Talk:Barrett Watten

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barrett Watten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905174026/http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Epoetry/watten.html to http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~poetry/watten.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630065810/http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/posts/post34.html to http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/posts/post34.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220115333/http://www.english.wayne.edu:80/fac%5Fpages/ewatten/ to http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/review.asp?id=79713Detroit

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barrett Watten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220115333/http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/ to http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Contentious material has been challenged and removed.

Please do not add this back without exemplary sourcing and with attention to avoiding undue weight. Challenged material should not be added back without a consensus to do so. DlohCierekim 15:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2019

I wish to remove the following from near the top of the article:

(Redacted)

This an attack on the subject. It is potentially libelous, and -- most obviously -- it violates NPOV.

I would like you to remove it, or to allow me to remove it, & then to lock the site again. I note that I am not the subject, not related to the subject. I am aware, however, that Watten has retained counsel to rebuff these allegations. Historyofpoetry (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

 Already done General Ization ^Talk 16:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Editors and General Ization,

The deletion rationale by Historyofpoetry does not hold up under any amount of scrutiny. <removed unsourced negative BLP>

There is no attack on the subject, and there is no possibility of libel; it is clearly not libelous to say (Redacted) Please reconsider your decision to lock this page, as it is being done in the personal interest of Watten, not in the interests of Wikipedia's objectivity. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Stophidingbehind: Do not place unsourced allegations in articles or in talk pages. Such content must be impeccably sourced, and Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet that publishes allegations. DlohCierekim 16:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Could you please attempt to explain negative BLP, particularly unsourced negative BLP better than I can? DlohCierekim 16:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

{reply|Stophidingbehind}} Once you have a consensus to add the material back. DlohCierekim 16:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Stophidingbehind: (fixing ping) DlohCierekim 16:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, Because it is in the personal interest of the other editor to silence this content, I do not believe consensus will be possible. Alternatively, if I am able to produce sources that are in line with Wikipedia's expectations, would that prove Historyofpoetry was at fault in the "edit war," and his edits would be removed? Should I simply make an "edit request" on the page in question? --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Stophidingbehind: If I can explain a little more, the accusations would under the umbrella of contentious material. For these kind of updates, we MUST have a reliable source to validate this, and not a blog post or a private investigator website. These currently are unsourced allegations, however if there was a source, such as a media outlet reporting this, then it could be seen as a reliable source to add this info. Please also bear in mind however the idea of undue weight for allegations such as these, and to prevent this from becoming the focus of the article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi -- I stop by only to note that it is by no means "in the personal interest of the editor to..." do anything whatever in respect of this Wikipedia page. I am not the subject of the page, & the redacted-because-offensive content neither references me nor is addressed to me nor could lead to me in any way. My edits had the sole purpose of bringing the page in line with Wikipedia policies. Indeed, I would appreciate Stophidingbehind ceasing to address any of her comments to me as a person -- someone with some stake in a conflict of any kind whatever. It's just not the case. Historyofpoetry (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that more contentious material has been added to this article. The material appears to be a clear violation of NPOV. It notes that allegations have been made, which appears to be true, then explicitly supports the truth of of whatever has been alleged by reference to a "blog" explicitly (and anonymously) created to be an attack on Watten (the site does not hide, but rather features this intention) & which, moreover, includes material unrelated to the allegations (!) contributed, it seems, by Watten's peers & rivals in the contentious (!!) world of literature), while it offers no method by which a person might contribute material in rebuttal of any of its attacks (not even in a comment thread) or add a post from a different point of view. Taking another close look, I can find no way for anyone to post any material with any purpose other than to damage Watten. The contentious material that has been added to the article on Watten also references and links to piece of journalism: an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, hence I took a quick look at the article. From its headline, to the graphics on the page, to the first sentence of the article, guilt is presumed. Guilt of... something. I have no knowledge of any kind of the "situation on the ground" at Wayne State University, nor, from reading the article, is the University specifically acknowledging any allegations against Watten (as the contentious material claims).

I apologize for writing at length. This does not appear to be material appropriate for Wikipedia. IMO it should be removed and the article locked. Historyofpoetry (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education article is behind a paywall, so I can't evaluate what it says. However, I agree that the text that was added to the article is inappropriate for the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi -- Rereading my contribution above, I realized I need to be more specific. The newly added contentious material is contained in the 3d & 4th sentences of the first paragraph of the article on Watten. The third sentence of the paragraph refers to an allegation as if it were an existing thing "...a decades-long history of...." The fourth sentence suggests that a (seemingly minimally-researched?) journalistic article has "corroborated" this history and that Wayne State University has stated that it is investigating this history. Having read the sources to which these sentences link, they do not support these claims. Whoever it is who edited the article to introduce this material would seem to give evidence of a stake in some kind of contention involving the subject of the article. Where is the required NPOV? Nowhere evident, alas. Once again, I request these sentences be removed and that the article be locked. Thank you. Historyofpoetry (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.223.168 (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Barry, please grow up and stop fighting over your Wikipedia page; you have bigger fish to fry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40A:8201:3369:B0FC:A14B:B606:BA83 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion: the new information, clearly relevant and credibly sourced, would be more appropriately expanded upon in another section and only given a brief mention in the intro? While "historyofpoetry" is committed to claiming there is a violation of NPOV, this would appear to be provably false: The Chronicle is a highly respected news source, and the article includes direct mention of the investigation brought by Wayne State. Perhaps different wording would address the problem, though I have trouble finding an "assumption of guilt" in the Wikipedia edits beyond maybe my sloppy syntax. I will be adding an edited version of my previous addition and will attempt to work toward a consensus with historyofpoetry in our talk pages. Stophidingbehind (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi -- wow! Without any knowledge whatever of anything internal to Wayne State, I nonetheless have no trouble recognizing a vendetta when I see one. Complete with what seems to be the idea that *I* am "Barry" (...Watten, I assume? Apparently the writer knows him well enough to call him by a nickname.). Apparently, the writer assumes that no one but Mr. Watten would want to rid Wikipedia's pages of contentious material?

In service of this vendetta, the writer copied into this talk page the entire text of a (presumably) copyrighted article. I don't see how anything could be more obvious than that it is utterly, astonishingly(!) inappropriate to do that. I've removed it. I have no doubt that this person will do it again.

I hope something can be done to make this stop. It's tiresome to monitor it as I have taken it upon myself to do. Historyofpoetry (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi History! I did not add the article's text. I have edited the article again in compliance with NPOV & WP:UNDUE, addressing both your concerns and Wikipedia guidelines. I do hope we're able to discuss a consensus either here or on our talk pages. I would ask that editors and admins who are viewing this disagreement understand these additions are not made in bad faith and consider whether there is justification to remove if they are credibly sourced and compliant. Thanks! Stophidingbehind (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

deleted message from... Historyofpoetry (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Historyofpoetry, the editor you're addressing has been topic-banned and is unable to respond. This page is here purely to discuss the article's content, actual and potential. If you have any kind of conflict of interest yourself in relation to this topic, you should avoid editing the article, and you should consider avoiding the talk page too. Please read WP:BLPCOI. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 23:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV -- Thank you for the information. I have simply deleted my lengthy address as inappropriate for this page. Thank you as well for pointing me to WP:BLPCOI, which I have read. I have neither a conflict of interest *nor any interest at all* in editing the article. I have removed obviously contentious material, nothing else.

As a neutral party, professionally aware of the article’s subject but not well-acquainted, I find this dispute curious: when serious allegations against a public figure are publicized in the press, Wikipedia typically tracks the controversy as it unfolds. It appears to me that both Stophidingbehind and Historyofpoetry have an axe to grind; while I presume the redacted edits violated NPOV, I would think an article from Academe’s most venerable news source and an investigation by a University for misconduct do deserve mention in the biography of a professor. The page history suggests there are more than these two editors interested in updating—perhaps some of those others should work toward consensus, wherein the allegations and publicity are acknowledged, but not given undue weight nor presented as fact. Conflictorabuse (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

I've fully protected the article for three days. That time should be used by uninvolved editors to decide whether to add any of this material to the bio. That discussion should include whether the existence of one reliable source is sufficient for this kind of material, and, if so, how it should be summarized. Anyone involved in this situation in real life has a conflict of interest, and should not edit the article. Please read WP:BLPCOI carefully. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 22:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)