Talk:John M. Bennett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

	Chicago Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article has been automatically rated as Stub-Class by WikiProject Chicago because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove |auto=yes from the WikiProject Chicago banner above. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the |class= parameter in the WikiProject Chicago banner above and removing the stub template from the article.

John M. Bennett has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Problems with this page: Wordart needs a disambiguation page. Pictures should be properly sized and placed. Jameswiese's additions, though well-meaning, should be modified to fit the writing of the page and the general tone required by Wikipedia. Jesse 1/27/2007

Also noted that images on this page were downloaded not conforming to Wikipedia copyright and use policy. A formal notice of deletion in 7 days was given to the party involved. Peer review added. Jesse 1/30/2007.

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions

Substantial, and troubling revisions, made on Sept. 1, 2007, have resulted in a loss of information and context for the material in this article. A reversion is recommended. Jesse Glass 3:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.171.25.109 (talk) Reversion carried out. 3:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have undone the reversion for the following reasons. First, you're not being careful about which versions you're using. Your message complains about the revisions made on September 1, but a careful review of the change log reveals that you seem to be referring instead to Maplewooddrive's October 30 edits. Second, why did you revert all the way to September 20th? It would have been sufficient to revert to 27 October. Third, I think most of Maplewooddrive's changes are right. A lot of the deleted text was not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If you think some important factual information (verifiable by third party sources) was lost, please restore it piecemeal rather than by wholesale reversion. Thanks. Further discussion of individual changes is welcome... SethTisue (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No excuses are offered for not reading the history closely. That shouldn't have happened, but this is the first time that I've seen this used as a reason to change a reversion. Needless to say, I disagree with the edits done by Maplewooddrive because they get rid of important information about Bennett's activities as well as the context of Bennett's work. Style and tone also change because of those edits. The information about Bennett's activities came from Bennett himself. I await your response before reverting back to my reversion. I also want to mention that I created this page. Your help appreciated. Jesse Glass 10:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.171.25.109 (talk)

The style and tone changes bring the article much more in line with what's expected on Wikipedia. See WP:NPOV and WP:TONE. If any factual information was removed that you want to add back, that's fine, as I said — but only if it's independently verifiable by third party sources (published interviews and articles, that kind of thing). "Bennett told me" doesn't cut it on Wikipedia. I love his writing by the way. SethTisue (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Noticed the conflict of interest with SethTissue (Platercramp Press). This will be reported to Wikipedia. Jesse Glass 12:55 23 December, 2007. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.171.25.109 (talk)

I'm afraid that Shell's observation that "this is not the place for a critique of his work" is absolutely wrong. What was offered on this site was a series of observations, presented by someone with a wide range of reading and experience in this field. The underlying assumption is that Shell the administrator's and Seth Tisue's opinions are as valid as someone who does have expertise in this field, and that's just not so. Would either of you take it upon yourself to admonish or radically edit or "correct" the observations of an expert in calculus or computers, or non-Euclidean geometry? Why do you feel that you can second-guess a published writer and a Ph.D. in the field? Indeed, why are the humanities fair game? In addition, Shell's statement that material needs to be documentated (thereby obviating observation/commentary) certainly pertains to other statements on this and many other Wiki pages. Why stop with my observations alone when half of the material here is asserted without documentation, including the statement that "this is a typical poem" by John M. Bennett? How do we know that for sure? Wouldn't the Bennett Wiki page be "geatly improved" with the removal of all of those undocumented assertions as well? If that's true, where does one stop this side of deleting the whole page? I absolutely cry foul here, and I ask that other administrators consider these points, because I'm almost certain that both Shell and Seth Tisue are not in a position to judge this subject. Let administrators with degrees in literature and poetry and modernism in particular consider this subject and my now deleted observations, and then let us proceed. (I maintain that they were neutral observations and not criticisms.) I'm interested in Wikipedia, but do think there are some major flaws in the theory and practice of it--flaws that are quite obvious here. John M. Bennett and his work is actually beside the point, but I'm sure he'll welcome the attention.

Also why is it strange that the edits happened a month ago, Shell? Is there a time limit on posting and responding? In fact, Wikipedia itself suggests that one take time in going through this very process! Laughing (and maintaining the best of intentions!) Jesse Glass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.151.64.61 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)