Talk:Metamodernism/Archive 2

Removal of tables

Why the removal? This is good material, think of the reader. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, Cwobeel (talk)! Not only is the material critical, the sources--The Independent, The Huffington Post, The Poetry Foundation--are largely if not entirely WP:RS, making their removal on grounds of "WP:RS" doubly erroneous. Thanks for the reversion! Festal82 (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As the remover of those, I would like to comment that I had kept the info referenced by HuffPo, Independent, etc. Most of what I removed used metamodernism.com as a source; the rest was cited by related blogs. Not only do these obviously fail WP:RS, but, seeing as the website in question was founded by the same pair who coined the "metamodernism" terminology, seems to also be a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. felt_friend 20:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The removal seems to be of one source only: metamodernism.com, which is described as a "webzine". This one might actually fall under synthesized sourcing. Perfect for you (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Felt friend: Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation. Metamodernism.com is a site maintained by the same academics we cite in the article as the foremost authorities on this topic, right? And it's indeed their version of the topic that's the predominantly the subject of this article? Why then would what/who they describe as "metamodernist" be unreliable or, more oddly, advertising? If it were one of them who added the source to Wikipedia, I could understand a WP:COI claim, but certainly the same claims wouldn't be made about using a Lyotard quote on the postmodernism article, assuming it was verifiably his statement, even if made in a self-published source. I understand that's quite a comparison to make -- just trying to understand the problem. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH has nothing to do with this issue. There is absolutely no harm in using self-published sources providing these are sources by subject matter experts and no unduly self-serving. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

SYNTH has everything to do with it. The issue is that most of the information for these tables comes from an unreliable source, namely metamodernism.com. All those citations amount to is metamodernism.com claiming that various movies, books, etc. are "metamodernist". It's unreliable and self-aggragandizing. This entire article needs to be seriously reevaluated IMO. Inanygivenhole (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Ok so to be clear, the issue is that the article uses their "webzine" to establish fact. For instance, all the information I removed had used their website to state several people and their respective works as objectively confirming to the terminology they themselves invented. Had the information been worded as "[so and so] identifies [so and so] as having these features of [blah blah blah]", then I don't think it would have been an issue. The COI issue comes up when reviewing the edit history. Most of the page was authored by a handful the same editors, most of which edit very few or no other pages on the site. What it seems like is going on is that the inventors of the "metamodernism" term, who also maintain metamodernism.com, are using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote their own publications. The extremely low alexa ranking of the site leads me to believe the authors/editors/bloggers themselves are adding this information as opposed to unrelated site readers/enthusiasts. @Cwobeel:, I didn't think of the WP:SYNTH issue until @Perfect for you: had brought it up, but it also seems like a bit of that is going on by the page editors mixing in information cited on non-notable blogs with small bits from established sources such as HuffPo. felt_friend 22:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Before the introduction of the list of notable metamodernists, the article instead stated those that van den Akker and Vermeulen considered metamodern--a useful inclusion to help readers better understand the theories and identify the practitioners that are the topic of the article. This was included in the main body of the article as: "artists and cultural practices they consider metamodern include…" This seemed sensible. As I wrote in the Viability of list of notable metamodernists section above, I tend to agree that the list as it stands is too contentious and open to abuse. Esmeme (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Felt friend: Well, first thing: You may or may not be right about COI, but all of that is circumstantial evidence and not, to me, enough to bypass WP:AGF. Most pages on little-known topics like this are written by very few editors with niche knowledge/perspectives, but it doesn't mean there's some ulterior motive necessarily.

More on point, though: In the eyes of Wikipedia, nobody is "objectively" or "factually" anything at all except insofar as reliable sources say they are. As a subject that not a whole lot has been written about, what reliable texts do exist out there are going to get more play than they would elsewhere. I gave a Lyotard example above, but postmodernism is such a well-developed, if messy, subject that a blog post even by an expert probably wouldn't go all that far unless supported by other sources. By that I mean there are plenty of sources to say Warhol or Koons are postmodern artists, so one source saying a relative newcomer is postmodern wouldn't likely be due to include in the article on postmodernism. With metamodernism, there's less work to draw from so, again, what reliable sources are there will likely be included. Even if a self-published "webzine," it's written by the foremost among the few researchers in this nascent field, which makes them a pretty good source for what counts as metamodern.

Maybe a compromise could be found in the style of presentation used. There's the section heading, which could be changed from "Notable metamodernists" to something akin to "Artists whose work has been characterized as metamodern" (but preferably with fewer words than that). The use of tables also makes it so the lists occupy a great deal of real estate. What if we took the same names and sources, cut down descriptions, and formatted it as a two- or three-column list (sans table)? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I had written the above before seeing Esmeme also proposed something in the same neighborhood. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we're muddling a number of issues here. First, there's the "cosmetic" question, which seems to come down to whether the list of people considered metamodern has prime real estate in the article or not. What Esmeme is suggesting, i.e. putting that information in the main body of the very first section of the article, gives the list prime real estate, i.e. what is _not_ wanted, whereas what is presently the state of things, and what I've suggested, which is that the information be contained in a separate section towards the bottom of the article, meets everyone's goals. I am confused by this idea that moving all this information up in the article makes it _less_ dominant rather than more; clearly, it should stay as it is. The second issue is sourcing, and once again the recommendation made by Esmeme is exactly the opposite of what other editors are suggesting. One editor, for instance, wants no citations from the non-WP:RS blog "Notes on Metamodernism"; in response, strangely, Esmeme proposes that we return the article to a prior state in which the _only_ citations were from that non-WP:RS blog, _and_ (moreover) says we should make that single-sourcing situation (which previously led to this article getting five warnings from the Wikiproject:Philosophy Work Group) _more_ evident by moving up all the "Notes on Metamodernism" names to the head of the article. Meanwhile, User:Felt friend is saying that s/he "only" removed information from "Notes on Metamodernism" but that's clearly not the case--as information from Indiewire, As It Ought to Be, The American Reader, and The Journal of 21st Century Writing was also removed. None of those independent, non-self-published sources are, as the OP claimed, in any way related to "Notes on Metamodernism." So given that we want the list not to have prime real estate, and want to allow Notes on Metamodernism as a source but in no way the _only_ source, why in the world don't we leave things exactly as they are? Festal82 (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: To be more clear (again), the issue is that it seems as though using metamodernism.com as a source outside of (as per suggested) clarifying the founders' views would be a violation of WP:SOAP as the website, as pointed out, is founded and maintained by the creators of "metamodernism" as a terminology, which would be akin to Gabriel Marcel editing the entry for existentialism and using Mystery of Being as the page's primary source. I do agree that whether or not the article is being edited by the owners of metamodernism.com or not is irrelevant for the time being, so long as WP:RS is adequately observed. Additionally, the section in question provided no actual material aiding explanation of the subject as it never rationalized why any of the list entries were relevant to "metamodernism". Ultimately, the page, as it stands now, seems to be no more than a rehash of metamodernism.com. felt_friend 23:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Rhododendrites's suggestion for reformatting and renaming the list is an excellent one. I think Festal82 has misunderstood my last comment, as I was simply stating how the information was previously listed in an effort to arrive at a better solution, but I agree with the need for giving the list less real estate. I also agree with Felt friend that it would be good if there were rationalization as to why these artists are relevant to metamodernism, which was not so much a problem for the pre-list layout that I referred to in my last comment. Esmeme (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Felt_friend, I think that if the only sources that can appear in the article are WP:N sources, yes, we'd have to remove everything from Notes on Metamodernism, in fact everything but content sourced to places like Indiewire, The Huffington Post, The Independent, and so on. If the question is simply whether the information contained in the article is generally reliable, I think that right now all of it is, and therefore there'd be no need to amend the article in the ways you're suggesting. What simply makes no sense to me is re-inserting a list of 32 people identified as "metamodernists" in the main body of the first section of the article, with the only justification being that we can append the phrase "Vermeulen and van den Akker think..." before it. That's simply nonsense on its face, but more importantly it's also untrue--the articles on Notes on Metamodernism identifying those 32 people as "metamodernists" were _not_ written by Vermeulen _or_ Van den Akker, simply freelance writers who had work published on Notes on Metamodernism, so the suggestion by Rhododendrites that this information somehow clarifies the views of Vermeulen and van den Akker simply isn't correct factually (and when Esmeme says, "the article instead [previously] stated those that van den Akker and Vermeulen considered metamodern," that is manifestly untrue). Meanwhile, the position taken by Esmeme now is the same he has taken for months now: Drop all names from the article except those sanctioned by the non-WP:N blog Notes on Metamodernism. But we're not going back down that road. User_talk:Rhododendrites, can you explain more why making "Notable Metamodernists" a list rather than a table substantively changes the article for the better? It seems to me it would simply be harder to read, and less organized. That's especially so if we randomly pick half the names from the list and put them in another section they a) don't belong in, and b) using a justification from Esmeme (that those names were supplied by Vermeulen and van den Akker) that is simply inaccurate. Festal82 (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Felt Friend: It's not even a little bit like the Marcel example. It's like if someone else said "Marcel is a reliable source" and then cited Marcel. You're still operating under the assumption that other editors have a COI. @Festal82: sources don't have to be notable, only reliable. But more to the point, I haven't said having a list clarifies their views, only that if we are to have a list, they seem to be a reliable source. In a previous discussion I had said it did seem to make sense to give examples so long as they're reliably sourced, but I'm not saying a list is necessarily the best way to do that (nor am I saying the opposite :) ). To your point about turning the tables into lists, I didn't intend to make things more complicated; only that it seemed like there was griping that [not only were there such-and-such problems with the lists but also] they're too prominent. I may have misunderstood. Now that people see what I mean (i.e. not moving it up, just cleaning it up and reducing its size), if you don't feel it's an improvement you can go ahead and revert. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is in SERIOUS need of help

Oh come now, you don't actually buy this hogwash do you? The fact that the metamodernists claim William Blake as one of their own, despite being described as "characterized by an alternation between the values and techniques of modernism and those of postmodernism", and despite the fact that Blake not only predated those eras by a century, but belonged staunchly to the Romantic era, *combined* with the fact that most of the people in those list aren't even aware that the word "metamodernist" exists, let alone that it apparently applies to their work, combined with the fact that much of the citations are unreliable and come from metamodernism.com lead me to believe that the section is not only worthless, but purely masturbatory. Do you want to know the truth? After reading the article and looking over its contribution history, it sounds like der Akker and Vermeulen are a couple of professors who decided to make a Wikipedia article so that more people read their blog. To make matters worse, it sounds like they decided to go about that by writing about their own work in the article to make it seem more important than it really is. Where's the meat? If metamodernism is so notable (and not just a vague mishmash of meaningless babble), then where's the meat? It sure isn't in this article. tl;dr: The vast majority of the article is somehow more masturbatory than it is vague (and it's pretty darn vague). This article is in desperate need of being gutted, deleted, or reviewed by many editors. Anyone who looks at this article and sees anything other than what would happen if WP:FRINGE and blogspam had a baby is severely deluding themselves. The fact that Blake is being labeled a metamodernist should show anyone that this article is absolute nonsense. Inanygivenhole (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Inanygivenhole: I agree with quite a bit of your stance. I was a bit afraid to put it so bluntly, but this article does seem like something written by der Akker and Vermeulen to drum up support/notability for their blog. Whether or not William Blake could be considered "metamodern" (a question which I would have to reply "no" to) is irrelevant to the stance of the article on WP. It does however help demonstrate the WP:SYNTH issue: all the information pulled from the reliable sources mentioned is being mixed in with der Akker and Vermeulen's personal blog's opinions to aid in promoting their vanity website. After reviewing more of metamodernism.com, I have changed my stance on the issue at hand. I now agree that the website should be excluded as a source completely as it fails to meet WP:WEB and the background of the blog authors is completely irrelevant to the notability status of metamodernism.com. Sorry guys, but if you want your thoughts taken seriously, try publishing them in a serious manner. felt_friend 00:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I probably should have been clearer: I was only using the Blake claim as an example of how ridiculous and arbitrary the subject of the article is. And while I agree with most of the rest of what you say, I would have to add that they have published in more serious formats and even that isn't enough. We need third party sources reporting on their work, and showing that it's notable enough to be reported on. We need to know that their claims are being taken seriously, too. If we were able to treat every journal article or book like a notable source, we'd be forced to say that Christianity is a shroom-fueled fertility cult because of Allegro's The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. They need to do more than publish in reputable places: they need to be taken seriously! Inanygivenhole (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Inanygivenhole, the mention of William Blake is in a section that I have now retitled "Previous uses of the term" to avoid confusion. This seems unrelated to the metamodernist theory of Vermeulen and van den Akker, but seems to be included in the article for thoroughness. Obviously, Blake's work does not fit within the early 21st century cultural theory that is the topic of this article, and it is not referenced by those theorists. If there is consensus, then perhaps these seemingly unrelated uses of the term should be given less prominence or removed, as they are potentially confusing. Esmeme (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This just exacerbates the issue, in my opinion. Now we have a large portion of the article which is about a (at least one!) separate thing, and now the lede makes no mention of this. Even if we were to add this to the lede the question remains, why not make two separate articles since the two have little (if anything) in common? Yet it's not at all clear (I'd go as far to say they aren't) that the older uses form a coherent whole. So now we have the article split into many different subjects, no single one being very notable by itself. In short, this article appears to be an incoherent mishmash of several different meanings of a buzzword, mixed in with der Akker and Vermeulen's self-promotion of their own work. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm starting to think that this article should just be deleted. Inanygivenhole (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Inanygivenhole:, I agree that the older uses do not form a coherent whole, as they appear unrelated to one another. However, the current use of the term is demonstrably notable, coherent and has reliable sources. I have restored the lead in the meantime, while we build consensus about how to address the issue of previous uses of the term. Esmeme (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Esmeme, you can say the Dumitrescu usage is divergent and I agree. If it goes, I'm fine with that; if it gets its own section entitled "Previous uses of the term," I'm fine with that. But your claim that Mas'ud Zavarzadeh used the term differently than Vermeulen and van den Akker, rather than that the latter men (inadvertently or otherwise) built on that existing usage, is _killing_ this article's chance of survival because it plays into every single claim the OPs are making about this really being a fight for one blog-zine to get its views codified on Wikipedia. If, in contrast, we say that this term has been around for 40 years and NoM and its editors have made a valuable--in fact indispensible--contribution to an ongoing dialogue, we can see _why_ this article is so important and needs to stay. Don't jeopardize the existence of the article for the sake of your pro-NoM agenda. Festal82 (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If they built on its previous usage, that needs to be cited. If not, it can't be included. It doesn't matter if that "kills" the article. That's how Wikipedia works, we cite things. Inanygivenhole (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Inanygivenhole, I don't know what your agenda is, but I'm reasonably certain that you have not read the "History" section of the Wikipedia article entitled postmodernism. Because the project afoot here, to tell the sequential history of uses of the term "metamodernism"--a history now in its fortieth year--is identical, yet you object to it so strenuously. Festal82 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If you had read what I said a little slower, you would have noticed that it meant that I looked at the history of this article. Why are you begging the question (a logical fallacy I should remind you) and raising the irrelevant histories of other articles here? I was concerned about the contributors to this page because it looked masturbatory and self-referrential, and the history only further added to my suspicions. Please assume good faith in the future, as well. This is a community, not a court of law.

I would also like to point out that the term only has a history older than 2010 because of the generic nature of the name (which further leads me to suspect that, because the term's been used in so many different ways, that it's a nonsense buzzword). Unless you'd like to provide a source which links the two (doubtful--they're used pretty differently)? Until then, that claim is at worst false, and at best weaselly. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In two comments whose foundational premise is "WP:AGF," you call the prior contributions of WP editors on this page "nonsense," "masturbatory," and "self-referential" (an unproven claim of conflict-of-interest), and then go on to call my own statements either "false" or "weasel[-like]." No, this isn't a court of law--it's also not an elementary school playground, so please act like it. Go, as I suggested, to the Wikipedia page for postmodernism, and tell me if, at every single stage in the history of that term, every single person who's used it has begun their usage with something like, "Building upon the statements made by my predecessors _______ and _______..." You see, that's nonsense. A term is developed by somebody, and then it gets talked about by many others without direct reference to any/all previous references. Sometimes a dialogue gets started, sometimes everyone is writing about the term on their own. If Metamodernist A called metamodernism a spaceship, and Metamodernist B called metamodernism a piece of broccoli, any editor of good faith would do well to say these people are speaking of two separate ideas. But when you read--as you claim to have read--_this_ article, you see a continuity of thought and rhetoric and argument between Mas'ud Zavarzadeh and Vermeulen and van den Akker that makes clear that this is not (say) one person describing postmodernism as an Oldsmobile, and another describing it as a new iteration of the tango. Your bias here is clear and loudly announced: You think the term means nothing. Great. You are of course entitled to your opinion. Scholars, artists, and major media outlets by the scores disagree with you. So again, your presence on this page to further (yes, I'll say it) your own clearly articulated agenda is confounding to me. Festal82 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Your own statements are false. The usages of the term "metamodernism" predating 2010 are precisely because the word is generic. You are attempting to tie previous uses of a word together inappropriately. That would be like claiming that the word for the bark of a tree is just an extension of the word for the bark of a dog: you're conflating different meanings. You continue to beg the question, how is the way I treat the article for postmodernism, a well-established and well-known movement at all relevant to the way I treat an article about a tiny, unimportant fringe movement? Why do you continue to beg the question? Besides, the matter which is at hand, namely the insertion of unreliable blogs as sources, would be treated the same in both instances: immediate removal.

Irrelevant hypotheticals aside, you continue to accuse me of bias. Since you provide to provide any evidence whatsoever (beyond the nonsensical implication that finding a word which isn't used consistently to be meaningless means that I have bias), I don't see any need to stoop to your level and sling mud. I think my templates have spoken for themselves: you need to calm down. You're so angry that you aren't even signing your comments! Why are you so invested in this article? You really need to sit back and take a breather. This might not be a playground, but I think you could learn something from that analogy: don't take dumb things so seriously. Inanygivenhole (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

On the talk page of @felt_friend I've detailed how uncivil you've been since you arrived here; please do not lecture me. Most of your comments here are either ad hominem, factually false, or violate WP:AGF, WP:OUTING, or WP:NOR. You've also twice deleted my comments from this Talk page, for which (among all the other things) I could report you. All that said, I'm happy to interface with you about this topic because I've been working on this article for months and happen to have a background in its subject; meanwhile, you admit to having no background and yet are lecturing me. The word "metamodernism" is not a "generic" word under any definition of that term, and I accuse you of an agenda for a very simple reason: You admit to knowing nothing about metamodernism in the same breath as saying that it is "a tiny, unimportant fringe movement." It doesn't take original research, or even an assumption of bad faith, to see that you are contradicting yourself--i.e., you feel strongly about a subject you claim to know nothing about, which suggests an unrevealed bias. And I'm not angry, I'm annoyed; also, the person not signing their comments is your friend, @felt_friend. My "unsigned" comments are the ones you removed, which were then put back in by another editor without my signature. As for the "fringe" thing, "metamodernism" was (for starters) covered this year in nearly every single major media outlet in the U.S. and England--just look up "Shia LaBeouf" and you'll find it. Festal82 (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

And I, too, have responded to your comment on that talk page. In your comment, you demonstrated immense ignorance as to what an "ad homenim" actually is, and managed to straw-man or otherwise confuse each and every point I made. I will let that comment speak for itself. Otherwise, you've managed to continuously escalate this discussion by throwing out accusations of bias and ad homenim, and I'm going to remove myself from conversing with you before you manage to somehow escalate it even more (by threatening or otherwise abusing me, I fear). Coverage says nothing about WP:FRINGE. Hell, Ancient Aliens exists... Inanygivenhole (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I never have, and never would, threaten you, nor have I ever threatened anyone on Wikipedia; the thought would not occur to me. I feel you've acted rudely, and I've said so; you and @Felt_friend, who I suspect are the same person, asked for examples of that, and I gave some. Your comments here cross so quickly from ad hominem attacks to other forms of fallacious argument that I'm certain at times I muddled which comments I was describing with which term--but my feeling stands, that you've acted poorly here and have evinced no real interest in, or understanding of, the topic you're trying to edit. Or--now, suddenly--see deleted. But I'm happy to have us not interact; I see "Rhododendrites" as adding a great deal to this conversation, and I disagree with "Esmeme" on nearly everything but nevertheless believe him committed to improving this article (in his own way), but you and @Felt_friend are late arrivers who seem to want nothing more than to make the uneasy peace between the editors here fall apart. In any case, good luck to you. Festal82 (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't know what an ad homenim attack is. It is very clear from the way you use it. Your repeated baseless accusations, and straw-mannings of what I say are getting tired. Don't bother responding to me until you can respond to what I've actually said (read: have a conversation) with something that actually makes sense. My response on felt_friend's talkpage still speaks for itself: your responses are confused and incoherent, and I would strongly suggest that you take a break from Wikipedia until you can learn to edit it calmly. Inanygivenhole (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(not) Notable metamodernists

If something is notable it would have more than one source. Basically this list is from metamodernism.com, with an additional eight people. This should be made clear in prose form- "Metamodernism.com says that ...." "Other people whose work has been labelled metamodernist are..." The section heading could be "Artists associated with metamodernism" (though very strangely there are no artists in the list). Bhny (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bhny: I've mentioned this all up and down this talk page, but I've opened a thread about the reliability of metamodernism.com here on RSN. Since you seem to have some input on the subject, it would greatly help resolve the conflict relating to this page if we could get some other editors to share their ideas on the matter of whether or not mm.com is reliable. felt_friend 20:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I've included the prose. Whether or not it's reliable is separate from identifying the bias of the source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: I strongly agree with Bhny's suggestion that the heading be changed to "Artists associated with metamodernism", as this is much less contentious, and there is consensus for this above. With the new layout, however, now that the topic of the entire article has shifted towards being about the term metamodernism in general, and not the prominently understood definition as introduced by Vermeulen/den Akker, it is not clear which definition these artists are associated with. Is it all or any of them? Should we add William Blake? (This would seem pretty absurd.) I think the layout needs to be adjusted somehow to avoid such ambiguity. Any suggestions? Esmeme (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Esmeme: I suggest we add "artists associated with metamodernism by [person]" to the relevant sections. For instance, those identified as "metamodern" by Vermeulen and den Akker would be listed under their section. Since the article now divides the separate definitions provided by various individuals, it would make more sense in my opinion to list their examples under their sections. I strongly believe this would help the clarity of the article as it doesn't make much sense to detail the different definitions provided right before a section that could be interpreted as implying everyone listed in it is objectively "metamodern". felt_friend 15:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Esmeme:, @Ricky81682:, and @Bhny:, I agree with Felt friend, which makes me think we might be making progress here. I think that if we're going to provide various readings of the term, we can attach names mentioned in/by that reading with/to each reading. Zavarzadeh mentions names, as does Dumitrescu, as do Vermuelen and van den Akker, et cetera. That way we still have the names in the article to help guide scholarly and popular conversation of the term for those using the article for that purpose, but don't give the impression that there is a consensus as to where metamodernism manifests when no such consensus exists. Festal82 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

BOLD idea

I removed the bland 'here is who I consider a metamodernists' comments here. In contrast, the Dumitrescu analysis of William Blake is listed precisely because Dumitrescu is defining "metamodernism" with some specificity. Similarly, the Museum of Arts and Design sentence lists the artists but they are there because the museum thinks their work is metamodernism which gives some further information about the exhibit. Simply saying "this person's work is metamodernist" doesn't help define the term or describe how they work is an example of metamodernism to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a very good way to go about things. Namedropping without any context whatsoever really doesn't add anything to the article at all. Inanygivenhole (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The Lede

In trying to come up with a lede for metamodernism, I've been looking at other philosophical terms of a related genus: postmodernism and modernism. As all of the definitions for metamodernism presently in the Wikipedia article position metamodernism relative to these other two concepts, that seems like a sensible way to go forward. Here's the opening to the postmodernism article on Wikipedia:

Postmodernism is a late-20th-century movement in the arts, architecture, and criticism that was a departure from modernism. Postmodernism includes skeptical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, history, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism.

And here's the opening for modernism:

Modernism is a philosophical movement that, along with cultural trends and changes, arose from wide-scale and far-reaching transformations in Western society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Among the factors that shaped Modernism was the development of modern industrial societies and the rapid growth of cities, followed then by the horror of World War I.

So I am suggesting this for metamodernism, a sort of melange of the two options above:

Metamodernism is a post-postmodern movement of the late 20th and early 21st centuries that both departs from and is informed by modernism and postmodernism. While divergent readings of the term in the arts and in criticism have been offered since the 1970s, a common feature of its usage is treatment of metamodernism as a mediation between important principles of modernism and postmodernism.

Thoughts?Festal82 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Definite improvement, centers lede on most salient consensus detail: being post- Postmodernism. I made the change. Darmokand (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Updated article

I tried to synthesize the consensuses reached here in the latest update of the article: moved "notable" names to paragraphs associated with specific theorists or critics; changed lede per above discussion with Darmokand; removed header tags that no longer apply; moved "notable" names not attached to any specific theorist or critic, but merely to notable media outlets, to the slightly elongated "Reception" section. I hope this is all right, and that I've read the consensus correctly based on what everyone is saying above. I'm sure additional sourcing can/should be added at various points just to strengthen the article, and certainly there are names of metamodernists associated with Zavarzadeh's and Dumitrescu's analyses that need to be added, but all in all it seems an improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festal82 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Finally, some progress

It sounds like most of the issues addressed above have been nicely dealt with. A couple of things seem to remain, however.

1. The "History" section is now enormous, and it's not clear why it's called "history" when it deals with things in the very recent past. I propose splitting the usage from 2010 and onwards, but only the uses which can be linked via authors attributing each other (academic citations as well as namedropping in articles works just fine, and does not at all violate WP:SYNTH), or by reliable independent sources lumping them together. The Vermeulen/der Akker-LaBeouf link seems pretty solid, and anyone associating themselves with them should be included there as well, IMO.

2. LaBeouf's involvement, and especially his brand of metamodernism as given in the manifesto, should be given more attention. LaBeouf's involvement has attracted a lot of coverage, and is a clear example of an artist who self-identifies as a "metamodernist". Perhaps giving der Akker and Vermeulen's section a subsection about LaBeouf and Turner would be in order.

I see something along the lines of:

==History==
Everything until 2010. Uses not associated with the below antedating 2010.
==Vermeulen-der Akker==
Words about their articles and perhaps things from their blog.
===LaBeouf, Turner and the ''Metamodernist Manifesto''===
More words, [[WP:RS]]-material about it, with cautious inclusion of text from the Manifesto itself.
===Others===
People directly associated with either of the above.

Excellent work boys. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting this "they have to be linked together" thing from. The article clearly states that they may not be linked together. If they exist, then it can be rewritten but it's entirely possible for there to be multiple independent meanings until a philosophy is really developed (see Posthumanism for example). A fair article can say "here's a term that has multiple different meanings and their separate uses." It's not like we're only using the Vermeulen/der Akker-LaBeouf definition on its own. To deny the different past faded meanings would be giving WP:UNDUE impact to the current one unless those things go so far away to be considered WP:FRINGE (and they aren't that). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what I am saying. The way that the material is presented right now is fine, since it has been substantially rephrased. Now what I am suggesting is moving some of the more closely associated material into one section. Putting these things under any more specific header than, say, "History", implies that they are related, and we need to be aware of this. With that in mind, I am suggesting a way of restructuring the article so that it is not essentially a prose list of people who have used the word "metamodernism", but rather an article broken up into several , well-defined sections. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It definitely is a sign of progress that I think I'm on the same page as Inanygivenhole on this. The "History" section could definitely use subheaders to make it more readable, provided they're not hyper-literal--e.g., just dividing the history of the term's usage by definition. What I've done is made four headers that I hope are consistent with what's being discussed here: (1) Origins (i.e., 1975-2010); (2) Vermeulen and van den Akker (i.e., 2010); (3) The Metamodernist Manifesto (i.e., 2011); and (4) Recent Usages (i.e., usages from the last couple years, which I'm sure will be added to as other artists and scholars use the term in high-profile ways).

I feel like we could then beef up the Metamodernist Manifesto section with some articles on Shia LaBeouf from major media sources, and the "Origins" section by noting some of those Zavarzadeh identified as metamodern (just as has been done with others who've used the term). Also, notes on major exhibitions, et cetera, seem to go well in the previously far-too-small "Reception" section, so I tried them out there. Festal82 (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As someone who has been researching metamodernism for some years now, I was quite surprised to read the updated Wikipedia page – so much so, indeed, that I felt necessitated to create a wiki account and edit this page. Though I am pleased to see a history of the various uses of the notion of metamodernism, I am less impressed by the suggestive tone. The entry now seems to be nothing more than an introduction to Seth Abramson’s underdeveloped, derivative use of metamodernism – which is strange, given that all of the theories described are academic theories that have passed peer review, except for Abramson’s, which has been formulated, as far as I can tell, across a number of blog posts. If we are to believe the changes made by Festal, which I understand from the talk page to be Abramson, all other uses of metamodernism are premised on the same notion (mediation), except for his, which is the first “different” definition. I very much doubt Dumitrescu, Velmeulen and Van Den Akker, and James and Seshagiri would agree, seeing as each of their conceptualizations addresses an entirely different phenomenon in entirely different ways. Each of these to me seems to be a different definition, one proposing harmony in literature (Dumitrescu), one mapping a shifting cultural and political paradigm (Velmeulen and Van Den Akker) and one describing, evocatively and in some detail, the return of modernist tropes in contemporary literature (James and Seshagiri). The reductive selection of phrases and normative words use to describe these theories give an unfair image. To describe James and Seshagiri’s theory – written in the influential journal PMLA – as “merely a reaction” is exemplary here. I also cannot imagine Velmeulen and Van Den Akker, whose theory has had quite an impact, to be happy with the description of their use of metamodernism as simply the return of modernist positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metamodernwoman (talk • contribs) 06:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Metamodernwoman (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC) I have made some minor changes that make the entry more objective.Metamodernwoman (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This all feels very familiar. An SPA WP account comes to the article with a bizarre obsession with Seth Abramson. Sure, the article on metamodernism is 10,000 words about various people in metamodernism and just a couple hundred or so about Abramson, but somehow "the entry now seems to be nothing more than an introduction to Seth Abramson's underdeveloped, derivative use of metamodernism." The new editor assures the "Talk" page that some edits will be made simply to ensure the article is "unbiased"--and goes on to add loaded language to only one section of the article, the section pertaining to Abramson. This new SPA also begins using charged language about Abramson right on the "Talk" page--adjectives like "suggestive," "strange," derivative." Anyone reading the "Talk" page would think Festal82 was Timotheus Vermeulen--as that is the allegation that keeps floating around here--but no, this SPA has special insight: Festal82 is Abramson, the SPA cries! There are also strange (dare I say derivative?) inconsistencies in the SPA's account of things: For instance, the SPA is obsessed with focusing on "peer-reviewed" publications, but somehow manages to find a blog that is not considered an academic journal (sacre bleu! could it be Notes on Metamodernism?) to be not only peer-reviewed but "academic." Those words are quickly added to the entry. Meanwhile, WP:N publications that are edited, like The Huffington Post and Indiewire, are wrongly denominated "blogs," likely in preparation for the next "stage" of edits, in which these WP:N publications will be removed from the entry, even as Notes on Metamodernism is given additional focus in the article and--most amazingly--a theory of metamodernism that describes it as simply an adjunct of modernism is given additional prominence in an article establishing metamodernism as a discrete concept. I'd dispute with you about which definitions above are derivative, but (a) you're an SPA with the same agenda, conveniently, as several other accounts editing here, and (b) this isn't a forum to discuss metamodernism, though you've done that here. For all that, I've retained your edits (e.g., the removal of "different," the insistence that James have his own section) but removed all your WP:SYNTH content per WP guidelines. Festal82 (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe my doubts and comments should be discarded just because I am a SPA - there is something very undemocratic to this reasoning. As a PhD student working on metamodernism, I am a concerned citizen. There was talk at a conference about the recent changes to this page mentioned above and I felt the need to nuance some amendments. There has been so much academic discourse around various metamodernisms the past years of which Abramson's theory is not a part yet for some reason he is both 1. the endpoint of the debate; and 2. one of the most cited authors of this entry. This is not at all to discount Abramson or the quality of his writing, or have a discussion about what metamodernism means and for whom. This is just to back-up the claims made above. In response to your unnecessarily cynical remarks about Notes on metamodernism: as far as I can see it is archived by google scholar and the British Library: http://www.webarchive.org.uk/ukwa/target/65208786/source/alpha Articles published on the site are further referenced in academic articles. I have no stake in defending this website - nor did I, by the way, at any point list it under the peer review journals - but some of the repeated criticism here is unfounded and needs to be put into perspective. Also, although my use of the word derivative was indeed charged (and I duly apologize), I think the editing history shows I have done nothing but remove suggestive language and nuanced one or two phrasings. I am surprised to see Festal has removed mention of Dumitrescu and Turner within the section on Abramson, since it is clear to all scholars working on metamodernism that their proactive use of the term precedes Abramson's. What could be the reason for its removal? I will not add the names again, because I have a feeling Festal will remove them again. So I have no intention to make any further edits here as it stands. Metamodernwoman (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean to discard your doubts or comments; in fact, I maintained your edits and merely removed WP:SYNTH content--and as little as I could, at that. Re: academicism, let us be honest: Far and away the most vibrant conversation (globally) surrounding metamodernism right now is that sponsored by actor Shia LaBeouf, a non-academic who is now collaborating in highly visible ways with other non-academics. In this context, articles on metamodernism in popular media become a part of the conversation. That said, it's only a minor part--I agree with you. That's probably why all of the Abramson material is confined to a single, small section well down in the article. If I put the James material below it, it was only because the "History" section is chronological, just like the "History" section of the articles on postmodernism and modernism. Note that there has been criticism of NoM on the "Talk" page, but not in the article; and frankly, were anyone to put it in there I would join you in removing it, as once NoM is/is not deemed a WP:RS (reliable source) its presence or absence in the article must be entirely neutral. In any case, I don't intend any ill will; the problem is that Abramson has never cited Dumitrescu, as far as I can see, and Luke Turner has been so public about saying that Abramson has nothing to do with his reading of metamodernism that we can't justify lumping him in with Abramson. Re: derivative, one of the controlling debates in metamodernism, as you surely know, regards the metaphoric analogy attached thereto, and right now there are only three models: "fusion" (Zavarzadeh and his immediate successors); "oscillation" and "polarity" (mentioned repeatedly by Dumitrescu, Vermeulen, van den Akker, and Turner); and "transcendence," mentioned only by Abramson. You may find the argument that metamodernism produces the transcendence of what Abramson calls "polar spectra" unpersuasive, but that does not make it not new. Even so, per your suggestion I agree with the removal of "different," as it risks WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Festal82 (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Metamodernwoman: see WP:NOTHERE and WP:You are not a reliable source felt_friend 22:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Why were perfectly legitimate sources - academic journal and US art magazines - removed? They speak to the (completely unfounded) criticism above that the discussion about this definition is only had on one webzine. I will add more sources soon so that any discussion - initiated for whatever reason - becomes redundant. Restored.Durygordonn (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please start a new subheading with a diff point to what you are talking about. That would be the ideal way to discuss this. It would be preferable to organize it with a discussion for each source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sad to see after all these years that Wikipedia still doesn't really have guidelines for dealing with this sort of editing situation. All the ones that were in place have failed miserably. That aside, I think that keeping the discussion clean using subheaders is a must if we are to come to any sort of finished product. If we cannot communicate properly (and, I must add, coherently), this nonsense will never come to an end. Thanks Ricky. Inanygivenhole (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Some improvements/suggestions

I've made a number of mostly minor changes, going through the article sentence by sentence in an attempt to improve it, and replacing contentious sources with reliable ones. I've set out each of these changes with their own subheading below, and welcome other editors' comments:

Zavarzadeh

I've removed the word "first" from the sentence: "The word metamodern was first used", since I can't find a source that demonstrates this was the first use of the word, and this may constitute WP:ORIGINAL. Given the generic nature of the meta- prefix, it may have been used previously, for all we know. I am also still unconvinced that this usage should be listed as constituting an "origin", as the subject of the article was/is the cultural paradigm of metamodernism, and Zavarzadeh does not appear to even use the word "metamodernism" itself, and I really doubt his usage is directly related to post-postmodernism, given the year. From what I can gather, he is perhaps using it as simply another term for a type of postmodernism, before the popularity of that term came into play, which perhaps only confuses matters here.

I agree with removing the word "first," for the reason you cited. In the article Zavarzadeh uses both the word "metamodern" and describes a specific tendency in literary art as "Metamodernist," making it unclear how the many texts he cites could (using his own terms) be described as anything but examples of metamodernism. According to the postmodernism article on Wikipedia, "as a general theory for a historical movement [the term "postmodern"] was first used in 1939 by Arnold J. Toynbee." Seems like 36 years later someone might be writing about what follows postmodernism, so calling 1975 too early for the post-postmodernity debate is counterhistorical. He is most definitely not creating "simply another term for a type of postmodernism," as the text clearly describes as "anti-modernism" and "paramodernism" those historical tendencies described by postmodernism--and distinguishes metamodernism from these. Festal82 (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

For scholars of cultural or literary theory, I'd think the above assessment is quite troubling and counter-historical. According to The Postmodern Condition, Lyotard's 1979 book "introduced the term 'postmodernism', which was previously only used by art critics, in philosophy." I'd appreciate if other editors with expertise in this field could comment on the above. Esmeme (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop and think for a moment: Zavarzadeh is a literary theorist, not an "art critic," and we know for a fact that he repeatedly used the word "postmodernism" in the 1975 article we've cited here. So how in the world can you say that "postmodernism" was "only used by art critics" before 1979? The dictionary says the first use of the word was in 1925; Wikipedia says the 19th century; and certainly the word was being used in the literary arts by the late 1950s. You are speaking only of the usage of the term in philosophy. Metamodernism is not merely a term in philosophy, however, but also in literary criticism, art criticism, cultural studies, et cetera. You can keep asking until you get an answer you like, but you've already gotten the correct answer. Festal82 (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I was merely voicing my concerns, and asking for further assistance from additional editors with more specialist knowledge in an effort to improve the article. For the umpteenth time, please stop your hostile attitude and WP:AGF. Esmeme (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay...I will try harder. I've struggled with it re: you, as you know, but I do believe in WP:AGF and will try to honor it here. Festal82 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Okediji, Furlani and Dumitrescu

There are still no secondary sources for either Okediji, Furlani or Dumitrescu. If, as appears, they are introducing different definitions, and not simply referring to Zavarzadeh's definition, then secondary sources should be found. If no secondary sources can be found, what should be done here?

WP:NOR says "reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia....to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." In other words, primary sources are fine, and can be followed with descriptive statements about the sources that are straightforward; I agree that for more interpretive content, a secondary source is needed. But as no one has added interpretive content, we don't have a problem yet. Festal82 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why the section is so bland and blocky: "A said this, B said this..." If you don't have more, it's hard to work with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

European Scientific Journal

According to Crazytales earlier on this talk page, The European Scientific Journal that Ricky81682 further quoted from (I'm sure in good faith) in the last update "isn't that reliable of a source. Jeffrey Beall lists it (or will, soon) in his list of predatory open access publishers." Myself and a number of other editors used it in good faith previously (prompting the usual outrageous accusations by Festal of "scamming"), and so I have removed any references to it from the page. If anyone has information to the contrary, please let it be known.

Many weeks ago, I did say that you--not anyone else--were at the time engaged in a "scam" inasmuch as all the WP:Reliable Sources we had said that Shia LaBeouf wrote the Metamodernist Manifesto, and you erased all those sources to put in their place an article from a predatory publishing site that claimed Luke Turner wrote the Manifesto. You've since dug up some other sources suggesting Turner wrote the Manifesto, but at the time your casual dismissal of articles in The Guardian and The Independent saying otherwise was indeed very troubling, and not just to me. I'm glad this was resolved, however. Festal82 (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd ask both of you to move past the past. I'll agree with that removal. The article was from a strange enough authorship. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Ricky81682, and I shouldn't have brought up the past. Esmeme (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Festal82 (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Vermeulen and van den Akker

After removing citations from the ESJ, which means there are now no artist names listed in this section, I found some useful passages from the US art magazines that were mentioned above, which seem to be good sources, and I added an additional sentence citing Vermeulen and van den Akker's original text. I have also fleshed out the Turner/LaBeouf section with a number of good sources from high profile media outlets, linking their activities with metamodernism, and clarifying LaBeouf's statement about meta-modernist performance art. As a synopsis of the key events of Turner/LaBeouf/Ronkko's metamodern performance project, this seems to now fit in better here, but as there's a lot of fairly confusing information to fit in, I hope this achieves the intended brevity and clarity. I've also substituted one of the quotes from the manifesto for a more informative one, which is also quoted in one of the secondary sources.

Abramson

The Web del Sol page cited here appears to be just an author profile linking to Abramson's Huffington Post blog. I've clarified the text to reflect this.

Essays published in the Books section of The Huffington Post are submitted to an editor--it is not appropriate to say "Abramson's blog." Especially as we've all agreed not to call Notes on Metamodernism, a site you frequently site, "Luke Turner's blog" or "Robin van den Akker's blog" when NoM is not a WP:RS as yet and the site is structured as a blog. Mind you, I agree, based on recent research, that it ought not be treated as a blog, but neither should The Huffington Post. If it were a blog, anyone could write articles for The Huffington Post, which of course is not so. Festal82 (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, Abramson himself has cleared this up and said his Huffington Post column should be called "a blog" in a radio interview here [1] at 5m10s, so I think we can call this a blog. Your statement that "if it were a blog, anyone could write articles for The Huffington Post" makes no sense, as there are millions of blogs on sites like the New York Times that obviously not just anybody can write articles for. Esmeme (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I listened to the interview and he didn't say "[my] column should be called a blog." The host of the interview called them "articles" and wasn't sure if it was a "blog" or a "column," and Abramson said "it was a matter of some dispute" (referring to the structure of The Huffington Post as a whole, not merely his column) but added "I guess it's safe for now [to call it a blog]"--i.e., for the sake of the interview and not starting up a whole conversation about the structure of The Huffington Post. Hardly a clear statement. In any case, I edited the text to make this a non-issue. Festal82 (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The full quote from that interview, stating what Abramson thinks, is this: "I think that's a matter of some dispute, but I think you'd probably call it a blog. As you know, the setup of the Huffington Post is rather confusing, and there's a lot of news articles on how it's all set up, but I think you'd call it a blog. I guess that's safe for now."[2].

Also, please stop your unfounded accusations that I "frequently" cite Notes on Metamodernism, as my edit history shows this is blatantly untrue, and that I have not added any citations from that website since concerns were raised some months ago. Esmeme (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I retract that comment and apologize. Festal82 (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

See Also list

I've removed Digimodernism from the list, since this page has been deleted. I've also removed Intertextuality, since it is not an art movement/genre like the other links here, but a postmodern literary technique. I don't really know what this was doing here, especially given that one of the sources cited was "Semiotics for Beginners", which doesn't even mention metamodernism. Perhaps the editor was confusing metamodernism with metatextuality? Also, should post-postmodernism be added to this list, as it appears notable by its absence? Esmeme (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Further removal of other metamodernists

My edit summary here is wrong (I didn't move it before) but I think it's in line with the prior reasoning. I have no issues with "this piece/this film/this act is an example" but it's hard to say "this person is a metamodernist" (see the Dumitrescu discussion on William Blake), especially when it's not the person themselves. Other views? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Further, six of those sources are Abramson himself so I wouldn't say it is described by "popular, scholarly, and mass media" rather than saying he identifies them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this might be one of those situations in which cross-edits inadvertantly "created" the problem. That list of names was originally divided up, with each inserted into the appropriate section of the article (e.g., Dumitrescu, Vermeulen, Abramson, &c) making it sufficient to provide the names and article links because a reader would know that, to use your example, if Abramson was calling Reggie Watts a metamodernist it was likely consistent with the definition of metamodernism provided by Abramson in the paragraph preceding the mention of Watts. While several cites are attributable to Abramson, many others are from Notes on Metamodernism, suggesting they should be in their own appropriate section as well (i.e. in the Vermeulen section). Is there any harm in leaving those names and cites in the appropriate subsections? Festal82 (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

They aren't useful and could be misleading? I haven't looked at excessive detail but just Bolano and Gondry's citations alone concern me. Just because the source passes WP:RS doesn't give carte blanche to misrepresent what that person meant. I'm not certain about the William Blake argument but it's from a source that at least put in detail and description what he means by metamodernist when he claims that Blake is one. Look at LaBeouf, Simpson, they are extensively broken out and actually provide enough information for legitimate context. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not against including them but give some context to why they should be included. And given the time I've spent on breaking down the sources you dumped here (like repeatedly citing Abramson's work as an example of mass media rather than calling them his own self-interested blog views), it's clear that this will require a lot of work. Don't just google the word and throw junk here to see what sticks, it's going to be attacked mercilessly and misrepresenting sources is ultimately a bad way to go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I suggest we WP:AGF and turn down the temperature a little, as you yourself have elsewhere suggested. You're referring to my edits as a "dumping" and "throwing junk," and accused me of "misrepresenting sources." The sources you unpack below aren't sources I put into the article, so please don't put them on me. As far as accusing an article in a WP:RS of being "self-interested" without explaining what that even means--are we saying that all opinion essays in WP:RS must be removed from WP because they represent the view of an author?--I'm not sure what to say. Likewise, the phrase "blog views" to describe selected and edited content on The Huffington Post sounds suspiciously like you yourself are misrepresenting what a source is because (for unclear reasons) you don't like what it says. Feel free to make your edits, but I can't promise I won't undo them later if you're not going to discuss them beyond challenging my good faith and making loaded comments about specific sources that suggest you don't have a NPOV. I have to say, I have no idea where your hostility is coming from--we haven't had any negative interactions that I can recall, in fact I think I've supported most of your efforts. Festal82 (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll strike all that. Please feel free to be bold and reinsert it if you like but I highly suggest you review the source material yourself. If you want to add them, I'll assume you're standing behind the text and how the sources are represented. "I didn't read what I reverted to put back" isn't helpful. I'd say you have a habit of throwing whatever you can find, context or not, and leaving everyone to sift through and point by point respond. I don't care where the material comes from, misrepresenting what that author says bothers me immensely. It took you three seconds to revert it, me an hour to review and question it. It wastes a significant amount of time to correct (people pulled that with off-line sources, claiming books said all sorts of things, it can years to figure out and fix). Now, honestly, are you saying that Abramson's HP posts constitute "mass media" views of the material or his own views? Do you still think it should be there or as "Abramson considers the following people" like we did with Vermeulen and van den Akker (before cutting it)? Describe what you want to do. Being bold is fine but if you're questioned, you should be willing to provide more of an justification than "I didn't read it, don't blame me." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, I want this to be constructive. So my suggestion would be, if you think an article represents a specific view of the subject, put the link to it in the appropriate section of the article. So if you find an article "self-interested" in that it describes metamodernism in a particular way, there's a way to handle that without dumping or otherwise maligning the source. I see several articles that should go in the Vermeulen and van den Akker section, for instance, rather than a catch-all "Reception" section--and that are not merely non-substantive lists/name-aggregations like the "art exhibit" content I pasted below. Festal82 (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

On follow-up, I'm very confused. I haven't reverted your edits. I reverted edits made by "Felt Friend" which removed 14 sources with no discussion, and I had familiarity with enough of those 14 to say "let's put these back and then take them out selectively." You found two sources that seem bad--ok, let's remove those. But just because I think many of the others should stay in doesn't mean I didn't read them; I did. And I'll repeat that if you think the phrase "mass media" is misleading--and I didn't write it, BTW--yes, remove those links to the Abramson section. Festal82 (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

But you inserted them all back as a whole so why should we take them all there (which includes living people at WP:BLP applies as well) rather than remove the text first (see WP:BURDEN). Did you have any problem with this edit? Your views on the Vermeulen and van den Akker text are inconsistent with them on the Abramson one to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Festal82:, why did you insert it again? You've provided no actual reasoning here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: I explained more in my comment below, and in my comment above, but I will explain again here: Third-party sources that do not substantively illuminate the terms of a given reading of metamodernism, but merely mention that someone somewhere acknowledged that metamodernism exists, belong in the "Reception" section for the reading of metamodernism to which they are related--that's why I had no problem at all with the museum/curation links being kept in the article if they were going into the "Reception" section for Vermeulen and van den Akker. They're there now, and I support their placement wholeheartedly. By contrast, primary sources which further illuminate the reading of metamodernism provided by Abramson should go in the "Abramson" section (not the "Reception" section), because they add substantive content to that reading. The same holds true for primary sources written by Zavarzadeh, Okediji, Vermeulen, van den Akker, Turner, Dumitrescu, et cetera. Festal82 (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ricky81682:P.S. I'm merely agreeing with what you wrote on July 4th (see the archive of the "Talk" page)--you said that a primary source that uses the word "metamodernism" is "useful material" if "the source explains what he means by the [usage]." Those articles by Abramson, just like similar articles by Vermeulen and van den Akker and Dumitrescu, are indeed "useful material" because they explain what is meant by a particular usage of the term, in that case Abramson's. I agree they'd be out of place in a "Reception" section (which is where they had been put previous to my recent edit), but they are not out of place in a section substantively delineating a specific reading of metamodernism. If you'd like us to draw out specific quotes from those articles rather than just mentioning the names they use in discussing metamodernism, we can do that; I only didn't do it yet because I thought it might take up a little more room than necessary. But I am happy to make that edit if you think it's better. Festal82 (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Roberto Bolaño

Including Roberto Bolaño seems inappropriate based on this source: it is discussing Bolano's story "Days of 1978" but all it says is that the work has been "variously an anti-stylist realist or metamodernist coyote-trickster" by unnamed "teachers and critics." It's a major stretch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Michael Gondry

Including Michael Gondry based on this article is strange because it's an anonymous statement by the French cultural embassy about his work at a French film festival. There's no explanation, no context here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ankit Love's Mist

According to the source, Love calls Mist a "magazine for the meta-modern age." To me, he's not saying that his magazine is meta-modernist but calling the age metamodernist without any context for that statement. The magazine doesn't even describe itself with the words metamodernist in any manner. I've removed the reference here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about Love's inclusion. There seems to be a lot of content out there linking him with metamodernism, but this tends to be of the nature of simply calling him a "seminal metamodernist"[3] or quite vague statements such as "His works have put him at the forefront of the new artistic movement termed ‘Metamodernism’"[4], without going into detail. Esmeme (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-Substantive Content

I removed the content below because I'm unable to distinguish it from all the "name-dropping" content that has lately been removed. The text below states the bald fact of two art exhibits without saying how this gives us a broader or deeper view of Vermeulen and van den Akker's theories; it would be different if the links were to essays on the Dutchmen's theories, but in fact they're just stating "this happened," which is not value for content. Festal82 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Link. Quoting it with references creates a mess on the talk page. You can't distinguish third parties like the Museum of Arts and Design and a third-party curator from repeatedly linking Abrahmson's personal Huffington Post articles? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the content is worth including at all or just summarized instead? I'm just trying to figure out where you're going with this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my concern. Articles by Abramson expounding upon Abramson's definition of metamodernism add depth to the definition--i.e., additional content. If they took up much room I'd say they were a waste, but adding "Artists identified by Abramson as metamodern include..." with three or four links takes up one sentence at the end of the Abramson section. Big deal. In contrast, the paragraphs I took out--two whole paragraphs--don't expand upon anything. All they do is say, "Hey, some rando curator you've never heard of threw a party one day and identified these people as metamodernists." Who cares about that? We don't know the curator's definition of anything, so the list of people they curated is floating in air with no referent point. I'm sorry, I don't see how the problem there is hard to understand. To put it more simply: Why not put those paragraphs in a "Reception" section at the bottom of the article, i.e. a section noting notable third-party adoptions of the term metamodern? Why put it in the Vermeulen/van den Akker section, as though it's somehow illuminating the views of the two men when it's not? Festal82 (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully my edit below solves this problem. Festal's apparent contempt towards the serious, and academic, profession of curation leaves something to be desired though, I must say. Esmeme (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good edit, and it does solve the problem. FWIW, my concern was only about the proper placement of curation data in an article about a philosophical term on Wikipedia--I hardly feel contempt, or animus of any kind, for the act of curation. Now that it's in a "Reception" section rather than one seeking to define a term, I see no issues. Festal82 (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Bold edit - rearranged sections

I've rearranged the sections and subheadings, giving Vermeulen and Abramson's sections 'Reception' subheadings of their own. I think this makes the page much clearer. What do people think? One issue, however, is where to put James and Seshagiri's piece, as it looks a bit odd giving it its own section. I've also restored the museum and exhibition paragraphs for the time being, as I believe they are useful and important third-party examples of metamodernism in action, but obviously this is an ongoing discussion above. Esmeme (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The James and Seshagiri pieces will be difficult to work with unless someone can see the actual article. I'm curious if I can access them from HeinOnline. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Would be great if you're able to, or if someone else has access. It'd be good to know if they're proposing a substantial new definition, or building on Vermeulen/Akker's (in which case they might be able to be integrated in that section). Esmeme (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

American Book Review

I've added a sentence on the American Book Review. I was unsure whether to include named examples of the subjects of the essays, given the above conversation, so please advise. Esmeme (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible hoax articles on Huffington Post

I've been doing a bit of digging--which I know constitutes original research, but this is perfectly acceptable on talk pages according to WP:OR--and I've discovered some potentially worrying articles published on both Abramson's and Jesse Damiani's Huffington Post blogs, which I think are relevant to the discussions above. Damiani is Abramson's fellow "Series Co-Editor for Best American Experimental Writing".[5] In case there was was any remaining doubt about the term "blog", their articles prominently display the words "The Blog" at the top of each page, and their names appear in the "Blogger Index" here. Given the way the Huffington Post operates, It's unclear by what process these articles are edited, and by whom, if at all. I've outlined my concerns in the subsections below.

Abramson

Within the past 24 hours, Abramson tweeted a link to his Huffington Post blog, with the words "Clickbait #4"[6]. This links to a two-part article called "The Metamodern Intervention": Part 1, Part 2.

At first sight, this purports to be a republished academic article on the history of the term metamodernism, which ties together Zavarzadeh's usage with Vermeulen/Akker's definition, which we've been struggling to do for some time on this very page. However, on closer inspection, the piece looks suspiciously like a hoax in the form of a literary forgery, not least for the following reasons:

• There doesn't appear to be any trace of this essay anywhere else apart from Abramson's article.
• As far as I can establish, the claimed source of the essay, Eeuw: Cultur in de Nederlanden in interdisciplinair perspectief, simply does not exist. The name of this fictional journal appears to be taken from a legitimate journal on 17th century culture: De Zeventiende Eeuw. Cultuur in de Nederlanden in interdisciplinair perspectief, which translates as "The Seventeenth Century. Culture in the Netherlands in interdisciplinary perspective". The word "Seventeenth" has just been removed in Abramson's post, possibly in order to give the impression of a genuine journal, for anyone casually googling the title.
• As far as I can establish, Aart Naaktgeboren, the supposed author, also does not exist. The only person I can find named Aart Naaktgeboren (a very uncommon name, from what I can tell) did indeed attend the University of Utrecht, but graduated in 1981 with a PhD in Polymer Chemistry [7].
• It appears highly likely, then, that this is a work of creative writing by Abramson, especially as the same text also appears on his page on the creative writing platform, Ink Node[8].
• The piece finishes with the rather revealing line, "Still, we cannot help but ascribe to such amorphous and divergent historical realities as those of metamodernism's birth all the contradictory qualities of metamodernism itself, and find therein at least some momentary satisfaction."[9]
• The article was published less than 24 hours after references to Zavarzadeh, previously unmentioned on Wiki, first started to appear on the Wiki page, as shown here. The content of the article bears a striking resemblance to the additions made at that time.
• I'm speculating here, but to my eyes it seems as though all this is trying to legitimize a falsely synthesized linear history, linking together potentially unrelated previous uses of the term metamodernism in a pseudo-academic context, for whatever reason.

Damiani

On 9 July, Damiani published the following article, purporting to describe a "Metamodernist Manifesto" authored by James Franco. However, this article also seems highly suspicious because:

• As far as I can see, there is no mention of this manifesto in any other news source, or anywhere else, other than Damiani's article.
• The domain was registered on 8 July, just a day before Damiani's article was published [10].
• The manifesto itself [11] is just a Wordpress blog with no date or citations.
• The content of the manifesto directly lifts passages from Zavarzadeh that appear in Abramson's article detailed above, which also appeared on the metamodernism Wikipedia page as mentioned above.
• Damiani's article appeared immediately after a succession of articles [12][13] by him that heavily featured Turner/LaBeouf's original "Metamodernist Manifesto".
• There is also absolutely no separate mention, as far as I can see, of the manifesto on social media–-a platform that Franco uses extensively to promote his art--and the article even asks the question "is it possible that Franco is staking a claim to his own brand of performance art?", despite the fact that Franco is already well-known for his participation in performance art [14].
• Although Damiani's article has just 15 Facebook likes, and 3 tweets at the time of writing (so one presumes few actual views), and there are no other sources, it still managed to get added to Franco's Wikipedia page just 5 days later [15] by a new editor, Vjdiju89, who states on the talk page [16] that "Franco is being associated with metamodernism a lot now", despite little evidence of this, and none that he has ever actually used the term metamodernism himself. I will WP:AGF with this editor, but the addition and timing of it seems odd.

[Update: Vjdiju89 turns out to be one of several confirmed sockpuppets of Festal82, confirming these suspicions.]

As a result of all this, I think we should be wary of the possibility that Abramson and Damiani are using the Huffington Post (and potentially Wikipedia) as a platform for some sort of subversive creative writing experiment, attempting to rewrite history, and that they may not be reliable sources themselves. Also, since someone previously attempted to position Damiani's name on the list of "Notable Metamodernists" here, citing Abramson, I think this may be particularly relevant to this page. Esmeme (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow. This is most WP:OR I've ever seen on Wikipedia, "Talk" page or otherwise. Not at all clear what any of it has to do with anything. "Jesse Damiani" doesn't appear anywhere in this article--not his name, not anything written by him. The article you mention by Seth Abramson isn't cited in this article, and never has been, and there's no dispute whatsoever (not from you or anyone) of the authorship of the articles by Abramson that are cited on this page. I've accused you in the past of having a strange vendetta against Abramson, and this is some pretty creepy proof of that obsession.

Anyway, quick question for you: Should we delete the only confirmed hoax presently linked to and prominently featured on this page: Luke Turner's false use of Shia LaBeouf's name to push his piece of creative writing called "The Metamodernist Manifesto"? You've previously attempted to introduce a publishing-scam website to this article in order to establish Luke Turner's authorship of a manifesto Shia LaBeouf and all WP:RS we can find say was written by LaBeouf, which means that you believe Turner actually wrote the manifesto and is perpetrating a scam on the world to get his "Manifesto" out there. I'll head on over to the article now, or maybe in a day or so, and delete that entire section as a "hoax." Thank you for advising us to remove all confirmed hoax material from the article. Festal82 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I clearly stated that this was WP:OR, and that this research is perfectly acceptable on a talk page. If it is a hoax, then if it becomes notable and reported widely, then obviously it can be considered for inclusion on Wiki. The authorship of Turner/LaBeouf's manifesto has been discussed at length, and forms part of their widely publicized practice. Due to both Turner and LaBeouf's direct involvement, I don't think it's accurate to consider it a hoax, but rather a collaborative work. If the same notability applies to Abramson's/Damiani's creative writing projects, then these too can be featured in the article. "Franco's" manifesto had been added elsewhere on Wiki, and I have pointed the discussion there to this talk page, as this seemed the most appropriate place. Apologies if this is unhelpful in any way. My post above was merely to highlight two concerning articles I found on the Huffington Post, and that I think are highly relevant to discussions here. Especially considering we are looking for a source to tie together the previous uses of the term with the current ones, and this appeared to be one such source, at first sight.

Also, I never introduced the ESJ--it was already being used elsewhere as a source on the page, and I used it once in entirely good faith--so please stop your completely baseless accusations of "scamming". And please stop accusing me of things like "having a strange vendetta", as you have been warned many times, and this clearly constitutes WP:HARASS. Esmeme (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll be very clear with you: (1) This "Talk" page is already enough of a mess that introducing WP:OR material to it is counterproductive, especially when it has nothing to do with the article; (2) you've raised a "hoax" issue which several editors (myself included) previously caved on, permitting you to include a dubious claim of authorship of this "Manifesto" in the article itself when all WP:RS indicated the document was written by Shia LaBeouf; (3) your raising of that issue here threatens to re-open an edit war which will result in the removal of all references to Luke Turner, and possibly "The Metamodernist Manifesto" (a known hoax) from the article; (4) your accusations against (in one instance) a person and (in all instances) sources that do not appear in this article run a real risk of actionable libel should the persons in question find out about it; (5) no one is trying to tie together various references to metamodernism here but you--as the article is presently structured to do precisely the opposite, i.e. highlight the different uses of the term over time; (6) while we're on the subject of WP:OR, like most people interested in metamodernism I follow Luke Turner's Twitter account, and within the last few days Luke Turner threatened to file legal suit against Jesse Damiani over something which (I now gather) is somehow related to this Franco-related website you're discussing, so your sudden interest in all this bizarre and obscure WP:OR calls into question your status re: WP:NOTHERE. Most importantly: (7) The article is in the best shape it's ever been, and recently the edit-warring had been minimal and oddly polite (if only relatively speaking). I can't imagine why you'd want to drag Luke Turner's ugliness onto this "Talk" page, when it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If these three people want to toss legal suits and accusations or whatever between themselves, let them; if it makes the papers, maybe it'll even show up somewhere on WP. But for now, the article is strong and improving, and your WP:OR benefits the article in no way whatsoever. Festal82 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I never mentioned any dispute Turner might have, of which I have no knowledge, so I really don't know for the life of me why you accuse me of "dragging" him into it. Again, I consider the above to be WP:HARASS, and I kindly ask you, as I have done time after time, to stop. This is a talk page, and I have contributed information that I think is relevant. If you don't feel it's relevant, then don't comment, and simply ignore it. I have not made any edits based on this information, but I feel it is important to better gauge the reliability of the Huffington Post as a source here. Esmeme (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I said what needed to be said. What you do with that information, and what follows from that, is your decision. I'll repeat that the article is in great shape and that your bizarre WP:OR (whether driven by some agenda or not doesn't matter) isn't helpful or relevant. Nor does it have anything to do with the metamodernism article as written. I'd urge you to stop trying to create edit-wars and work, as others are, on improving the article. Festal82 (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing OR about looking into the reliability of source material. We removed the journal because of things like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ricky, I'm again confused by what you're saying (re: your comment following your recent reversion of my edit). I've attacked you nowhere; not here, not anywhere else. Meanwhile, you attacked me so unfairly above that you had to delete your own comments using the "strikethrough" function. Now you say that I "didn't respond" to your concerns over the material I just reintroduced; above, right under your concerns, I wrote "I think you're misunderstanding my concern. Articles by Abramson expounding upon Abramson's definition of metamodernism add depth to the definition--i.e., additional content." I then compared that sort of content to content that merely states the fact of an art exhibition being held. You ignored my concern--i.e., the comparison between substantive content supporting the article and unanchored content that doesn't add any substantive information--and said only that third-party content is always better than first-party content, which is obviously not accurate. Imagine an article on an actor that didn't include any articles written by, or including original statements from, that actor--but tons of links establishing merely that fan-club events were held in that actor's honor. Please--please--cease your angry responses to me when I have not in any sense attacked you. I am returning the articles you removed to the section you removed them from because, as previously noted, they add context and depth to the section in which they appear. I agreed with you--and other editors--that they don't belong in the "Reception" section for metamodernism generally, which is where you had put them. I do not agree that they don't belong in the "Reception" section for the approach to metamodernism they describe. Festal82 (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Zavarzadeh secondary sources

I've removed the McCaffery and Genova sources because they appear to contain no mention of either Zavarzadeh's 1975 essay, or his use of the term "metamodern", nor does there appear to be any mention of either the word "metamodern", "metamodernist" or "metamodernism" in those sources whatsoever.

• McCaffery refers only to the unrelated term "metafiction", which is a literary device found in both postmodernist and modernist works. [17]
• Genova's review is of a book written over a decade and a half later, in which there is no mention of the term "metamodern". [18] The term "metatheory" is mentioned in Genova's review (though not by Zavarzadeh), although this is another unrelated term, whose use goes back over a century.

The editor who added these may be conflating the terms "metafiction" and "metatheory" with "metamodernism", whereas in fact there appears to be no demonstrable connection, which is misleading and potentially constitutes WP:SYNTH. Esmeme (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup following Festal82’s confirmed Sockpuppetry

As a result of a sockpuppet investigation, Festal82 has been blocked indefinitely due to confirmed sockpuppetry across multiple accounts, most conspicuously on this page and the Seth Abramson page.

I've started trying to cleanup the article as a result of this, concentrating on the "History" and "Seth Abramson" content that Festal and his sockpuppets introduced to the page, about which there has long been concerns about relevance and notability from the majority of legitimate editors here. I've attempted, as objectively as possible, to make these sections more proportionate to the notability of each of these various uses of the term, as demonstrated by secondary sources, or their lack thereof.

Other editors' thoughts on this would be most welcome, whether you think these changes go too far or not far enough, especially from editors such as Ricky81682 and Inanygivenhole who have been following the discussions (and frustrations) here. My position, as it has always (and transparently) been, is that Vermeulen/Akker's definition is the prominently understood usage, as demonstrated by the wealth of secondary sources, associated literature and notable events that back this up.

• The History section's mention of historical uses of the term is useful. However, I've trimmed the lengthy Zavarzadeh paragraph down, as it doesn't add much to an understanding of the topic of the article, and appears to refer to no more than a standalone essay in which he used the term once, unconnected to other uses a full 25 years later, and predating the term postmodernism being popularized. Zavarzadeh himself does not even appear to have used the term again, and no secondary sources have been presented to demonstrate notability.
• I've cut a bit of superfluous information from the Furlani paragraph. Also there doesn't appear to be any mention of the term post-postmodernism in the source.
• I feel the whole History section could do with being trimmed further, and a sentence added to explain that these are apparently unconnected previous uses of a fairly generic term. None of these essays appear to reference any of the others, and we have zero secondary sources for any of them. In fact, the only mention I've found of any of these uses was in Abramson's apparent hoax Huffington Post article, as detailed above.
• I've grouped Abramson and James & Seshagiri in a section called "Subsequent usage", as this seems a logical place for them, without giving them undue weight.
• Abramson's section has been cut down to a paragraph, since his boils down to a discussion taking place over a series of blog posts and webzine articles, and not in a peer-reviewed academic context as with all the other definitions, or across widely publicized activities such as the Turner/LaBeouf section, and there are limited secondary sources. I've removed the namedropping articles, as I think there is consensus for this above (but do correct me if I'm wrong), and the reference to the Indiewire column, which read like a thinly-veiled plug, and the quote was of uncertain authorship. I also don't think it adds anything to namedrop Abramson with Ray Charles here, nor is it particularly relevant that Simpson's album has been nominated for an Americana Music award, as it reads like an album promo.
• As per the discussions above, I think we should be wary of the reliability of Abramson's Huffington Post blog posts, and as discussed on Talk:Seth_Abramson, there are concerns on WP:ORS about the Huffington Post as a WP:RS. The sockpuppet investigation also shows that Festal was actively trying to position Abramson and Damiani's dubious Huffington Post content on other Wikipedia articles. Other editors' thoughts on what we should do here would be appreciated. Hopefully Festal will not set up further sockpuppet accounts to continue his POV pushing, but I'm sure it will be clear if this happens, since no other legitimate editors to date have shared his unsubstantiated claims of certain individuals' notability. Hopefully maintaining this page will be a more pleasant and less time-consuming experience for us all from here on in. Phew! Esmeme (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Bravo, Esmeme! The article looks much better, I think. I had long been feeling that the Abramson material was much overblown (e.g. given its own header, etc.). I have been following the talk page here very regularly but, to be honest, have not weighed in much, assuming Festal would dominate/attack/etc. Anyway, I support your edits wholeheartedly. Snuffleumpagus (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Snuffleumpagus. I've just been going through a number of the sources Festal and his sockpuppets inserted quotes from. Quite a few turned out to be inaccurate or quoted out of context, so I've tried to clean this up and remove any of his WP:SYNTH content. Esmeme (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Having now consulted the Zavarzadeh source, I can confirm that (contrary to Festal's denials) he was simply, explicitly, talking about a form of postmodern literature. I've modified this paragraph to make this clear. His footnote on the term "metamodern" states:

"I am using this term to refer to a cluster of attitudes which have emerged since the mid-1950s. I shall use the term 'metamodernist' in conjunction with three others to describe various aesthetic and ideational approaches to the art of narrative in the present century.…Some critics use the single term 'Post-modern' to describe these new developments. However the term is too general to catch all the nuances." (Zavarzadeh p.75) -Esmeme (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Esmeme. I've modified the Zavarzadeh section further--open to thoughts from all.

Moreover, I think the "Vermeulen and van den Akker" section could use some bolstering, and now that Festal cannot object/obstruct with (as I have always thought) quite absurd arguments to the contrary, I find it bizarre that there is only one cited mention to the webzine Notes on Metamodernism. I think some material from there would not only be justified, but would be quite beneficial to elucidating their articulation of metamodernism further.

Finally (and maybe this should be addressed elsewhere), I've noted we're working with both the English and American citation styles (comma outside vs. inside quotes). I'm not necessarily partial to one or the other, but for consistency's sake one should be adopted throughout. Snuffleumpagus (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've altered your changes a little bit, since we can't say for sure that the 1999 date is significant, or was any type of beginning. Other uses may be out there, so Okediji's description here will suffice. We should perhaps start a new heading on the talk page to address the Notes on Metamodernism issue again. As for citation styles, I've been trying to make the article conform to the so-called "logical quotation" style that "includes within quotation marks only those punctuation marks that appeared in the quoted material but otherwise to place punctuation outside the closing quotation marks." Esmeme (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, we could, and probably should, cut the Zavarzadeh bit down to a single sentence stating simply that he used the term in place of the term postmodern, since this paragraph doesn't really add much to the topic of this article, or the history of "metamodernism". Esmeme (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully this is better and more concise, but feel free to revert if you feel otherwise. Esmeme (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've given the Vermeulen/Akker section some bolstering, as suggested, though I've avoided using the webzine and have used only peer-reviewed academic sources and publications, and relied on secondary sources where possible. I've also included some names of artists, as these seem essential to give context to these theories--and since these are in academic articles, by multiple authors across multiple publications, I don't feel we have the same kind of namedropping problem that we encountered with Festal's Seth Abramson blog spam.

On the subject of Abramson, I read through some of his posts, and it's clear that he is building on Vermeulen/Akker's definition. He states this explicitly here [19], amongst other places. I've moved his paragraph to "Reception", as this is what his rather dubious--see above--blog is (since the evidence points to the fact that his is far from a credible academic discussion). I've also rephrased it to give the notable element--the Sturgill Simpson reference--the most emphasis. In the source given, it appears Simpson might actually be mistakenly referring to the manifesto and not Abramson's writing ("we are nostalgists as much as we are futurists", "the one that actor Shia LaBeouf tried to claim as his own"), as I can't find any Abramson text that addresses this theme, but this isn't really up to us to judge here.

Since it's apparent that all notable present usage is building on Vermeulen/Akker's definition, I've retitled the sections to reflect this. It's also much more practical to use the title "Present usage", since multiple academics are evidently involved in the current vibrant discourse surrounding the term, and we won't have to state "using Vermeulen/Akker's definition" every time. If we come across any notable divergent readings in future, we can always simply add a "Divergent readings" section to address this. Now that Festal's sockpuppets have gone, I don't believe any of this to be contentious, but obviously do say so if you feel otherwise. Esmeme (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm far from an expert, but I think you've done a good job of rebalancing the article and I applaud your efforts to base the material on reliable sources. In that pursuit, there is an article Notes on metamodernism in Journal of Aesthetics and Culture that is likely a more reliable source than their blog site for assertions such as The prefix "meta-" here referred not to a reflective stance or repeated rumination, but to Plato's metaxy. --Mark viking (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mark viking. This wasn't actually one that I put in, but I'd left it there. However, I've switched it now for the more reliable journal article source. Esmeme (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to say, I think this breakdown of "History" and "Present Usage" is rather clumsy. I agree that the Vermeulen/van den Akker reading is the primary one, and should be the basis of some kind of "present usage" section. But to have a "History" section is to suggest that this dominant reading is continuous with the previous understandings of the term, and it does not seem to be. I argue that what is now "Present Usage" be put first (then re-title it something more general) and then, below that, there be some sort of "Previous uses of the term" section. This succeeds in putting the most important overview of the term in a more prominent position, rather than forcing the reader to trudge through divergent/disconnected and less relevant readings first. Thoughts? Snuffleumpagus (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree on this. The entire "History" section was insisted upon by Festal and his sockpuppets, purely it seems to try and WP:SYNTH a continuous narrative dating back to 1975, as per Abramson's hoax Huffington Post article. It's apparent that this continuity does not exist, however, as these previous uses appear to be WP:FRINGE and not directly related (none cite any of the others, no secondary sources linking them, etc.). Vermeulen/Akker explicitly state in their footnotes that previous uses of the term are unrelated to the current definition [20]. As per your suggestion, I've regrouped them into a "Previous uses of the term" section, and also named the main section "Definitions", as this seems most appropriate, since it describes the definitions of the term that are the notable topic of this article. Esmeme (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, Esmeme. I think the page is in much, much better shape now. Snuffleumpagus (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

History Section and The Metamodernist Manifesto

New to this, but very much interested in metamodernism. I've been following it for a bit, read Vermeulen and van den Akker's essay, the manifesto, and Abramson's Huffington Post pieces. The Wikipedia article seems to me problematic. Why does it begin with a "Definitions" section rather than a "History" section, as in many other art movements (ie. Postmodernism)? I can tell this is a contested (eek!) talk page, and I don't mean to start a war; I really am just trying to make metamodernism look a bit more credible when held up against other articles like it (young scholar on the grind here!).

On that note, the author of the manifesto claims on his Twitter that the "manifesto is an artwork with contradictory rhetoric. Not intended to be coherent." [21] As this is a self-avowed art project, rather than a foundational document, it seems like it should be incorporated in a "History" section, rather than being given its own (especially considering the critical and artistic works that don't appear anywhere in this article). Right now, it just seems like the page is a place to promote a few people's work over others, as opposed to documenting metamodernism. AllurbaseRbelong2us (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)AllurbaseRbelong2us

Both the manifesto and the History section (which was previously added by sockpuppets to attempt to WP:SYNTH a History) have been covered on this talk page extensively. The consensus is that the current layout is appropriate, and we shouldn't make these previous unrelated uses of the term appear as if they are the notable topic of the article. The manifesto was defining the term ("Thus, metamodernism shall be defined as…") very early in the formulation of metamodernism in 2011, has been cited many times as such, having arguably garnered more coverage of any document on metamodernism due to Shia Labeouf's involvement. Hence the consensus is that it belongs in the definition section. Esmeme (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey all, AllurbaseRbelong2us here (using a public computer now and I'm a privacy weirdo). I'm not trying to be difficult, but was this a recent consensus? The main thing I see in the Talk page is two people arguing. If I go further back, which I've done now, I see people saying that the article shouldn't focus so much on just one definition of the term. I guess my question is whether saying that there is a consensus shuts down other ways of looking at this, and whether the consensus was to make one definition of the term the only important one here or to find a responsible way to speak of separate definitions. Why not have a different section for each definition? The one you like could still be on top. In any case, there doesn't seem to be a consensus if at least one person (me) is seeing this very differently, and if the last 100 edits to the article were made by you.

The definition that is behind how I came to metamodernism seems to be missing: any of the articles on Press Play and The Huffington Post. I guess my question is, if documents are being added based on how much exposure they've had, even art projects that not intended to be coherent definitions of metamodernism, why are all the sources I read in learning about metamodernism not here? I came to metamodernism through Sturgill Simpson, which I imagine is true for a good chunk of other people coming on this page, and he says he discovered it through Abramson (which appears as something of a footnote in the "Reception" section). I'm not arguing that the Labeouf stuff isn't notable or that it shouldn't be featured here, just that it's part of a larger network that has and will "garner coverage." I really don't mean to be a stickler, but if the manifesto is an avowedly "incoherent" work of art, and not a critical document, how can anybody claim that it's simultaneously "defining the term," when it's based on an actual source document: Vermeulen and van den Akker's essay (to say nothing of the various authors in the "Previous Uses of the Term" section)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.187.82 (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious that the above is written by another of Festal82's sockpuppets trying to stir up trouble and unwarranted attention for Seth Abramson's blog writing. Aside from Festal's spam, other editors on this page have been in agreement that the page currently reflects the topic in a suitable manner, and there has been no hostility since Festal's sockpuppets started to be blocked. My recent exhaustive edits to the page were to repair the extensive damage done by Festal's sockpuppets, as my comments above show, and about which the other legitimate editors on this page are in agreement. Esmeme (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Um... what? Sockpuppet? I wish there were a way to more adequately express my incredulity. I’m sorry this page has been troubled in the past, but I assure you I have no connection to Festal82. Feel free to conduct an investigation if you’d like somebody else to prove it to you. I’m a grad student wanting to see metamodernism gain more traction in the academic community, and the page at present has the look of an amateurish student project—one, I might add, that very obviously promotes certain work and understandings over others. My goal, which I (wrongly?) assumed was the goal we all shared, was to point out the ways it could be made better. Might be nice if we could hear from some of those other voices you mentioned on this, too. This comment was made by AllurbaseRbelong2us at 15:48 on 8 August 2014, but for some reason, it was disallowed by filter 58. I don't know anything about metamodernism myself. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see my reasons at sockpuppet investigation page here. The above user appears to be here for no reason other than to cause trouble on the talk page and to once again start up Festal82's line of disruptive editing. Calling the page "an amateurish student project" is an example of this, when it covers a topic that already has considerable traction in the academic community, and the current content is well sourced and has been arrived at by consensus. I have no doubt that the above user is here in order to unduly promote Seth Abramson, who has in the past week started writing about wikipedia edit wars on his blog [22] in relation to the modernism and postmodernism pages (largely unconstructive comparisons that Festal's sockpuppets and the user above have been pushing). I think we can all draw our own conclusions from this. Esmeme (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm one of those other voices, and I definitely agree with Esmeme here. I think the page is in pretty good shape as it stands now, and it would be a great shame if it (and the Talk page) were once again taken in the unfortunate and too often acrimonious direction it was going before. Hopefully we're past that now. Snuffleumpagus (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)50.195.57.121 (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

More Sockpuppetry invading this page

Like everyone else, I've no time to read the mountain of rubbish ClaphamSix just posted above. This page and the Seth Abramson page have been flooded with Festal82's sockpuppets for several months. Unfortunately, these socks have returned. As per the sockpuppet investigation for ClaphamSix here, the admin agrees that the user is a sock, therefore his comments should obviously be disregarded.

In case I need to reiterate, I have absolutely no affiliation myself with Vermeulen, Akker, Turner, Labeouf or anyone else covered on this page. I am simply someone with a keen interest in metamodernism. The sock above is plainly slinging mud in the hope that some will stick in order to bring into question my transparent and consensus-led edits (as my history shows--and the fresh accusation that I've used sockpuppets myself is laughable!). Needless to say, the sockpuppet's latest posts above seriously break just about every rule with regards to WP:HARASS, WP:OUTING and WP:NOTHERE.

The sockpuppets' incoherent and lies-filled screeds that litter the page simply obscure the genuine talk about the topic that was going on amongst legitimate editors. Esmeme (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

A Clean Start at WP:NPV

It's clear that the two things we all agree on are (1) that this article needs to conform to WP:NPV now and at all times in the future, and (2) the article only benefits when additional editors from the WikiProject Philosophy Group help with the article's upkeep in furtherance of that goal. The editor above claims to have no agenda, and that's good; I too have no agenda here but to support a WP:NPV article written by a large number of editors with no COI, so I'm sure we can start from there and move forward. I don't have any interest myself in editing the article--as I've said before--only in supporting via this Talk page the two goals above, which as they appear to be supported by everyone here would seem to be entirely non-controversial, the past few months of content on this Talk page notwithstanding. Thanks for all your help, Steelpillow! My hope is that from here on out this Talk page becomes a conversation about improving the article amongst a large number of disinterested editors, not the circus it has been throughout 2014. ClaphamSix (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, unfortunately the sockpuppet above is trying to muddy the water and give a false impression of the state of affairs on this page, and create an unnecessary drama by flooding the page with alarmist comments and obscuring the relevant discussions that have been taking place. I repeat, things have already been cleaned up on the page after the edits detailed above here in response to Festal's extensive sockpuppetry and his Abramson/false-historical-narrative spam, and as I stated before, I would appreciate it if people could give those comments a read before making further suggestions. The current layout of the page clearly isn't to the sockpuppet's liking, but now more effectively reflects WP:NPV and the consensus of the legitimate neutral editors here. It would be good to hear from editors that have helped with this like Snuffleumpagus, Ricky81682, Inanygivenhole, and Mark viking if they are around. Esmeme (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have taken a look through those old discussions now, and two things stand out for me. Firstly, whatever PoV has held sway at various times, it has tended to be dominated by one or more single-purpose accounts (SPA), and remains so currently. So I am wary of all this noise about the bad faith of the enemy - on both sides. I cannot complain if someone has only a single motivation for coming here, rather I would warn you of the dangers. The main one I want to address here is my second point, which is that this article constantly risks falling foul of WP:NEO and WP:OR - neologism and original research - in pushing too far into recent chit-chat rather than restricting itself to verifiable history, and I think the present version needs some pruning. That will probably tread on everybody's toes, especially the party who currently dominates the editing history, I can only apologise in advance. I already made a first tiny snip, I hope to do more in the coming days (no promises). If you don't like what I do, this talk page is your forum to have it out with me. Also, at present I don't see a lot of stuff missing - if you do, by all means carry on as if I wasn't here, I don't WP:OWN any of this. I might just prune it a little, though — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Steelpillow, your input is greatly appreciated. You're quite right that the second MacDowell ref was an oversight on my part, as it appears to be before he fully adopted the term (though it is mentioned). However, I used this book as the main source, which has chapters by 2 authors that act as both primary and secondary sources for MacDowell's usage of metamodernism, and the use of the term is clear there. There's several more articles on the Notes on Metamodernism website addressing this, such as here, but I was keen to avoid using this site as a source while it's suitability was being debated.

As for further pruning, I await your recommendations, although I have indeed spent an awful lot of time trying to get the article in good shape, but I'm sure there are many more good sources that can be found for the notable content/definitions. By all means, if the style can be improved, I welcome that. I certainly don't WP:OWN any of this either, and this was the first time I'd ever actually written anything on a wikipedia article (tentatively!), so I'm sure there's room for improvement by others. Mostly, the page was quite similar in layout last year, before I was an editor here, and before I started bolstering it with reliable sources after Festal rewrote it completely. There were dozens of editors that worked on the page before me, so the fact that the most recent intensive edits are all by me is a bit misleading. I seem to have ended up as the only one to stick with it and see off Festal's sockpuppets, because it seems he scared off most of the other editors with his page-long screeds, straw-manning, lies and all-round harassment of other editors.

I do think it's inaccurate to call the page in any way a WP:NEO, as there have been so many academics, theorists and artists working in this field for several years, and things such as the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam event I mentioned above suggest that its place in the world of cultural and art theory is already well established. Esmeme (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, I also think it's unwise to talk of opposing "sides" on this page. This is the illusion that the sockpuppets want to give, to cause disruption. The fact of the matter is there has been Festal82 and his multiple sockpuppets, versus everyone else - i.e. one person with multiple accounts arguing against dozens of legitimate, good faith editors. All these legitimate editors have had no problem to date working together towards improving the article. Esmeme (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It is very disturbing to see this kind of debate come back. I, for one, am rather uncomfortable making allegations of sock-puppetry or trying to "out" someone's identity, mainly because such allegations seem very hard to prove and because it's too easy to fall into ad hominem attacks. That being said, I've been following this talk page for a bit now (3, 4 months?) and think some perspective would be helpful, particularly for new editors coming here now. In short, I was witnessing one editor, Festal82, proposing/making changes which I considered, shall we say, idiosyncratic (and generally alternative to the narrative around metamodernism with which I was by then rather familiar), in addition to engaging in a rather vehement and vociferous form of discourse here on the talk page. Specifically, some of the main divergent readings of the term centered on:

1) Emphasizing a supposed history of the term/idea that extended considerably before Vermeluen/van den Akker's work, back to the 1970s 2) Emphasizing the need for a list of "Notable Metamodernists" 3) Emphasizing the significance of the work of Seth Abramson in relation to the term/idea

As for 1, I was open to the idea that indeed V/v d A's work stood in a tradition/broader body of work on the term. However, on closer inspection of the work proposed as lineal, this seems not to be the case, and the work of the Dutch theorists does in fact seem to be the seminal work on the term/idea as it is most notably conceived today. As for 2, I was originally in favor of this idea too, but after joining the discussion in the talk page here, came to agree with Esmeme that such a list was fundamentally contrary to the idea of metamodernism as a period "structure of feeling," and not as a movement per se. As for 3, while Festal82 seems to have unduly emphasized Abramson's work, I maintain the belief that that author merits mention here, since he is indeed a vocal and apparently recognized proponent of metamodernism (if the fact that a Google search reveals his writings on page 1 means anything [I'm not familiar enough with their metrics/algorithms to know if that is a good indicator of popularity]). Now, when Festal82 was banned following confirmed sock-puppetry, the above idiosyncratic concerns vanished with the editor a their sock puppets. Things were then quiet for a bit, and there seemed to be a decent consensus here. Now, out of the blue as it were, we find a fresh round of voices chiming in 1) Emphasizing a supposed history of the term/idea that extended considerably before Vermeluen/van den Akker's work, and 3) Emphasizing the significance of the work of Seth Abramson in relation to the term/idea Moreover, their posts have been characterized by the same kind of vehement and vociferous discourse that characterized the posts of Festal82 and their sock puppets. These are the facts as I see them, and they appear to paint an unfortunate picture--namely, of an editor who has been repeatedly engaging in the deceptive practice of posing as more than one person in order to give false weight to idiosyncratic views on metamodernism. Again, whether this editor is someone close with Abramson, Abramson himself, etc.--thus making these actions not only deceptive and uncivil but also blatantly self-serving--I will not argue here, since I could not prove such an allegation, and that would not be fair to Abramson. I write all this because I see the process beginning again and am concerned. I think the page as it currently stands is pretty decent, and generally agree with Esmeme's editorial work (this of course opens me up to the accusation of being some sockpuppet of Esmeme, but I think that should seem pretty far fetched indeed). Ultimately, I think it unfair and intellectually dishonest for one editor to essentially take control of a Wikipedia page (I am tempted to use the work hijack) by muddying the waters so much here in the talk page with idiosyncratic views bolstered by false aliases. That is just wrong and frustrating to me, and since I care about this topic I felt obliged not to sit this one out on the sidelines again. Snuffleumpagus (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The History of Neutral Editors on This Article

For the benefit of Steelpillow: In January of 2013, many many months before "Festal82" appeared here, three different editors commented on this Talk page to say that this article was too focused on Turner, Vermuelen, and van den Akker.

On May 3 of this year, an editor from France--IP address 62.147.9.62; "Esmeme" claims "Festal82" lives in Wisconsin--added four warning tags to this article. What did they say? Four things: (1) the article improperly uses self-published sources (a reference to Luke Turner's personal blog, which at that time, and still, was the only "self-published" source on the page); (2) the article relies too heavily on primary sources (a clear reference to Vermeulen and van den Akker's blog, Notes on Metamodernism, as at the time no scholarly primary sources had been added to the article whatsoever); (3) the article relies too heavily on one source (again, Notes on Metamodernism); and (4) the article needs help from the WikiProject Philosophy Group.

In June of this year, right after a round of edits of "Esmeme," another editor no one has ever accused of being "Festal82" (that would be Rhododendrites) went to the WikiProject Philosophy Group and made the same complaint as all the preceding neutral editors had made: "the subject needs to be better nailed down and the different sources weighted properly." He asked for the WikiProject Philosophy Group to step in and help.

On May 28, yet another user no one has ever argued is "Festal82"--Bhny--said that Turner's personal blog could not be cited in this article because it was a "weird single purpose bloggy thing."

Throughout these requests from neutral editors to broaden the sourcing and content of the article, I watched "Festal82" do exactly that: scholarly sources from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s were added to the article, as the WikiProject Philosophy Group had requested in January of 2013; a table of "Notable Metamodernists" was added to the article in order to broaden the discussion (and sourcing) of metamodernist artists to include names not mentioned on the Turner/Vermeulen/van den Akker group blog Notes on Metamodernism; and on April 2, an editor from Norway--IP address 84.215.231.247--re-added "Seth Abramson" to that list of "Notable Metamodernists" after "Esmeme" had taken him off, and no one on this entire Talk page has ever said "Festal82" is a Norwegian. All of these edits were undone by "Esmeme" in the name of a "consensus" she could never quite put her finger on. Let's review what the neutral editors said about Turner's blog and Notes on Metamodernism:

Felt friend, June 26: "I kept the info referenced by HuffPo, Independent, etc. Most of what I removed used metamodernism.com as a source; the rest was cited by related blogs. Not only do these obviously fail WP:RS, but, seeing as the website in question was founded by the same pair who coined the 'metamodernism' terminology, seems to also be a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING."

Perfect for you, June 24: "IMO this article is in opposition to the notion that Wikipedia is not for shit made up in a frat house, the aversion to sources which have been 'cooked up,' and Wikipedia's hesitance to perpetuate 'neologisms.'"

Inanygivenhole, June 27: "The abundance of original and unreliable sources says more about the current state of this article than anything else." (Emphasis added.)

In the face of this massive consensus that the article relied overmuch on Turner's personal blog and a group blog run by two primary-source COIs related to metamodernism, what did "Esmeme" do? Eliminate nearly every link in the article other than Turner's blog and Vermeulen/van den Akker's group blog and say that it was the result of a clear consensus.

Meanwhile, Abramson's name, added by a Norwegian, was removed; direct quotes from scholarly primary sources were removed completely by "Esmeme" in favor of WP:OR by "Esmeme" interpreting those texts as irrelevant to metamodernism (even though that was their stated topic); and every WP:RS citation was removed from the article by "Esmeme" on the basis of a single claim--that one article, from one of those media outlets, had a misattributed byline. The best part? The article "Esmeme" complained about had never--not even for a moment--been cited in Wikipedia's article on "metamodernism." Which made many of us wonder why "Esmeme" was discussing it at all.

It became clear to me and (I'm sure) to others that "Esmeme" needed an excuse to eliminate all citations authored by Abramson, so allegations of a "WP:SYNTH" history being authored by "Festal82" (when "Festal82" made clear he wanted the opposite of that, i.e. a history of disparate and unrelated uses of the term, of the sort found at the modernism and postmodernism articles) and a history of "hoaxing" (never in any sense substantiated) were thrown around. When that didn't work, an effort was initiated to get "Festal82" banned from Wikipedia. Once that happened, "Esmeme" (who now claims to be Abigail Ann Schwarz, a Los Angeles filmmaker, which admittedly may well be the case but is neither here nor there) made 100 straight edits to the article, none of which were anything anyone had ever asked for.

The position of the WikiProject Philosophy Group has been clear all along:

(1) No citation of non-WP:RS personal blogs in the article;

(2) reliance on Notes on Metamodernism only in the company of many citations to WP:RS like The Huffington Post, The Independent, and so on;

(3) no WP:OR regarding scholarly primary sources, but rather just direct quotes from those sources; and

(4) a chronological history of uses of the term that makes no claim of their relatedness, but merely establishes uses of the term throughout the past half-century.

When we look at the article now, we see that none of those aims have been met. All I've done here is point that out, and Schwarz has tried relentlessly to have me banned from Wikipedia. I didn't know one could be banned from Wikipedia without editing an article, and merely pursuant to a polite conversation on a Talk page. I ask Steelpillow, is this what we've come to? What have I said above that isn't sourced, isn't accurate, isn't in keeping with WP policies such as WP:OR, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, and so on? ClaphamSix (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, the above is a pack of lies by a sockpuppet, misrepresenting virtually every historical edit and discussion on this page and spreading lies with bizarre attempts at WP:OUTING. This has to stop! In addition to the SPI, I have now lodged a report over on ANI here. Once more, here is the diff proving that one of Festal's confirmed sockpuppets added the entire Abramson section to the page. Thank you Snuffleumpagus for taking the time to post your wise comments above, which the sock has again tried to obscure. Esmeme (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll say again, as I've said before, that I invite anyone who wants to read the Talk page above and confirm what I've said to do so. And I don't need to bold my comments (which you had done in your comments directly above, before you edited and moved them) or use exclamation points or demand anyone's banning or make wild accusations of sock-puppetry to make that invitation. I really don't know if you're using sock-puppets, Abigail, but to me that's really not what matters: what matters is that you are claiming the high ground of a consensus that does not exist, you are using this article as a battleground for some benighted vendetta against a particular metamodernist, and you are trying to frighten off this page any editor who does not immediately succumb to your counter-historical narrative of events. Your frantic posturing here is alarming, especially as--not to repeat myself--I've made no edits to the article itself, but am only trying to engage neutral WikiProject Philosophy Group editors (like Steelpillow) who are working on the article. This diff (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metamodernism&oldid=617407292) from July 18th shows the condition of the article before your 100+ straight (unchallenged) edits. Does any neutral editor comparing that diff with the present article believe that the current state of the article better reflects the Philosophy Group consensus than the preceding one did? The current version eliminates all quotes from primary sources, in favor of your WP:OR "take" on them; makes a subsection based on a personal blog the highlight of the article; and puts the oldest usages of the term last instead of first. It also eviscerates any mention of metamodernism in U.S. sources: the former version has more than 25 such citations, while the current version has less than 10, wrongly implying that the term (which was coined in 1975 in America) in fact has no real purchase in the States whatsoever. ClaphamSix (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Do not move my comments on this page, as you just did. You have been accused of doing that before, by Rhododendrites, though you deleted that warning off your user Talk page. That, to me, is telling. Also telling is the content you just now (minutes ago) removed from your talk page: A warning from neutral editor Crazytales (talk) (edits) that said "I've removed your reports [on "Festal82"] from WP:AIV because this looks like a content dispute rather than vandalism." (Emphasis added.) That you have been told before by neutral editors (1) not to move other people's comments, and you still do, and (2) not to use bannings to deal with content disputes, though you still do--and that you then try to conceal those prior warnings--belies your claims of sincerity here. ClaphamSix (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't move your comments, nor have I ever been accused of moving them before. I moved my own comments, as I was adding content (though perhaps this was incorrect). Look at my talk page history, and stop making stuff up! I just now cleaned up my talk page, as the content I cleaned up didn't seem at all relevant anymore, but I'll put it back as it makes no difference. As you can see, it's a friendly comment, and not a warning. More lies! Also, please note the neutral editor on my talk page condemning your trolling. Esmeme (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You did indeed move your comment from before mine to after mine, thus moving mine up artificially and eliminating the text I'd been responding to. You also did just delete the text from your user page that I said you did. But I freely admit that, on reflection, the prior cautioning re: moving comments was made by Rhododendrites to your sometimes ally "Inanygivenhole" on June 27th. As that warning may not in fact have been given to you (I say "may" because I never preclude the possibility of sock-puppetry here) I retract that comment. ClaphamSix (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I just said this was in error, as I was still working on my text, and the sock keeps writing pages of comments before I can even finish my reply. We need an admin here urgently to stop this dire behavior by the sock. I don't think Inanygivenhole would appreciate the tone of the comment above much either. Esmeme (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@ClaphamSix:For the record, I don't, and I want the comment in question (or at least its tone) to be rescinded. Inanygivenhole (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reported

Just to reiterate, since the sock has once again attempted to ensure my previous comment gets lost in a sea of text: the above is a pack of lies by a sockpuppet, misrepresenting virtually every historical edit and discussion on this page and spreading lies with bizarre attempts at WP:OUTING. This has to stop! In addition to the SPI, I have now lodged a report over on ANI here. Once more, here is the diff proving that one of Festal's confirmed sockpuppets added the entire Abramson section to the page. Thank you Snuffleumpagus for taking the time to post your wise comments above, which the sock has again tried to obscure. Esmeme (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you're familiar with WP:AGF; anyone who reads my comments above will see that they are not merely a "sea of text" but a careful examination of the "consensus" you say you have built around the last 100 edits to this article--all of which were yours, and none of which were made concurrent to any discussion on this Talk page. If we want to determine the status of any "consensus," it seems wise to look at what editors are saying, doesn't it? And the consensus that reveals itself is not the one you have been touting, but in fact one that adopts the opposite conclusions in all particulars. ClaphamSix (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, my last 100 edits were to repair the damage done by the sockpuppets. See my lengthy comments above and the legitimate editors who backed this. It's impossible to assume good faith when a new user pops up making personal attacks and spreading malicious lies about me and my edits. Esmeme (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Too soon?

Looking at the histories of the key contributors, almost all have been WP:SPA (single-purpose accounts). Such editors are often personally involved in the matters they describe, almost always they have a strong WP:POV (point of view) which drives them to Wikipedia in the first place. This entire debate has been characterised by editors claiming they want a balanced article, yet also wanting endless trivia about their own PoV while dissing the other side for doing the same and for dissing them back. Both sides are every bit as bad as each other in this respect. To be charitable, this is the bane of any SPA editor driven here by your strong passions about one single subject - it was not actually Wikipedia's WP:FIVEPILLARS (five pillars) which brought you here. Your "balanced" view turns out to be nobody else's, and that can be a hard and unwelcome lesson to learn.

I think the only way to cool this down in a gentlemanly manner is to throw some weight behind WP:TOOSOON, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFY and their brethren, and to trim sharply back on material that is not properly sourced and cited. Editors whose hearts are set on something of WP:NOT (what Wikipedia is not) will then find it more profitable to move on, while the genuine encyclopedists among you can idle away the pruning phase by rooting out WP:RS (reliable sources) and arguing briefly on that basis to restore something that got pruned, or maybe honing your wiki skills on other articles. All this may sound harsh but Wikipedia is not a soapbox and frankly nor should these talk pages be treated as such, interminable ad hominem repetitions notwithstanding.

Turning now to the current references, much of this material comes from recent blogs and journalistic chit-chat.

In particular, the meat of the current article draws heavily on events in the media circus and chattersphere earlier this year. They focus on an (ex-?)move star and his move into metamodernism. That is all very well for the article on Shia LeBoeuf, but for an article on a philosophical and cultural proto-movement, I think it may be WP:TOOSOON (too soon) to set this year's metamodernist shrapnel in concrete (to mix metaphors).

I am therefore coming to agree with some parties that the current core treatment needs scaling back and the spotlight on it softening. On the other hand, some of the detail on the alternative definitions is lacking notability, so there is scope for shortening that. It all suggests much shorter and perhaps simplified article.

I am also a little concerned at the potential for feedback between metamodernist writings and Wikipedia. We have already seen circular referencing, and clearly the plastic nature of Wikipedia's collaborative output has some appeal to propagandists for the phenomena of cultural change. There is a rather obvious potential for Wikipedia to be subverted as an agent of that change itself, never mind the propaganda for that change. I begin to wonder whether I should be busy writing WP:NOTANARTFORM. Certainly, the sustained SPA nature of this article's editors is consistent with such paranoia. I watch with a half-serious eye for oscillations.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Hi, I'm looking for any evidence whatsoever for your claim that "almost all [of the key contributors] have been WP:SPA". I'm really tired of bullshit claims being thrown around on this page, so evidence would be much appreciated. Thanks. Inanygivenhole (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I reckon these contributors [23][24][25][26] (including the socks of two of these), and on this talk page this one [27], account for 90% of the current content, certainly for well over 99% of recent edits. I am happy to clarify that the qualifier "almost" allows the exclusion of your good self, and others who have made occasional recent contributions, from this list. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Steelpillow:A brief look at the contribution history shows unequivocally that most of the key contributors are NOT SPAs (directly contrary to your claim). You named five contributors: two of them are not "key contributors", and one of them can hardly be called a key contributor having hardly even touched the article! Conviniently twisting the truth to fit your version of it is not helpful, and, (believe it or not) rude. Again I ask you to either provide support for your claims or to rescind your comment. Inanygivenhole (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Who cares, the discussion has moved on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The people who are the victims of your lies care, Steel. I take it that means that you have no real response to my criticism? Inanygivenhole (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Inanygivenhole: Your persistent accusations, not to mention rude comment on my talk page (now deleted), amount to a breach of WP:NPA (no personal attacks). In particular, the outright accusation of lying is a gross WP:AOBF (accusation of bad faith) and is not the sort of thing that should be left hanging around a talk page unchallenged. If you do not withdraw it and apologise I will take your behaviour to WP:ANI (Administrators Noticeboard / Incidents). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Bad faith? Bad faith? Are you kidding me? Do you have any right to be slinging mud after flat out lying and saying that most of the key contributors were SPAs? Inanygivenhole (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the alternative definitions have largely, it appears, only been used by their respective authors themselves, and mostly only in one or two obscure essays, as a thorough investigation of these primary sources detailed above revealed (following their insertion by confirmed socks). As other editors have agreed, and as the multitude of secondary sources demonstrate, the notable topic of this article is surely the definition introduced by Vermeulen/Akker, and expanded on by those such as MacDowell, Turner, James and Seshagiri and many others. Therefore, I agree that the article should reflect this. Again, I feel giving credence to the sockpuppets' alarmist attempts to cause conflict, introduce "sides", and synthesize a false historical narrative is extremely counterproductive, as I strongly believe his PoV does not reflect the reality of the term's usage. I'm confident anyone will find that the mass of reliable literature on the subject backs this up.

Edit: I actually misread your comment - I obviously agree that these other uses lack notability and should be shortened. I also agree that the Labeouf section could be trimmed a little too to reflect the most pertinent information. The article could indeed do with being shorter and more concise, and not as grand as Festal's sockpuppets tried to make it (to try and make it like the modernism and postmodernism pages is clearly too soon). Esmeme (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent edits Steelpillow. I largely agree with these changes, although I think we have to be careful not to give the impression that the term gained any traction, or was in any kind of widespread use between 1975 and the '90s, as nobody has provided any sources that suggest this. The Zavarzadeh essay appears to be a one off, predating the term "postmodern" becoming widely accepted. It would appear the author used the term once in this essay, and never returned to it. On another minor point, I'm curious whether or not the "van" of van den Akker should be capitalized in the heading? Esmeme (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Steelpillow, I agree with what you've said. One reason I am not editing is that I don't want to be yet another SPA account of the sort you describe. Re: recent edits, while the reference to Mas'ud Zavarzadeh is still a misstatement of what that text actually says--Zavarzadeh called metamodernism a discrete cultural and historical phase, and contrasted it to "antimodernism" (what we now know as postmodernism) and "paramodernism" (what we now know as the theory of "modernisms"); Zavarzadeh's reference to "postmodernism" was merely by way of rejecting the term altogether, not "replacing" it with metamodernism--I think the bigger issue is that the OP asks us to decide when certain readings of the term "gained traction" or entered "widespread use." I think this is the WP:NOTHERE sort of content we need to avoid, without running into the opposite problem either (of using such WP:NPOV language that it places a thumb on the scale in favor of, say, Zavarzadeh). I think it will take non-SPA accounts to find that balance. One last thing I'd note: metamodernism is now discussed throughout U.S. major media, and "Esmeme" (a European) has removed all those citations, giving the impression no work on the subject has been done in the U.S. this century. Among the few improvements I've ever suggested here is mention of the fact that Indiewire now runs a regular column on metamodernism, as does The Huffington Post. The reason given for these citations not appearing in the article is that "Esmeme" dislikes their author, not that they are not WP:N usages of the term. I hope we'll be able to broaden the "Developments" section ever so slightly to note how "metamodernism" has made its way into U.S. major media. ClaphamSix (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Obviously I don't think a personal blog should be cited in the article at all, but if the "manifesto" written by Turner is going to be included, given that it self-avowedly was inspired by Vermeulen and van den Akker's 2010 text, is there any reason it wouldn't be in the "Developments" section rather than its own subsection? If the only reason a personal blog is being elevated above WP:N and WP:RS is because a troubled actor's name was appended to it years after it was written, I think we might be running afoul of WP:TOOSOON, as you say. ClaphamSix (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly urge people to read the Zavarzadeh text if they can get hold of it, as you will see that ClaphamSix, just as Festal did, is misrepresenting what it says entirely. It is clearly about postmodern literature from the 1950s, and Zavarzadeh explicitly states this. I quoted the relevant section from the text above. As for the manifesto, it is plainly a defining text, as art manifestos tend to be, and is consistently quoted far and wide, such as recently here. It's not a "blog", it's a document setting out a definition, and the large number of secondary sources that it is quoted in, a number of which are cited here, are indeed WP:RS. I don't know what talk of blogs really has to do with anything here. Just the user above trying to muddy the waters again, I think. And I've absolutely no idea why they state that the article currently gives "the impression no work on the subject has been done in the U.S. this century", since plenty of the figures/sources are US based--American Book Review, PMLA, ARTnews, Stephen Knudsen, Shia LaBeouf, Museum of Arts and Design, etc. Also, according to ClaphamSix's bizarre WP:OUTING attempts, I've apparently gone from being a European to an American and back in the space of just a few days. This speaks volumes. Esmeme (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

One reason I am not quoting the Zavarzadeh is because selective quotation has been used by the OP to misrepresent authors and texts and Zavarzadeh deserves better than this. I invite anyone to read the Zavarzadeh article, which is plainly about the state of American literature in the mid-1970s, long after "postmodernism" was common parlance in the American academy. I have no idea what this "1950s" citation refers to. More importantly, if the standard for inclusion were whether or not a source or individual has "a large number of secondary sources it is quoted in," this article would have a subsection on the major-media work of Abramson (as it once did, and which many editors supported), which is cited by volume in 500% the number of WP:N/WP:RS as Turner's personal blog. Again, we have factionalism here masquerading as something else. As noted above, the pre-"Esmeme" version of the article from mid-July had 25+ U.S. sources, and the present version less than 10 (Knudsen and the MoAD are not "sources" here; the PMLA article was added by "Festal82," who "Esmeme" had banned by Wikipedia; and Shia LaBeouf is only noted here because he collaborates with "Esmeme" and his European compatriots). ClaphamSix (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Anything else?

I am reasonably satisfied with the article structure I have now come up with, and I hope I have sorted out the most glaring issues. The nature of the beast is that the metamodernist scene is fast evolving and the latter part of the article will be subject to a constant, ah, oscillation between enthusiastic news-breaking and encyclopedic deletionism, I don't really want to join in that game.

Meanwhile, is there anything missing that really ought to be in there? And have I left any other loose ends, howlers, etc? And please, no endless ad hominem perjoratives, or I won't be reading the bits that matter in between, either. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts here Steelpillow, and for negotiating the mess on the talk page. I agree that the article is now looking a lot more neutral and encyclopedic. Esmeme (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Steelpillow, I think it's much improved! Three minor comments: (1) The bolding of the reference to Turner's blog still looks a little odd to me visually, and I wonder if it's necessary; (2) LaBeouf's "wider collaboration" with two other individuals is mentioned twice--and in very similar language; and finally (3) I'll just mention again my feeling that Indiewire, one of the highest-traffic media sites in the U.S., creating a regular column on metamodernism is worthy of inclusion in the "Cultural acceptance" section of the article. The column is called "Metamericana," and editions of it can be found at these (and of course many other) links: , , , and . I don't know that this proposed addition requires anything more than noting, with 1-2 link citations appended, in the paragraph that mentions Abramson, that "Abramson now authors a biweekly column for Indiewire on metamodernism." Otherwise, this looks more neutral than it did a week ago, so thank you! I agree that the latter part of the article will end up getting added to as time goes on, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. ClaphamSix (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. One last item--(4)--to answer the question asked by "Esmeme" in the main article's edit history, Okediji does in fact use the term "metamodernism" at the link provided in the article. Here is the full quote from 1999 (in Diaspora and Visual Culture: Representing Africans and Jews, ed. Nicholas Mirzoeff):

Metamodernism may be read [as a] metamythic modernism, and even [a] transcending [of] all forms of modern myths, such as metaphysical, geometric, gestalt, existentialist, postmodern, modern and late. While the modern scope covers a mere fraction of the activities of the twentieth century, the metamodern explores all forms of this era: for example, the relationships between physical and psychic [in] the work of, say, the Yoruba sculptor Bamidele Arowoogun and Pablo Picasso, both of whom are temporal, if not geographic contemporaries. (p. 162)

I've tweaked the wording to make (1) and (2) above a non issue. As for Okediji's use, this appears to be a different source than the one previously provided (or at least the wording freely viewable online) so obviously I stand corrected. Esmeme (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The (3) edit (above) remains unaddressed; re: (4), I believe changing the phrase "the metamodern" to "metamodernism" in the first sentence of the second paragraph would do it. I know Esmeme is understandably loathe to edit material he opposes in the first instance, so hopefully a neutral editor, Steelpillow or someone else, can take a look at these suggestions. ClaphamSix (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I had no problem at all correcting (4), thank you very much. I will let other editors look at (3) for the time being, considering the previous issues on this page. Esmeme (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Esme, I certainly didn't mean to suggest you were deaf to edit suggestions, merely that you often see a wolf in sheep's clothing when you get them--nearly always unfairly. My feeling is that it doesn't matter if one is a Patrick or a Luke or a Mindy, if the edit is sound, the edit is sound. ClaphamSix (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what that means. I was rightly questioning the content introduced by one of Festal's confirmed sockpuppets, where a search for "metamodernism" within the given source link returned zero results for the term. I remind people that the SPI admin has confirmed ClaphamSix to be somebody's sock, and that I have not made the false sockpuppet allegations that ClaphamSix accuses me of above. Esmeme (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think I was being unclear, Esme...? I was saying that WP:NPV says that either an edit is sound or it is not; edits do not get discarded because of who made or suggested them. You seem to forget that--often. Many of the dozens of sources you've removed from the article over the last six months were from WP:RS and were clearly WP:N, but you crusaded to have them eliminated from the article because you didn't like the editor suggesting them. That is simply not how Wikipedia works. If you had concerns about, for instance, an inadvertent appearance of WP:SYNTH, you could have worked with other editors to emphasize that the many historical uses of the term "metamodernism" do not appear to be connected, rather than falsely accusing other editors of trying to connect them--a supposed effort I never saw present in any diff here--and then (moreover) seeking to have multiple other editors banned. Anyway, as is always the case, the past can be the past if you want it to be; if you're willing to let neutral editors review the article and make any necessary additions or deletions, that's what matters now. P.S Re: this SPI you keep mentioning, I am not who you say I am, and the administrator who reviewed your allegation offered an opinion on the situation but in no way "confirmed" anything; if fact, s/he said that the technical data didn't support your charge, which of course it couldn't have because the allegation is false. ClaphamSix (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not, you will find, remove all the content the confirmed sockpuppets inserted. I did, however, feel the need to look through every one of those sources that I could access, and determine which were valid. A large amount of the content introduced by Festal did indeed turn out to be substantially misrepresenting these sources. I detailed this very evaluation above in my extensive comments on each source, and this explains the article's current healthy condition. Your constant misrepresenting of this fact does you no favors. Esmeme (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Esme, this is quite evasive. You removed virtually all links to The Huffington Post and Indiewire from the article, the former on the grounds that you felt authorship of one article published on that site (and never cited in this article) was misattributed, and the latter--well, you never gave any reason at all. You then added references to any time or place Turner or Vermeulen or van den Akker were associated with metamodernism, while removing any such references to American metamodernists in Salon, Pitchfork, Country Music Television, and elsewhere. Meanwhile, you submit that a guy's personal blog is a WP:RS (despite protests from many editors here) because it's mentioned on "aqnb," a website that is not a WP:RS. None of this has to do with the scholarly sources you're now referencing, some of which indeed required careful editing in terms of avoiding WP:OR and maintaining WP:NPV in citing them, and I'm very glad the intervention of Steelpillow made all that possible. Your claims of "substantial misrepresentation" were, again, mere content disputes that you violated WP:AGF to turn into a banning spree on Wikipedia (the results of which you then repeatedly misstated). So please do not play the innocent where your prior mass deletions from this article are concerned. ClaphamSix (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Re. (3) above, Abramson and Indiewire may well be notable, but Wikipedia needs to demonstrate that by referencing comments on them from reliable and independent sources. If such sources cannot be found, then it is WP:TOOSOON (too soon) to add them here yet. If sourcing gets to be contentious, please open a new discussion - I'll keep an eye out for anything like that. As for the other issues, you guys seem to be back on course (as long as you stop rising to each other's bait - can I suggest you just let things like that ride), so I will step away and leave you to get on with it. My talk page is always there, too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Steelpillow, all that sounds good to me. The sources removed by the OE have been referenced in major media, as noted above, and I'm sure they will shortly be returned to the article on that basis. I couldn't agree more that WP:TOOSOON material should be avoided. ClaphamSix (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Steelpillow. My wariness of Abramson's Huffington Post blog and Pitchfork articles is detailed extensively enough above, not to mention the fact that Abramson was a main focus of Festal's sockpuppets' activities on this page. Esmeme (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the link you provided to see if the claims you make now are any different from the ones you've made many times in the past. I believe the short version of what I and other editors witnessed you doing re: Abramson was that (1) you had no issue with or claim against any of the Indiewire articles Abramson had published in the U.S., yet deleted all of them from the article anyway; and (2) you had no issue with or claim against any of the Huffington Post blog articles Abramson had published in the U.S. that were cited in this article, but deleted all the Huffington Post blog links from the article anyway because (you say) you questioned the authorial attribution of a Huffington Post blog entry not cited in this article. An ongoing vendetta against a specific individual using Wikipedia as a weapon could hardly get more obvious than this. I suspect the Indiewire articles (which you have never given any reason to be "wary" of, whatever that word means in this context) will be readded to the article at some point, as well as (possibly, though I don't know the WP:N of many of them) some of the Huffington Post blog-posts that were previously cited here and which you have never had any claim against either. Again, I try to WP:AGF and avoid calling you a liar or sock-puppet as you've done to others here, but attempting to keep any publications by a WP:N author off Wikipedia based on a personal vendetta is quite simply not acceptable. ClaphamSix (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, ClaphamSix is completely misrepresenting the facts. See my historical edit comments, other editors' objections to excessive Abramson links, and the SPI reports. Esmeme (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Abramson and Indiewire revisited

Concern has been expressed about the reliability of Abramson's writings on metamodernism.

I have already pointed out that at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/the-metamodernist-manifes_2_b_5678854.html he took this very Wikipedia article as his starting point, thus immediately rendering unreliable anything derived from that discussion.

In his two part post "The Metamodernist Intervention" for the Huffington Post [28][29] he claimed to have culled it from "eeuw. Cultuur in de Nederlanden in interdisciplinair perspectief" and attributed it to one Aart Naaktgeboren.

The journal concerned is in fact titled "De zeventiende eeuw. Cultuur in de Nederlanden in interdisciplinair perspectief" (The seventeenth century. Culture in the Netherlands in interdisciplinary perspective) and is published bianually by Verloren - see their description at http://www.verloren.nl/de-zeventiende-eeuw and its searchable online resource at http://www.de-zeventiende-eeuw.nl/index.php/dze .

Searching that resource on the author Naaktgeboren yields nothing. Full-text searches on metamodern, metamodernism and metamodernist also draw blanks. That comes as no surprise - there is of course no way that a journal dedicated to the seventeenth century would contain a long piece on metamodernism.

Abramson is thus caught with his pants down, indulging in a Turner-LeBoeuf style false attribution. What a bunch of intellectually dishonest poseurs.

With the circular referencing mentioned above, that makes two reasons why Abramson is an unreliable source.

What can we make of all this?

1) Wikipedia can NOT cite Abramson as a reliable source, on any topic or in any place, ever. he could be up to his metamodern tricks again, nobody can ever tell.

2) Wkipedia CAN cite discussions of Abramson's work by other, established reliable sources.

The ban on Abramson must sadly include his output on Indiewire. If other reliable sources talk about his Indiewire output, we can reference what they say about him.

Not what everybody wanted to hear, I am sure, but I hope it helps us to move forward. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Turner's "Manifesto"/Abramson's non-"Intervention" Articles

Steelpillow, hi! I think you are on the right track, but there are still some things to figure out.

Most importantly, just to reiterate what I've been saying above: I don't see Abramson's Huffington Post essays as being WP:N for this article, so I've no disagreement there. And as to Indiewire, I distinguish between (a) the Wikipedia article on metamodernism noting that Indiewire runs a series on metamodernism, and (b) using any of those articles as a primary source for any purpose in this article. As you say, the purpose of limiting Wikipedia's citation of a person (when it does so) is to ensure accuracy, not as a punitive measure--otherwise, unpopular people would never be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. So I don't see what you've said above as in opposition to my suggestion that the article note that Indiewire (a WP:RS) runs a regular column on metamodernism. There's no credible argument I can see for not including a ten-word reference to what appears to be the world's first regular column on metamodernism in the Wikipedia article on metamodernism.

As a final preface, I also agree that Turner's "Manifesto" needs to be removed from the article (a) in direct citation (i.e. as a directly linked source), and (b) as a quoted source, though if any WP:RS both (a) confirm conclusively (via investigative research rather than mere speculation) who authored the document, and (b) contain quotes from it, I see no issue with that content being in the article. The reason for this view is related to my concern about some of your conclusions above: namely, that when we're dealing with a WP:RS that is professionally edited, the reliability of the content is no longer attributable merely to the author but to the editorial staff of the WP:RS that is (rather than any individual author) the reason that WP:RS is a WP:RS in the first place.

So, having said all that, I think we need to distinguish between the definitely objectionable "Manifesto" and Abramson's Indiewire articles. With the Turner "Manifesto", we have:

(1) a document whose misattribution of authorship is confirmed;

(2) published on an unedited personal blog that is not a WP:RS;

(3) claiming to be a foundational document of an entire cultural philosophy;

(4) that is now prominently cited in the Wikipedia article on metamodernism.

All of the above is why I support removing the Turner/LaBeouf material from the article as both WP:TOOSOON (all of it is from the last several months, when "metamodernism" as a term has been used for 40 years now), not WP:N, and not a WP:RS.

By contrast, with Abramson's "The Metamodern Intervention," we have:

(1) a document whose misattribution of authorship is merely suspected;

(2) published on a professionally edited WP:RS;

(3) making no claims to be a foundational document of anything;

(4) that has never appeared in the Wikipedia article on metamodernism; and

(5) in its content details a scholarly history that is confirmable by other means, something we can assume its author (whoever it may be) would have had reason to know.

Does this mean I think "The Metamodern Intervention" should be quoted in this article? Absolutely not! It has no place in this article. No, what I'm pointing out is that there is a difference between:

(a) documents in unedited non-WP:RS sources and edited WP:RS sources; and

(b) documents that make unconfirmable statements of fact and documents that are either opinions or make confirmable statements of fact.

Turner's "Manifesto," as you say, fails every test we throw at it. Even its reference in secondary sources in the current iteration of the article is in non-WP:RS secondary sources, as when previous editors tried to put mentions of the "Manifesto" in WP:RS, "Esmeme" removed those WP:RS immediately on the grounds that they called Shia LaBeouf the author of the "Manifesto" and not Luke Turner ("Esmeme").

Meanwhile, a one-sentence reference to the mere fact that Indiewire publishes a regular column on metamodernism authored by Abramson meets all our requirements for inclusion:

(1) It is an opinion series containing reviews of culture, not statements of fact;

(2) it appears in a WP:RS that is professionally edited for content (i.e. it is not a blog, like www.metamodernism.org);

(3) it is not being inserted here as a primary source for any proposition, it is merely being noted for the fact of its existence;

(4) its author is a WP:N; and most importantly

(5) there is no proven or even suspected issue regarding its authorship or earnestness.

Re: Abramson's work on The Huffington Post, as it is not yet historically notable--unlike the Indiewire column--there's not much that needs to be said. But I will say this: The Huffington Post publishes several kinds of content, including news stories, editorials, reviews, and original art. Abramson has repeatedly and self-avowedly published original art via The Huffington Post, and clearly the editors of that WP:RS have given permission for this to occur. In fact, "Esmeme" has often himself been incensed about Abramson's original art on The Huffington Post, all of which quite clearly plays with the question of authorship--i.e., it tells its readers what it is doing. "The Metamodern Intervention" appears to be in the same vein as other artworks published by The Huffington Post whose author--in this one case ("Intervention") I merely suspect, but in all other cases self-avowedly--is Abramson. But these articles are never to be confused, or confusable, with the other sort of essays Abramson publishes on The Huffington Post: poetry reviews and opinion pieces. While I think "The Metamodern Intervention" stated its artistic aims far less obviously than did Abramson's HuffPo poems re: Elliot Rodger and Nelson Mandela (though the essay is clear in saying that metamodern essays sometimes misattribute authorship to make a point), the fact that those others documents exist, state their methods plainly, and were vetted by The Huffington Post contradicts the implication here that there's been an intent to deceive--an intent we know was present with Luke Turner's "Manifesto," as he made Shia its author (so he says) to gain publicity for himself.

In any case, my point is that the jury is still out on Abramson's Huffington Post work, and his Indiewire work is in an edited WP:RS and is only a series of opinion pieces--i.e., it can't be "unreliable" in the way a statement of fact could be. Moreover, efforts were previously made, I can see, to add secondary sources referencing Abramson's essays in Indiewire and The Huffington Post. What happened to those secondary sources? Well, you can probably guess--"Esmeme" deleted them. ClaphamSix (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We've been over this a hundred times: Turner's 2011 manifesto is demonstrably widely referenced with reliable sources. As several editors have commented previously, it is one of the most widely cited documents related to metamodernism, so its notability is clear and backed up by many secondary sources. Even, ahem, Abramson acknowledges its importance on his Indiewire column here... The fact that it now forms part of a collaboration with LaBeouf is also not in question. From the horse's mouth, here is LaBeouf reading the text himself [30], and note that the webpage is linked to as the homepage on his verified twitter account [31]. I probably don't need to add, but I've never been "incensed" by anything of Abramson's, nor are most of the other claims above true. More mudslinging, I'm afraid. Esmeme (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Esme, re: mudslinging, not at all! You are taking what I've said as more radical than it is. Consider: There are dozens of WP:RS secondary sources that mention the document we know (informally) as the "manifesto" at www.metamodernism.org, and we can use (in my view) any number of them in this article as a way to both (a) mention the "manifesto," and (b) quote from it where the WP:RS has quoted from it. Your objection in the past has been that you "know" Turner wrote it, because you "studied it in art school two years ago"--which, at the time you made that claim, was mid-spring of 2014, meaning that (per you) Turer's blog was being studied in art school curricula less than 120 days after he published it. I'm willing to WP:AGF, but my point is that Shia must be listed as the author because that's what the WP:RS say, and we can then include a sentence saying that Turner has now claimed authorship in an interview with the "aqnb" (whatever this is). I'd certainly think that would be in keeping with WP policies. You're confusing my concern over the authorship of the manifesto--a concern I know you share, as you have been obsessively interrogative about the authorship of a single essay by Abramson that has never appeared anywhere on Wikipedia--with a claim that the manifesto itself is not WP:N. I don't know whether it is WP:N or not, but I've only argued that it is presently not because of the current sourcing of it in the article, which is (a) poor, and (b) uses primary sources. There is no mud-slinging here, merely a proposal for consistency and compliance with WP sourcing policies. ClaphamSix (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. You've repeatedly slung mud at me, claiming I'm various people and grossly misrepresenting my edits from the very minute you created your account here. I have nothing further to add. Esmeme (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I will of course honor your request--my intent was not to bother, but to dialogue out the many questions you had asked and claims you had made about the article. I provided many diffs and direct quotes from this Talk page in support of those claims; I certainly never intended to get personal with you, as beyond your COI re: this article I have no interest in you (I mean that not unkindly, hopefully you will take it as I mean it). Good luck to you. ClaphamSix (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, I did indeed research the manifesto at art school the year after it was published. I have no idea what the problem with this is. I have no COI, so please stop accusing me of having one. (I guess I had something further to add.) Esmeme (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Esme, as I said, I do AGF that it's possible you came across the document in 2012. And as I mentioned, the COI issue only bothers me when the edits reflect one; I have no interest in the question otherwise (as a COI editor who makes neutral edits is no danger to anyone). In any case, these are just different questions from the ones we're facing now re: public confirmability, authorship, sourcing, and citation. I don't wish to go on again on those, though, so, as I said--good luck. ClaphamSix (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting my edits. Thank you. Esmeme (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We appear to have reliable third-party references for the manifesto's notability (Welsch, the Daily telegraph, I don't know about aqnb). Having established that it is also however unreliable and at least in part insincere, I agree we should not cite it directly. Those quotes will have to come off, unless they can be referenced to a good third-party source. I don't think it is too prominent any more though, it just has one paragraph to its name.

We have no independent sources yet for the notability of Abramson on Indiewire; the claim for notability is just editorial opinion until it can be verified. If they are out there, go catch 'em.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: I tried to make sure the quotes from the manifesto were from reliable secondary sources. There is another I came across, I will try to track it down again now and add it. Esmeme (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: I've now added reliable secondary sources for every passage quoted from the manifesto. Turner's manifesto is also quoted in the Spring 2012 Tank Magazine interview with Vermeulen (which I think is where I first encountered it), which doesn't seem to be viewable online, but I have a copy here (which I also used to quote parts of the Vermeulen section from). If anybody has any questions about this source, I am happy to answer them, since I have it in front of me. Esmeme (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The exposé of Abramson's HuffPost post attribution is definitive, unarguable. Let me thump the point home: the contents of Verloren's two 2012 issues claimed as source are given here and here and neither of the putative article or author is among them. The emperor has no pants, Abramson demonstrably misled. We may only discuss the Indiewire output in so far as it has been discussed by a reliable independent party. If it is as notable as some believe, that should be easy to find. We already have RS for the manifesto so reference to it can stay, although I have since removed direct citations and the material which they alone supported. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Good work, Steelpillow. Thanks for the arbitration. Snuffleumpagus (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Steelpillow for your diligence in dealing with this, and obviously I agree with all this. Abramson's latest HuffPo post yesterday [32] is also a concern, since in addition to directly addressing the question of the hoax article at the very time it was being discussed here above, he also writes about Zavarzadeh "coining the term "metamodernism" in 1975", when the sources seem to show that the term wasn't used as an -ism until the '90s. The notability, or lack of, of this first isolated usage is my main remaining concern with the page as it stands. Esmeme (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

An IP (from Wisconsin) has just removed the external link to the manifesto, and undone my revert. I disagree with this, as I believe it is an important, notable and useful webpage link here, just as the webzine is, and it doesn't actually involve us citing text from either directly. What do other editors think here? Esmeme (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

-->Erm...i live in Michigan? http://www.iplocationtools.com/71.89.79.139.html 71.89.79.139 (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The search I ran on http://www.whereisip.net said Madison, Wisconsin. Sorry. Esmeme (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

-->no prob. made the edit bc seemed like there was consensus here. i quoted the consensus in my edit comments for the 2nd edit, sorry about the 1st one where i didn't. you were right to revert that, thanks. 71.89.79.139 (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the link can stay. I also wrote, "We already have RS for the manifesto so reference to it can stay", and an external link is not the same thing as a citation: cites require the source to be reliable, external links require it only to be relevant. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and on that new HuffPost piece. Abramson began that game by referencing Wikipedia. His confession to the hoax mirrors the timing of its exposure here. He extols the virtues of mixing critique with creativity. And indeed, a primary purpose of art down the ages has been to offer critique for the age it finds itself in. But art has always done so with integrity, it has never pretended that it was not art. The Huffington Post has a reputation as a platform for factual reporting, it is not lauded as an art form. Its editors may be content to prostitute its reporting integrity as Abramson's canvas for his latest art form, but Wikipedia is not. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)