Talk:Guy Davenport/Archive June 05 - May 07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

Early June 2005: The Davenport page is being made subject to anonymous (AOL) dynamic-IP edits, usually giving no edit summaries, which repeatedly wreck all or most internal and external links. Where comments are given, some claim to be restoring the text to "poetry" and the end to a suitably "Davenportian" mode. Also, the numerous awards given to Davenport are being removed, claiming that they are "irrelevant". Presumably, these edits are coming from a single individual, and the irrational behaviour may arise from the "gay" dispute below. Martin: 19:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


June 10, 2005: I doubt that the destruction of links was intentional; I've seen this happen before when entire passages are fervently rewritten; the links get forgotten

Concerning the other issues, I would suggest to the feuding parties that, instead of needlessly undermining each other's efforts on behalf of this page (which is turning into quite a good one now) and claiming "vandalism" or "lack of poetry", they pick the major points of contention and use precisely this forum to discuss them before making any big changes. We should devote sections on this discussion page to the topics that are, well, under discussion.

I'll make a start, should anyone care to give this a try. --- Sparrowseed 6/10/5

[edit] The Erotic

One topic that we can expect to take some time to settle is how much, and what exactly, should be said about the place of the "erotic" both in Davenport's writing and in reactions to it. My first concern is getting facts straight; for example, has there ever been a homophobic review of Davenport's work in print? If not, then we should make no claim that it has received any, and if so, it should be cited directly. Joyce and Bukowski have, like Davenport, been banned for reasons of perceived erotic transgression, but one cannot claim any "homophobic reviews." I myself find it interesting that Davenport has *not* received much criticism for the erotics played out in his stories. My suggestion: let's leave out the word "homophobic" until a homophobic review is found. --- Sparrowseed 6/10/5

[edit] The Painter and Illustrator

Another question is whether we should classify Davenport as a painter and illustrator in the first lines. I would say yes: Davenport painted and drew extensively, using his own drawings in his books as integrally as text. He has had exhibitions of his work in Lexington, and a book has been published about his paintings (A Balance of Quinces, by Erik Anderson-Reece, New Directions 1996). His work as an illustrator, for essays by Hugh Kenner and the publications Conjunctions and Paideuma, as well as many other periodicals and even book covers going back to his college years, qualify him, I'd say, for the title (though he did very little illustrating in recent years). Is there a better word to use than "painter?" "graphic artist" strikes me as odd but not unreasonable. --- Sparrowseed 6/10/5



[edit] but after a year or more it's time to clean up this entry

September 15, 2006: For more than a year this page has tolerated alternative versions of two sections -- Life and Work, and Commentary/Collections of Criticism. During this time, the first Life and Work has continued to improve -- points clarified, language tightened. The second Life and Work received much less attention, suggesting that most visitors have been satisfied with and inspired to improve only the first. So I have deleted the second version.

All content of the section called Commentary was redundant with material in Collections of Criticism, so I have deleted Commentary, also.

Deferring to passions reflected in earlier discussions on this page, I have not deleted Introductions (Another Version), though its informational content duplicates material in the far more comprehensive and balanced Fugitive Pieces.

My opinion is that Introductions should go, but I leave its deletion to the next brave soul ready to insist that the legacy of Guy Davenport is so rich that no part of his life work needs or deserves special emphasis. All of Davenport's work is part of a single large fractal.

[edit] Gay tweaking

On Feb 18, someone added a link to the page "gay writers;" this suggests that Davenport was himself a "gay writer," a classification that is highly questionable and to which Davenport would strongly object. Homosexuality figures heavily into his fiction and is surely a topic relevant to his work, but that no more suggests classifying him as a "gay writer" than his plentiful allusions to ancient Greece make him an ancient Greek writer. I suggest removing this link. Any thoughts, anyone?

I am also curious about the "homophobic reviews" of Davenport's work mentioned in article; I have never encountered any, though I am not intimately familiar with earlier reviews. Can anyone provide a basis for this statement?

EG


I think it is appropriate not to classify Davenport as either a straight or a gay writer. Does anyone know which two books were banned by Canadian Customs? Also, can anyone actually cite a homophobic review that appeared in print? I have never seen one.

EG


[edit] Scope and Purpose

As a former student of Professor Guy Davenport's when I was at the University of Kentucky (1965-1968; 1971-1976) and as a friend and correspondent of Guy's up to his death in January 2005, I find it necessary to ask in this discussion forum of the Free Encyclopedia of Wikipedia why the contributors to this page are permitted to bicker over the sexuality of a writer or the sexualities of characters in his stories? It would be more interesting to learn about the many accomplishments of this translator, writer, painter, and perhaps above all, teacher and conversationalist. Professor Davenport said to me the summer of 1974 soon after the publication of Tatlin!, his first book of stories, during one of our many walks from his office in the Patterson Office Tower on the UKY campus to his apartment a mile and a half north of campus near the Bell Court neighborhood of Lexington, "My God, I hope my readers don't think that I behave in the same way as Adriaan, Kaatje, and Bruno ..." referring to three imiginary characters in 'The Dawn in Erewhon' first published in Tatlin! (NY: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1974).

Our senses are surfaces of mind, the narrator says somewhere in 'Dawn': "Before the invention of intellect in the western Mediterranean, along the Nile and Euphrates, on the Hwang Ho, man distributed his mind througout his body, thinking with his lungs, gathering courage from his great knees and testicles, seeing with his hands and lips and phallos as much as with his eyes, sensing eternity in the marrow of his bones, moral rectitude in the shoulders like a god's." (Tatlin! 1974, p. 199)

Another issue -- External Links. I would recommend a link be made to my web page dedicated to Guy Davenport's work: URL is < www.geocities.com/chuck_ralston/07_dav.htm > which focuses on his books, parts of books, periodical articles, and significant critical essays about Guy Davenport.

Davenport's is not the only Wikipedia article that gets pulled into the gay rights debate. See the discussion for Sviatoslav Richter for another example. Paul 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned in Canada

[http://www3.sympatico.ca/toshiya.k.ncl/banned/list.htm The Newsletter on Civil Liberties List of Materials Stopped by Canada Customs]

Tatlin , Guy Davenport

Da Vinci's Bicycle , Guy Davenport

[edit] deleted text

Have deleted the following:
It's not impossible that he made over 1,000 drawings and sketches of boys exercising in their brief underpants.
I suspect this was added facetiously. In any case, that was hardly a Wikipedia-appropriate sentence. And not just because it was utterly without documentation; sentences beginning "It's not impossible" are pointlessly true no matter what follows that all-purpose introduction. It is not impossible that the person who wrote that sentence was drunk, just as it is not impossible that he or she was serious, or that he or she was 10 years old or younger.
It would be helpful if people with facts to add were to write with some precision and provide documentation where needed. Oh, yes: and to sign in, demonstrating their seriousness.SocJan 00:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert Purdy link

Dear user Nposs, I think the Gilbert Purdy link is valuable. Perhaps Purdy has spammed other pages and made edits in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. But it's not him, now, wanting this link to stay; it's me. I think that on this page the link to this particular essay is valuable. There is not a lot of information out there on the Internet about Davenport, and Purdy's essay is a good one. I ask you to let the link stand. I have no connection to Purdy; I just like Guy Davenport, like the essay, and think the link is valuable. --SethTisue 05:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overlinking, etc.

I see no reason for the summary undoing of my edit of 03:56, 9 March 2007. The article was obviously overlinked—see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context—and many of the links pointed to irrelevant articles or articles that would confuse rather than enlighten readers. (For instance, the link at "Rhodes" in the second paragraph of the section led to the article on the island of Rhodes, which has nothing to do with Rhodes Scholarships; and the link at "Cambridge" in the paragraph dealing with D.'s time at Harvard led to the article on Cambridge, England, not that on Cambridge, Massachusetts.) I'm restoring my edit, which was intended to improve the article and which occupied a not insignificant amount of my time. If there are any objections to particular aspects of it, I hope they will be discussed here before any further wholesale reversions are undertaken. Deor 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. What's the explanation for the comma after friend in the sentence "He also supplied illustrations for the books of others, notably his friend, Hugh Kenner: The Counterfeiters and The Stoic Comedians. Davenport had only the one friend? Or doesn't a comma count as a word? Deor 18:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Now investigate the difference between restrictive appositives and nonrestrictive appositives and the difference in how they are punctuated. Deor 14:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


If you'd allow anyone else to edit the article, perhaps I would. Once again, I suggest a careful reading of WP:OWN. Deor 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
"Note, also, that SocJan has just made changes to the piece."
Almost every one of which changes you promptly undid. Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Deor 20:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite all the back-and-forth editing and reverting, I do think the article has been steadily improving & that everyone involved is helping to move it forward. Thanks all for your work on it.--SethTisue 18:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

James, in your last revert, you threw away a lot of valuable changes in addition to the specific ones you're objecting to. You're behaving irresponsibly.--SethTisue 15:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, while I appreciate what you're saying about the depth of meaning of even common words like "September" in Davenport's writing, making those words hyperlinks on this Wikipedia article simply doesn't further your goal of calling attention to those resonances. It's just silly.--SethTisue 16:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your defense of the paragraph reordering seems reasonable to me, now that you have explained it. I don't have a strong feeling about the other bits; I wouldn't have removed them, but I'm not going to pick a fight over it. As for the overlinking, though: you are tilting at windmills. This is a Wikipedia article and must follow Wikipedia style. We all (I assume!) love Davenport's writing (I know I do!) and think he's unusual and special; nevertheless, this is a Wikipedia article and it must follow Wikipedia style, no matter how desirable you think it would be to make a special exception in Davenport's case. Thus, I have gone through and removed only the most egregious instances of overlinking, leaving in some borderline ones. Take "quinces", for example. That's an unfamiliar word to many people, so arguably it's worth linking. But I still maintain that's silly to link to articles like "September". It simply isn't Wikipedia style to include links like that (this is well explained at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)) and just because Davenport is an unusual and special writer doesn't mean the usual Wikipedia rules don't apply on this article.--SethTisue 19:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm fine with your latest edits. (And while I admire your motives for wanting more links, I don't think that making (for example) "six" or "balance" a link has the actual effect you want on actual readers.) Have you written anything about Davenport outside of the (admittedly very restrictive) Wikipedia context? If so, I'm sure I'd enjoy reading it.--SethTisue 21:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Visual artist & writer

Do you have a reference for this? I suppose most children draw before they write, but I don't suppose that's what you mean. Also, please let's remove the offending comma before "Hugh Kenner," since Hugh Kenner was not his only friend. Thomas Ightham 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicol is correct; Davenport repeatedly said he felt himself more an artist than a writer. From GD's extremely interesting autobiographical and meditative introduction to 50 DRAWINGS (1996): "[ . . . ]Writing I am anxious to finish, impatient; it is not my medium, and I doubt it at every turn. Drawing, however, is comfortable; I know what I'm doing." From a videotaped interview, 1991: Q.: Why did you become a writer? GD: I'm not certain I AM a writer. This is a point to be discussed, I think [chuckles]! I'm a professor... SocJan 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
SocJan, the sentence Nicol defends does not claim that GD considered himself more of a visual artist than a writer, but that he was a visual artist before he was a writer, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, note that in the video interview he does not respond with any mention of his drawing or painting. I suggest we replace the sentence with a paraphrase from the video interview you cite, perhaps the following: "Despite his considerable literary output, Davenport considered himself to some extent more of a visual artist than a writer." Thomas Ightham 12:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
TI: Davenport's sister has confirmed to me that albums of his childhood artwork are prized family possessions. Letters to me from Davenport mention that he entered his artwork into a local county fair competition when he was very young. His essay "On Reading" makes clear that he was hardly reading, much less writing, before age 10, by which time his painting and drawing were well advanced. What more do we need? I think Nicol's sentence is accurate. It is abundantly supported by a rich oral and privately-written record distributed among Davenport's family, hundreds of correspondents, and students, a record that may be difficult to support (further than we already have) by citation and quotation. I suppose I could look through the transcript of the video interview for something that would better satisfy you . . . SocJan 04:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
SocJan, while I think what you're telling us about Davenport's childhood is interesting, important, and true, the Wikipedia policy is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" (Wikipedia:Attribution). If you're interviewing Davenport's sister, you're doing original biographical research, not summarizing existing published sources.--SethTisue 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I provided the non-published material here, on this DISCUSSION page (not on the Davenport page itself), by way of providing supporting context to my brief quotations from published statements of Davenport about his lifelong sense of self as visual artist -- statements that I thought documented Nicol's (true) assertion. As I see it, you can be patient and allow us time to comb back, for the "evidence" you demand, through Davenport's published record (he was intensely private -- gave few interviews and only sparingly wrote about himself). Or you can delete the statement in question (and any other statement that you deem insufficiently supported), forcing us to re-enter those true statements only when one of us manages to satisfy your demands for documentation. It's up to you. You decide whether you are keeping the rest of us on our toes -- or just being __________. I think anyone who has read Davenport's work will agree that Nicol's case is strong; if you don't, do unto other Wiki people as you would have us do unto you.
In the meantime, perhaps some more of Davenport's (published) Introduction to 50 DRAWINGS (1996) will help:
"[ . . . ] Around age 12 I longed to get effects with Woolworth construction paper and india ink that Whistler got with burin and acid on copper. If our real debts had to be paid (they don't, all things acquired by the spirit being free) mine would be to Dürer and Hans Baldung Grien. [ . . . ]"
"[ . . . ] It was my intention, when I began writing fiction several years ago, to construct texts that were both written and drawn. In my first work of fiction, TATLIN! (1972), I drew careful replicas of works by Vladimir Tatlin that exist only as poor reproductions. These were meant to be as much a part of the story as my narrative, and required more time to do than the writing. [ . . . ]"
Combine Davenport's report that at age 12 he was already serious about the craft of drawing, his statements that "[writing] is not my medium" but "I know what I am doing [when drawing]", and his comment in the (published?) 1991 videotaped interview (does it count?) that he is not sure he is a writer: I would argue that this evidence supports the assertion that Davenport was an artist before he was a writer -- indeed that "writer" was a description of himself he was quick to question (whereas there is no evidence of reluctance to be seen as an artist: he contributed art to a number of literary and scholarly periodicals). I don't think Davenport was being coy; I think he meant exactly what he said.SocJan 07:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
SocJan: I think everything you're saying is reasonable. I haven't deleted statements from the article, only requested support, which you and others have done an excellent job of providing. Thanks. I can only hope you'll find any of my future edits or requests for support reasonable. By the way, the article doesn't currently convey Davenport's "lifelong sense of self as visual artist" — I think it should. I also don't object to including Nicol's original assertion that Davenport was a visual artist before he was a writer (y'all have now provided plenty of documentation on that), although I think it would be best to be clear that this refers to his childhood.--SethTisue 18:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
ST: Nicol's statement describes Davenport throughout his life, not just in childhood. He wrote up a storm, but that storm was nothing compared to what he drew up and painted up. The Davenport archive at U Texas's Ransom includes more than 500 paintings and thousands and thousands of drawings. He was delighted that the Texas curator wanted everything, having understood that "it's all integral". Most of Davenport's paintings had never left his house; until now, the world at large has had only a hint of where he put so much of his energy.
Eventually, I suppose, a catalog of the Ransom holdings will provide the sort of documentation that you rightly remind us Wikipedia requires. Again -- if you get impatient, delete. Otherwise, we'll all just do our best. But the statement is true -- and widely known to be true among Davenport's many correspondents, not to mention family, friends, and neighbors -- that Davenport had a lifelong sense of himself as visual artist. One of his very last letters mused over the possibility of crafting an illustrated story about a fictional painter; the art would be some of Davenport's own paintings (from the hundreds not included in A BALANCE OF QUINCES). It would have been lovely.SocJan 23:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You know, I realized for the first time just now that I think there has been some confusion and talking-past-each-other here because of the multiple meanings of the words "before" and "first"...! I think you are wanting to say both that Davenport became a visual artist earlier in time ("first", as a child), and that Davenport considered himself primarily ("first") a visual artist... right? I think both these statements are true and well documented and it is definitely worth including both of them, worded so that it's clear that both are meant.--SethTisue 04:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I sometimes visit Austin to see friends. I wonder if the UT library people would let me view some of the contents of the archive you mention. What a treat that would be.--SethTisue 04:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The comma--and only the comma

I took out the comma on the grounds that it is unnecessary and while I don't think it was actually incorrect, I think the sentence reads better without it.--SethTisue 17:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, definitely drop the comma; the implication of "only" is very strong in this context, James. I like having a separate section for this info, Seth.--Thomas Ightham 18:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
'Fraid I have to join the majority here. James: The comma is not necessary. And, as your critics have demonstrated, it distracts some readers. Seth and Thomas: Don't forget that commas can do many different things. The comma in question could, as Nicol argues, be doing something other than signalling a restrictive adjectival element. Occam leads me to side with the majority. SocJan 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recastings are a much appreciated improvement, James. But the comma does not belong to you, and look! feeling unjustified, it has left us again, almost of its own accord, to find a better home. Thomas Ightham 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


please learn something about restrictive uses of commas. It's elementary, editors know all about it, attentive people have a natural feel for it. There are resources all over the web. As for preferring "This sentence refers to Hugh Kenner his friend", you've reversed the order: the restriction now follows the head noun, so the syntax is completely different. You're not paying attention, you're just arguing for the sake of it. Thomas Ightham 11:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Guy would find all this ridiculous, by the way. James Nicol 13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
James, will you at least take a look at this page (scroll down to part II)? It's an admirably lucid discussion of the matter. Deor 13:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent reference, Deor.--SethTisue 18:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to restore James Nicol's contributions to this page. Someone should do so. The page makes little sense without them. My comment below, for example --and much of the rest of this page, for that matter -- makes little sense now that Nicol has deleted all of his contributions. I wish he had not, but I understand the frustration he felt when, after more than a year of steady improvement, this page appeared (to him) suddenly to be under attack by a swarm of Wikipedia Police.
Nicol's response was not temperate, but I think the provocation was real. My research has uncovered other cries of dismay on the talk pages of some of the editors with whom he battled. I invite interested readers to do their own assessment of whether the interventions that induced apoplexy in Nicol are as impartial and constructive as some of their perpetrators would have us believe. In the meantime, would someone (who knows how) please restore Nicol's contributions to this Talk page, as has already been done for his excellent contributions to the Davenport entry itself?--SocJan 09:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
(At which news a sigh of relief was heard 'round the world. Let's all now join in a spirited unison AMEN!) SocJan 06:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shu

One remaining link which still points to a disambiguation page is the link to "Shu", from the title "The Bowmen of Shu". I don't know Pound's poem, so I don't know how the link should be disambiguated. Anyone want to tackle this?--SethTisue 19:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of the specific states listed on the disambig page are apropos here, since the dates of none overlap with Li Po's lifetime. The Sichuan article may be marginally relevant, but let's allow the silliness surrounding this article to die down before going into the matter further. Deor 19:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

I have reported User:James Nicol at WP:AN/3RR.--SethTisue 18:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As a result, Nicol was banned from making edits for 24 hours.--SethTisue 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Recently though an edit was made (dated 14:58, 26 March 2007), with a misleading edit summary, by an anonymous user who would appear to be Nicol still trying to undo our collective efforts. I can't revert the change myself right now because of WP:3RR.--SethTisue 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it. Who knew that a single disruptive editor could be so time-consuming? Deor 16:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You are not to be faulted for your frustration, or for not realizing that the "single disruptive editor" who you feel wasted your time is also the single editor who did most to improve the Davenport page in the two years preceding this silly edit war.
I am sorry that he behaved as he did, but recent arrivals to the page have him to thank for much of what is good about the Davenport entry. I don't think some of you behaved all that well toward him, despite having various Rule Books firmly on your side. Was the comma -- or the move for rapid deletion of his nascent Laurence Scott entry -- really worth provoking and perhaps driving away a well-intentioned, hard-working, editor?
I got along with Nicol for two years. I resented having his changes of my edits used as justification for others' deciding to teach him some sort of lesson. Nicol did exhibit a pride of ownership here, but it was to a large degree deserved. And until some of you showed up it did not get in the way of steady improvement of the entry. Nicol was sometimes stubborn but always listened to reason and eventually produced excellent distillations of discussions with the rest of us. Several of us were patient and worked with him with excellent results; some of you newcomers weren't, and didn't. I'm not blaming you for his behavior, which is eccentric. I do beg you PLEASE to consider a gentler approach the next time you encounter a prickly editor who nevertheless has selflessly added much to a Wikipedia entry. This edit war was painful to watch. Nicol was not a terrorist, not a vandal, not an enemy of the Guy Davenport entry nor of Wikipedia. I hope you haven't completely discouraged him.--SocJan 09:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Davenport bought Oscar Mayer bologna, fried it, and ate it with Campbell's soup.

Davenport bought Oscar Mayer bologna, fried it, and ate it with Campbell's soup. He died of lung cancer on January 4 2005.
This sounds really odd. Lol. 201.50.90.68 19:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Have deleted the following:
Davenport bought Oscar Mayer bologna, fried it, and ate it with Campbell's soup. --Technopat 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of revert wars: I know the fried bologna sentence to be a true statement, and its inclusion in the Davenport entry to be seriously intended. Clearly, many readers find it odd. Some have believed it facetious, others irreverent. It has been deleted and restored repeatedly. May we please now discuss it here, so that future edits will not be done lightly or in ignorance?. (I did not write the sentence. I will not restore it until it has been discussed. I would, however, like to defend it:)

In 1980, Davenport contributed to a collection entitled JUNK FOOD an essay targeting several platoons of what we now call the thought police: "A Moral Lecture for Food Snobs, Gourmets, Epicures, Health Food Nuts, Gourmands, and People Who Pick On Their Children for Gulping Rock & Roll Jelly Kings". That essay has not been collected, to my knowledge, elsewhere. Let me quote a few sentences:

Toulouse Lautrec (like William Morris) fancied canned kangaroo. Spinoza liked tulip bulbs. [. . .]
Thoreau once ate a hedgehog.

My understanding is that the Davenportian(s) who keep restoring the fried bologna sentence believe it not only an accurate example of GD's contrarian habits but also just the sort of quirky fact that Davenport himself loved to record in his notebooks for possible inclusion in an essay or story. They want this sentence in the Davenport Wikipedia entry to honor him by following his example.

I have come to appreciate the sentence (and its placement). I am confident that a published reference can be found that will support it. If it makes people stop and think, all the better. Davenport's ideogrammatic style juxtaposed elements not logically related but whose juxtaposition creates rich meaning. The juxtaposition of Davenport's heterodox eating habits with his death from lung cancer in the Davenport Wikipedia biography can be read as such an ideogram. Will others support its restoration, if properly footnoted?SocJan 10:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Supplying a ref is no problem; there is, for example, "I, who live almost exclusively off fried baloney, Campbell's soup, and Snickers bars, would not find table manners of any particular interest if they had not, even in a life as reclusive and uneventful as mine, involved so many brushes with death" ("The Anthropology of Table Manners from Geophagy Onward," The Geography of the Imagination, p. 349). One needs to bear in mind, however, that this is an encyclopedia article, not a Davenportian essay or an exercise in creative writing. Should the Gertrude Stein article be written in her style? Should the Ezra Pound article pay homage to Pound by making use of the Uncle Remus diction he often employed when writing to friends? (I also have to say that I, for one, see nothing particularly Davenportian in the juxtaposition of his dietary habits with his death. That D. was wont to find meaning in unexpected juxtapositions doesn't make every unexpected juxtaposition Davenportian.)
I have no objection to the mention of D.'s dietary habits in the article, and if you restore the final paragraph of "Life" as it stood, I won't mess with it. But if you do, you'll have to accept the consequence that many of the people who read the article will perceive the paragraph as something in need of fixing, and will attempt to fix it. Deor 14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who knows nothing about this man, when I first read the line, I thought it was vandalism. Now that I read this discussion page, I understand it. However, no one should have to read an article's discussion page to understand some intrinsic meaning to the article, itself. Either fix the sentence and give it some context, or remove it. It really stands out to me as not fitting in at all with the rest of the article. Betaeleven 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(Questions for Deor and Betaeleven) Fixing is one thing. Should anyone be deleting a passage on the basis of assumptions about the source (spam, vandalism) of the passage or on the basis of one's sense of proper encylopedia style? Especially someone who knows nothing about the subject of the entry he is reading? Would it not be better to keep one's delete-gun on "safety" and follow a less frontier-justice ("delete first and ask questions afterword") path? A path such as asking for a reference? Or raising a question on a talk page? In short, putting aside for a moment your opinions of this particular sentence, would you address procedure: do you approve of deleting something that looks odd without first discussing it or asking for a reference? --SocJan 23:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For me, it's a case-by-case basis. I knew the "history" of this article in the sense that it's constantly being battled over on the proper edit. Therefore, I know I don't have to worry about any nonsense staying in the article for long, so I wasn't going to dare and edit this article. For most any other article, for a sentence like that one, it really, really, really looks like a nonsense line in the article. I might take a quick look at the discussion page and/or history, but really, that particular line looks so bad, I probably wouldn't bother in any other article. It looks like some random line some moron tried to sneak in to be funny. I'd really suggest taking it out altogether. Betaeleven 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You might -- without "bother[ing]" to look at history or discussion page -- delete sentences in other Wikipedia articles about men you know nothing about? Wow! You are sufficiently confident of your ability to detect the work of "morons", and the rightness of your idea of style, that you would swoop in and erase other people's work just like that! I could never be such a bold Decider. (What an education I am getting!) --SocJan 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are you being such an ass? You asked my opinion. I gave it. The opinion I gave had to do with that line in particular. That line looks so stupid in this article (or any article), it looks like vandalism. If you fail to see that, then I'm sorry. Betaeleven 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The question I asked (see above) was: "In short, PUTTING ASIDE FOR A MOMENT your opinions of THIS PARTICULAR SENTENCE , would you address PROCEDURE: do you approve of deleting something that looks odd without first discussing it or asking for a reference?" [emphasis added since it appears to be needed]
Your answer was: "For most any other article, for a sentence like that one, it really, really, really looks like a nonsense line in the article. I might take a quick look at the discussion page and/or history, but really, that particular line looks so bad, I probably wouldn't bother in any other article. It looks like some random line some moron tried to sneak in to be funny. I'd really suggest taking it out altogether."
I took this answer to be: In general ("in any other article"), you "probably wouldn't bother" even to "take a quick look at the discussion page and/or history" (although you hedge that -- you "might") before deleting a sentence that, to your eye,"looks like some random line some moron tried to sneak in to be funny".
Did I misunderstand you? Re-reading your rather rambling reply to my question, I now see that in trying to parse it I may have missed your meaning. If so, explain. (But please: We already know your opinion of the sentence under discussion here. My question asked your opinion about PROPER PROCEDURE, IN GENERAL, for a Wikipedia editor who sees something odd on a page whose content is not familiar to him. If your answer boils down to "It depends", please just say so. I thought you were saying more than that. --SocJan 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In general, I would research the history/discussion page first. Most often, most vandalism is a very recent addition, so if an odd line/word exists, and numerous changes/reverts have happened since (or I can't even find when the odd addition happened), then I would either a) move on entirely, or b) ask on the discussion page. However, if the addition happened in the last one or two edits, I probably would remove it, because 99 out of 100 times, it's vandalism.Betaeleven 14:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your having spelled out your position on this. What I still don't understand is why you feel that YOU must act when you see something funny on a page you haven't yourself contributed to and don't know much about? (That WAS the question: we were talking about entries whose content you aren't expert in.) Why not trust people more familiar with the page in question to notice what you are noticing and to deal with it, if it needs to be dealt with? I haven't seen a whole lot of vandalism on the Davenport page in the last 18 months. Why do you think your kind of policing is necessary here?--SocJan 14:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you asking about this article in particular, or any article in general? If it's this article, I have never made an edit to it. If it's other articles, it's because a LOT of vandalism occurs on many pages, and as I said before 99 out of 100 times (if not more) lines similar to the soup/baloney article in this article are vandalism. People who to try to revert vandalism are bound to make mistakes , but when/if they do, you have to realize it's a good faith edit and they are reverting what they felt was vandalism. So, don't take it personally. For example, I have an article on my Watch page that has many British spellings in the article (organization vs. organisation). Many people change the spellings of those words back to the American versions. Since it was already discussed on the talk page previously, I revert those edits. It's simple enough to do, and I understand why people do it. I wish the article was spelled in the American version (because I'm biased, and it would cause less confusion), but that's not what the consensus of editors wanted. So, I abide by the decision and do what I can to enforce it. Do I put notices on people's talk pages after the fact? No. It's not worth it, because it was a good faith edit. Betaeleven 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the baloney & soup bit and I support re-adding it, with the reference Deor provided added so readers know it's for real and know where to find out more. I would suggest adding a paragraph break after to avoid too close a juxtaposition with the sentence about his death — I don't think we want to suggest that his death had anything to do with his eating habits.--SethTisue 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of inviting an argument I've no interest in pursuing: Besides eating as he did, Davenport was a smoker who died of lung cancer. Other members of his family were smokers who died of lung disease. In an ideogram, sometimes apparently far-fetched suggestions created by juxtaposition are in fact not so far-fetched. A contrarian who chooses to ignore conventions and consensus may end up ignoring one bit of consensus too many. One could make a case that putting Davenport's eating habits next to his cause of death does indeed serve a purpose. (So now I have tried to do the impossible -- explain an ideogram.)--SocJan 05:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because a biographical detail is correct and verifiable does not mean that it should be included in an encyclopedia entry. We know from the Bursary books for Balliol College, University of Oxford, that the Victorian poet Gerard Manley Hopkins had a penchant for pastries, and ordered them rather regularly -- see Norman White, Hopkins: A Literary Biography (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1992): "Hopkins merely developed a taste for his college's pastries" (p. 58). Ah, the pastry fetish! (I would be a thinner woman indeed if I did not share this fetish!). However, unless Hopkins had died from choking on a pastry, or had been haunted by "The Great Pastry Monster", or had made a fortune as a pastry chef, or had slept every night on a giant pastry, or had substituted pastries for the sanctified host during High Mass, I would certainly not include his love of pastries in his Wikipedia entry. Wake up, folks! Smell the fried bologna and fresh pastries! then engage Davenport on a level that is worthy of his place in literary, artistic, and cultural history ... which is not, I expect, as the poster-child for processed meats. Besides, you have all missed the implied joke -- one that would force us to link this Wikipedia entry with that for Wilde -- since Davenport could hardly have escaped singing, as he fried and consumed his meat, "My bologna has a first name / It's O-S-C-A-R ..." A Decadent treat indeed! Welland R 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Welland R. I enjoyed this.  :) -- SocJan 23:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

SocJan has re-added the sentence. I added the paragraph break I suggested above.--SethTisue 04:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harper's column

Does anyone know why Davenport's stint at Harper's ended? Did he quit (failing health, perhaps?) or was he asked to step down? Just curious. Also, it's not that important, but do we have a source on Davenport's invitation to do the column coming from Sullivan?--SethTisue 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

From private correspondence I have it that he was unhappy with the editors there, who he said were annoyingly uneducated and tended to tweak his articles in politically correct directions he did not approve of. But I wouldn't rely on that source entirely, to be honest with you. CXII 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Davenport's letters to me, too, mention that he was irritated by phone calls from uneducated Harper's copy editors who questioned minute factual detail but seemed never to engage with his ideas (much like the Wikipedia police, now that I think of it). So I was amused when Sullivan, at Davenport's memorial service, said that Harper's editors tried to think up questions for Davenport about his submissions just to have an excuse to hear him talk on the phone (something Davenport claimed to hate to do, though people who know say that once he got started it was hard to get him off the phone. Of course those aren't incompatible -- he may have hated his own compulsion to try to teach the unteachable).
What are Talk pages for, anyway, if not gossip that someone later may be able to confirm with sources of which Wikipedia police approve.--SocJan 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper Obituary

I have replaced the Washington Post Davenport obit with the one published in the New York Times. Either would suffice to confirm the fact about Cox, but the Washington Post article is inaccurate on another point. That's sufficient reason not to be steering readers to it.

The Post states that Davenport left school for Duke after the 9th grade. In fact (see below) Davenport left in the 11th grade (and even that is less surprising than it first seems). The Times more cautiously sticks to the bare facts, stating that Davenport left school early and enrolled at Duke in 1944.

The Post's error was probably not a matter of carelessness. It is all too easy to construct a timeline that has Davenport entering college after the 9th grade. Indeed, a reader of the Times obit familiar with Davenport's essays might make the same mistakes that the Post obit writer did. (But at least they would be the reader's, not the Times's.)

Two published (and thus readily referenced) "facts", each appearing to change a Davenport age/grade relationship by one year, are what it takes:

(1) In "On Reading" Davenport says he was not "admitted" to 1st grade "until I was 7". This is an economical if not strictly accurate way of conveying that he was a 7-year-old first-grader, older than virtually all of his classmates. Davenport was indeed 7 in 1st grade -- all but for the first few weeks; he entered at 6 but turned 7 a few weeks later. His birthday that November was his 7th -- not his 8th, as a too-literal reading of his words would imply. That's mistake number one.
(2) Told that Davenport entered Duke in 1944, we easily assume that his matriculation was in September. Given his November 23, 1927, birthday, Davenport would still have been 16. But it turns out he matriculated in December -- after completing another half-year of high school. Moreover, his Anderson, SC, high school had just 11 grades in those days and it was not unusual for brighter students, like Davenport, to skip the spring semester of their last year in order to enter college.
To summarize: Davenport entered first grade in 1934, not 1935, and he completed ten grades (not nine). He left high school in December, 1944, halfway through his eleventh school year. He entered Duke shortly after his 17th birthday, younger than most but not outrageously younger, and not from the 9th grade as the Post would have us believe.

I'll bet you'd like references for all that: (1) Davenport was more precise about his age-in-first-grade in his letter to Peter Quartermain, quoted in the Quartermain article to which I have recently provided a reference. That leaves only (2) Davenport's mid-year (Dec.,1944) matriculation at Duke.

Any policeman who objects to the assertion of (2) can either leave the truth alone until someone provides support, or can tag, or even delete, what I have nailed down through my scandalous "original research" (sketched somewhere here about a year ago)-- which I carried out precisely because of published misinformation such as that in the Post obituary. My position is that I've determined the truth and that anyone can deduce where the supporting documentation can be found. As it happens, I choose not to go after that documentation. Terrible, awful, terrorist, spammer me!

So we have a choice: Which is better, folks, properly referenced published error (such as the Washington Post obituary) or as-yet-undocumented truth (which I assert I am offering, above)?

(My preference, you will readily guess, is that Wikipedia practice be, in general, to leave truth in place, even if not yet thoroughly supported. That way, people visiting an entry who happen to be positioned to add support to truthful assertions might see what needs support and do their bit to support it. It's hard to know that verification is needed when the fact to be verified has been deleted. That is what happens when an entry gets too much attention from a policeman-Decider who knows no facts but has mastered a rulebook that he thinks tells him to attack all assertions that are not fully supported!

(Wasn't Wikipedia supposed to tap the synergy that comes (for example) from one person adding a fact, another refining it, and yet another coming up with a better reference? I am learning that in some situations, at least, Wikipedia does not work like that these days. Wikipedia's Homeland Security forces seem to be going overboard in their war against the Terrorism of Entry Spam and Vandalism. In their zeal to fight these evils, a few Wikipedia police (by no means all; most seem reasonable and appropriately deliberate) appear to be willing to treat anyone and everyone as a potential terrorist. More and more of us are fitting the profile, apparently. [Be careful whom you associate with. Just wait until some of your contributions are consigned by Extraordinary Rendition to secret Wikipedia prisons where they will be held triumphantly beyond the reach of all law and justice.] These zealots seem to be asserting: We know guilty parties when we see them, we know error, we know spam, we know vandalism--but above all, WE KNOW THE RULES! (Never mind the intent behind those rules, we go strictly and mindlessly by the book.) We are going to act speedily and forcefully to keep Wikipedia safe. Don't slow us down! The peril is great and we are your protectors. Trust us, we know better than you do. If some well-intentioned non-spam non-copyright-violating truthful useful material gets consigned to perdition, well that's a regrettable but necessary price to pay to keep Wikipedia respectable.

(Well I disagree. Wikiipedia is more threatened, in my opinion, by behavior that discourages us from contributing than it is from the posting of material we don't care about and would never visit anyway. I come here to read good stuff and to make it better if I can. I don't come to Wikipedia to cluck over the junk. If others want to fixate on crime, that's your choice. Just don't treat me as if I'm a criminal when I'm not.

(Don't anyone take my rantings personally, please. If you think I'm talking about you, then go back to where we were in direct debate and this time actually READ what I did say about your behavior; from what I've seen, the zealots don't read me any more closely there than they read the entries they are so quick to judge. Believe me, I don't want to "understand" their zealotry. I am not interested in trying harder to do so. I came to Wikipedia to make positive contributions to good pages. Up until the last week, it was fun to do so. So I'm leaving to others the problem of balancing the dangers of terrorism, on the one hand, with the excesses of a police state on the other. If my work is attacked so much that I lose heart, I guess I'll go away until the hysteria settles down and the police get disarmed by a populace angry over losing its freedom. Is movng to Googlepedia the equivalent of heading up to Canada?

(I promise that this is the last rant I'll post on the subject of over-zealous enforcement of Wikiipedia standards by self-appointed policemen. I like policemen -- when they concentrate on serious crime and obvious criminals but leave well-intentioned harmless people and material alone. Over and out.) --SocJan 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In the very essay you've cited—"On Reading"—Davenport wrote, "I managed to control my bladder by the third grade, but the fainter and the sufferer from fits, both classmates of mine through the ninth grade, when I quit school, kept teachers edgy until graduation" (The Hunter Gracchus, p. 20). Perhaps D. was misremembering, or perhaps he was expressing himself badly; but it's not difficult to see how the WaPo obituarist may have gotten the idea. Deor 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are completely right. I have my own theories on the Davenport sentence you quote (and on other questionable assertions in that essay), but they would be just that -- theories. I also know his family's theory, but that's for them to tell. Let's instead address the task at hand: what should the Wikipedia article on Davenport say?

Notice its current language: "[Davenport] left high school early and enrolled at Duke University a few weeks after his seventeenth birthday."

It took many iterations to get to this formulation. We who have worked extensively on this page, especially the demanding and dedicated James Nicol, found all sources in agreement that (1) Davenport entered Duke in 1944, and (2) he left high school early. So, like the Times, we decided to stick to these verifiable facts. The one (so far) unsupported statement is mine -- that he entered Duke at 17, which would be in mid-year, late in 1944. I have this from his family, who presented highly convincing support for their recollections of events.

Duke's records would confirm Davenport's age at matriculation. That's what I was talking about above: If the Wikipedia Homeland Security policemen (WHSP from now on) don't like the assertion that he was 17, they are free to take it out (though I would regret their action). If WHSP want to assert that Davenport left high school in or after ninth grade, citing "On Reading" as their authority, I can't stop them but I would be quite saddened at the placing of process above critical thought.

Davenport himself offers us some assistance, in his several cautionary musings on the subject of published error:

We are never so sure of our knowledge as when we're dead wrong. The assurance with which Chaucer included Alcibiades in a list of beautiful women and with which Keats embedded the wrong discoverer of the Pacific in an immortal sonnet should be a lesson to us all.
[ . . . ] The current Encyclopedia Brittanica informs us that Edmund Wilson's Axel's Castle is a novel (it is a book of essays), that Eudora Welty wrote Clock without Hands (by Carson McCullers), and that the photograph of Jules Verne accompanying the entry about him is of a Yellow-Headed Titmouse (Auriparus flaviceps). [ . . .]
(from "Pergolesi's Dog", one of my favorite read-aloud Davenport essays)

In "The Scholar as Critic", another of my favorite Davenport's, he wrestles again with problems created for scholars by mistakes that creep into masterpieces. What to do with them? The one thing Davenport certainly does NOT recommend is that published errors be cited as sources in articles claiming to present truth. Would Davenport approve of quoting Davenport as authority for a fact that is not in fact a fact?

Yes, this is an encyclopedia. Entries should stick to verifiable truth, and as much as possible should give good sources for what we hold out to the world as fact. That does not mean we should delete as-yet unverified truth, nor that we should include "verified" falsehood.

Time to discuss briefly that bugaboo, "original research" that so horrifies some participants in our recent discussions. (Do they think that print-encyclopedia editors do nothing but uncritically clip previously-published material and rearrange it?) In asking Davenport's family about his age at entering first grade and his age and grade upon leaving high school, I was trying to reconcile just the sort of statements we have quoted from "On Reading" with the known facts from other sources. The answers I got (reported above) cleared up the facts to my satisfaction. I've crafted my best summary and supported it as well as I can, given my limited time and resources. I am confident that IF IT IS LEFT ALONE someone will add the last touch to the sentence as it currently appears in the entry.

I acknowledge the possibility that I have created a "d of P" of my own. If that proves to be the case, I will laugh (and hope that somewhere Davenport is laughing with me). In the meantime I stick to my guns: New York Times obit is in, Wash Post obit is out, and the sentence in the biography is the best we can do at the moment-- SocJan 05:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the link to the NYT obit, see number 6 at WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Deor 12:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, (a) we could go back to the free link that gives inaccurate information or (b) someone else can find a free link that gives good information. I have no idea how long ago the rule you cite was written; what I have observed is that more and more of the best newspapers are requiring registration and putting older articles including obituaries into archives for which they charge a modest fee. I pay my tiny fee to the NYTimes and am happy to do so. I am also registered at the Washington Post. Are you sure that last article was any less a violation of the rule you cite?
If I had time or inclination to address this "warning ticket", I would focus on asking for a review of the law itself (in light of current road conditions). --SocJan 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't a bloody "warning ticket," just a hasty note that a ref with author, title, and publ info—and without the link—would be more in accordance with WP guidelines. I would have changed it myself if I weren't disinclined to subscribe to the NYT site to get the necessary information. Leave it there for some other WP user to come along and deal with if you want. I'm confining my future comments on this article to edit summaries. Deor 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
THANK YOU!!
Your last post told us something NOT to do. Your latest post, above, tells what TO do. Much more helpful.
What looked like a "warning ticket" --"see number 6 at WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided" --directed us to this: "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content [should normally be avoided]." Thinking that that was your main point, I responded as best I could.
Posts not intended as traffic tickets should probably not be written in the language of tickets. Instead of citing a rule infraction, why not suggest in plain English how something could be improved (as you have now done)? Most people don't mind constructive suggestions. I certainly don't. I'll act on your suggestion -- for which, my sincere thanks!--SocJan 22:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

W.C. Bamberger's introduction to Guy Davenport and James Laughlin: Selected Letters says (page ix) "Davenport left high school as soon as he could accumulate enough credits — just after Christmas in his tenth-grade year — and attended Duke University..." This supports the Dec. 1944 date but (for whatever it's worth, maybe nothing) says tenth grade not eleventh. In any case, the sentence in the article seems fine to me. I have added the Bamberger piece as a reference for that sentence. SethTisue 04:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "though he once, briefly, owned a car"

Not long ago I marked this a fact needing citation. Today in Guy Davenport and James Laughlin: Selected Letters I read on page ix: "Davenport never owned a car and only drove one once — when the wooden leg of the driver who'd given him a ride fell apart and couldn't be reassembled on the roadside." (This is from the introduction by W.C. Bamberger.) I don't know who originally added the bit about Davenport owning a car. Perhaps they wrote "owned" but meant "drove"? I'll change it (and add a reference) if no one has some countervailing info to offer. SethTisue 03:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's excellent to ask a question, propose a change, and invite discussion, as SethTisue has just done. But how much TIME should an assertion's Defense Team be allowed, to gather and present its case, before an "I'll change it" gets implemented? In short, what if nothing were posted here in response to the note above, for, say, six hours? a day? a week? WHEN would it be appropriate to implement a proposed change of this sort, based on what appears to be a reasonable assumption (that someone "wrote 'owned' but meant 'drove'")? What is the prevailing Decent Interval in such cases?
Let me address the substance of SethTisue's question and proposed change (but then I want to return to the question of due process):
SethTisue's hypothesis and justification for change is that a previous edit was the result of mistake/confusion. Neither is the case. The assertion is probably true as written (and I know it to have been seriously intended):
The Bamberger story is one Davenport seems to have told often. (The year in the version I heard was his eighth or ninth grade in school; the driver with the wooden leg, a teacher of his.)
The "briefly owned a car" assertion refers to quite another experience in Davenport's life, a European automobile trip many years later. A friend did all the driving but Davenport paid for the car (at least his share). I've heard that story from two independent sources, one of whom (not I) added it to the Davenport Wikipedia entry.
Still, Seth's question is worth addressing. Assuming the story's truth, does it justify saying "[Davenport] once, briefly, owned a car" (which could seem more to tease than to inform)? Is it IMPORTANT to say that Davenport once "owned" a car?
Some of us have been been debating these questions via email. And some of the some of us hope its original author will delete it. In the meantime, we see no urgency.
Seth's proposal to make a change based on a reasonable (but incorrect) assumption raises again the question of the HASTE I've noticed on the part of some roving Wikipedia editors this last week (not you, SethTisue; please bear with me as I try to understand prevailing process here and propose a treaty based on what I've seen and what I've learned by reading Wikipedia rule books).
Once a fact is challenged, HOW MUCH TIME should Wikipedia Ad Hoc Police and Courts allow for preparation and trial before some Decider acts to resolve the matter, often based on very little beyond The Decider's own sense of style and confidence that he/she can sniff out error?
Please consider (1) that the person who originally contributed the questioned fact may not visit Wikipedia every few hours (as clearly some of us have been doing this week) and (2) that MANY assertions could be questioned, including the clause being questioned in this case, but are NOT desperate and potentially fatal threats to the Integrity and Homeland Security of Wikipedia.
Surely the person who ought to have first crack at defending, revising, or deleting any questioned detail is the person who originally added it? Surely it is not necessary for anyone else to do anything immediately? Would it not be reasonable and fair to give the original contributor a decent interval -- say, ONE MONTH -- to notice and respond to questions? Or am I missing something?
I PROPOSE, at least for the Davenport entry (which even the pickiest Policeman will grant is a rather good page), that NONE OF US DELETE ANYTHING, especially not HASTILY, that is not in flagrant violation of the most clear and crucial Wikipedia standards. I further propose that we agree to allow ONE MONTH FOR DISCUSSION here on the TALK page before anyone deletes any possibly-valid passage.
As for this particular detail (Davenport's automobile ownership), I am indifferent to its inclusion or deletion. But I would not presume to delete it.
Deleting parts of other people's contributions to an entry, especially material that we do not know to be untrue, can be profoundly disheartening to those other contributors, especially if there has not been decent discussion prior to deletion. People who have worked extremely hard to make the Davenport article as good as it is should not be driven away by a thousand tiny cuts at their work. I think good process, at least here at the Davenport entry, is to proceed as SethTisue has: raise a question and propose a change based on your best understanding at the time. Then allow some time for discussion.
My principal concern about deletion or radical change is that once an UNDOCUMENTED BUT TRUE assertion disappears from the entry, only readers who happen to look back though the entry's history will have any chance of seeing it and perhaps providing documentation. I don't see the harm done by leaving undocumented but probably true statements for a few weeks.
As for the SIGNIFICANCE of a fact (documented or undocumented), surely no one person's opinion ought to be sufficient to justify speedy deletion, without discussion, of something a previous editor has thought worthy. Shouldn't the matter at least be raised on a discussion page first?!
I invite others to join me in supporting a ONE MONTH DISCUSSION treaty, here at the Davenport entry at least. Such a treaty would allow genuine, thoughtful, deliberation, deliberation that could include people who are not camped on Wikipedia night and day.
P.S. -- Thanks again, SethTisue, for not shooting first and asking questions afterwards.--SocJan 08:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
After a long wait, I went ahead and deleted the bit about owning a car. It is unsourced, it is not that interesting even if true, and it's misleading since the arrangement on the European trip you describe is not at all the kind of situation that "owned a car" is normally taken to mean. If someone wants to add it back with "owned" changed to "drove" and a citation of the Bamberger passage I quote (or some other suitable source), I wouldn't be strongly opposed, though it seems to me that the article doesn't need it.
The way Wikipedia typically works is that people go ahead and just make edits without discussing them first; see WP:Be bold (and the non-official Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). If someone doesn't like an edit, they can undo it, and if the first party doesn't like it, they can start a discussion on the talk page. Nonetheless, given the long and tangled history of the Davenport page, I don't mind exercising more than the usual amount of caution here, as you suggest.
You mention debates taking place in E-mail. I encourage you to have these debates here so that the rest of us can benefit from them. The fact that you've debated and agreed on something with someone else elsewhere may be important to the two of you, but you can't expect it to mean much to others.
Cheers and thanks for your ongoing commitment to improving this page. SethTisue 13:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
THANKS for waiting a month! I have no quarrel with your deletion of the unsourced and (I agree) not particularly helpful detail. As for your comments above:
"Be bold" might be good advice in general, especially for new pages that are getting lots of attention. But this Davenport entry is now quite mature. Those of us who worked hard on it a year ago don't now visit it daily or even weekly. It can be disconcerting to return to the page and find edits made by people who admit they know nothing about Davenport but feel empowered to change text that just doesn't strike them as right and proper. (Not you, ST; you know what I'm talking about). I believe that ALL edits ought to be thoughtful, and not based on hunches.
The process followed here works for me.
As for sharing all discussion on this page, I've already answered that sugestion: Given the way Nicol was treated, I have no interest. The lesson I learned is: keep a low profile, do one's best. When a fact is challenged, back it up with a reference or make a case for keeping it until someone else provides the reference. My idea of "being bold" is to write what I know to be true and important and then defend it as best I can against all comers who, legitimately or not, want to challenge it. No edit wars for me! SocJan 05:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)