This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Here is my second call for editors who can help me by providing input. Specifically re: sourcing and bibliographical questions as we proceed. My first call for assistance was made on November 19. No editor has stepped forward and spoken of their desire to improve the content of the Barrett Watten page.

1. My plan is to begin transferring much of the material from the section above (labeled: Background and summary of Language writing) into the main Barrett Watten article, replete with sourcing, citations, and endnotes. I will begin the transfer no later than November 26.
2. Meanwhile, I’m going to add another section to the BW page documenting the “Critical reception” of Watten’s work. And I will restore a minimally acceptable standard Bibliography section to the BW page. And probably a Works Cited section. More details to follow.

Are there any editors that can assist me with that, or have any suggestions on improving this article? Christian Roess (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your call for help. I just did some research on Wikipedia comps, and what I found was instructive. Below are notes from the nine other members of the Grand Piano group plus Charles Bernstein and Bruce Andrews, all poets who are discussed together. There is a wide range of quality in the articles; some are overhyped (Bernstein); some seem deliberately underdeveloped (Andrews). The best written, with the best account of aesthetics, is Perelman. Robinson is succinct. Carla Harryman's was slashed to nothing by three editors associated with this page, one of whom leaves a quote indicating his gender bias. A major takeaway is that all but one have substantial list bibliographies, which is the standard, not incorporation into narrative. Here is the data; I will be providing more information for this project. Let's make this the best of the lot!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Perelman / Personal Life: full discussion of Francie Shaw; good treatment of L writing; quotation from work; chronological bibliography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Silliman / Marriage and family: wife and two sons / Not a good account of L writing / Substantial bibliography; some critical studies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyn_Hejinian / Biography: first marriage; works marriage into bio / Undeveloped discussion of work and L writing / Substantial bibliography; works in translation; some critical studies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bernstein_(poet) / Lede is hyped; edited volumes up front / Personal life: lists family / Career discusses publication, not aesthetics; no account of Language writing / Reception is inflated; substantial bibliography; edited volumes; some critical studies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Andrews / minimal content in each category; no mention of relationship with Sally Silvers / poor discussion of Language writing per se; comparison with co-editor Bernstein is telling / Bibliography is one para plus list of e-books; confusing and unhelpful

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mandel_(poet) / marriage to poet and psychotherapist Beth Joselow in lede / bio is interesting; “Writing” is underdeveloped / substantial bibliography in list form

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rae_Armantrout / lede is career accomplishments / lots about recognition and publications / “Style” distinguishes her work from other Language writers / Personal life: education and marriage, where she lives / Substantial bibliography; lists poems in the New Yorker; little on critical response

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_Robinson / short lede / concise account of life and work; no mention of family / substantial list bibliography; no critical response

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Pearson / minimal lede / Life and work not developed; mentions Sheila Lloyd and residence / Substantial list bibliography; no critical response

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Benson_(poet) / short lede; Benson is single / Life and work are underdeveloped; short discussion of Language writing / List bibliography not up to date; no critical response

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carla_Harryman / Page was cut back to a stub by aggressive editing / Lede is inadequate; life and work are a stub / Substantial list bibliography / Personal life has reference to BW; GeogSage writes “Moved personal life to end of article as I think their personal life is likely of very little consequence in terms of what makes them notable.”

The point is that a successful article needs a shaping hand that considers what is unique and distinctive, showing importance but also giving insight. It is not just a cobbled-together pile of sources, and when it is it spectacularly fails any coherence. ThisDirect (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ThisDirect, this is excellent and relevant editorial feedback. I think that if we can set the standard with the Barrett Watten page, we can use it as the fulcrum for revision of the other pages you’ve listed. I plan on revising all these pages for the sake of Wikipedia’s readers, now and in the future. Thank you! Christian Roess (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict, responding to Christian Roess). You did not get many responses previously, for one reason because you posted a WP:WALLOFTEXT. I did look at the sources you posted at the time. The first and third were reliably sourced reviews, which are generally worth including somewhere in the references (since they indicate impact). The first might be particularly useful, since it reviews a collected works volume, although I found the writing of this review to be a little impenetrable. I think that the article could support a Critical Reception section incorporating reviews. OTOH, past consensus has been that the works of Watten are better addressed with the prose "Major works" section than a Selected works section. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is relevant. I do not see anything in the "Background and summary of language writing" that could conceivably go into the article. As you know, Wikipedia does not publish original research, but only summarizes what has been already published in reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Russ Woodroofe for your feedback and your willingness to jump into the fray. But also to offer substantive editorial input. Let me first talk about original research. So is the wall of text I provided above original research on my part? No, the part I titled “Background and summary of Language writing” is not original research. It may sound like original research, but it is not. If it sounds like original research, that is due to my own stylistic (mannerisms/poetic ) choices. So this section does need to be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone.

Therefore, I will be reintroducing the same material from above (“Background and summary of Language writing”) into the Barrett Watten article but using an encyclopedic style. But you are correct: I will show with citations that it provides the background and History of Language poetry accurately, and that background & history has at least 40+ years of documented evidence to support it. So for example, Language poetry/writing had specific origination points in the 1970s. How did we get from there to here now in 2024? I sometimes think of it as a chain of dissemination (source + message + channel + audience). The latter chain can be shown and documented, and it would not be original research. Christian Roess (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to review Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material. I'm not saying that this is exactly what is happening as I haven't seen the full original sources for the claims, but it is an easy trap to fall into if you're not careful. Specifically "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." I still believe that the length of bibliography would likely justify a separate list article, rather then breaking up prose to insert it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the proposed text looks like original research, and it also does not seem to discuss much about the biography of the article subject. WP:COATRACK is probably also a useful essay to review. – notwally (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up Notwally and Georgsage. I’m tracking! Christian Roess (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have identified many problems with other Wikipedia pages, and presumably have sources and expertise on the topic. You could work on flushing them out and fixing them. If you don't know them personally, it isn't a COI. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a draft space for Draft:Barrett Watten bibliography. I can not guarantee this pass verification, but am working under the assumption that there are 3rd party publications that detail the collection of works. I started filling out one table based on the previous sections listed in the bibliography I and others had condensed to prose. If it passes verification, we will just need to set it up as the "{"{main|Page}"}" under the section heading. I believe this compromise satisfies all people involved. I'll be working on this a bit more in the coming days, but wanted to kick it off so others could contribute on the draft space. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies for more details. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This just out--publication announcement of Russian/English Selected Writings. Click on Table of Contents to see works selected from; in a couple of cases, these are MSS but for most part all are easy to find online (abe.com is a great place to verify), and the bibliography is reproduced in numerous publications, including the special issue of Aerial, the DLB bio note. In any case, I hope this will give some fresh energy for the project. https://barrettwatten.net/texts/document-104-not-this/2024/11/ ThisDirect (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GeogSage, I think this is a good and rather perceptive idea . It shows a certain level of (maybe the word is discernment) on your part. Count me in. I’m kind of fascinated by bibliographies, and extensive ‘bibliographic notes’ sections in the back matter of a book, and so on. Interesting the way you are formatting the bibliographic table, too. I think we can make it work Christian Roess (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I recently reworked the pages for geographers Waldo Tobler and Mark Monmonier to have their publications as prose, and then moved the bibliography to Waldo Tobler bibliography and Mark Monmonier bibliography. Those last two pages is what I loosely based this draft on. Glad that it seems to be acceptable. The main thing is, and I can't stress this enough, we will need a 3rd party citation to verify that the bibliography is notable for a standalone list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute--who sets a rule like that? And what do you mean by a "third-party citation"? There are rehearsals of the basic bibliography all over the place, for instance in the Dictionary of Literary Biography, which is good up to 1998. That should do it. Also the festschrift published in 1995. Also *A Guide to Poetics Journal*, a peer-reviewed and thoroughly fact-checked anthology, prints a summary bibliography (p. 168). The reason to list the 11 comparable Wiki articles on Language poets above (9 of whom are co-authors in The Grand Piano) is to show that in every case but one there is a list bibliography; only the most undeveloped and inadequate does it your way (Bruce Andrews). This is a case of sallying forth with an experience in a completely other zone of bibliography, on authors in no way related to avant-garde poetry, where the sequence of publications is entirely the point. Compare the sequence of important works of cubism, etc. / Finally, since I have your attention, the correct date for *Bad History* is 1998; you cite the second printing in 2002. My first published work, which has been left out in the past but which surfaced on abe.com for the price of $800, is titled *Radio Day in Soma City*, and I now claim it. The Selected Writings from Moscow is just out as well; please include it. ThisDirect (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any article, including a bibliography, must meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability#Notability requires verifiable evidence, which says, No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. Donald Albury 00:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the bibliography in the Dictionary of Literary Biography meets that test. You are simply out of your league here; don't know what counts or doesn't count. You folks should drop this; it's BS. ThisDirect (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone reads the entire conversation, and not everyone is hostile. @Donald Albury did not say that this wasn't possible, they are only explaining the requirements of sources on Wikipedia. There is a minimum threshold before a bibliography deserves an article, otherwise literally any graduate student with a few publications would warrant one. The page Wikipedia:Notability (academics) goes into this a bit, but I think can be summarized with the ""Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" I have a copy of the dictionary entry you are referring to and it certainly should be enough to get it started. Are there other resources similar? The more, the better. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I have bibliographical notes already prepared in the past 24 hours and a copy of Dictionary of Literary Biography (DLB 193) and a kindle edition of Guide to Poetics Journal to assist in this project. I don’t know about you all but this should be an enjoyable process. If it is for you all too, then I am grateful. And that’s before we have even started. Christian Roess (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thisdirect issues a call to rectify the removal of verifiable biographical and bibliographical information from this page. ThisDirect (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the page to see if anything has been done to return this page to a modicum of accuracy, I immediately stumble across the egregious errors left in place by editors who had no knowledge of context and little access to sources.

One that stands out is the misreading of BW's father's profession as a "physicist." No, he was a physician and a specialist in tropical medicine, as well as an early developer of the artificial kidney. See below, and the DLB article.

The gendered assumptions of giving information only about BW's father is also telling (i.e., a good example of sexism). BW's mother, Jeanne Alderton Watten, was notable as a gallerist in Taipei, Taiwan from 1967–74, when the family left. The gallery supported modernist art, which was politically difficult in that period. A recent article talks about her gallery:

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2024/04/04/2003815917

https://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?unit=20,29,35,45&post=25426

Then, another excision that was a real howler was removing poet Ron Silliman's name from the poets BW met at Berkeley. That has been amply documented, for instance in a blog post on Silliman's Blog that has been archived:

https://www.writing.upenn.edu/epc/mirrors/ronsilliman.blogspot.com/2008/10/when-i-first-met-barrett-watten-in-1965.html

Thanks for you attention. ThisDirect (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see the bibliography coming in; note that Zone, from Chax Press, is in press and due out in 2025. The Russian bilingual edition is here. Good to see also father's occupation corrected; in the "early life" section you might indeed add the material on Jeanne Alderton Watten's gallery in Taipei; see links provided. It would be good to have Ron Silliman added to poets met at Berkeley in that crucial period; this is spelled out in the article from Critical Inquiry, which is peer-reviewed and accurate. Other student poets met at Berkeley were Rae Armantrout, who would go on to win the Pulitzer Prize, David Bromige, Curtis Faville, and Robert Glück, an important poet associated with "New Narrative" writing. Then, in this section, there is too great a jump from the MFA at Iowa--where BW worked with poets Anselm Hollo and Donald Justice, and had a seminar with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, the noted translator of Jacques Derrida and postcolonial theorist. That section could well end in 1972, with BW's return to California (Mendocino County) and then arrival in San Francisco in 1973, where he renewed acquaintance with Silliman and was at the center of the new group of poets who would become the "West Coast Language writers." The material on returning to Berkeley and the PhD should come later, after two decades working in arts programs and as an academic editor. The dissertation, on Gertrude Stein and Laura (Riding) Jackson, is notable for its focus on women experimental modernists. Finally, in the lede important that BW is an award-winning "critic"--so, "poet, critic, editor, and educator" would be accurate, and his teaching--well established by the faculty page, which lists courses, is "modernist and avant-garde studies, poetry and poetics, literary theory, and postmodern culture" at least. "Cultural studies" is too diffuse. See list of dissertations etc. ThisDirect (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In anticipation of a forthcoming separate BW book bibliography page on Wikipedia, it is important to restore here a minimally required Selected bibliography, which I have done. I am glad for continued participation as you all see fit. If there continues to be some delay, it is partly due to the necessity of conforming to Wikipedia standards as has been extensively outlined here for a BLP. And while I don’t contest the formal need to tag this talk page for its COI issues, there are no COI issues to adding a “Selected bibliography” section to the article. These publications have entered the public domain and there is no controversy or conflict that the publications are material facts. My bibliography note to the newly added section provides a framework that makes this clear to the reader of Wikipedia. I assume good faith that your typical reader of this BW page can maneuver through the bibliography without difficulty. It’s rather generic in its format that mirrors other similar bibliographies that can be found on Wikipedia. Christian Roess (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were prior discussions that resulted in the current "Major work and publications" section as the way to present his published works, using prose rather than a list. I have removed the bibliography you have added for now until some kind of consensus can be reached with other editors. I would also note that the "Note" section that was included in the bibliography you added is not relevant without independent sourcing showing it is noteworthy. – notwally (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is obstructive, hostile editing to no purpose. The editor is conforming to practice seen among virtually all of the comparable figures (see above). Notwally is on a vendetta, and we have ample evidence of this. There needs to be a complaint; this is harassment. ThisDirect (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While consensus can eventually change, I do not see any evidence that it has at this time. Good revert. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starrygrandma where are you? This destructive editing needs guidance. ThisDirect (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS – notwally (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide me the link to the consensus to present his published works, using prose rather than a list. Otherwise I will revert this edit.

Why will I revert? Watten has been publishing work for more than 50 years. How is it possible to present that in prose? And in a major works section? You do not have any other choice here, but to do it in a Selected bibliography format. It can even be shorter than the one I presented. Otherwise how can anyone understand what they’re looking at? The only thing you all are telling me is that you’ve reached consensus to do it the wrong way: to present bibliographic material the wrong way. Think about it. 50+ years of publishing hundreds and hundreds of articles, books, listserv participation for almost two decades, now archived, etc etc and so on. And so on. The only way to show that, to encompass that for any Wikipedia readers, is to present a snapshot for the reader in an abbreviated, selected bibliography. Why? Because that’s how you give a reader the picture in his/her mind of the arc and trajectory of an author’s work, especially as extensive as Watten’s. Our job here at Wikipedia is not to present exhaustive research, and page after page of material. We are providing snapshots. So once Again show me the consensus for your unprecedented and willful procedure to discuss a prolific author with decades of published work in a few prose paragraphs? Christian Roess (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." WP:ONUS – notwally (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen no evidence of consensus that says we should not be using a bibliographical format for this article. That doesn’t make sense. And you’re saying that BW’s publications need to be formatted into a “prose”? Wikipedia as a whole doesn’t have such standards. Can you send me even one link to a major author on Wikipedia with more than two dozen publications, who does not have a Bibliography listing? And instead is offered in prose? I’m reverting your edit in the next 48 hours, if I don’t get some valid feedback. Christian Roess (talk)| Christian Roess (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to gain consensus to restore disputed content. – notwally (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. That isn’t going to fly. Bibliographical content is disputed? This standard listing of the published work of BW and inserted into a standard Wikipedia bibliographical format is disputed? Come now, you aren’t going to play Big Brother here and casually throw things down the Memory hole and continue to believe you are going to get away with it. We’re talking about a bibliography. Are you sure you want to continue to go down this Orwellian road? Christian Roess (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian, the onus is on the one making the addition to get consensus support. This is basic Wikipedia stuff, and making personal attacks is not going to help you get your way. MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original bibliography, which was in place over the first, what, fifteen years of its existence, was in list style. This was changed via a mob action--numerous editors with no knowledge of content, and really no interest in the subject--taking down as much material as possible in August 24. Check the history. The editor is simply restoring to the original and commonsense form; the outliers are the negative editors, whose only interest is in having a fight without content. Thank you Christian Roess! ThisDirect (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ollie, you’ve got your information from that upside down mirror you are holding in your hand. I consider your reply a personal attack on me. I am being only transparent with my intentions and pointing out the absurdity of these front-line statements. We’re talking about a Bibliography and that content is almost never in dispute in the generic format provided on Wikipedia. Christian Roess (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in, finishing the bibliography page is on my list, but I've been really busy with grading and other work related priorities. I'm reasonably confident that there is enough sources to pass verification. The draft is open though, and I made it in draft space instead of my sandbox so others here could contribute more freely. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have over 1000 citations on Academia.edu. Do you volunteer to go through them? This is ridiculous; if you knew the field, you would not be asking these highly unfocused questions. ThisDirect (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.academia.edu/mentions?from_navbar=true&trigger=nav ThisDirect (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be hostile. Raw citation metrics are not what is needed for a stand alone bibliography page. We need published lists of the works. For example, in another bibliography I'm working on for George F. Jenks I'm citing the publications A SYNOPSIS OF GEORGE F JENKS' CAREER and In Memoriam: George F. Jenks (1916-1996) as they both have lists of his publications. Then, I'm using the paper The George F. Jenks Map Collection which discusses the collections of his work at The Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas, with the library's website serving to corroborate these. This one is still a work in progress, but I'm confident it can pass verification due to three publications discussing his body of work as a topic. In the Watten case, I'm relying on the Dictionary of Literary Biography: American Poets Since World War II. This should be enough, but I'd like one more 3rd party document that clearly discusses the collection as a topic in of itself. I doubt there are many people who know "the field" enough to have these kinds of bibliographical sources ready at the drop of a hat, but if any of them are in the talk page, please feel free to provide them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a standard. It may be for a historical or deceased figure. I'm an advanced academic; I work on bibliographies all the time; I never see this. You are simply making things up that do not apply.

It's also interesting the way you, and the other editors, consistently totally ignore and deny the proliferation of evidence, and example, that you are way off base.

For instance, you do not believe that 1400 mentions on Academia.edu is meaningful. The point is that, if one were to search through one by one, every concern you have about citations would be answered. What does that mean? That BW is a highly recognized author, in the field of American poetry and poetics. That is simply incontrovertible.

The next example is the Leslie Scalapino page. This is a very well edited by a member of the same generation as BW, who died in 2010. The bibliography is a model. Your example, above, of George F. Jenks is irrelevant to this field. You could look at Larry Eigner's archive at Kansas, however, to see what one of us looks like there.

George F. Jenks is a cartographer. The authors we are talking about are artists. Their publications are works of art (when they are creative), not just references. Each one is distinctive, and readers need to know the range of the work. When it comes to poet/critics, the same thing obtains. The critical work is read along with the development of the work.

With you, its not so much hostility but plain ignorance of contemporary literature. You should temper your pseudo-professional claims with some experience of the content area. I will keep sticking to this basic point.

P.S. the introduction to the Russian/English Selected Writings does all that you ask, as does the introduction to the bilingual collection in Spanish, which is a bit older. But I am getting tired of catering to unreasonableness. ThisDirect (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The standards for biographies of a living person are higher then for deceased figures, and the standards for stand alone bibliographies different still. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Notability give more details.

You work on bibliographies as an advanced academic. I have publications in journals as well, the standards and goals are different on Wikipedia. In academic writing, we are creating new content, and personal reputations, as well as our institutions, are what give some credibility to that content. On Wikipedia, we are entirely reliant on the work published by others for our claims. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

Mentions on Academia.edu are not really what I would use to measure notability, it's like ResearchGate but more predatory. The ".edu" domain is really sketchy as it is a for profit company. That said, one of my former advisors has a bit more then 3,000 citations and an i10-index of 40 on their Google Scholar profile, and I couldn't write a page about them if I tried because no one has published anything about them specifically I could use to verify anything. I could write an article about them based on my personal knowledge for a journal, and that could serve as a source for a Wikipedia page if published. I can look at the CV on Barrett Watten University page and press Ctrl-C Ctrl-V as easily as anyone (and I'd remember to remove the "link" to nowhere throughout), but that is no more a source then the list of publications on any academics University page. Look at the reference sections on The Beatles albums discography, or on the page Edgar Allan Poe bibliography. Wikipedia is not the place to demonstrate they are notable, it's a place for demonstrably notable content. The cool thing about using outside sources to verify the claims is that I don't need any knowledge of the literature itself, I could rely on the source and format the page to contain the information in an alien language on a topic that humans don't have words for if I knew what symbols were titles, dates, etc.

I just want sources that give a list of the works, and I have one I'm working with but I don't believe it is complete, so I am looking for others. Looking at Barrett Watten's personal website here, it looks like I'd need to literally violate International sanctions during the Russian invasion of Ukraine to order a copy of the Russian/English Selected Writings. Do you have a URL, ISBN, DOI, or title for the Spanish collection? I can go through interlibrary loan if I need (I'd prefer not to), but I need a starting point. I'm sorry you're getting tired, please remember Wikipeida is not compulsory, "Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try not to respond to this dismissively, but it is a waste of time. I see you have a perspective on "public-facing" humanities; so do I. That informs your preference for a prose bibliography, and mine for a list.

There is no evidence, however, that editors of comparable sites agree with you. If you look at the list above, or the Leslie Scalapino page, you can see that the list bibliography is the most useful, especially for authors who work among genre categories and do original creative work. I will try not to repeat this point too much, but you have obviously not taken any of it into account. You are staying on your "get the academics out of the ivory tower" high horse.

The BW bibliography on the faculty page, to begin with, is standard among all the publications that cite my published works--for primary texts and critical volumes. Multiple examples of this; please stop querying. The recent articles and critical response are from my evolving comprehensive bibliography, now at 160 pp. All of these articles and responses can be checked, and there are many more. I won't be sending it to you.

As for the Russian publication--are you a federal agent, wanting to cite a violation of import sanctions as a Wikipedia editor? What a impertinent idea. Are you saying a publication in Russia cannot be cited?

You can certainly order a copy; I have three dozen here, just shipped, and the Interbok distribution in Sweden can provide. My book isn't listed yet as it just arrived, but here is the site with Lyn Hejinian's book from the same publisher, published in 2023:

https://interbok.se/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=21866&search=hejinian

Your personal preferences apply to your field of expert knowledge, but not to contemporary literature and not to the goal of getting academics out of the Ivory Tower, which in your case probably means theory, deconstruction, language-centered writing, Marxism, and so on.

Russian ISBN: 9785990712294

Spanish ISBN: 9788483523346 / Los Mejores Poetas Americanos Contemporaneos: Charles Bernstein, Lyn Hejinian, Ron Silliman, Barrett Watten Hardcover – January 1, 2011 / I should get that intro autotranslated. ThisDirect (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Leslie Scalapino page--originated by Christian Roess?--is an excellent comp. Full bibliography, divided into essential components. Read up! ThisDirect (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I discussed with you above a month ago (November 18, 2024) in my call for editing assistance, I would be conducting a significant overhaul of this page using the outline I gave for review to you all. I am nearly done with my first part of the editing, but from the 1990s onward, I still must do another overhaul. So that part is off the table, unless you are willing to take it on before I do in the coming days. I ask that you do not do any reverts or deletions without discussing it first here on the Talk page. I received only some minor concerns from one or two of you, so I am not expecting any backlash. Just helpful input. Christian Roess (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christan, we should follow the process at WP:BRD here, as is done on pretty much every other page of the Wikipedia. That means that you can expect that people will revert or delete things they disagree with without being required to discuss it with you first - this is the standard practice for Wikipedia editing. MrOllie (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not particularly honorable, as I always try to discuss what I’m doing on the Talk page. I would hope that someone out there has the compunction to honor both the spirit and the letter of the law. But it would require operating and moving in liminal space. Something which poetry and poetics can teach us how to do without falling out of someone’s grace. Patience and reserve as a pretext to good faith. Christian Roess (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may not find it honorable, but it is the community norm on this website. You should do your best to adapt to how the community here does things, as that is more likely than the community adapting to your preferences. MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This talk about "community norms" is just another form of assertion without content. I'd like to provide some feedback to Christian's effort in terms of content. Here are a few thoughts.

Language writing and "turn to language." Hundreds of articles and books have been written about Language writing and it is very difficult to summarize in a short paragraph. But I would try to distinguish the emergence of "language-centered writing" from the "turn to language." "L-centered writing" arose as such in early 70s magazines and journals, particularly This, tottel's, Alcheringa, and a few others. It was primarily bicoastal--West and East Coasts, with a "third city" in Washington and a few other figures elsewhere. But the two (plus one) communities that were the center of activity were SF and NY by 1975. While This magazine had an early galvanizing role, it was not the sole origin. In poetry, there are many predecessors to L writing but what was different was the explicit understanding of a movement. Then, the "turn to language" is a broader phenomenon, associated in philosophy with Richard Rorty, Wittgenstein, Jacques Derrida. So Language writing is a part of a larger intellectual trend.

Hope that is helpful. Feshchenko is good on all this. ThisDirect (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just saw this now. This is helpful BW. I need to check the sources I am using. For one thing, the way I am emphasizing “the turn to language” here, gives it an “evental” nomination it does not have (perhaps as a result of reading too much Alain Badiou back in 2007-2008). This phrase (”the turn to language”) has almost taken on the quality of a meme for me. By changing and altering the emphasis of this phrase, it causes a horizon shift that alters the integrity of the chronological presentation of the West Coast/Bay Area emergence of Language writing in its historical details. My remarks here now, of course, still have a provisional focus, so I need to continue to sort through my presentation of this chronology again in the BW article so it adheres to its present encyclopedic/Wikipedian form. Thanks again! Christian Roess (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "turn to language" had the dynamics of an "event." In the 70s, after the destruction of the war for one thing, artists of all kinds turned to the basics. They asked basic questions about form, medium, exhibition, etc. For L poets, this meant to take poetry apart as language and build it back (better?). But the other side of this was questioning the narrowness of genres--in the visual arts, painting and sculpture, in literature prose and poetry. The interdisciplinary move was the other half of the picture--this happened in my biography with programs in alternative art spaces in SF and elsewhere--80 Langton Street/New Langton Arts. That also led to a reaction--the Poetry Wars and NEA disfunding about 1984. The larger "turn to language" thus extended across disciplines--philosophy, poetry, conceptual art, etc. and so it too was an interdisciplinary moment. You could say the "event" of theory was precisely that, and Fred Jameson's last work is about that--*The Theory Years*. ThisDirect (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that the section "The Background of Language Writing" seems to constitute original research. I was unable to verify most of the claims present in that section. I am secondarily concerned that the rather flowery language in that section is bordering on WP:PEACOCK. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like original research because you have no knowledge of the field. Even wikipedia can do better: here is the entry for Language poetry: Language poets

And this is a lengthy history of Language writing from 1994, available online:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160303234914/http://home.jps.net/~nada/language1.htm

There are, I believe, about 8 chapters of that account--early on, and there is much out there in the later 90s and past the millennium.

The point is that your queries have no basis. If you want to be helpful, please read up on this field of literature and the subject at hand, and help create a meaningful article if you are so inclined. ThisDirect (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in that section of the article do not support the content. I did not quickly find sources that did -- in particular, the (apparently self-published??) account that you link did not seem to support it. We can't use a Wikipedia page as a source. It is possible that some of the source on that page could be useful. The onus is on the editor(s) that wish to include the content to source it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, without any form of judgment about content, within a field, how would you know how to evaluate any source? The article is perfectly well supported and has been accepted in the field; everything in there has multiple references. Also, I believe there is some discussion above against you radical right originalists about whether every last half sentence needs a footnote. Obviously not. Any one writing on a given topic writes in an area in which the topic is established; the footnotes describe the perimeters of that area as well as a source for any knew knowledge. Humanists do this all the time: here are the key works on say postcolonial poetics, and the claims here refer to that larger discourse, not to individual factoids. This must even be true in STEM fields, though claims are much narrower. But finally--please go out an educate yourself to the extent of writing on this topic. BTW the Eliana Kim was not self-published. The skepticism here is simply obstructive, finally. She's a professor at UC Irvine and an excellent literary historian. ThisDirect (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why isn't the Wiki page, its tested factual claims and extensive bibliography, not a source? This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet. The Wiki page gives a good compressed history of the Language movement; it is fact-checked and footnoted, and works in tandem with the current page. ThisDirect (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources. Reliable source has a technical meaning, and explicitly excludes Wikipedia. The section in question presently does not summarize a reliable source or sources, as any editor can see. Self-published just means that it has not gone through editorial review, and is not any kind of slam on the author. A note that an expert just puts up on her web page is self-published, if it also appears in a journal or other publication, then it is not. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can quibble all you want. The information is out there that establishes the wider field, with dozens of books and articles into the hundreds. Wikipedia articles are routinely linked in other articles (as in this one); then they provide bibliographies which can be used (and checked if you really need to) that establish the statements made there. Those bolster the present article, and they also point to how there is every reason to have good bibliographies, in accessible list form, of primary texts and secondary sources. This is how a field gets built up. As for material online without review, I am unaware that there is a policy that all online content must be peer-reviewed. And, because of the laziness of Wiki editors or lack of access to libraries, print sources are often simply left out. Numerous chapters in printed books in poetics back all this up. In this case of Eliana Kim, the articles were internet essays on the web site of poet Nada Gordon from 1994, and they were well received and frequently cited. The reason I provided them is that they give a wide account of the field as it was at the time; it's a narrative that will increase comprehension. You can check for other references till the cows come home, and you will find hundreds that corroborate Kim's narrative. / Again, these concerns are not constructive but destructive; your main goal is to interfere with the writing of a narrative, a perspective, an article on a topic you do not understand. ThisDirect (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there’s an operative word to describe where Barrett Watten is located, that word would be contestation. If I was asked for my “theory of the subject,” there it is.

Let’s assume you are correct Russ Woodroofe, instead of what seems evident to me (that you do not want to admit that you have an entrenched position and therefore the only things you do see are facts that confirm your already held position). And that’s called “confirmation bias”.

But I’ll assume, for argument’s sake, that you are correct: that this is original research (it’s not,

ok?), but you are under the assumption that this is original research. You are asserting that this section on the Background of Language Writing in its West Coast (Bay Area) configuration as it occurred in its historical details while that same history in itself was unfolding…then your argument is that there is no effort here to summarize already existing sources to make this claim on the BW page. So you tagged it as being Original Research.

But if you dig deeper into the sources, most of them, if not all of the sources, are already in place. And if they’re not in place yet, the sources were there before, but they’ve been willfully removed. Again, they’ve been contested and removed. Recently, and over and over again since 2019 (check the page History if you have any doubts) they’ve been removed.

For example, let’s say you’re reading this article and you believe that there is no source backing up the claim that Watten is part of the West Coast Language poetry group. Well citation #8 (from Barry Schwabsky) reads that Language poetry had

“concentrations in the Bay Area and New York (with an important outpost in Washington, DC), and many of the participants (notably Watten himself) turned to the study of poetics (and concomitantly, though Watten doesn’t highlight this, to an academic grounding for practices that had at first been understood as counter-institutional).

Ok, it states clearly that Watten was part of that configuration of Language poets and Language Writing that took place in the Bay Area in San Francisco on the West Coast. But the key to really understanding what is happening as the historical details unfolded (which is determined in retrospect, though the latter claim is also more than a little misleading) is the assertion that in the socio-political and cultural sphere that this Language Writing movement is grounded was “counter-institutional.”

Watten always positions himself in contestation. That’s not my opinion, that is a fact. Just look close to home. You are right in the middle of it here Russ Woodroofe trying to edit the Watten Wikipedia article and you don’t see where this is relevant? You can’t attest to this agon site on your own? You’re contributing to the anger and vitriol right now. Even when Watten does not “highlight this himself.” (as Schwabsky asserts in the above quote). So you may have missed it? It says it right there! In the citation. Counter-institutional. Contestation is the highlighted birth-mark.

Such a thing has long term effects. So today, just do a google search, type in the search field: West Coast Language poets. (Note: AI lists Watten, but it’s impossible to dig further and find a source for AI’s claim: that doesn’t conform to the institutional protocols of Wikipedia which you are policing right now, Russ Woodroofe).

My point is that what you come up with in Google Search is evident if you know what to look for, and understand what you are looking at. The search results list Leslie Scalapino, Rae Armantrout (with little ambiguity) , and Ron Silliman clearly marked as West Coast Language poets. In Leslie Scalapino’s and Ron Silliman’s cases, the search results are at their Poetry Foundation author page. They both have an author page devoted to them at the Poetry Foundation. How about the Barrett Watten author page? You won’t find it, because there is no author page. Why is that? Can you admit that this is a glaring omission based on the citations provided on BW’s Wikipedia page? Do you care?

In the case of Armantrout, the latter’s author page is at poets.org—-The Academy of American Poets—-but what does it say it on Barrett Watten’s page at The Academy of American Poets?

Afterall, Watten has been writing, editing, teaching and publishing for over 50 years. Surely there’s an author page available. Nope. There is no Barrett Watten author page on the Academy of American Poets website.

Is that not a striking omission to you? That the two most prominent, preeminent, noteworthy, and distinguished websites (I can provide citations if you don’t believe me) in the United States and in the Angosphere simply do not have a Barrett Watten author page? It should not be hard to understand for you Russ Woodroofe because you know that there still is not an acceptable article on Wikipedia, and you are a part of that, you are involved in that ommission. It’s no reach at all to assume that others (Poetry Foundation and The Academy of American Poets) are dealing with the same contestation. Can you have any doubts?

What’s going on? You already know the answer. You are witnessing what is happening even as it occurs before your eyes. Barrett Watten’s page is in the epicenter of contestation. Right here. Right now. Read the quote above from Barry Schwabsky. Language poetry’s originary moment was counter-institutional, and that has grounded all that has followed.

Barrett Watten never loses, has never lost, sight of that originary moment, that grounding. There is nothing more institutional than the Poetry Foundation and the Academy of American Poets. You think they’re going to make an exception for Barrett Watten? Nonsense. Wikipedia can’t even put a stop to 5 years of destruction and the undermining of the BW page. Wikipedia is institutional.

Isn’t that an eye opener? Doesn’t that tell you something? Should I lay it out for you any more clearly?

I’m not a goody-goody, trying to teach you a lesson Russ Woodroofe. To you this is a wall of words: soapboxing. Mark my words, you’ll double-down, and dig your heels in harder to insist you are right.

Simply put, I am stating this not for you really, but for the record. Because Wikipedia archives Article Talk pages. This is going into the record for any future reader who wants to dig further into the records to discover for themselves what really happened. Christian Roess (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Russ Woodroofe's concerns about original research and flowery language in the "Background of Language Writing" section. There are also several parts of the "Career" section that are unsourced. Content should be based on independent, published, reliable sources and presented in a neutral, unbiased manner that is proportional to their weight given in the sources. – notwally (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Published and reliable but not necessarily peer-reviewed. Eliana Kim is gold mine. ThisDirect (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Attending to obstructive and indefensible editing:

  From its inception, and in the beginning stages of its growth and development, Watten played an instrumental role in the early stages of Language Writing/Language poetry that was developing in the Bay Area: a region uniquely situated as it “fostered collectivity, contention, and iconoclasm.”

  This is everywhere in the literature; it is to the heart of the subject being discussed here. Please revert. See Kim.

  In summary, Watten's poetry and critical writings, including his editing and publishing, have been widely acknowledged, since the mid 1970s, as crucial to its social and cultural development.^{[note 1]} In all facets of Language Writing’s origin, growth, development, dissemination, and reception, Watten has played an integral part.

  The editing of This and This is universally recognized. Please revert. See Kim and any number of other sources.

  From the 1970s through the 1980s and beyond, as Language poetry gained attention, it became a flashpoint for other poetry schools and aesthetic tendencies, leading to heated confrontations and debates. Watten found himself in the crosshairs of a particularly contentious falling out with the New American Poetry group when he and Robert Duncan were both giving talks at a colloquium on the poetry of Louis Zukofsky. Duncan interrupted Watten’s presentation until Watten was finally unable to finish his presentation. Thereafter, Watten became by default one of the central figures in “The Poetry Wars” that followed.

  After Watten’s move to academia in the 1990s, these debates continued in other forums such as online venues and listservs.

  There is an entire book devoted to these debates, with a chapter on the events discussed. See Chaitas.

  Please revert these uninformed elisions. A number of articles in the talk page above have already been supplied, but obviously have not been consulted. ThisDirect (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to provide direct citations that support that the content you believe should be in the article. That is how edit requests from COI editors are supposed to work. Your continued WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and combative tone may also lead to you being brought to WP:ANI and restricted from editing. WP:CIVILITY is a core conduct standard for editing and contributing here. – notwally (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you do the work. You've been removing content that is established beyond question. I've provided sources. Conclusion: you are being deliberately obstructive, for reasons that have nothing to do with this topic. I would very much appreciate your ceasing to remove material you do not know anything about and cannot evaluate. ThisDirect (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not how this works. I will be bringing you to ANI soon if these types of attacks by you continue. – notwally (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This, for instance, was easy to find: https://www.smallpresstraffic.org/the-back-room-article/how-i-now-remember-then

  See Chaitas for SF poetry events:

  https://barrettwatten.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/chaitas-01.pdf

  https://barrettwatten.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/chaitas-02.pdf

  https://barrettwatten.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/chaitas-03.pdf

  Please read these before removing any more content. And please restore content well supported by the source. And please don't threaten! ThisDirect (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Kim citations over the years: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=XQC1UjUAAAAJ&citation_for_view=XQC1UjUAAAAJ:_FxGoFyzp5QC ThisDirect (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And here's a 2013 dissertation with a perceptive chapter (2) on BW:

  https://www.proquest.com/docview/1468448701?fromopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses ThisDirect (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Notwally, in my 19 years on Wikipedia (with 17,000+ edits), I’ve never seen such wholesale disruptive and at times destructive editing. Please revert your edits and add citation needed {cn} tags to the areas that you have concern about. There was no reason for you to have made the reverts that you did. Cease and desist your disruptive editing tactics. Thank you! Christian Roess (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BLP: Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Please also read WP:CIVILITY and stop your description of other editors as "disruptive" and "destructive". – notwally (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am certainly not talking about “other editors” being destructive and disruptive, notwally. Please accept my apology for not being clear about which editors I am referring to. What I am referring to is the 5-year editing history (2019-2024) of the Barrett Watten (BW) page. Therefore, it is impossible for me to call out every single editor from the past 5 years and say that all of them have been disruptive and destructive! So again, what I am referring to are the disruptive issues that have been going on for many years now. In fact, I must pay my respects to the revered and legendary Wikipedian User:Slim Virgin, RIP, who interceded here at the BW page back in 2019, before things got out of hand. Review the Talk page archive and the edit history of the BW page. Then you will understand how it is possible for me to say what I said above: I’ve never seen such wholesale disruptive and at times destructive editing. -Christian Roess (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't know what's up with the usual reply option below, but in any case--the editor below is, wonderful, locating some of the most available sources out there. There are dozens! No less than three Cambridge Companions have entries on Language writing, one written by BW. Andrew Epstein has bias due to a prior controversy concerning an article in the defunct Lingua Franca magazine from about 2000, about how the Language poets are "taking over the academy." I charged him with plagiarism as he used material from multiple interviews without credit. You can read about it here: https://barrettwatten.net/texts/archive-07-the-hegemony-of-language/2020/09/. In fact, please do read this, Christian and others, as the nuances of controversy circa 2000 are laid out. As for the career summary, it is simply terrible in any form. It needs to be completely tossed out and redone. ThisDirect (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Very well-timed to include this in the discussion. It highlights for me the need for a course direction change in my approach to what is really going on here. It’s made me aware of my own continuously hackneyed response mechanism (almost my default response) to set up illusory battle lines, in many instances (and not only while discussing “Language poetry”): “counter-institutional,” “contestation,” and so on. I can’t even say, in my defense, that I would embrace both of Alan Golding’s “two different versions of the university.” It’s not either/or, it’s and/both, I could exclaim! But I can’t have my cake and eat it too. There is no Pyrrhic victory forthcoming, where “poetics” is left unscathed or not scarred. That’s not the point. But I won’t let my “theories” die. Your link to your review of Paul Mann’s “Masocriticism” is laying it all on the line. It holds my feet to the fire, so to speak. It needs my attention but I couldn’t quite hold myself there reading it thoroughly. I’ve been doing a lot of “self-cancelling tilting at windmills.” As you wrote too BW: “agency is neither the immediacy of an outcome nor the fatality of one that will never be achieved. Agency is equally the conditions it proposes and disposes of itself.” Thank you. Christian Roess (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThisDirect, thank you for the dissertation link. While leaning too much on a dissertation (which has gotten some review, but not necessarily as much as a book or article) is not ideal, providing sources is generally helpful. I went looking for more sources myself. The NY Times obit of Lyn Hejinian [1] has a brief discussion of language poetry. The "Language Poetry" chapter of the Cambridge Introduction to American Poetry since 1945 [2] (unfortunately, not so easy to find) looks like a gold standard source. It 1) Describes the movement and its origins in San Francisco _and New York_, 2) Overviews features, describing as post-modern and avant-gard, 3) Describes work of Bernstein, Silliman, Hejinian, Armantrout, and Howe (though not Watten), 4) Overviews criticism of the movement, particularly of a "default whiteness" perspective.

Also, I reverted much of Christian Roess's changes to the career section. I would be interested in somewhat expanding the career and work section in a WP:NPOV and WP:V compliant manner, but the changes there were neither. One aspect that seems to get short shrift: sources (Hejiman obit, Cambridge chapter, particularly also this piece in The Nation [3] ) seem to highlight Poetics Journal as especially influential in the development of the movement, and this is covered only very briefly in the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly my entire edit from Dec 18 has been reverted due partly to the WP:OR concerns of both User:Russ Woodroofe (see diff here) and notwally (see diff here). I disagreed with both of their assessments but did not revert. But now User:MrOllie seems concerned that I’m reverting my own edit here. Why am I reverting my own edit? Because it gives WP:Undue emphasis to This (magazine) as an “originary moment.” See my discussion w/ ThisDirect here; here ; here. And as Russ Woodroofe and ThisDirect have shown me—-both of them rightfully so, but each of them for different reasons—- a “Background of Language Writing” section is unnecessary to this BW article. Christian Roess (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was only concerned that you removed the section title, but not the section, which had the effect of moving the 'original research' tag to cover text it was not meant to apply to. MrOllie (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. Christian Roess (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of content and clarity, I'd like to provide some resources for re-doing the career summary, which is now totally inadequate due to the canceling of much its prior content, and even that was not very accurate.

One place to go would be the following web post, where I detail a series of controversies from the mid 70s to the present. See https://barrettwatten.net/links/page-04-my-literary-controversies/, from the paragraph beginning:

In trying to unlink the mass of projections that are being brought to my work and career, I found it useful to try to specify, localize, even periodize the sequence of literary controversies I have been associated with—but also to identify the areas of productive labor between them. This sequence is not “all antagonism, all the time,” as my brutalist critics have claimed. While it is true I am known for literary controversies, or have been subject to them, my aesthetics and politics over decades have specific historical contexts. It is in the spirit of “unlinking” antagonism from events, in order to access the relation of the signifier of poetics to the signified of historical meaning, that I offer the following timeline . . . .

I am happy to provide more context and links if I can. For instance, to find out about my work with New Langton Arts, google "Watten" and "New Langton Arts" and consult the numerous yearly catalogues that are documented online. For writing in Artweek, do a similar search and quite a lot of content comes up.

Two articles, by Spanish critic Mañuel Brito, may be useful for the context of "little" magazines from the 70s on: google his name and Watten and they will come right up in pdf form. ThisDirect (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This just found: an update on the public sculpture incorporating poetry by BW, by world-renowned sculptor Siah Armajani at the Des Moines Public Library. GDMPAF_annual-report_2016-17_web.pdf On page 12, there is interesting copy on preserving the site:

TEMPLE CHESS & POETRY GARDEN Preserving Work That Falls Outside the Norm PUBLIC ART PROGRAM IN PROCESS An unconventional assembly of participants and advisors have collaborated on a plan to care for and maintain Temple Chess and Poetry Garden, a participatory installation by Siah Armajani completed in 2006. Typically, a conservator, artist or an art professional is responsible for the upkeep of a work, but in this case, architects, attorneys, a horticultural inspector, municipal arborist, urban planners, marketing and public relations professionals have been brought into the process. Temple Chess & Poetry Garden is a unique public art project because of the private-public ownership of this pocket park and unique configuration of the site. After months of research a restoration plan was developed to address several issues. Attention will be focused in 2018 on fundraising to realize the improvements described. The project’s rectangular planting bed (Poetry Garden) holds two healthy trees in need of pruning. Existing boxwood plants will be removed and replaced with liriope (aka lilyturf) plants which will provide continuous ground cover to “carpet” the bed beneath the trees in this area. The furnishings designed by Armajani will be cleaned. The metal chessboards attached to the wooden tables will be etched and treated to provide a more lasting checkerboard pattern. Skateboard deterrents will be added to benches. The fence and gate, as well as other painted metal features, will be repaired and repainted. The missing letter from the lines of poetry by Barrett Watten, integrated into the fence design, will be replaced. A legal agreement between the City and GDMPAF will codify the coordinated efforts to maintain and care for this extraordinary and valued project. By including lines of poetry from his friend, the American poet Barrett Walten, the artist reminds us to look more deeply into ourselves and our world.

On Armajani, see Siah Armajani ThisDirect (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is terrific. Especially the information on the public sculpture and poetry garden. I just now found this new section "Career Summary." I hope we can get some other editors involved. I think Russ Woodroofe is the unsigned comment in the section above who reverted most of my changes to the career section. If it was, or wasn't, we still need to get that comment signed, please. Meanwhile I think we can, and will, keep the ball rolling for sure. And make this a superb article. Christian Roess (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you appreciated it. There are in fact three public sculptures using my work--the one in Des Moines, then "The Introduction to the Letter T" at Ohio University, 2003--I can find references to the work itself (titled "Bentley Plaza") but not the source in my work, but I will look for that. Then there is Addison Street Project in Berkeley, also known as the Berkeley Poetry Walk:https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Addison_Street_Anthology/GIhlAAAAMAAJ?hl=en ThisDirect (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed me that left the comment above. I am uncertain why the signature was not correct, as I signed normally with four tildes. I will correct, and will pay attention and make sure this signature goes through correctly. I agree that the career section needs work (and perhaps balanced), but an unsourced section with NPOV problems is not the answer. I have had trouble in the past finding good sources for Watten's early career. I have found some additional sources that look helpful, but the New Years holiday has limited my Wikipedia time in the past week. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the earliest, see the Kreiner dissertation and the portion published at Post45: https://post45.org/2019/01/the-politics-of-language-writing-and-the-subject-of-history/

Of course, each work had reviews—I've compiled dozens and at some point can make that available. In the meantime Publisher's Weekly had a number of concise, quotable reviews--not a bad sequence. Search there. ThisDirect (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ThisDirect, I'll do that now. Thank you. Christian Roess (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Post45 published portion of Kriener's dissertation is outstanding. I need to attend to it in such a way that it sinks in. I'm sorting through some things to get there again. Christian Roess (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroofe, whatever makes this a better, and more accessible, article for the reader: count me on board. Christian Roess (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is really good ThisDirect. I didn't know about any of this until now. I hope we can work this into the article somehow. Thank you. Christian Roess (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source:

"three sites in which Watten’s poetry had been transformed into site-specific art. The first was the Addison street project in Berkley, which utilized small plaques in the sidewalk with poetry embossed on them, a direct mimicry of the page. Next came the Introduction to the Letter T, an Amajani project, in which a lengthy original poem had been distilled into a series of tiled images into a walkway, as well as two whole lines from the poem: “Things should correspond to open doors” and “There should be more outside.” Last came the Des Moines public library chess courtyard, in which various lines of another lengthy poem were incorporated into fences outlining the environment."

reference: Gerard Breitenbeck reviews Eric Lorberer and Barrett Watten Christian Roess (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; I hadn't archived that, and it was good to see. / One tie-in could be my work in visual arts: being on the artist board of New Langton Arts (80 Langton Street) in San Francisco from 1982-94, where I programmed numerous readings and talks; art writing for the West Coast journal Artweek (1989-95), as well as occasional other outlets (Parkett, Artforum); then lectures, such as the one I gave at EMU, on site-specific sculpture. Major artists I've written about include Robert Smithson, Ilya Kabakov and Erik Bulatov, Ansel Adams, Hannah Höch, Lee Miller (subject of recent film), Neo Rauch, and Art and Language. ThisDirect (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am saving this quote from StarryGrandma as it preserves an important critique of overreach. The talk material above has numerous instances of such, as Christian Roess points out. I would appreciate other editors not censoring this passage if the subject of the article finds it relevant, thanks. Also note the claim that professors' awards need to be snipped back, due to the their "admirers."

@Notwally, I have been editing here for a while, but have only recently run into the notion that every fact about a person in an article must be important or noteworthy enough to be in an article as shown by a source saying it is important. Can you point me to the policy that states this? WP:DUE is part of WP:NPOV, and is dealing specifically with taking a neutral point of view and balancing sides when representing viewpoints. Not the case here. WP:VNOT says nothing about independent sources for importance or noteworthiness, only that Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. The sentence you quote from the explanatory essay on independent sources is the section explaining why independent sources are needed for a subject in order to have an article about that subject, not about article content. It is followed by the section that starts out Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. I agree that there must be independent sources for a topic to be the subject of an article rather than having editors decide without them, but once that is shown, the content itself can be and historically has been determined by consensus among editors.

I have been keeping an eye on a couple of professors' articles as their admirers add awards and would like more ammunition to go in and do a trim. I wish it were as easy as that, but I don't think your argument is right. I am going have to make an argument like "this professor has important awards, don't bury them in a list of minor ones." StarryGrandma (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThisDirect (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to 'save' anything, this all goes into the talk page archives automatically. No one is censoring anything - you were trying to revert an automated program earlier. MrOllie (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in thus case I'd like to see it there for reference. I don't know why you folks think u are the only ones to to make such a call. It might stimulate reflection on why the cornucopia of documented references above has meant little to those who have been hacking away at the article. Yes? 2601:40F:437E:13C0:E8B3:2ACD:C4C6:131B (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one is making a call, it's an automated process. It moves stuff into the archives after a certain amount of time has elapsed. You can look at the archives by clicking on the link at the top of the page in the box that says 'archives.' MrOllie (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]