons--in the process section, not the critical reception section.  Between what Kevin seems to be saying (use your best judgment) and Noroton seems to be saying (it would be fine if all the assistants/advisors were listed), I think where we're at now is a pretty decent middle ground: i.e., the point about the advisors/assistants is not belabored by listing all the advisors/assistants (which could easily be done), nor does anyone have any reason to dispute the accuracy of the information.  I'd agree with Kevin that dividing 12 by 29 is original research in a sense--it's a computation--but I don't sense much disagreement with the notion that simply stating that twelve of the twenty-nine have been published in the series is information taken directly from the text and that the only "research" being done is reading the source material.  It's no different than saying the main character of a novel is ________. WP does not require a citation for that information in the entry for the novel in question because the entry is about the novel and so the source material is an implicit cite.  So too, here.  I'd like to think we've reached a resolution here, and I for one would be thrilled to put this issue to bed. Burks88 05:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The list should go in or there should be no such statement. And the list needs a date because this page may not always be kept current.  By my count Lehman thanks 38 total in his acknowledgements.  And the sentence with this information has to be changed.  The beginning "While Lehman has . . . " implies a connection that may or may not be there and is thus not neutral. WaverlyR 11:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong. And these juveniles games are extremely tiresome.  He thanks 38, 9 of whom, as you well know, are from Scribner or publicists.  The sentence clearly says "advisors and assistants" and so the number, as you've now confirmed, is correct, and you know it's correct.  You are playing games.  Moreover, while I could put the list in and it would take three seconds to do, what's the purpose?  You will merely remove it and develop a new argument against it, which has been your technique from the get-go.  To list all 29 advisors and assistants is to belabor the point unnecessarily.  Moreover, to remove the "while" is to make it absolutely unclear why that information is relevant in the first instance, which is of course precisely why you removed the "while."  Without the "while," a reader has absolutely no way to make sense of that information being there, as in the English language we use "transitions" between sentences.  Like "while."  Your repeated obstruction is odious, and its intentions so transparent it's remarkable no one has put a stop to it yet. Really! Burks88 18:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Burks88, WaverlyR is right here, and I'm pretty sure you know what s/he's talking about. You just can't go about making an argument (e.g., Lehman is a nepotistic creep) without back-up sources, even if it's contained in adverbial phrases and insinuation. As I've suggested below, it may not be hard to find a few reliable sources that claim cronyism and then to base the rest of the passage on that, but you can't go about doing what you're doing right now. While I confess I find watching you two go at it pretty fun, the remnants my of wikipedia conscience force me to say that you need to try something other than slanging each other on the talk page and repeatedly removing and reinserting each other's information. Sdedeo (tips) 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Burks88, I have to agree that we need the lists of assistants in order to make any statement about how many had their poems in later editions. The statement would also need an "as of" phrase to indicate how current it is. We're close to the edge of W:OR by even putting the lists in a footnote or two, although we're still on solid ground there. It seems to me that if we present the bald facts to readers, you will have made your point in the most effective way possible and be on solid ground with respect to Wikipedia policies. Since we have no Wikipedia-reliable sources to draw the conclusion, we can't draw any conclusion. Readers will draw their own conclusions. I agree with everything WaverlyR says in her 11:44 post just above (except the accuracy of her count, simply because I can't confirm it now). It seems to me that we have a consensus here allowing you to make the point you wanted to make with, really, only minor concessions on your part to conform with Wikipedia rules. I know it's not easy to resolve these conflicts without getting irritated, but if you keep cool now and type the lists into a footnote or two, you'll have achieved more than a lot of editors do in similar situations. Noroton 19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Noroton, thanks for the advice. I'll admit I'm still flabbergasted by all this, but I've done as you advised and listed all the assistants and advisors, followed by a list (without editorializing of any sort) of which assistants and advisors have appeared in the series. Burks88 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

fourth opinion
As far as I can tell here, Kevin's opinion is in line with how things are done on WP. In general, using blogs (or messageboards) to establish facts is very problematic; the barrier is the fact that they're self-published. Sdedeo (tips) 16:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I dug around a little for published comments on BAP cronyism; here are a few that satisfy WP:RS:, ,. Good luck settling this dispute. Sdedeo (tips) 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sdedeo. I've followed the links, above. One leads to a review of the Oxford Book of American Poetry, not BAP, one is review of the 2007 volume so it would properly belong on that page. And I can't find any reference to BAP or cronyism in the flashpoint mag link. Am I missing something? WaverlyR 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi WaverlyR: -- I didn't look closely at the links -- just googled "best american poetry" cronyism -site:blogspot.com (the minus sign removes hits.) I don't particularly want to get involved in this argument, so I leave it to you and friends to battle it out over the various articles. As a rough rule of thumb, you want to find sites that have an editor separate from the author. Sdedeo (tips) 18:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sdedeo, I agree with WaverlyR: None of those three links can be used. I haven't found reliable sources on the Web. Noroton 20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can't find reliable sources, you can't say it (and you can't insinuate it, either.) Taking the list of contributors and scanning for "suspicious activity" -- it's WP:OR, and it's not OK. Sdedeo (tips) 20:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're citing WP:OR properly. It says, in relevant part (because we're talking about taking information directly from the source material): "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to 'go beyond' the sources or use them in novel ways."  Reading the ToC for the series (which is on-line), and reading the source material (which lists advisors and assistants) and saying there's 12 names in the former from the list of 29 of the latter is "source-based research," no different than noting that the main character of a novel is named Jim by reading the novel and helping edit its entry in Wikipedia. Burks88 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You're using the source (in this case, the BAP) in a novel way. Here's how you can tell: does the Best American Poetry assert that it publishes cronies? No. Sdedeo (tips) 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, does the entry as I edited it assert that the BAP publishes cronies? No. It provides information without any editorializing, and you've drawn that conclusion--like, I suppose, the rest of the poetry community. Burks88 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it insinuates. Look, if you had a bee in your bonnet about (say) racism instead of cronyism, you could make a totally different list. Instead of listing "assistants of Lehman and wives of Jorie Graham", it would list the number of minorities. Cut the list, cut the muckraking on Brenda Hillman et al., and just report on what the reliable sources you can find say. It's not that hard. Sdedeo (tips) 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the characterization "it insinuates" is a stretch. Editors must be allowed to take information directly from the subject and present it. Whether or not that information is positive or negative or leads readers to certain conclusions is irrelevant. Particularly when presenting bald facts. The obligation is to be fair, and Burk88's edit meets that standard. Every single thing we add to this encyclopedia could potentially "insinuate" something. The question is: does the article present a fair picture. Please see WP:NPOV, which points out that while our articles have to be neutral, they don't have to avoid what could be considered negative information.


 * And Burks88 can have whatever bees he wants in his bonnet -- that's not your concern or mine or Wikipedia's. Anyone with a pulse has a bee in his bonnet on something. The article can't have a bee in its bonnet and it doesn't. It presents facts relevant to understanding the subject of the article, and we are obligated to present all the most important facts. The reason to include the list is that in considering the subject of poem selection for the series, the information on assistants getting their poems featured is relevant. It's not up to us to draw conclusions, and Burk88's addition does no such thing. If readers might draw conclusions -- well, that's not at all inconsistent with the purpose of this encyclopedia, is it? In fact, it's pretty close to the whole purpose of the project, since it's an inevitable result of doing enough reading on a subject. Noroton 03:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

definitely not OK
While Lehman has indicated on repeated occasions that excellence is the only criteria for selection for Best American Poetry, of the forty-five contributors to the volume from New York City, 43 live in Brooklyn, and two live in Queens. In 2003, John Milton (who lives in Brooklyn) published John Keats, who also lives in Brooklyn. In 1989, William Carlos Williams (who lives in Brooklyn) published Allen Ginsberg, a Brooklyn resident, and in 1999 Ezra Pound in Williamsburg published four poems by writers in Greenpoint, Park Slope and Bushwick (which is practically Brooklyn these days anyway.)

still not OK
Of the forty-five contributors to the volume from New York City, 43 live in Brooklyn, and two live in Queens.

OK
In a series of editorials, the Queens Avenger has alleged that the Best American Poetry is biased in favor of Brooklyn residence. The Avenger noted that of the forty-five contributors to the volume from New York City, 43 live in Brooklyn and two live in Queens. Lehman has indicated on repeated occasions that excellence is the only criteria for selection for the anthology.

Hope this helps, Sdedeo (tips) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a little ironic, isn't it. It's not the information that's the problem, it's that the information (which all concede to be accurate) hasn't been synthesized by a publication with an editorial structure. I say "ironic," because we're all Wikipedia editors, and any one of us represents an editorial structure because we can determine whether or not the information is accurate by reviewing one another's work.  So, to summarize: If A publishes his friend B in an on-line journal, and B alleges cronyism explicitly using the 12-of-29 figure which is inarguable fact, no problem.  If B adds the same inarguably accurate information, without any explicit allegation of cronyism, to a Wikipedia entry, and Wikipedia editors A, C, D, E, and F confirm the accuracy of the information, it's a horrible faux pas. [And in each instance, the "information" is merely taken directly from the source material].  Is it any wonder this strikes me as mindless adherence to some arcane form that doesn't actually make logical sense?  I'm still not clear, either, on which Wikipedia policy establishes this absurd reliance on single-editor publications of source material information rather than Wikipedia-verified publication of source material information.  Honestly, if a single person in an on-line journal made such an allegation, I would consider it less reliable than facts being presented (sans allegation) in a Wikipedia article, with oversight not by a single editor (who, in the on-line journal, could just be a buddy of the writer) but dozens of Wikipedia editors. Burks88 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it ironic. This comes up all the time. Basically, you're claiming that the case for cronyism is completely obvious and you don't really need a secondary source. The standard wikipedia answer is "if it's so obvious, you must be able to find a reliable source that asserts it." Whether or not that makes logical sense, it certainly makes practical sense; it's the foundation of WP:NOR, which has served the wiki well. Sdedeo (tips) 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I was the one who removed, ultimately, the allegations of cronyism.  They were replaced with data, sans editorializing.  Yet it's like that never happened.  Because some don't like the implications of the data, it is decried as "claiming...cronyism."  Which, patently, it does not, nor does the word "cronyism" (or, the word "allegations") appear anywhere in the entry as I've edited it. Burks88 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Burks88, you are being completely disingenuous here, I'm sorry. You are presenting information in such a way as to suggest cronyism. Just find reliable sources and you are done. This argument we are having is so familiar, I can't tell you. It happens at the ACLU article, it happens at the General Relativity article, and I'm sure it happens at the 9/11 conspiracy articles. Sdedeo (tips) 22:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sdedeo, I admire your attention to policy, but we editors are supposed to be even more attentive to the spirit of policy, and Burks88 is violating neither. We are here to present reliable facts, whether or not they may lead readers to negative opinions on a subject. There is no question about the reliability of the facts (assuming Burks88 has presented them accurately, but they can be checked). As I read the addition now, no original research has been done because information has only been selected. Editors are not only allowed to select information for articles based on what they think is important, but they are essentially obligated to do so. I've just reread WP:OR, particularly the "primary sources" section in WP:PSTS and the "Origins of this policy" section, which seems to deal with the purpose and spirit of the OR policy. Please take a look: the concern is about editors presenting their own personal conclusions in articles, not presenting simple facts that anyone can verify. We are always selecting facts for inclusion into articles. Noroton 04:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've stated my opinion, and I'm not questioning the reliability of the facts. Trolling the contributors for "suspicious" activity is OR. Why not list all the contributors who are black, who are women, who live in Brooklyn? If there's a reason to list all the contributors that were assistants, it would appear in a reliable source. Anyway, in the end I'm not so fussed: I've presented my suggestion (cut the list, rely on reliable sources) and I think it's the one most likely to "stick" for years. Whether or not Waverly has gotten bored, it's obvious what the list is insinuating, and there will always be someone else to come along and object. Anyway, I think I'll bow out now and watch from the sidelines! Sdedeo (tips) 06:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not list all the contributors who are black, who are women, who live in Brooklyn? That's different from whether assistants have had their poems included. Inherent in the idea of a "Best of" series is what constitutes "best", what criteria are used and whether the judges are judging based on some kind of merit. Bringing in the idea of what other characteristics we could consider about contributors is just that: bringing in an idea. If the series were titled "The Best Poetry From All Around New York State", in which the volumes were supposed to reflect some kind of geographic consideration, then it would be inherent in the subject that we tell readers how many were from Brooklyn as compared with elsewhere, and as long as we source it, we shouldn't need to have a secondary source for it. If it were "The Best Poetry From American Ethnic Groups" we'd want to know how much each group was represented because it's a natural, obvious question to ask. Original research involves going beyond simple reporting of relevant facts. Since we have a "Best of American Poetry" series, we are naturally interested in whether the editors are, in fact, looking for "the best". If there's a reason to list all the contributors that were assistants, it would appear in a reliable source. No, we often take information from primary sources that doesn't appear in secondary sources. Noroton 16:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If Burks88 had a bee in his bonnet about racism, he would list all the black contributors to show that they were under-represented, and that therefore the judges were not relying on merit alone. Instead, he thinks it's about cronyism, so he lists all the publications of assistants to imply that the selection is not merit alone. Anyway, let's let this matter drop. I would like to suggest to you, Burks88 and WaverlyR that we archive this discussion (i.e., I will make a page to contain all our arguments, and simply link to it from this discussion page after blanking.) There's a lot of slanging, personal attacks (I am not accusing anyone in particular), etc., and it's not particularly useful. As I said to WaverlyR on their talk page, I think the best solution now is for us (well, Burks88, and WaverlyR, the two people who've been involved in the conflict) to stand back and wait for other people to get involved in editing; there is nothing on the page as it stands that I think is unambiguously problematic. Sdedeo (tips) 17:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first two sentences just above give me something to think about. I'd find it more comfortable to let the whole thing drop, but I've got some problems with the way the page looks now. Actually, they're problems a bit separate from what's been discussed so far. I'm starting a new thread about them. Personally, I won't object to archiving at this point, but you may want to see the new thread first. Noroton 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Advisors and assistants: recent changes
The recent changes to the listing of "advisors and assistants" makes assumptions that cannot be supported.In the 2007 volume, the acknowledgement reads, in its entirety: "The series editor wishes to thank Mark Bibbins for his invaluable assistance. John Ashbery, Amy Donow,Steven Dube, Stacey Harwood,Sarah Ruth Jacobs, Deborah Landau, Kathleen Ossip, and Michael Schiavo made useful suggestions and helped in other ways. Warm thanks go also to Glen Hartley and Lyn Chu of Writers' Representatives,and to Alexis Gargagliano,Molly Dorozenski, Erich Hobbing,and Dan Cuddy of Scribner." On what basis does Burks88 assume that Ashbery, Donow, Ruth Jacobs, and Ossip are either colleagues of Lehman's or employees of the publisher. And why would those who are colleagues be excluded from the list? Likewise for Beth Gylys who is similarly acknowledged in an earlier volume.WaverlyR 22:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WaverlyR, my assumption throughout this discussion has been that we have solid, clear evidence from the series books themselves as to exactly who Lehman's assistants have been. I thought you wrote somewhere in this discussion that Lehman makes that clear (but I can't find where you said that. Am I wrong?). Noroton 22:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Noroton,You are right. Lehman clearly thanks Mark Bibbins (or,in some volumes,another individual) for his assistance in a stand-alone sentence. He next thanks others for their suggestions, advice, help, assistance, not using the same language in every volume. He next thanks those with Writers' Representatives and lastly those associated with the publisher. I have included those individuals from the first two categories,leaving out the Writers Reps and publisher people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaverlyR (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Just for clarity and ease of editing, I've reformated the indentations for the last several postings and added a section title. I hope nobody objects.)
 * I think we need some clarity on what the longer list of "assistants and advisors" represents. Is John Ashbery considered one? If not, why not? I don't think people from the publishing house and people who are paid representatives of writers need to be included since they're simply on the job. If we can't identify people as assistants (which I've assumed means they're paid employees or paid/unpaid interns), then we should just say something like "Lehman, the series editor, has thanked X number of individuals (aside from writer's representatives and publishing staff) for help with the series. Y number of these have had their poems published in subsequent editions of the series." We should leave out the words "assistants and advisors" from the section title because "advisors" seems to indicate a more formal relationship. If we don't know the exact relationship, we need to describe these people in more general terms. We could title the section "Individuals thanked by Lehman" or simply "Acknowledgements" Noroton 23:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored the prior version of this section, which lists 34 individuals. Burks88 22:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Noroton, Lehman specifically references advisors and assistants, and, as WaverlyR has noted, distinguishes between these and paid employees of Scribner etcetera. My edit was erroneous, though I still think one of the names is wrong it can be dealt with in a separate edit. Burks88 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Some problems with the article as it stands now: Sourcing
Sourced material has been added to the Criticial reception section, but most of the additions don't meet WP:Reliable Sources standards.


 * (a) It seems to me that a good case can be made that the Briggs Seekins material is reliable enough (because he's someone who's been published and is writing about what he experienced first-hand at Salt Hill, and he's writing appeared in an online publication that seems to have editorial supervision), but the hunk of quoted material is too much copyright infringement for Wikipedia (see [[WP:Copyright). I notice in googling around that Seth Abramson's blog has an interesting and amusing discussion about quoting from this very same piece by Seekins, but Wikipedia copyright policy is one of the great gods we bow down before here, and the great gods won't permit it. I'm going to rewrite and remove most of the quoted chunk.


 * (b) The Daily Cougar stuff is not acceptable as a reliable source and must go. I've added a bit more from the Academy of American Poets Web site and that can replace some of it, but we can't use a college paper as a source. And the idea that the 2007 volume has "unprecedented" cronyism is not backed up by the Daily Cougar article, which cites one instance, in itself questionable. McHugh picked an unknown poet from her native city? That's nowhere near conclusive. As I've pointed out before, Wikipedia forbids us from offering negative information from non-reliable sources. We simply can't do it.


 * (c) Edward Short in The Weekly Standard doesn't seem to be saying what we say he's saying about "approved poets". The way I read Short's comment, in context, is that Lehman's poets in the Oxford anthology are "approved" because they previously appeared in the BAP anthologies. That's a criticism of the Oxford anthology, not BAP. The "dubious" adjective is certainly about BAP, but it isn't explained by Short. I don't see enough substance here to make the quote worth using.

I'm immediately removing the Daily Cougar comments as per WP:Biographies of living persons policy (as an attack on McHugh and others). I'm going to rewrite that chunk of Seekins'. I'll hold off on the Short comment in hopes I can be shown that my reading of it is wrong. All this is subject to consensus, of course. Noroton 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (fixed link Noroton 18:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Noroton, we may already have addressed these issues, but: I agree the Cougar observation about McHugh should go; I disagree that the rest isn't usable, reliable, and relevant, so I've reinserted it. I'm sure no one would refuse to have The Harvard Advocate used as a cite, for instance--this is a massive college publication with an extensive editorial structure and oversight (as we saw in the recent CSU anti-Bush editorial fiasco) from the University as well.  I disagree w/ your interpretation about the Short quote--he's saying that Lehman has a list of "approved poets" and he links up this observation with the observation that the BAP is a "dubious" publication.  I've kept it in.  We'll have to tinker with the Seekins quote--he is clearly making a point in his editorial about Lehman and how the Duhamel poem got into BAP--and why--and the quote we use from him must reflect that, otherwise the quote is meaingless and irrelevant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burks88 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Husbands and wives
Sdedeo, you removed this paragraph:


 * In 1989, Donald Hall selected a poem by his wife Jane Kenyon ; in 1990, Jorie Graham selected a poem by her then-husband James Galvin ; in 2001, Robert Hass selected a poem by his wife Brenda Hillman ; and most recently, in 2006, Paul Muldoon selected Stacey Harwood, the wife of series editor Lehman, for inclusion.

Your edit-summary comment was: this is definitely OR; we really need a secondary source. Please tell us: By "secondary source" do you mean someone has to say that these guest editors included their wives? If so, please explain why you accept the list of people Lehman thanked but not this information. I think the reasoning for keeping wives and assistants is identical. Or is your only objection that we haven't established that these people are wives? Because its easy to source the wives part (except for Stacey Harwood). Noroton 21:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is getting tedious. I will say this one last time: searching the list of contributors for suspicious activity is original research. All you have to do is find a reliable source, and you can include the information. Take my word for it, or edit-war each other until you figure it out. I am taking this page off the watchlist, and will not be involved further. Sdedeo (tips) 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Community Enforceable Mediation
Given the ongoing disputes over this article, I've asked for WP:CEM between Burks88 and me. I hope that Burks88 will agree to participate. If he or she does agree, please visit the WP:CEM page and sign. In the meantime, please stop editing this page.WaverlyR 13:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The "spouses" section does not belong in the critical reception section. I'm not saying it doesn't belong anywhere but it isn't part of any source's critical response to the series. I've removed it pending the outcome of the CEM. WaverlyR 14:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the CEM request just now and immediately signed it, as I have never shied away from defending my own attempts to edit this article in good faith. Burks88 18:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Other Independent Sources of BAP Data and Analysis
FYI, I have spent the past 10 years or so maintaining a database on BAP. Tables are available at

http://www.jefferybahr.com/Publications/BAPRanks.html http://www.jefferybahr.com/Publications/BAPPoetsAll.html

and an old analysis at:

http://www.jefferybahr.com/Publications/BapStats.html

These may be of value or at least worth of citation.

Regards,

Jeffery L Bahr, PhD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.181.168 (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Magazine listing
I suggest we cut the long list of magazines. It adds nothing. Span (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right and I support a complete removal. --Crusio (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)