Talk:Academy of American Poets

Disputed??

Where is the alleged reason for disputing the article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 20:54, March 25, 2008

I removed the dispute tag again as well as the the notability tag. The article must have more references to meet with wiki requirements, but at this time I think we can safely say that it is not a matter of whether or not the article's topic is notable but rather improving the references to make sure that all claims are verified, which is covered under the article improve tag. Mrathel (talk)

And I have put it back. You didn't even know why the tags were placed but removed them? Notability is established through significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Except for one minor statement, the AMP article is entirely sourced from AAP itself either via its own websites or via press releases. Neither are third-party. Hence both the notability and neutrality tags. The organization is one of many "pay for a feel good award" type places like the "International Library of Photography" where everyone is published/wins, as long as you buy a copy of the book. The scam aspects are not mentioned, which is a mark against accuracy. It reads like little more than an advertisement/promo. Also, for future note, you may want to check the dates on posts before replying...he was asking about a different time the article was tagged as disputed, so apparently I'm not the only one questioning its validity.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for a dispute tag here. More sources can easily be found to provide reference. AnmaFinotera, you are completely wrong, the Academy of American Poets is a non-profit organization that has been around since the 1930s, it has nothing to do with "pay for a feel good award" places like Poetry.com as you suggest. In fact there is a lot of information on the Academy's website warning visitors about those kind of scam sites. You can find the Academy highly rated as a non-profit charity in places like the Better Business Bureau [1] and Guidestar [2]. Mintmonkey (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no justification based on reliable source on this Talk page for the placement of the tags, but only a general argument with no citations, and no specific criticism of the text, I am removing the tag. The comment about about removing tags without knowing the reason for the placement was out of line. It is up to an editor claiming problems with the article to justify them, otherwise, indeed, anyone may remove the tag absent such justification. AnmaFinotera, if you have specific issues other than your personal assumptions, if you can point to reliably sourced material that should be in the article, you are most welcome to do this. But just making shotgun charges with no evidence, no. --Abd (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Specific justifications are NOT required for any of those tags. Removing them for no valid reason is inappropriate behavior. The article has tonal issues, it is almost entirely sourced to AAP which fails both WP:N and justifies a tag noting it needs NON-Primary Sources, and the lead is obviously too short per any reasonable standard. You appear to have just jumped into this discussion without really reading the context, as it was about a disputed tag which is no longer even on the article, not the existing tags. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To repeat, there is no specificity to the complaints. If the content is poor, please improve it. If a specific statement is unsourced, put a cn tag on it. If there are general balance issues, please show some specific discussion of this here. You have claimed that the discussion above is not about the present tags. Fine. That means that the tags had no discussion, and were properly removed for that reason. Sure, I'm unfamiliar with the history here. That makes me neutral, right? I'll accept the return of the tag, if a reasonable and clear justification is given, but, hey, please try to putting more effort into improving the article than into tagging it and arguing about propriety of placement or removal. I've got some clear and obvious tasks to do with this article now, and I should be doing it later. You are welcome to join in the effort. --Abd (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not required to fix the issues just because I put the tags there. Otherwise what is the point of the tags, hello? And, FYI, I did fix quite a few issues with this article already, so please don't just presume it was tagged and ignored. Who do you think fixed the disputed issue and some other issues it had with neutrality?? General issues do NOT require discussion, period, and not they were not properly removed. You do not have to start a discussion to say "hey, this two sentence lead is way to short", its blatantly freakin obvious. Do you really think someone has to start a discussion to say a lead is too short per WP:LEAD when its only two sentences long on a much longer article???? The tags give clear justifications in themselves. Only a few specific tags, such as disputed or NPOV "require" a discussion for the tags to be justified. Removing them when you have not fixed the issues is being contentious and against Wikipedia guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not required to fix the issues just because I put the tags there. That's correct, but we are also not required to allow them to remain. Yes, I think you did fix some issues, though I haven't researched ancient history. (I.e., before today.) If a violation of guidelines has occurred here, please cite the guideline. As to contentious, well, pots and kettles suffer from the same accumulation of carbon black. Take it easy, AnmaFinotera. Editorial consensus will decide on possible disputes here. I've done some work shifting the winners of one of the awards, from your merge, to a list article, with other content here per your merge. You initially reverted that removal of the redirect, without adequate discussion. I advise slowing down. --Abd (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I remove the notability tag alone, following your suggestion that I not remove ALL tags, I think that's what you meant, right? I see what looks like sufficient RS for notability. Disagree? A notability tag is never an emergency. It doesn't harm readers if it is absent, and I think there will now be enough attention on this article that if more sources are needed, they will be added. I'm concerned about this "vanity" charge made above. Any evidence for that, AnmaFinotera, or was this just smoke? --Abd (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to relax a bit and come to some sort of agreement. The lead section is blatantly short,the article needs to discuss the subject more and rely less on poets.org. That being said, I think it is not rational to suggest that notability is still in question with at least 5 non-trivial sources, assuming GF on the offline sources. I think a good idea would be to gather a consensus on which tags are proper and improve the article quality to meet guidelines on the rest. Mrathel (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like some good work has been done on this article in the last couple of weeks, with the lead extended and sources added from the New York Times. So I think we can we dispense with the tags now. What do others think? Mintmonkey (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Tags whose concerns were met were removed. The three remaining remain unaddressed. Lead is still not an appropriate length (and should not really be introducing new content), and the primary to third-party ratio is still off. The bulk still comes from the organization. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

a lot of this is inside baseball, to knowledgeable literazzi, with not much explication, from third parties. they merely report what they did, not why or wherefore. this is an important parent organization, that administers the prizes, the recipients of which are snowball notable. therefore, keep the article, and listify the awards. i dunno what you're saying about the lead. is it expansion, or not new content? regretable that you should write the false statement: The organization is one of many "pay for a feel good award" type places like the "International Library of Photography" pohick - (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Academy of American Poets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516232845/http://www.poets.org/page.php/prmID/114 to http://www.poets.org/page.php/prmID/114

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Membership

Membership to this 501(c)3 charitable organization is open to anyone who pays an annual fee. (per the organization's home-page) Kdammers (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)