|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Poetry||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Women writers||(Rated Start-class)|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
I (anonymous user, NOT associated with Foetry and am leaving that stuff out for now) put back the section critical of Graham's work. Walt Hunter seems to have come through and turned this into a Graham love-fest without actually saying anything useful about the poetry itself. I'm not able to add much either, but at least we should have some kind of balance...
Criticism is not Criticism
Someone needs to come through (I may at some point) and fix the section labeled "Criticism." It isn't criticism in the literary sense of the word. It's just reviews, which end up being redundant with the section above. "Criticism" implies a study of Graham's work, either article or monograph length. Anyone here have access to a search engine that would bring up any of these?
Added a separate section on Foetry.com. Moved all reviews and blurbs into appropriate section. Criticism section still empty. Added links to sites on which sample poems can be viewed (can anyone verify whether or not Plagiarist.com is legal? I thought yes, but suddenly wonder). Removed many reviews and blurbs, esp. those without citation. Too much on Foetry? Probably should have own article. I'm not going to write it (afraid it would start endless POV wars, given the nature of some posters at that site).
Additional question - should we delete most of the external links? They're not so much reviews as places to buy Graham's books.
Thank you for the restructuring. It was necessary and well-done. You did not, by the way, overdo the information about Foetry's discoveries. This belongs in any account of Graham's life because one of the most noteworthy events in it is the fact that she had the astonishing arrogance to award a major poetry prize to her fiance. Many judges over the years have been accused of cronyism, but I think most would agree Graham's action is in a league of its own. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Removed plagiarist.com and paragraph
Members of Foetry.com noted that plagiarist.com is a paper-mill-like site, perhaps inappropriate (unless used in an ironic sense) as a source for viewing Graham's poetry. Bugzita added a disclaimer paragraph regarding plagiarist.com. In the spirit of KISS, I thought it made more sense to simply eliminate the link to plagiarist.com and keep the link to the Academy of American Poets website. No explanation necessary. A separate page on plagiarist.com might be in order, and the removed paragraph would fit better there.
This has also prompted me to wonder whether the explanatory material in the Foetry.com controversy section is necessary. At this time, since Foetry HAS to be there but there is no Foetry.com entry on wikipedia that I can link to, I'm leaving it in. Other thoughts?
I reverted User Quentinmatsys's name change, as I have been unable to find any sources that refer to Jorie Graham as Jorie Pepper Graham-Galvin. While her parents' last name was Pepper, and her husband's last name is Graham, I find no indication that she uses a hyphenated last name, nor that she goes by Pepper as a middle name. The information regarding her parents and marriage ought to suffice. I left a message to this effect on Quentinmatsys's talk page 7 days ago and haven't heard anything, so I'm going ahead and making the change.
Huge chunks of text were deleted from this article by editor "Antibit" yesterday. The first edit by Antibit seems to be reverting vandalism, but could we get a quick summary of the rationalle for the other deletions, please? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- The same text has now been deleted three more times, each time with no explanation. The next time you delete, could you explain the reasoning, please? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice that "Bugzita" added the paragraph "Although Graham has supposedly retired from judging literary contests, she has been selected to judge the "Discovery"/Boston Review Poetry Contest during 2008.  The deadline was January 18, 2008." This seems to merely repeat information that's already in the article two paragraphs earlier ("Graham subsequently announced that she would no longer serve as a judge in contests, although as of 2008 she continues to do so"), so I'm deleting it. YMMV, and if you think that there's a reason that the information should be here twice, go ahead and say so.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This article has been reverted by a bot to a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)as part of