Talk:Wells Tower

Also
also, guitar player and singer for punk/hc band Hellbender — [ Unsigned comment added by 80.67.101.51 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 19 January 2010.]

Criticism section
I've removed it for two reasons. First, the quote is misleading as it was used in connection with magazine writers generally, not specifically directed at Tower. Second, if we're going to include criticism of the author's works, then we need to include good and bad reviews, not just bad ones (although the review was a lot more nuanced than its characterization in the article).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The relatively new editor and I had a discussion on his Talk page about his contribution. I would have preferred the discussion take place here, but the upshot of it is the criticism has been added, but not in a separate section and a more accurate reflection of the critic's comments. Hopefully, others will agree that, as currently worded in the article, it's appropriate. The editor is happy with it, and so am I.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the edit is in keeping with the tone of the rest of the entry--the only cite that reflects the critic's comments, and the only reference with a quote. Wouldn't the following be more consistent and "disinterested," as the guidelines dictate, to write something like "In February 2011, Paul Maliszewski wrote an article criticizing both Tower's fiction and nonfiction writing in the Brooklyn Rail.[15]"--without quote following the footnote?Lottare (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When you consider that all of the rest of that section is nothing but praise, I don't see how it's unbalanced to add, not only the fact of the criticism but also some detail about it, which also gives it context. The quote is in the footnotes, not in the body, so it's not prominent - it's mainly there to help another editor understand the legitimacy of the assertions in the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The question isn't about praise or not, I don't think. The text reads that he received an award or was picked as this or that or named such and such. The character of the praise isn't elaborated on--there are no assertions--my suggested edit leaves the fact of the criticism in tact, and the link. The question is about style and consistency and (the appearance at least of) disinterestedness. If anything, the singular delivery/handling of the information draws attention to its legitimacy, which isn't where my comments tend at all. The citation and reference should be included in the section. That said, the history of the entry makes it clear that the editor is biased. If the point is fairness, it would seem more balanced to remove all traces of that particular interest.Lottare (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Stick to the content and don't assume bad faith on the part of other editors. I have nothing much more to add to what I've already said. I don't find it unbalanced now. If you want to provide a little more detail about positive reviews (without overdoing it), which the article mentions in addition to awards, etc., feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sticking to the content; that's the problem. No assumptions. Appreciate your replies and the suggestion.Lottare (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there is some discrepancy over what is considered "balance" with specific regard to BLP policy. In one regard you want to ensure negative aspects do not overshadow the article (i.e. that criticisms do not make up a disproportionate amount of content in an article). The second aspect regarding balance is the relevance of the criticism. WP:BLP states that if the criticism is held by a "tiny minority" (in this case a single individual expressing their opinion) it "should not be included at all". The balance in this regard is equating the single Maliszewski opinion piece to the accolades reported independently by The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times. among others. This is not to say that there can never be criticism noted in the article, simply that equating one individual's minority opinion to a large and varied coverage of accolades is unbalanced - it is given undue relevance to Paul Maliszewski's opinion. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  14:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for posting this here after I've already posted it on what I think is the BLP noticeboard. How that board differs from this Talk page, I couldn't say. But it's relevant to Jezebel'sPonyo's above explanation, which is the same explanation Jezebel'sPonyo has given for deleting the disputed material. Here goes: I object to Jezebel'sPonyo's erasure of the disputed material. It is inconsistent with other BLP articles. For instance, look at Malcolm Gladwell's page. It has a long section about the critical reception of his work, which includes many direct quotes from many individual critics with divergent opinions. This paragraph stood out, which I will quote here:


 * "Maureen Tkacik and Steven Pinker [21] [35] have challenged the integrity of Gladwell's approach. Even while praising Gladwell's attractive writing style and content, Pinker sums up his take on Gladwell as, "a minor genius who unwittingly demonstrates the hazards of statistical reasoning", while accusing Gladwell of "cherry-picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry and false dichotomies" in his book Outliers. Referencing a Gladwell reporting mistake, Pinker criticizes his lack of expertise:[21] "I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong."

Malcom Gladwell is a popular, best-selling writer with a broad following among critics and readers. There can be no doubt that those critical of his work represent the viewpoint of "a tiny minority." Would his Wikipedia page then be improved by removing the above paragraph, according to the "undue weight" rule Jezebel'sPonyo cites? No. Removing it would in fact diminish the relevance of Gladwell's Wiki page by turning it into a promotional vehicle for Gladwell's work. And this is precisely where the Tower article is heading.--Rockfeather (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rockefeather - as your only edits to Wikipedia have been to add the single Paul Maliszewski criticism to the article, are you at all affiliated with Maliszewski or Wells Tower in any way? I ask the question not to invalidate your argument in any way, but a declared conflict of interst, if there is one, would help untangle any potential neutrality issues. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know both writers. I would call Maliszewski my friend and colleague.  I have never met Tower, although we are "affiliated" by mutual acquaintances and we have published articles in the same magazine.  Have you publicly asked the same question of the other newly minted editors who have so suddenly and so strenuously argued against--and actively deleted--material potentially critical of Tower?  If so, I cannot find it.  What did I do to earn your suspicion above all others involved in this fray?  Make a coherent argument?  I invite you to take a look at the last version of the Wells Tower page I edited.  It is almost the exact wording that the complainant above, Lottare, states would be agreeably "disinterested."  And nobody would dare call Lottare a partisan, right?--Rockfeather (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)By the way, it's spelled "Rockfeather"  No "e" between the feather and the hard thing.
 * Apologies for the error in your username, I have corrected it above. I have only asked you specifically regarding a possible affiliation with Maliszewski and Tower as you have been the only new editor involved in the current discussion and the only new editor who has edited the article since I made the BLP removal (save for Carolinesess who made a null edit yesterday). As noted in my previous message, confirming a possible conflict of interest does not negate your position with regard to the material you wish to add. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I would be doing Maliszewski a much bigger favor by dropping this ridiculous argument over a single line on the Tower "stub," and instead set about creating a BPL page for Maliszewski based on the Tower template.--Rockfeather (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope that isn't hyperbole, as it would certainly be a net benefit for the project if you could look past your frustrations on this article and continue to contribute. You are obviously a talented writer, and content contributors are much needed at Wikipedia. My only caveat regarding creating an article on Paul Maliszewski would be to read the conflict of interest guidelines first to ensure the neutrality of the potential article can be maintained despite your personal or professional relationship with the subject. IF you do decide to proceed the article wizard is a great tool. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is most definitely hyperbole, but thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. It seems that further inquiries on this matter will only get me more invitations to plunge even deeper down the rabbit hole of Wiki bureaucracy.  I’m afraid I don’t have the stamina for it.  I’ll leave that adventure to the intrepid editors here who have chimed in at the 11th hour to polish the Wells Tower stub, those champions of Objectivity, who are no doubt at this very moment parsing other stubs for neutrality violations, undue weight, and offensive minority viewpoints.  One question: how do we know when consensus has been achieved?--Rockfeather (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument that somehow, because Maliszewski represents the "minority" in terms of criticism and subsequently because of a strict reading of the BLP policy it should not be added is flawed on many levels, and flies in the face of what WP is supposed to be. In fact, the section is labeled "criticism" which, by its very nature should have some analysis, both good and bad, in the section, only has praise. Now, there's no doubt this author has received praise. But I don't see how including the citation that bbb23 originally added is controversial. IN fact, I find it suspect, and to honest quite unbalanced, that as soon as a small citation from a reliable source from a well-known critic noting something flawed in the author's work, it is removed with a rationale that is weak at best. Really, I think there needs to be more than just praise included here, if in fact it is "criticism"--this should at the least some analysis and, if some of the prowling protectors of the page allow it--some discussion of the flaws of his writing too.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't completely disagree with you, but my view hasn't prevailed. However, a point of clarification. I changed the section name in the article to "Awards and critical reception". Originally, the piece criticizing Tower's work was in a standalone section called "Criticism". I felt that the good and bad stuff belonged in the same section. So, arguably, you could have a work (or an author) that has received nothing but praise and the phrase "critical reception" would not imply otherwise. Just a nit.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice job changing the section name. It makes more sense now. However I don't see any negative entries for the critical reception (and they exist, and again the critcism from Maliszewski ought to be mentioned). As it stands now the section is puffery.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to call something puffery if it's stated as a simple fact and backed up by a reliable source. Fact: He won X award. Puffery: He won the internationally prestigious X award. That said, if you want to include the critical material, you're going to have to convince someone other than me.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The section is indeed a vehicle for puffery if it only states the facts that put the writer in a good light, facts though they be, at the exclusion of facts that say otherwise. The facts themselves aren't puffery.  It's what they add up to, and here they add up to a marketing campaign.--Rockfeather (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)