User talk:Burks88

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Franz Wright looks great. Glad we could fix it. Sdedeo (tips) 20:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about the ill-advised deletion. I'd forgotten a central principle here: if something needs balance, add the balance...(!) Don't delete stuff. Won't happen again. Cheers. Burks88 22:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] BAP wives

Hey, if you want to go through the bother of citing sources that show Donald Hall and the other poets are married to these women, I've already done so in the articles for the individual volumes, so you could just cut and paste those citations into this article rather than look them up on the net. I didn't want to go through the bother unless there was a consensus on the BAP Series article to keep that paragraph, but feel free.

You put back some material into the Briggs quote. I like that material but it could face copyright violation objections. I think the phrase I added ("said Duhamel's poem was not even the best work Duhamel had published in that same issue of Salt Hill, let alone one of the best poems published in America that year") covers the same territory you did with the reinserted material (the last sentence, "But damned if the one praising David Lehman was not picked up for the big showcase" is funny but not necessary. If we can rewrite parts of Briggs' quote without losing any meaning, we shouldn't be using this much quoted material.

WaverlyR made the point on the talk page that Lehman is explicit about who his assistants are. Can we cut out the nonassistants from that long list of 34 or so individuals? I doubt anybody's going to say John Ashbery got so many poems in the series because he sent suggestions to Lehman, right? And can we state in what volumes Lehman thanked particular people? That involves some work, but it shows (a) that some assistant got thanked in X issue and then got a poem in the Y issue of the series. Please tell me what you think, either on the BAP series talk page or mine. Thanks for your work on the article, by the way. I've said where I disagree with some things you've added, but overall I think the article is improving and I appreciate your efforts. Noroton 21:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we can wait a bit on the assistants business. Let's see what Sdeleo says are his specific objections to the wives list. If he just wants proof that they're wives, then I'd be happy to do that work and save you the trouble. I guess the Mediabistro link should be OK. It's not a regular blog, but part of Jupiter Media, so as a professional site it should pass muster. I don't know why the link to "Death by Pad Thai" is in there though ... Noroton 21:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look

I've brought the BAP matter to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Please take a look at that and feel free to comment there. I suppose I am criticizing both of you for being contentious, but please don't consider that a condemnation -- I think it's hard not to be contentious when you care about something a lot, as both of you do. And I do think you've both improved the article. At BLP they only rule on content, and especially with newer editors, if they disagree with anything you've done, you shouldn't consider it a criticism, only their application of Wikipedia rules. Noroton 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] keep cool

No need for you to do anything at all, although I do wish you would add exact information on those people thanked by Lehman in his acknowledgements. If it's unclear that certain people thanked were not assistants who later got their poetry published, I suggest you remove that part yourself. If you can in fact show it with footnotes pointing to the acknowledgement in a particular edition and showing (in the footnote, I assume) what exactly the relationship was with Lehman, that would be something we can defend, I think. I think we'll get some good guidance on this from WP:BLP editors. I hope you don't think you're in any trouble. Noroton 00:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Thank you for all that work. I think to add it to the article requires making it as simple and straightforward as possible. I also think we can add a lot of this to the articles on individual books, mentioning the acknowledgements of assistants and linking (to the other Wikipedia articles on individual volumes) to where their poems appeared. I can do that (unless you'd rather). Every time you used a quotation in your last message to me, you quoted words directly from the book, correct? I assume the capitalization was not actually as in the book but the words were, correct?

I'm still digesting this. I'll look at it more and suggest a way to include it in the article that should meet objections over original research. Basically it's a matter of making it as simple and straightforward as possible while not hitting the reader with too much data and as little irrelevant data as possible. The way I'm thinking now, we don't need to mention (in the series article) all those thanked and compare that with those who were thanked and who later had their poems appear -- we could just say something like: "These ### assistants and others who were thanked by Lehman in the acknowledgements sections of the series also had poems published in the series:" Then list in order by years, with each item (name) followed by the years in which their poems later appeared. It could look something like:

  • 2003: provided "invaluable assistance": Mark Bibbins (poem in 2004 edition); "ideas or suggestions from": Angela Ball (01), Shanna Compton (05), Stacey Harwood (05), Danielle Pafunda (04, 06, 07), Carly Sachs (04), Susan Wheeler (88, 91, 93, 96, 98, Best of Best, 03, 05)
  • 2004: provided "invaluable assistance": Mark Bibbins (poem in 2004 edition); "made useful suggestions": Angela Ball (01), Shanna Compton (05), Stacey Harwood (05), Danielle Pafunda (04, 06, 07), Susan Wheeler (88, 91, 93, 96, 98, BoB^, 03, 05)

These are all just my preliminary thoughts. I wouldn't even mention the people who were thanked but didn't get their poems published. As I think about it, that's beside the main point, which is to say that a number did get their poems published. Now, a bunch of people would be referred to repeatedly in item after item, but I don't think that should matter. Alternately, we could list by person, but then we'd have two sets of data for each person: volumes where thanked and volumes with poems, and I think breaking up items with names and numbers is probably easier on the eye. What do you think? Again, that's a great job you've done and a great amount of work. Thanks.Noroton 01:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/WaverlyR and Burks88

The case is open. I hope things work out. DurovaCharge! 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)