Talk:Seth Abramson/Archive 3

According to WP protocol, the process for disputes over accuracy of entries is:

  * don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time and make sure that content is from verifiable reliable sources and that it is unbiased and contains no original research.
   * visit the talk page to see what the issues are.
   * correct it right away if you can and also add to the article, as citations, any reliable sources you used to verify the information.
   * If you are sure that a statement is factually inaccurate then remove it, or move it to the talk page for further discussion. If you are familiar with subject matter contained in the article but are not sure about the accuracy of a statement, then add "^{[citation needed]}" at the end of the statement. If you are not familiar with subject matter contained in the article, but wish to ask about the accuracy of a statement, then raise the issue on the article's the talk page. Please read WP:PROVEIT for a more detailed explanation of what to do with false or misleading information.

No one has stated "what the issues are" in terms of which part of the article is inaccurate. So it's not clear how to start this. All of the information in the article is sourced. Re: education, books, and the Poetry award there is sourcing here:

http://muttsbane.com/sethabramson.aspx

Re: all the journal publications, that information is available from New York Quarterly, here:

http://www.nyqpoets.net/otherpub.php?pid=1631

Re: the media refs, all have links attached. Unless someone sees something inaccurate, I will be removing the tag just added. But I'll wait to see what John Gardner has to say about which aspects of the article are inaccurate. Warrior4321, I'm not sure John Gardner, who asked for the tag, understands that the only tag WP allows here is as to accuracy. For John Gardner to somehow try to prove "bias" would require a violation of WP:NPV and WP:NOR. I agree that the two links above should be added to the article as cites.216.26.97.159 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly cited policy for this person relating to consensus which they brought up and other policy regulations. I have repeatedly informed this person that my concern is withthe objectivity of the entry. It is NOT objective and if it is NOT objective then it is subjective making it biased.This person seems to not understand he parameters of objective versus subjective in so much as it encompasses both content and source: hence news of Fox News is different than that on MSNBC. Consider the source is a fundemental of any research. With that being the case then objective versus subjective entries need to be deliniated for the benefit of the reader/researcher. This person ONLY seems to be concerned with the subject's information and not with research or with the many readers who use wikapedia. "Me think's one doth protest too much!" I have read the policies. I think you just don't quite understand them or you are cherry-picking those parts that suit you. I have posted repeatedly those sections that apply and you continue-continue to ignore them.This issue is beng brought up because it is baltantly self congratulatory and self-promoting. It is biased and it is not objective. These are more than enough criteria for questioning this entry. And just so there is no mistaking rules were made to be broken or changed. This rigid adherence toan interpretation I disagree with is not productive.John Gardner (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John you havent cited WP protocol once, what are you talking about ? Not once- let alone quoted from WP protocol that i've seen. To explain again- WP:NOR means NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Your speculation on who edited what is a violation of WP:NOR. The way WP works is you must prove that the article is inaccurate or is not sourced. The who edited it issue ended after the AfD debate a long time ago b/c notability and sourcing not your "bias" test is how WP runs. The only reason you don't get this is because you wont read WP protocols and keep arguing from your opinion. WP has rule- read them. Moreover I say again to you- having repeated over and over- an entry does not get tagged or invalidated because of whether the subject has edited it- WP protocol EXPLICITLY says the subject can edit so long as no other WP protocols are violated. You'd know that if you had read the protocols. Again, either prove a WP violation or the tag is being removed. WP:AGF means I cant say you have a vendetta but given that you've never edited a WP article before and now won't read the WP rules that apply, one has to wonder.216.26.97.159 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]