Talk:Jacob Scheier

The information deleted, which I have restored, is 100% accurate and has been documented by Quill & Quire magazine, The National Post, The Toronto Star and CBC radio. The information states that there has been controversy, not that either of the named jurors is guilty of malfeasance.

November 27: I have now restored deleted factual information twice. Someone may not like these facts, but they are documented, substantiated facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azwells (talk • contribs) 18:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

I've asked WP:CWNB for input into this war over the Q&Q reference. However, I'd be remiss if I didn't also call some attention to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy here — maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age, but the involved parties are both setting off my spidey sense. Bearcat (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bearcat, there's no conflict of interest on my part. I don't know Mr. Scheier and the facts that I added to this article were written in a "neutral tone." Besides the cited Q&Q reference, this controversy has been documented by the National Post, the Toronto Star and the CBC. This is information, not propaganda. It's disingenuous to include a reference to Mr Scheier's book winning the Governor General's Award without also referencing the widespread anger at how the award was won.--AZ Wells —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azwells (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

When the issue revolves around criticism of a literary award, I don't entirely buy the idea that a person who himself published a book of poetry within the eligibility period of the very award in question — and was thus presumably a potential nominee for the award himself — is a wholly disinterested party whether he personally knows the subject or not. Especially when his edit history suggests that this particular edit war is his first Wikipedia contribution to any article since June, and the first time he's made even two edits to Wikipedia in the same month since May of 2007. But that's for CWNB to decide, not me. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Do your research, Bearcat, the last book of poetry I published was in 2004. The books I published in 2008 are a)an anthology, not eligible for this award and b)an illustrated children's book, also not eligible for this award. I am a magazine editor and a blogger and as such have been following and reporting on this story. This is not a conflict of interest and your insinuation that I have ulterior motives for my edits is insulting--and irrelevant. I don't think regularity of contribution is a basis for discrediting any given contribution.--AZ Wells —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azwells (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Azwells, as an administrator who doesn't know you personally, all I can judge the situation by is what it looks like. It is not my responsibility to extend you the benefit of the doubt by default; it's your responsibility to earn the benefit of the doubt. That is all. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is evident that azwells is editing this page for his own personal motives and not using a neutral point of view. These edits are clear violations to Wikipedia; Biography of living persons guideline. These edits have been reported to wikipedia as vandalism. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazel0000 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Hazel, given that this was your first-ever Wikipedia edit, I don't buy that you're a disinterested party, either. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort is evident. This is the "offending" sentence: "Because two of the jurors (Pier Giorgio di Cicco, who provided a blurb for the book, and Di Brandt, described by Scheier himself as "a mentor and a family friend," and who collaborated on a translation in the book) were personally connected to Scheier, there has been some controversy over the legitimacy of that win.[2]" Please tell me what portion of this, if any, is something other than an objective fact. I have provided documentary links to illustrate the factuality of these statements. My motives are purely disinterested. I doubt the same could be said of the person who keeps deleting these statements.

What exactly does the situation look like, Bearcat? To me it looks like an impartial member of the literary media is posting factual information in a neutral tone with no interpolations or extrapolations, with references to back it up, and is having it repeatedly deleted by someone who doesn't like that information very much. There's certainly sabotage at work here, but I'm not the perpretrator. This perception of conflict of interest you have is obviously based on inaccurate information, since I was not in fact eligible for the Governor General's Award. Things look a lot clearer when you open your eyes all the way, sir or madam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azwells (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither myself (the subject of this article) or Azwells are in a position to take a neutral position to the information in question. Azwells referencing his blog demonstrates he is self-interested in his contributions to this particular page, which is not provided in a neutral tone either. I question whether this page, and not another page, such as a "2008 GG Controversy" might not be a more appropriate place for the information Azwells wants to see here, and if he would be willingly to come to some such compromise.

Bearcat: If a journalist references an article he has published on a story, does that make him "self-interested"? Didn't think so. My blog posts on this subject were picked up by Bookninja, where the story was picked up by the mainstream print and broadcast media. Showing all references documents the story as it broke and developed. Mr. Scheier clearly doesn't want this information associated with his name in this encyclopedia, which I can understand. But since it is associated with his name outside the encyclopedia, it should be thus within, as well, no?--AZ Wells

Actually, it does constitute a WP:COI violation to post information to Wikipedia that you were personally involved in publishing elsewhere. Although we don't absolutely rule out any possibility of citing yourself in certain contexts, we do require that kind of thing to be done very carefully and neutrally. If you're personally involved in publishing controversial news about a public figure, the best thing to do with regard to Wikipedia is to stand back and trust that if it's genuinely notable, somebody else will eventually add it here.

And whether by design or by accident, posting it to Scheier's article instead of in the "controversy" section on the award's article does distort the issue — if there was any actual malfeasance here, it would reflect on the award's judges, not directly on Scheier himself, and would thus be more appropriately discussed elsewhere. Even the blog entries and newspaper articles about it are virtually all stating that Scheier is essentially an innocent bystander in a controversy that's all about whether Di Brandt should have recused herself from the judging panel or not. So why on earth should it be discussed here, instead of in 2008 Governor General's Awards? Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I, while not claiming to be disinterested, in the content of this article (being its subject), wholeheartedly agree with you Bearcat that the information distorts the issue. I am not questioning the factual content of the information (I recognize that there has been a controversy), only its appropriateness here. Furthermore, I am going to speculate that the person who submitted the information is not a disinterested party. This particular edit war was referred to very recently on bookninja.com one of the blogs posted by Azwells to the external sources of this article. If the person who made this edit is not personally connected to Azwells, I suspect they are at least part of this particular blogging community. More so, re-posting the information, albeit, in more neutral language as opposed to adding it to the 'controversy' section of the awards article, suggests to me that this person is motivated more by a desire to distort the issue, for reasons I do not understand, as opposed to a desire to simply be objective and factual. Thank you. Helpssome (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Helpssome (aka. J. Scheier)

Or rather I should say for reasons I won't speculate upon. Helpssome (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Helpssome (aka J. Scheier)

It should be noted, for the sake of the chronologically challenged, that the "controversy" section of the GG 2008 entry (the existence of which is news to me) wasn't added until after I first added the reference to the controversy here. I still see nothing remotely wrong with cross-referencing these entries, since they are, after all, inextricably intwined. But I'll refrain from doing so myself, since it's clear that any attempt to do so will be hurriedly deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azwells (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)