Talk:Lord Weary's Castle

Jpcohen’s awareness[edit]

Yesterday, I added the following passage to the "Critical response" section of the article: “Poet Stephen Berg wrote that Lowell asked him what he thought of some new poems from Life Studies. ‘I like the Lord Weary poems better [Berg said]…and he [Lowell] replies (I can hear each wryly pronounced word): “Pound thinks they’re either genius or pure shit.” ' This was referenced to “Stephen Berg, New & Selected Poems, Copper Canyon Press, 1992, p. 196, ‘Lowell: Self-Portrait.’ “ User:Jpcohen deleted the passage.

Jpcohen's reason for the deletion was: “Removed awkwardly worded commentary. Also, I'm not aware of Stephen Berg or his relation to Lowell's poetry or the significant [sic] of his relation to Lowell's work. Doesn't seem appropriate here.” It is Jpcohen’s personal opinion that the passage is “awkwardly worded.” Jpcohen has personally never heard of the poet Stephen Berg. As a result of Jpcohen’s limitation, the passage was deleted. Berg studied under and was personally acquainted with Lowell, but Jpcohen has no knowledge of this either.

Jpcohen could have easily learned about Berg by searching the Internet He would have found the following: “Berg has taught at Temple University, Princeton, Haverford and Loyola (Baltimore), and is Professor of English at The University of the Arts in Philadelphia. Berg has been awarded Rockefeller, Guggenheim, NEA, Pew, Dietrich and Ford fellowships and was commissioned by The Fairmont Park Art Association in 1991 to collaborate with painter Tom Chimes on the public art project ‘Sleeping Woman,’ a 1200' long line glazed atop the stone retaining wall along Philadelphia’s Schuylkill River. In 1972, Berg founded The American Poetry Review and since then has been one of its editors.”

Consequently, as a result of Jpcohen’s personal lack of information and motivation, the article will be deprived of a statement by Lowell himself about Ezra Pound’s comment on Lord Weary's Castle.

The Wikipedia article is not Jpcohen's own property, yet the contents of the article seem to depend on the contents of the mind of one user, Jpcohen.

This article on ‘’Lord Weary’s Castle’’ is apparently owned by one user. If he thinks that the wording is ”awkward,” then the wording is removed. If he is personally unaware of a writer, then references to the writer are removed. If he doesn’t know the significance of a relationship, then it is deleted. Most importantly, if that one user judges that a passage doesn’t seem appropriate, it is erased.Lestrade (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

First, Lestrade, please be sure to sign your comments by adding four tildes to the end of your comments. Second, I don't claim to "own" this particular article. I just happen to be the editor who has put the most effort into it (so far). Other editors have also worked on the article (though admittedly not as much as I have). Third, it is indeed my opinion that the wording of your addition was quite awkward (you're free to disagree with that assessment if you like). I did google Mr. Berg, and I see that he is a published poet. But that still doesn't make his Selected Poems a good source for critical commentary on Lord Weary's Castle. In this particular case, I think it would be more appropriate to include a quote that references a primary source (i.e., something by Lowell or Pound). Even with an appropriate reference, I still think that Pound's comment was quite flippant and not terribly substantive, but I wouldn't be opposed to your including it if you had a primary source to reference.

Of course, as you pointed out, Wikipedia is collaborative. So if other editors agree with you and disagree with me, then I won't make a fuss about it. But that's why these talk pages exist in the first place. Although I understand that people can be sensitive about their contributions and other editors' changes to those contributions, I don't think it's appropriate to personally attack editors with whom you disagree. Ideally, Wikipedia should be collaborative, not combative.Jpcohen (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jpcohen is not aware of the fact that Wikipedia cites secondary sources, not primary.96.235.138.157 (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)The Four Tildes[reply]