Talk:Infinite Jest/Literary Criticism

Awards summary?

This book is critically acclaimed. Shouldn't there be a section on critical acclaim, with mentions of awards and comments on how the book was received by contemporary critics?
128.163.130.66 (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)^{The preceding, authentic, sig & timestamp, which had been properly placed as part of the original edit, is now restored, as of 05:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC).}
The contributing user (128) later modified the above restored sig to read:

128.163.130.66 (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(with the "talk"-piped lk pointing misleadingly to User Someone) at 17:01, 8 December 2008, and then to

Someone (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

at 17:02 (adding the additional misleading lk, to the empty list at Special:Contributions/Someone; by the way, while theacct User:Someone shows no contribs nor account creation, that page has edits dating back to 2002.)
Thepublic logs record the event "17:04, 8 December 2008 Regardingsweetness ... new user account", and at 17:05 that new user modified the sig to read: :Regardingsweetness (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC) That time stamp misrepresents the time of the contrib, and only the short timespan does anything to hint thatUser:Regardingsweetness may in fact be the same person as the user of IP 128.163.130.66, who actually made the contribution.^{--Jerzy•t 05:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)}

Harold Bloom's criticism

Simple readability

There seems to be an issue about whether Harold Bloom's criticism of "Infinite Jest" should be in this article. The quote in question is: Harold Bloom said about the novel, "You know, I don’t want to be offensive. But Infinite Jest is just awful. It seems ridiculous to have to say it. He can’t think, he can’t write. There’s no discernible talent." Harold Bloom is unarguably one of the most well respected literary critics in the U.S. Why should his opinion of the novel not be included, especially in light of the fact that there is no criticism of the book in the article? I took the time to find this quote. I was looking for something to give this article a counter balance. Since I took the time to find the quote, I would appreciate if anyone who wants to censor it would please explain why. I understand that Wallace's novel is well liked by many people, but surely that isn't reason for deleting any criticism of it. Chisme (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Resolved discussion about creation of a Criticism section, move of Time Best of List there. I don't think it's normal or appropriate to include a derogatory review in the opening section of a novel's Wikipedia article. Can you find an example of that The review is derogatory? Please explain why. And why shouldn't a negative review be in the opening section? Other reviews are in the opening section. Are negative reviews supposed to be kept in a sanitized section of their own? Chisme (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC) The method is to create a "criticism" subsection and put comments from a couple of well-known or authoritative people there. The only other reference in the intro is the existence on the Time best-of list, which is more than just a single person's opinion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I'm going to create a "Criticism" subsection as you suggest, put the Time magazine quote there, and put the Bloom quote there. Thanks for the idea. Chisme (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC) "The only other reference in the intro is the existence on the Time best-of list, which is more than just a single person's opinion." Actually it's not. The Time best-of list has simply been made by two of Time's critics (Lev Grossman and a second one). Therefore I think it shouldn't be in the opening of the article but in "criticism" as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by93.9.68.241 (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [EP] This whole thing is because Chisme "worked hard to find a quote" - only a single quote. Chisme if you wish to make a section called "Critical Reception" and put the Bloom quote in there, along with all the other historically appropriate reception (most of it astoundingly positive) - ie, he was given a Genius Grant, positive NYT book review - you may. But consistently rediting and putting in a Bloom quote without context, under a section called "CRITICISM" that you made up is not standard fare - see "CRITICAL RECEPTION" or "RESPONSE" in other literary novel pages. Get a hold of yourself - four times different people have objected to the Bloom quote. It has no place in here unless balanced out and included in a whole section - which you have not made. Therefore I have deleted it and made a simpler section called "Critical Reception". 144.92.3.29 On the contrary, I'm not the only one thinks the quote belongs as is. Revent just reversed your most recent edit. No matter how "astoundingly positive" reviews are of Inifite Jest, it as its critics. The quote belongs. Chisme (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Obviously there is a dispute over this, so I'm flagging the section for WP:NPOV. Please don't remove the tag until there is a consensus here on the talk page that the section contains enough varied quotes to be accurate. Thanks. Note that my revert was specifically anti-vandalism, i.e. deleting content without an edit summary, and against the expressed consensus without going through dispute resolution. I personally don't know (or care) what the specific section should be called. Please don't interpret me as taking sides. Revent (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Meta-conversation re adding more quotes I have no problem with putting favorable criticism in the article. I think you'll agree with me, however, that 144.92.3.29's removal of the Bloom quote because most critiques of the novel were "astoundingly positive" and Bloom's was not "astoundingly positive" is wrong. Critics can have different opinions about novels and those opinions can all be included in a wiki article provided that the critic is well regarded or well respected. It isn't a matter of finding what the majority of critics think and only listing their criticism. I don't see the need for a flag here because Bloom is a well-respected critic and there is nothing wrong with having quotes that are critical of a novel in an article about a novel. However, I'll defer to you and leave the flag. Chisme(talk) 15:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] I also have no problem putting in criticism of the novel PROVIDED an appropriate context. Wikipedia is not merely a collection of information - it is an encyclopedia, that is, it should contain a sensible summary of the information pertinent. The criticism fails this NOT because it is a criticism, but because it was not put up as part of a section - its origin is precise - Chisme was looking for something critical - and he/she found it. Really however, an honest curator would have created a section called "Critical Reception" with links and citations to most of the review/controversy surrounding the novel. However, this was not done. The question is of onus. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 144.92.3.29 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] A new "Critical Reception" section has been made that is appropriate. Harold Bloom's quote is not include because the Kakutani review is negative and specifically so - it focuses on the meandering length and lack of plot of the book, as well as certain writing techniques that Wallace employs. But it is a review, not a tossed off comment in an interview, and her points are specific and valid in her opinion. Other quotes, specifically concerning the postmodern nature of IJ, have been added. However, if editors think that the Bloom quote adds something above & beyond the Kakutani negative review, they can add it back in - but given the 'lack of content" of that quote, as well as the fact that it is not from a review but merely stated in an interview, I don't see how it is informative - as compared to Kakutani's well-founded negative criticism. I am honest in including the Bloom quote, which I restored. (I don't appreciate my honesty being called into question.) I was not "looking for something critical" either. The fact is, not everyone is as enamored of Infinite Jest as 144.92.3.29 is, and the article should relrect that. It is a valid quote. Period. And it belongs. If you remove it again I will have to report you as a 3RR. Chisme (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Back again because the changes popped up on my watchlist. While I can't at all claim to be knowledgeable about the subject (TBH, I'd never heard of it, or the Author, before I got involved here) the current version appears to me to be a huge improvement, and now accurate about the issue at hand. If there is a consensus, I'll remove the NPOV flag in a day or two. Revent (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] Chisme - you never addressed my point that the Bloom quote is an offhand comment made in an interview by Women's Wear Daily. It does not deserve "wikipedia" status or to be quoted at length - Bloom never wrote officially about IJ, and never reviewed IJ. NEGATIVE REVIEWS published in actual literary journals or newspaper do deserve to be aired - as Kakutani and the other reference indicates (which are negative, which I found, and their criticisms are FAIR criticisms). But the Bloom quote is completely uninformative - not only that, there is no background to the quote. Other negative reviews are thought out and can be checked, their authors have points, etc. This is just Harold Bloom saying he doesn't like something - it's not newsworthy. You've never addressed my point, you haven't read the work, you don't know the history - you are just invested, for some reason. Here is the quote from the Wikipedia neutrality page: Quote of WP policy re Neutrality, threats, meta-conv re consensus building [EP] "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. " Your consistent use of an off-hand and poorly backed up comment made in an interview shows that you are in violation of Wikipedia Neutrality. Please cease and desist or I will report you etc etc. << the previous was an unsigned, malformatted (blockquote) comment. I've fixed it w/o changing content, so I can reply coherently. >> The point at hand is obviously a source of disagreement. Per general Wikipedia policy, it should therefore be resolved via discussion here, not via unilateral page edits, and then the text changed or not depending on the consensus. Arbitrarily deleting sourced content when there is a dispute about it's inclusion is inappropriate, and reverting it is legitimate.Revent (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] I just tried to fix it, to merely move the quote by Peck into the main body of the section on the critical review, and was immediately changed by by Chisme. I'm really astounded by how poorly this whole situation has been handled - nothing in the discussion, no responding to points in the talk, just an edit war...71.87.87.22 (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I saw the recent activity in the Critical Reception part of this page, specifically Harold Bloom's, and just wanted to say why I don't think it belongs here. Harold Bloom never officially reviewed Infinite Jest, the quote is actually an off-hand interview comment, not something he published, and therefore not apart of what we're looking for in the "critical reception" area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by72.229.122.73 (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] The quote was put up ten minutes after I edited it out - I am the fifth person to have a complaint about its inclusion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by72.229.122.73 (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Meta-conv re redactions of content removal w/o consensus At this point, arbitrary deletion of the quote is a legitimate target for a revert. There is obviously not a consensus that it should be removed, and without that consensus it should remain. That consensus should be built here, not via an edit war, as that is pointless. This is a subject for dispute resolution, not unilateral actions. Whether it was a 'official' review or a offhand comment doesn't matter. The quote is legitimate, and sourced. That it was by a notable person and contrary to popular opinion merits it's inclusion per WP:NPOV. Revent (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Resolved discussion of N+1 cite (justification for inclusion was provided) [EP] Actually it does matter Revent - see Wikipedia's rules on article neutrality. Also, Chisme questioning the N+1 citation shows bias. N+1 is a HIGHLY reputable literary journal (Mscweeney's level, The Paris Review, etc). Any research would have shown that. But Chisme listed it as a questionable source merely because it is positive - and yet maintains that his Bloom quote is "perfectly legitimate." — Preceding unsignedcomment added by 71.87.87.22 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC) WP:BALANCE Balance requires 'when reputable sources contradict one <<...>> describe both approaches and work for balance.' The legitimacy of the quote, or Harold Bloom' status as a 'reputable' source do not seem to be in question, merely whether or not the quote should be included. NPOV requires a mention of opposing viewpoints. The appropriate resolution is to provide balance by representing the majority view (which the article now does) while mentioning the opposing view. Arbitrarily deleting the quote while there is an unresolved discussion here is a legitimate reason for a revert. Revent (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I agree with Revent that the Bloom quote is legitimately sourced. As for my questioning the N+1 quote, sorry for not explaining why. The quote comes from an article written by someone named Chad Harbach. If you go to his page at n+1 [click herehttp://nplusonemag.com/authors/harbach-chad], you'll see that he wrote six articles for journal, one on Infinite Jest, two on political subjects, two on sports subjects (the NBA and Red Sox), and one on snowstorms. Chad Harbach is not a literary critic.Chisme (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] Umm, he's the editor of N+1 and writer of the critically acclaimed book The Art of Fielding.71.87.87.22 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Umm, I'm not familiar with baseball novels or the work of Chad Harbach. Anyhow, I rewrote the sentence, using Harbach's name as the author rather than the magazine's name, and I wiki-linked to the Harbach article. Chisme (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] Thanks Chisme - how about addressing any of the points that myself and others have brought up about the Bloom quote? Just really anything besides reverting would be nice. Really nice.71.87.87.22 (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I believe it's been addressed several times already. Revent said it best above, "Whether it was a 'official' review or a offhand comment doesn't matter. The quote is legitimate, and sourced. That it was by a notable person and contrary to popular opinion merits it's inclusion per WP:NPOV." It belongs. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be objective. I get the impression that you like Wallace's work very much, but others have different opinions which they are entitled to, here and elsewhere.Chisme (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] Umm, that's not how Wikipedia works - just because he said it doesn't mean it should be on it. Here's a reminder on neutrality, please read it - it's taken from the page on WIKIPEDIA NEUTRALITY: Quote of Wiki Policy re Neutrality [EP] ::: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. " [EP] Points: [EP] 1. fairly represent all "significant viewpoints" - for a literary novel - that means all reviews published in high ranking literary journals - therefore the Peck quote is quite valid (although gratuitous to quote all of it). But the Bloom quote is not significant - Bloom never wrote on IJ - that's enough to make his opinion insignificant - if it was a significant opinion, it would have been in a book/review of his. [EP] 2.Giving "undue weight" - you have twice now taken full, highly derogatory quotes and placed them in their entirety as representative of Critical Response. That's undue weight. [EP] 3."Should not give minority views as much detail of description as more widely held views." Same thing - the criticism of the novel shouldn't be ALL of the critical response (which it was for a long time because Chisme entered that Bloom quote and never added anything else). 71.87.87.22 (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC) (1) Your definition of 'what that means' is disputable, which is why arbitrary deletion is inappropriate. (2) That's now irrelevant. Please discuss the page as it stands now. Talking about the 'drama' here is counterproductive. (3) See 2.Revent (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC) The quote merits inclusion unless that a consensus is formed here that it does not. Per WP:CAUTIOUS, don't delete sourced content unless there is a valid reason for it's immediate deletion (factually incorrect, for example). Deleting content while there is an open discussion about if it should be included is not a good-faith edit.Revent (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Meta conv re what is meant by 'critical reception' Yes, the quote is legitimate. Yes, the quote is sourced. That's pretty plain. What is also plain to me is that an offhand quote by a literary critic, not a quote from a literary review by a literary critic, does not belong in a "critical reception" section. It belongs in a "other things notable people have said" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.122.73 (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Then you should propose that change here (as you just did), not arbitrarily delete content. And please sign your talk page posts. Personally, I disagree with your point, though. 'Critical reception' is what critics say about the work.Revent (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Revent, 'Critical Reception' is not what critics say about a work in interviews in an off-hand manner - it is the reviews and retrospectives that come out in response to a book, as well as the public opinion (for instance, the general population's love of Harry Potter could be included in 'Critical Reception')69.129.232.98 (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I was defining 'Critical Reception' in an inclusive, not exclusive, manner. The term obviously includes statements made about the work by a well-known literary critic, which was the point at hand. Revent (talk) RE: arbitrary deletion of content. Per WP:CAUTIOUS do not delete factual, sourced information without a consensus being reached on the talk page that it does not belong. The deletions are 'arbitrary' because they are being made without a consensus on the change being reached here, followed by a 'cool-down' period to allow other editors to weigh in. Reversion of arbitrary deletions is legitimate.Revent (talk) [EP] The above points of neutrality have not been addressed, and neither has the fact that the Bloom quote is the only quote not published, but only said. Both of these points make it unfit for a critical reception section.72.229.122.73 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC) "Said in a published interview" and "Wrote in their own work" are both forms of publication. Your argument would logically require the removal of any citation of a interview anywhere on Wikipedia. Good luck with that.Revent (talk) [EP] This is false - please don't be dismissive. Actually respond to points. For instance, the original point was that a quote by a literary critic in an interview by Women's Wear Daily is NOT literary criticism. You haven't responded to this at all. Please see above comment on Wikipedia Neutrality.69.129.232.98 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC) My statement was a direct response to the assertion that the quote was not 'published', which is patently false. As I just noted below, I addressed the Neutrality and NPOV points at the appropriate point above, where they were raised.Revent (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Obviously, as stated above, I meant it was not from a review Bloom had published about the book. Yes the quote is published (DUH), written by his interviewer. That is different. And again, which should be obvious by now, we're talking only about this section, not all of wikipedia. No need to be dramatic. But there is not much I can do if you refuse to reexamine your belief in what critical reception is, or neutrality in this very particular case which was outlined very clearly above.72.229.122.73 (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Please read my previous comment re WP:BALANCE, which was in response to what you said above. I also addressed the raised (numbered) points individually above. Revent (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Quote of earlier collapsed Neutrality policy quote, obselete assesment of the section's neutrality RE: Neutrality. (moving down here for readability) User:71.87.87.22 quoted ""Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. " Has the quote been published by a reliable source? Yes, that he made the statement is not in question. Does the section represent all signifigant viewpoints? Yes, currently, but only if positive and negative views are stated. Are the viewpoints discussed in proportion to their prominence? As of right now, there are 6 positive reviews, and 2 negative. This seems fair to me. Revent (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC) As a side note, people's motivations for editing an article are not a valid topic for discussion here, nor are accusations of bias re their personal opinions, nor are personal threats (re 3RR reporting mentioned above), nor are even criticisms of people's past edits appropriate. The topic at hand is the question of if the article, AS IT STANDS, is neutral and balanced.Revent (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP]Thanks Revent - yes, focusing on the article AS IT STANDS is what matters. Points: Meta-conv, root of conversation re Peck quote in new section below Thank /you/ for hopefully helping restore a bit of sanity to this discussion. As I mentioned above, I'm here in an attempt to mediate, point out policies, and hopefully help resolve the edit war, not to take sides or be a judge. I've actually /intentionally/ not read any part of the article other than the section in dispute, and I've only looked at that to try to assess balance (i.e. quickly judging from the statements in the article if a review is positive or negative.) My quick assessments may be mistaken, but my point is to try to provoke and redirect conversation to the relevant issues. Revent (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] 1.) No one disagrees that the negative Peck quote/source should be included. I don't think it should be a separate section because the review is from 1996 (early reception), so in trying to keep with the rest of the timeline I included it in the above paragraph - this was immediately undone. Regardless, the existence of the Peck quote is not in question - it is indicative of literary reception, Peck has more detailed comments in the review (so the fact that he doesn't like it is not the totality of the source), was published by The Atlantic in response to I.J.'s publication, if a reader linked to Peck's quote it is informative, etc. [EP] Please start a Talk page section addressing your concerns about the Peck quote. This section started out discussing the Bloom quote, and is quickly growing unreadable and confused between the two issues. Revent (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] 2.) Revent, thank you for addressing my point on neutrality. Firstly, the Kakutani review is negative, as is the Peck, as is the Bloom (3). Of those 3 negative sources, 2 are reviews, are specific and informative, are in response to the publication of IJ and the general milieu at the time of publication in 1996. They have specific concerns and address them thoughtfully and informatively in print. Those 2 are the Kakutani & the Peck. The 3rd, the Bloom, is vastly different in kind (as discussed in point#3 below). Those are all valid points, and as I mentioned I did not /read/ the review when evaluating it, merely looked at how it was cited in the article (i.e. context and phrasing). The issue with the deletion of the Bloom quote before was that it was originally the ONLY criticism noted, and then was for a while the only negative one. What is required for WP:BALANCE is not that all or specific statements of opinion be included, but that opinions are represented fairly. The quote being repeatedly blanked without consensus was inappropriate. Revent (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] 3.) The Bloom quote is not literary criticism of I.J., nor is it indicative of "critical reception." The Bloom quote is from an interview conducted in 2011 by Women's Wear Daily -- and everything Bloom says about the book is included the full Bloom quote. In other words, that's not excerpting, that's Bloom's entire opinion. Most importantly, if a literary critic says "I dislike X" in an interview, this is not equivalent to literary criticism. Nor does it impact "Critical Reception." It's nothing. It's merely a fact about Bloom, not a fact about I.J. It may be sourced, and it may be a truth about the world (Harold Bloom does not like I.J. and has said so, briefly, in an interview) - no one is questioning that. But it is not indicative of Critical Reception of the publishing/reading world of I.J. IF Bloom had written a review - first of all, he would have stated his dislike in a more informative manner - and that would have been worth quoting... but he didn't. Valid points, and that the 'quote' is the entire text of what he said is new information, though not, actually, as relevant as it seems. For /inclusion/ points of view need to be NOTABLE, not necessarily well thought out, popular, or widely held. For /balance/ the weight they are given needs to reflect their 'popularity'. That does not mean that every source needs to be included. Better sources are always an improvement, and as long as the fact that not all critics loved the book is represented, I have no attachment to Bloom's statement. It is, TBH, a rather asinine statement (contentually) for a literary critic to make about a popular novel. Revent (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC) If everyone in the world except Posh Spice loved this book, but she created coverage by secondary sources due to saying on Letterman "This book sucks balls." is would merit inclusion. The amount of weight it would be given should be obvious.Revent (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Point has been addressed per comment below [EP] 4.) I could, in theory, find a million sources saying that DFW is "the greatest writer of his generation" - but I don't think that is helpful for a reader of wikipedia - ie, at this point it adds nothing. The Bloom quote adds nothing - it says nothing that Peck doesn't say, but Peck says it better and in a review. The fact that Bloom, saying this two sentences in an interview in 2011, should be given equi-footing (same # of wikipedia characters) as an N+1 retrospective, or a NYT retrospective, or a NYT original review (negative!) doesn't make much sense in the light of this section being on Critical Reception. This was my original point, probably not very well-said, about "undue weight." 144.92.3.29 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC) The point was poorly made due to the edit war and subsequent flame war here, and the disorder of this Talk page hasn't helped. I suspect multiple comments were missed by people who were only reading the bottom instead of scanning the section for nested comments, and many comments weren't nested. What you have said above is not an accurate statement of how balance and neutrality work on Wikipedia. Due to the collaborative way it works, (especially due to problems with content deletion by vandals), addition of 'sourced' content (however poor the source is, as long as it is factual, non-libelous, etc. See WP:BLP for discussion for rules about content discussing living people) will probably stick, and it's deletion is much more likely to be reverted. Most people who revert content deletion are either already watching the page (and it's Talk page), or are people watching live edits (as I was) and have there options set to auto-watch any page they edit. The relevance of them watching? WP:BRD Revent (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] I'm obviously not going to delete it right now - but no one has responded to my (and others before me) criticism of Bloom's two sentence interview as being unnecessary given the other negative reviews now well-included in the article. No need to quote Bloom's off-hand comment in an interview at length, given that there are far better sources (and better criticisms) now included in the Critical Reception. Additionally, those other negative sources were indicative of the Critical Reception, whereas Bloom's statement in an interview in 2011 is not indicative of Critical Reception, making it, in my view, irrelevant. IF bloom had written a review, it would be notable, but when Bloom says "I didn't like X" and doesn't elaborate, that has nothing to do with the historical critical reception of a novel.144.92.3.29 (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] Any responses to Harold Bloom quote? So far no answer has been raised to the multiple people who have pointed out irrelevance, not a literary criticism, redundant, etc.144.92.3.29 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC) As according to the conclusions in the talk, I have deleted the Bloom quote 72.229.122.73 (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)JB No such conclusion. Chisme (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] I didn't delete that but Chisme, if you could just actually respond to any of the detailed points (specifically 2&3) that I laid out (Revent is right that #4 is irrelevant due to wikipedia rules). <<unsigned comment apparently by 144.92.3.29 >> Revent (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Chisme has objected to including a mention of the novel's comment on Harold Bloom's work, saying, "Find the note and we'll talk about it on the Discussion page before including." Note 366 begins, "Sounding rather suspiciously like Professor H. Bloom's turgid studies of artistic influenza." When critics review works in which they are mentioned by name, they are ethically required to tell their readers that they are so mentioned. That's known as full disclosure. Since our article's Bloom quotation doesn't contain such a disclosure, we should provide it. Wukai (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

First, I wanted you to find not just the footnote, but the main text that refers to the note. That would help us understand why the footnote is there. I can find the note myself. Here it is in full (notice there is a footnote to the footnote as well, and further, that the note trails off into some gobbledegook that doesn't pertain to Bloom at all):

366 Sounding rather suspiciously like Professor H. Bloom's turgid studies of artistic influenza — though it's unclear how either Flood- or dead-ancestor discussions have any connection to S. Peterson's low-budget classic The Cage, which is mostly about a peripatetic eyeball rolling around, other than the fact that J. O. Incandenza loved this film and stuck little snippets of it or references to it just about anywhere he could; maybe the 'disjunction' or 'disconnection' between the screen's film and Ph.D.'s scholastic discussion of art is part of the point.a

a. (Which of course assumes there's a point.)

About your note above: The "novel's comment" is not a comment but a footnote (a footnote that, further, has another footnote). Does a cryptic reference to "H. Bloom" in a long, rambling footnote (note Wallace didn't even use the man's first name), and another reference to H. Bloom's "artistic 'influenza'" (what is that a reference to? Wallace doesn't spell it out) really belong in the article? If you think including this little footnote in the Infinite Jest article in reference to Bloom's criticism is warranted, you have to believe that a)Bloom read the footnote and was able to find his name in all that verbiage, b)Bloom criticized Infinite Jest solely on the basis of his name being mentioned in an arcane footnote, and c) Bloom is vindictive enough to let a little footnote color his judgement of Wallace's book. I don't think we can make assumption A, B, or C. Finally, let us remember that Wallace saw fit to put all this in a footnote, and a long rambling footnote at that. A footnote! Footnotes are secondary to the main text. Why weigh down this already bloated article with more secondary stuff? Chisme (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(1) I don't see how its location in an endnote makes the comment anything less than a comment. (2) "Artistic influenza" is obviously a reference to Bloom's best-known book, The Anxiety of Influence. (3) No, one doesn't have to believe A, B, or C to believe we should include this reference. One merely has to believe in the (widely standard) principle of full disclosure: that critics who review works that mention them personally are obligated to mention that fact. It doesn't imply that their judgment was affected. Wukai (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't see how a blip ("H. Bloom's") in long footnote ("...turgid studies of artistic influenza — ... dead-ancestor discussions ....S. Peterson's low-budget classic The Cage... peripatetic eyeball...J. O. Incandenza ....snippets of it or references to it...'disjunction' or 'disconnection' ....") makes the reference to H. Bloom a molehill in a mountain? C'mon. You want to pull six little words out of a footnote and use them to qualify the judgement of one of America's leading critics? Again, it would really help us determine whether the reference to "H. Bloom" really matters if you could find the passage in the main text that refers to the footnote. What is going on here? I would also like an explanation of the entire footnote so I can see how it relates to "H. Bloom." Can you please provide these -- the main text and the explanation of the entire footnote? Without these, it's impossible to judge. Chisme (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The sentence to which the endnote in question is attached is a description by Hal Incandenza of a scene in one of his father's films. It reads, "these academics' arguments seem sound as far as they go, but they do not explain the incredible pathos of Paul Anthony Heaven reading his lecture to a crowd of dead-eyed kids picking at themselves and drawing vacant airplane- and genitalia-doodles on their college-rule note-pads, reading stupefyingly turgid-sounding shit." The endnote is about the resemblance of this "stupefyingly turgid-sounding shit" to Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence. Wukai (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So you think Harold Bloom made the same inference as you, resented his work being called "stupefyingly turgid-sounding shit," and therefore made the negative public statement about Infinite Jest that is quoted in the article? A stretch, I still think, in that you assume Bloom read the footnote and that he would let it color his judgement of a book. If we're to put a parenthetical statement in the Infinite Jest article qualifying Bloom's judgement, we should refer to Wallace's exact words -- "stupefyingly turgid-sounding shit", not his mere mention of "H. Bloom," as strong words like that explain why Bloom may have got angry. What page is "stupefyingly turgid-sounding shit" found on? Chisme (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Page 911. As I've said, I haven't made any inferences about what motivated Bloom's remarks; it's just that critics who review works that mention them personally are obligated to mention that fact. Your suggestion to quote more than just the endnote is fine with me. Wukai (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The structure of the Critical Reception section and the Peck quote

[EP] Chisme, please don't immediately revert my moving a quote around. I'm trying to structure the "Critical Reception" section according to dates. When IJ came out there was a lot of interesting hubbub and controversy (also pointed out in the Talk section under "This article needs some work" by a different user). As such I am including Peck as an early (1996) reviewer, and trying to convey the sense that opinions on IJ, while originally highly controversial, have changed over time (see the 2 different NYT articles as an example of that). So please let me actually contribute to this article. I won't touch the Bloom quote and I have no "ill intentions" to not represent the accurate reception to the novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.3.29 (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(note that the person currently editing the page is User:Wukai, not the SineBot foo above, tho I doubt this is intentional socking). FYI, this page has now attracted 89 watchers. It's unlikely that Chisme, I, or anyone else is going to be successfully making inappropriate reverts. If you do have revert issues, please read WP:BRD before changing things back. Revent (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

[EP] Sigh. Chisme, you just reverted an edit saying that the peck quote did not concern the marketing of the book. Please stop. It does. here's the full excerpt - "If nothing else, the success of Infinite Jest is proof that the Great American Hype Machine can still work wonders, in terms of sales. The novel has moved some 60,000 copies and racked up a stack of glowing reviews as thick as it is. What makes the book’s success even more noteworthy is that it is, in a word, terrible. Other words I might use include bloated, boring, gratuitous, and – perhaps especially – uncontrolled."144.92.3.29 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of contrast, let's put the Peck quote in the second paragraph. Favorable reviews in the first para; unfavorable ones in the second. Peck's quote is not in regard to marketing. What we want is his judgement of the book. Chisme(talk) 16:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC

[EP] chisme - the Peck goes by the Kakutani - also a negative review, and Peck was responding the literary hype [see above quote which you did not address]. It's also in 1996. It fits the timeline for it to be in the 1st paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by144.92.3.29 (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Then let's move Kakutani to the second paragraph. Chisme (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

[EP] Chisme, don't send me argumentative personal messages about the Bloom quote. That's inappropriate. Address your concerns here on the Talk/literary criticisms discussion page. You STILL have not answered any of the above points on why the Bloom quote is inappropriate, compared to the other criticisms. 144.92.3.29 (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

[EP] Additionally, the Peck quote is in response to the marketing, as shown in the full quote above. Apparently you didn't read that before you changed it back again?144.92.3.29 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

[EP] Oh wait, you did read it Chisme, that's why you shortened it and cut out the part about marketing so it could serve your purposes... Objectivity please.144.92.3.29 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not send you any personal notes. I don't know what that's about. I put he part of the Peck quote in the article that expresses Peck's judgement of the book. Peck's article is not about book marketing, it's about Infinite Jest. Look, I don't have any agenda here. All I want is for the article to be balanced, and that means listing reviews that are critical of the novel. This is not fan page -- it's an encyclopedia entry. Chisme (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

[EP] Err, yes it is - see the above quote - "If nothing else, the success of Infinite Jest is proof that the Great American Hype Machine can still work wonders, in terms of sales. The novel has moved some 60,000 copies and racked up a stack of glowing reviews as thick as it is. What makes the book’s success even more noteworthy" That should be integrated into the overall critical reception.

[EP] When IJ came out there was a huge amount of literary hype, and then there were negative responses to the hype machine (mentioned by Kakutani and Peck) - that's an important historical fact that I tried to convey, you undid it without reading any of my points.144.92.3.29 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

[EP] And obvious there are negative criticisms in there, of course this isn't a "fan page" - originally it was a "hate page" because you added only the Bloom quote and had nothing else under critical reception until yesterday.144.92.3.29 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

[EP] So effectively, there has been no response to my points, and my work in crafting a narrative in the critical reception that reflects the actual critical reception (appalling length + hype, then reactions to hype, then acceptance of hype) has been undone. Again. Please explain? Use the Talk page here please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.3.29 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually NM this sorry Revent - caught you in the middle of editing.144.92.3.29 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Meta-conv re similar content deletion by multiple IP editors

Reverts of the deletions at this point are because the issue of inclusion has obviously not reached a consensus here. You can't assume a consensus without a cool-down period to allow other editors to weigh in. (There are dozens of people watching this page, and most have probably not logged in today). You are also ignoring a 3RR warning and continuing try to delete the content.. Using multiple IP addresses, intentionally or not, does not disguise the sockpuppetry. It's pretty obvious that the IP editors making this change are all the same person from the discussion here, and so WP:3RR applies to the net contribution of those addresses. Revent (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] Wait, what, using multiple IP addresses? I have not.... I'm the person who wrote most of Critical Reception (not the Bloom quote) and have been saying that the bloom quote is pointless, but I haven't deleted the Bloom quote since yesterday (when a cool-down period was initiated). Not sure when I am being accused of, when the most recent round of reversions was me attempting to establish a timeline of criticism using the Kakutani and Peck quote, which was immediately reverted (by Chisme again), even though I tried different things, expanded the quotes, etc..144.92.3.29 (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [EP] Also, to act like this is "just me" is ridiculous - I read the original talk page. The first thing Chisme did (and still only thing she/he has done on this page) is to insert the Bloom quote at the very top of the article. Under general criticism for this move by many editors (see general Talk) (none of whom was me, I came to this yesterday), Chisme then created a new section, called "CRITICISM", and placed only the Bloom quote there. No "Critical Reception" section was constructed. No /balance/ was added. There had been previous controversy surrounding the Bloom quote (not literary, derogatory, etc). From now on I'll sign my posts [EP] to distinguish me - I've also edited the past posts which are me to reflect this.144.92.3.29 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)144.92.3.29 (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Sorry if I'm making an invalid assumption, but 72.229.122.73 and 144.92.3.29 are both new, anonymous editors, with no contribution history other editing this page in an attempt to remove negative criticisms. The edit you just mentioned above was not made by the IP address you are editing this page from (144.92.3.29) but from (72.229.122.73). The implication is obvious. Revent (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My statements that there is not a consensus here have been repeatedly ignored in attempts to delete the quote. I have justified that there is not a consensus by pointing out that other editors have not had a chance to weigh in.

Reversion of any deletion of the quote, or any series of single-person edits that has the net effect of removing the quote, is appropriate at this point, regardlesss of WHO does it.

Discussion of the motivations or potential personal biases of other editors is inappropriate, as per the WP:AGF warning on your talk page.

The original comments in this thread (and the new section edit you refer to) were in January, and stood for three months without dispute. Per WP:BRD the appropriate response to your deletion of the content at 15:46, 27 March 2013‎ was a reversion, followed by talk page discussion, and the retention of the quote until an consensus was reached here.

Edits of the section to attempt to establish NPOV and balance are appropriate. Removal of the Bloom quote at this point is not. Revent (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

[EP] well you are... go see original talk page for further criticism of Bloom quote addition.. I am clearly not the only one with a problem with this... otherwise why would I try to convince Chisme that his interview quote is not literary criticism. And I don't have a contribution history because this is my work computer right now... Are such accusations really necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.3.29 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I literally read every word on the talk page while archiving it. There was no discussion of this that is not here, other than a few abandoned comments from years ago that a discussion of the critical response would be appropriate, which I archived as not discussing the current version of the page.

Chisme's edits were a good-faith attempt to address a long-standing issue with the article, by adding content. You might have issues with the result, and your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, but deletion of the quote at this point is in violation of general Wikipedia policies per consensus building. Revent (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Three Paragraph Solution

As I wrote this, the "Criticism" section has three paragraphs:

1. Initial reviews of the book
2. Laudatory reviews
3. Unfavorable reviews

I like this structure. Dividing the reviews into three paragraphs makes reading easier. I propose we stick with this three paragraph solution.

I think we have agreed at this point that all reviews (NY Times, Time magazine, Bloom, Chronicle of Higher Education, and Peck) are well-sourced and suitable for the article. The question now is how to present them. Chisme (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. BTW, note that in my massive page edits, I've been careful to avoid the disputed content. Revent (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there still any dispute of this? If not I will remove the NPOV flag. Revent (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Bloom is not a review. It's something he says in an interview. Not a review, doesn't belong in Critical Reception.144.92.3.29 (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why an opinion on any novel, in order to be valid, has to be in a book review. Furthermore, let's keep in mind who Harold Bloom is. Bloom is recognized as one of the most well respected literary critics in America. And I wanted to add one thing, which I think is important. This Infinite Jest article is almost fawning in its treatment of the subject. I think it's important to have balance. The novel is actually controversial in many circles where it is thought to be an example of the kind of convoluted metafiction that is favored by the academy. Outside of the academy, this book doesn't have that many defenders. The article ought to reflect that as well as the gushy opinions of the college students and professors who like it. Chisme (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter of 'valid', in the sense of right or wrong...it's a matter of appropriateness for inclusion. It need to be published, and be by a 'subject expert' in order to the 'notable' enough for inclusion.

Otherwise, you'd get into arguments about including /every/ published opinion, even if it's something like an offhand statement by a celebrity about "I'm reading this now, and I love it." Revent (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

144.92.3.29 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC) So Chisme, you have an actual specific purpose in mind by your insertion and struggle to keep the Bloom quote - based on your notion that "Outside of the academy, this book doesn't have that many defenders" because it is a work of "convoluted metafiction" and so you declared that the article is "almost fawning in its treatment" despite now included well-sourced negative literary criticism by Kakutani and Peck, published in highly notable journals (and excerpted from at length here). In order to combat this "fawning treatment" (despite actually, when you historically inserted the quote there was no treatment at all) you went out, dug deep, and came up with an offhand comment by Harold Bloom in an interview in 2011 (14 years after publication date) in which he said Wallace is "horrible." And when you actually inserted the Bloom quote originally you put it at the top of the article, as if this off-hand statement by HB should define Infinite Jest. But Harold Bloom wasn't writing a review, and he wasn't making a literary critical statement, it had no thought put into it, it was merely a man saying "I hate X". As I've argued before, even if a literary critic say to someone "X is dogcrap" such a statement is NOT literary criticism -- especially IF the statement is not expounded upon (ie, written in an article) -- notably, your "excerpt" is actually Bloom's entire opinion -- it ends there, and is hugely uninformative. Nor is it Critical Reception. It's nothing - otherwise, as Revent has pointed out, we would need to included every like/dislike spoken by a famous person, no matter how short or vague. Does Jonathan Frazen like Infinite Jest? Let's put it in! Does Oprah! In! Vague statements by anyone at anytime! Let's put it in!

My purpose is to make this article and any article I work on in Wikipedia objective. What evidence you do you have that Bloom put no thought into this statement? I can't imagine Bloom (or anyone else) making a statement for a magazine without putting any thought into it. Chisme (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

144.92.3.29 (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Here's some objectivity. HB said it in an interview only when he was asked specifically about DFW (so this was not a thought out piece that he had spent some time writing/rehearsing, it was on the spot). Judging from the huge differential between this type of spoken hatred -- "it's just awful" and his actual literary criticism (highly articulate, thought out, published in books and articles, etc), it should be obvious that this is not the same standard as his actual work (when he's being a literary critic), and he is not saying it in the same way he would say, write a NYT book review on Infinite Jest. But you're focusing on the most debatable point (how thought out his response to an interviewer was, which in the end, we can never know) to detract attention from the more pointed ones -- how does Bloom's quote of "I hate X" stand as literary criticism or critical reception? It's simply not - IF the quote were excerpted from a long piece by Bloom published in a reputable journal or in one of his own books I would have no problem with it. Imagine a comparable circumstance -- some other literary critic (Y), in writing a review for a book that's not Infinite Jest, says "This book was awful, as horrible written as Infinite Jest." Without justifying his point, critic Y continues on attacking the original book, not expanding on his dislike of Infinite Jest, and indeed, he was not original focused on Infinite Jest. My contention is that this example is not literary criticism either, and has no relationship to the Critical Reception of the book, and it would be inappropriate to put on the Wikipedia page for IJ "Critic Y called Infinite Jest "horribly written"". If you agree with such an example, I think you should also exclude the Bloom quote for the same reasons -- if a literary critic says "I hate X" to an interview, to a friend, or even in a published piece of literary criticism, if saying "I hate X" or "X is excrement" is the total extent of their statement, they are not doing literary criticism as such, they are instead merely giving their opinion. If they expand that opinion into an actual work of literary criticism, then saying "I hate X" becomes more meaningful and fodder for inclusion in Wikipedia. If not, it's just some words some guy once said, and that was all.

You haven't shown or proven that Bloom put no thought in his statement or that it doesn't constitute literary criticism. Your use of the word fodder is revealing. Chisme (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Focus on the section as it stands now, please. IMO, the way it is now is balanced, as far as the 'layout'. The debate over this has improved it a lot. The only remaining question is whether or not to include this sentence...

In a 2011 profile of Harold Bloom in Women's Wear Daily, the literary critic said of the book, "You know, I don’t want to be offensive. But Infinite Jest is just awful. It seems ridiculous to have to say it. He can’t think, he can’t write. There’s no discernible talent. Stephen King is Cervantes compared with David Foster Wallace."

I'm going to do a copy-edit, and put it up for opinions. Specifically, the quote is way too long. His opinions about Wallace aren't actually relevant to the book. Hopefully this section will be acceptable. When you have a chance to weigh in, someone please put a template:talkback on my talk page, as this conv is getting buried in my watchlist. Thanks. Revent (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC) I'm also fixing grammar. The original text is still there, hidden. Please don't revert it. Revent (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

144.92.3.29 (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Okay - thank you Revent I think that looks good. But I have a problem with one of "America's best known critics" - all of the people quoted are "best known critics." In fact, unlike Bloom, Kakutani (who reviews for the NYT and has been doing for for 40 years) has at the beginning of her wikipedia page "She is considered a leading literary critic in the United States." Therefore I don't think "one of America's best known critics" is appropriate, given that we haven't identified others. Should we have identified TIME magazine as "one of America's best known magazines"?. Additionally, the link to Women's Wear Daily was replaced by "best-known literary critics" - every other quotation was source-cited, no idea why that was pulled? Maybe because it reflects the ridiculous origin of the quote�? something people would rather hide?

144.92.3.29 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC) I am content with how it stands now, as of last edit of mine - adding in origin of bloom quote from a profile, removing the identification of bloom as a major literary critic (he is, but so is everyone else, and all the magazines are major american magazines, and we don't say it for Kakutani or Time magazine or Lipsky so we don't say it for bloom - it makes it seems like his quote should have more weight than it should - given that it's not a real review) - but left bloom text as Revent did => "In a 2011 profile in Women's Wear Daily Harold Bloom described the book as "...just awful" and "[written with] no discernable talent."[13]"

I think it's okay as it stands now as well. Chisme (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

TBH, my removal of the Womens Wear Daily (sources do not have to be /explicity/ described it the text, that's why we have cites), and addition of the 'major...' was an attempt to vary the structure of the sentences (i.e. acutally 'copyedit', not 'edit). Neither is essential, and the whole section needs a 'line edit', badly, but I didn't want to really mess with that too much until this was settled.

The description of him was actually my 'merged restatement' of the quotes from the last paragraph of the Bloom lead, mostly because they were easily cited from those sources if needed.

Frank Kermode called Bloom "probably the most celebrated literary critic in the United States";[4] James Wood described him as "America's best-known man of letters".[5]

(Remember, I'd personally never heard of the book, Wallace, or even Bloom.) :)

Revent (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, /where/ a particular critic is published or quoted is 'technically' only relevant (for verifiability) as far as the 'reputation' of the publication. Time and Womens Wear Daily are equally 'reputable sources', in the very sense I mean, as in that if either one publishes an interview with a major personality you can be pretty damn sure the person actually said the quotes. Writing "Bob said 'I love it!'" is a 'statement of a fact directly known to the author'. The interviewer saw and heard the interviewee say it, unless they are lying, the publisher let them get away with it, and the interviewee didn't scream bloody murder. Doubtful for either of those magazines.

The same critic's interview published on the fansite 'www.ilovebooks.com' fails that test (His published quotes are 'notable', but not 'verifiable'). In the little known 'Collection of My Interviews of Book Critics', written by 'Joe English Professor, Ph.D.' and published by Oxford University Press it definitely passes due to scholarly review.

OTOH, the interview quotes of an 'unnamed Palestinean' as part of an article in Time about the West Bank pass the verifiability test, though 'notability' of the quotes would depend on context. The same article in Womens Wear Daily does not, as they are much less likely to have fact checked it as thoroughly, which is needed for something such as that. It's much more plausible that the WWD author spent his entire 'in country' time sitting in the hotel bar writing a fake article and got away with it. Get it?

It's also unlikely, TBH, that Bloom would have said anything different if he was asked the exact same questions, in the same order, by the same person, in the exact same context except that the interview was for Time. Also, a formal 'review' by him would have said the same thing....just in better language.

As far as a book review by a professional, which is a 'direct statement of opinion by an expert', where the critic is published is a function of his 'reputation', not vice versa. Peeps write reviews for Time instead of The Podunk Daily because of their reputation, and the fact they are published in Time is just an indication of that.

Say that famous reviewer retires, and only writes occasional reviews for his hometown paper, The Podunk Daily, to 'keep his hand in'. They are just as usable, though it might be harder to verify that (you can assume a reviewer published in Time is a 'good' one, you have to check the other one out).

Revent (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring

[EP] In order to focus discussion, I tried to make a fair assessment of the points made by both sides concerning ONLY the validity of the Bloom quote.

Per WP:TPO do not edit another users contributions to a talk page (specifically removal of context).

If you wish to summarize the discussion in your own words, and use quotes of other users comments, feel free to do so. A reposting of the entire thread with a selection of deletions is impossible for anyone, no matter how well intentioned, to do fairly, and also contributes to spam. Revent (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully everyone feels my refactoring was conservative and appropriate. Feel free to yell at me. Note that no content was removed, merely portions collapsed.Revent (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)