Talk:Kate Clanchy

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Poetry Mid‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

In the latest Waterstone's magazine, the book 'What Is She Doing Here?' is being advertised under the title 'Antigona And Me'. Which is correct? Katie1971 ( Let's talk!! ) 12:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title changed 208 NoorStores (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

User:NoorStores has removed some content without explanation in an "edited for accurate, neutral language" edit:

That three of Clanchy's critics were targeted with months of racist abuse and violent threats on social media, reducing this to were targeted with racist abuse. Given the references from the industry and publishers to the racist abuse of the critics, the fact that this was described as sustained adds important context. (NoorStores has suggested removing such content at Talk:Monisha Rajesh#Racist abuse over Kate Clanchy book, saying that they've seen a leaked email written by Clanchy claiming that no abuse occurred, but this isn't the view taken in the press coverage.)
That Clanchy apologised for "overreacting" to critical reviews and said she intended to rewrite her book.

Why do these statements not belong in the article? Belbury (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These comments do not belong in the article because the evidenced cited is from August 2021, therefore does not back up allegations of 'months' . There are no references to 'violent threats' . These have been added in by persons wishing to dramatise the story. They are not facts. NoorStores (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

further, your reference to a leaked email is incorrect. I referred you to an article in the Times. NoorStores (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "months" description was sourced to a 2022 Guardian article, which also references violent threats:

Monisha Rajesh, Prof Sunny Singh and Chimene Suleyman, who had challenged Clanchy on Twitter, endured months of racist abuse and sometimes violent threats [...]

Clanchy's apology and rewrite intention was sourced to a 2021 Guardian article:

Clanchy later apologised for “overreacting” to critical reader reviews and pledged to rewrite the book

The Times coverage of Clanchy's letter doesn't seem to mention any allegations that the abuse never actually occurred, which you say you read in a leaked version of the letter. Perhaps they saw a different version of that letter, or chose not to print that part for legal reasons. Belbury (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article demonstrates that the claims are contested. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to decide which contested events occured or not. It is appropriate to report in neutral language different views.

It is untrue that the Guardian article of 2022 cites violent threats or months of abuse. Both phrases are emotive, exaggerated and contentious. NoorStores (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, as I have replaced unsourced, exaggerated, potentially libellous claims placed on the page by people involved in an argument with neutral language and accurately sourced content, I will revert my changes. If you wish to engage in a 'war' over this I am confident that my changes are in line with Wikipedia's advice and values, and will hold to my position. NoorStores (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I am finding it hard to follow your position! I have no wish to engage in a "war".

My understanding of your concern is that because Clanchy is quoted in the Times as saying It is defamatory to say I orchestrated racial abuse, this means the abuse issue in general has been broadly contested and Wikipedia should minimise its mention of it. That the Wikipedia article should not refer to "months of racist abuse and violent threats", but instead only "racial abuse".

And that because Clanchy objected to an apology put out by her publisher, this renders her earlier, personal apology redundant (perhaps because it was made under pressure from her publisher?), so Wikipedia should not mention it.

Is that a fair summary of your position? --Belbury (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes. However, another route is to mention all the above.

Clanchy has stated her publishers 'apologized over her head' eg wrote the apologies.

I can no longer source her apologies.

Even more strange, I cannot find the original source of the publisher's apology. I do not understand this as I have read them in the past and referred to them in my thesis and they are in many articles. NoorStores (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the months of racist abuse and violent threats is important for giving context to why the industry felt moved to write an open letter, and perhaps why the publisher acted as they did. I don't see that the current article or any of the sources is implying that Clanchy orchestrated this abuse, only that it was sparked by events.

I can't find the text of the first apology either. The Guardian quotes Clanchy as having described the experience as "humbling", but it's not clear if that was part of the statement or something she said elsewhere. The Twitter thread they link to doesn't use that word. Belbury (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr Belbury,

I think there is something going on in this story. It seems very strange to me that the statements and apologies have disappeared. So, I will leave it and see what happens that can be verified for sure in the future. In the meantime I have written a page! it is Mukahang Limbu a name that came up in red when I did my edits and that was nice and short to do. Perhaps you might be so kind as to review it. I have not had much time as I have had many interiews to prepare for but editing experience here sure is useful in publishing! Noor NoorStores (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Parmar

MR Belbury, Sandeep is a woman's name! NoorStores (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I had overlooked that. --Belbury (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How relevant is Parmar's 2020 criticism of Clanchy's work to the "controversy" section? NoorStores' original write-up of events had said that In August 2021, other writers echoed Parmar's criticism on Twitter, seemingly framing Parmar's essay as the starting point and omitting Clanchy reacting publicly to Goodreads reviews in 2021, but I can't see that any sources draw the same throughline. Sources see the start of the controversy as being Clanchy's tweet about Goodreads. --Belbury (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The very large academic article by Parmar about Clanchy is relevent to her work but I cant say so because it has become the subject of bullying. NoorStores (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FRSL

When I cleaned up this page I checked all the prizes and added citations and wiikilinks. When I got to Fellow of Royal Society of Literature I went to wikilink it but it didn't work. I couldn't understand it because it said in so many places she was a fellow, also the RSL page on wiki had just been edited and was all up to date. So I phoned the RSL information line and they said she resigned. So I wrote that but it bothered me there was no public citation. So when there was a verified source came up I put it in. NoorStores (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]