Talk:Kevin Kiely (poet)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2017

PLEASE REMOVE THE FOLLOWING four words: a Nazi sympathizer and collaborator. AS THEY LIBEL Kevin Kiely poet BY ASSOCIATION ZooZooZoo (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - that seems a fair description of Francis Stuart - Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2017

PLEASE REMOVE THE TEXT BELOW AS IT DEFAMES AND LIBELS THE REPUTATION OF Kevin Kiely as Poet and Critic:

The leading Irish poet Paul Durcan, as quoted by The Irish Central, defended Michael D. Higgins, who, in his view, "has an absolute commitment to the spirit of poetry." Durcan also said that "Kiely had no competence to talk or write about poetry at any level. All of us in the poetic community know that. Since the 1980s he has been writing rubbish about poetry.” ZooZooZoo (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - all we are doing is reporting what others said in February 2012 - and I cannot find any subsequent retraction by Paul Durcan, or court action by Kiely, in the intervening 5 years. It is clearly in the a criticism section of the article, and it was Keily who initiated the argument, by roundly criticizing Michael D. Higgins. - Arjayay (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

References

My edit to lead

According to lead, the opening should serve "as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."

The article is about Kevin Kiely. Mentioning that someone else is a "Nazi sympathizer and collaborator" is doubly problematic. First, that term is extremely loaded, and ought to be used with extreme care, if true, supported by impeccable sourcing. That hasn't been done (I haven't investigated whether it could be done.) Second, even if the allegation is true, it is about a person other than the subject of the article. If the allegation can be sourced, and can be found relevant to this article, at best it deserves a mention somewhere in the body of the article. I think could be only justified in the lead if it is one of the most important things the author is known for and there is no evidence to support that.

I'll also note that the subject claims (OTRS 2017033010019413) that readers have seen the term in the opening sentence and mistakenly assigned it to the subject. While a careful reading will reveal a different conclusion, I think it is an appropriate concerned that not everyone reads everything carefully all the time.

While one option would be to move the material to an appropriate place in the main article, I don't think that's justified unless sufficient research is done to support the use of the loaded phrase, so I have taken the simpler approach of simply removing it. If a consensus of editors can find support for the term it can be restored but my opinion is if it is restored it belongs in the main article not in the lead.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• It does belong in the main article, and I found a nice place for it there in the paragraph about the Francis Stuart controversy.--Badvibes101 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I also streamlined the Criticism section moving there a paragraph from Writings.--Badvibes101 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit to criticism section

I removed a short paragraph in the criticism section. In general, we have to be cognizant of the tension between two opposing forces: the desire of a subject and the friends of the subject to keep negative information about an individual or organization out of an article, and the opposing force of critics of a subject or organization would like to include as much negative information as possible. Our goal is to provide a neutral article. This doesn't mean criticism is not permitted, but it does mean that criticism has to be measured against our WEIGHT Policy. I consulted with an editor was opinion on BLP I respect, but the decision to remove this is mine. Of course, if a consensus of editors feels that it should be restored as is or an amended form, I'll abide by the consensus.

While I haven't fully investigated the incident, this article Leaves the impression that a "scathing review" of president Michael D Higgins book of poetry led to a verbal attack against the reviewer. It seems hardly surprising that the strongly worded review would generate some rebuke — the question for editors is whether this incident rises to the level that deserves inclusion in a biography at all, and if so, should remarks such as the quoted retorts be included in the description. It looks to me like remarks uttered in the heat of the moment and do not rise to the level of inclusion in the biography.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• I beg to differ. Kiely is not notable for his poems or even for his criticism; he is a controversial journalist who has built his reputation on creating and stirring controversies in literary circles, the most notorious of which was the attack on President Michael D. Higgins. Everybody in Ireland knows this. Keeping it out of Wikipedia, on a quite laughable pretext that "Kiely's friends (or sock-puppets? IP check, anybody?) don't like it" is against the spirit of Wikipedia, as well as again its WEIGHT Policy. I agree that the goal is to provide a neutral article, however without the removed paragraph the article is not neutral but neuter. I am restoring it for the time being pending other editor's opinions in hope that consensus can be reached.--Badvibes101 (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)