Talk:Raymond Kennedy (novelist)

Tone tag

At first I thought that this entire article might be a copyvio, but some random searches of the text do not seem to indicate that. Closer inspection reveals that this article may have been written by the subject's daughter, User:Branwynne, who also uploaded the image that was used by at least one other news source with no easily identifiable evidence that it was indeed created by the user. Whatever the case, the article certainly reads as if it were written by someone with a conflict of interest. Much of the language is unencyclopedic in nature and some of it is very subjective ("Kennedy was a master of the grotesque who set outsized, dreadfully funny characters against each other in bar rooms, board rooms and, of course, bedrooms." or "This book was probably Kennedy’s least comic work and after its publication, he began writing what was to be his most outrageously funny book, Ride a Cockhorse (1991, Houghton Mifflin).") If it was written by a family member, then it is original research as I don't see a single citation for any of the material that would actually require citations, including direct quotes. While this might make for a good biography of the subject, it's does not meet the standards required of Wikipedia articles. I would be pleased to help any editor, including User:Branwynne even if she is the subject's daughter, turn this into a proper article but, in its current state, it is unacceptable. If these concerns are not addressed within a week, I will go through the text and removing anything not covered by the obituaries provided. Cheers, CP 01:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing of this Page

Sure, we can remove the parts that Wikipedia deems subjective, and therefore, inappropriate. However, the biographical parts should be left in since they are common in such entries of most writers and artists.

One thing I would be curious to learn more about however, is CP's qualifications as an "editor." His own biography states that he has a "B.S. in Management Science." It is common practice for encyclopedia editors to hold degrees in the subjects that they edit, and to certainly, at least, have a background in English. Merely being a native speaker of the language, while it may qualify one to order a coffee at Starbucks, does not qualify one to be an "editor."

Furthermore, on this subject, a brief glance at CP's interests and personal pursuits, such as video games, slasher movies, former Olympians, etc, also seem to conflict with his role as an "editor" of literary entries. One must have some sense of the subject in order to make valuable contributions.

Lastly, encyclopedias normally have teams of editors review entries; the final edit is not up to some random individual roasting a marshmellow in an igloo somewhere.

These practices render the Wikipedia problematic in the intellectual community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.204.152 (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, do not remove the comments of others from talk pages, as you did here, as it is not acceptable per our talk page guidlines. Second of all, your response to my legitimate comments above amounts to a personal attack and further comments will not be tolerated, as they are not tolerated anywhere on Wikipedia. Thirdly, any person, regardless of their qualifications, is allowed to edit Wikipedia, that is what this entire project is about. Fourthly, I do not have to reveal every last bit of my personal life on my talk page in order to edit; to foolishly respond to your personal attacks, I'll note that I've had my literary work published and won writing awards at UCSD, I just choose not to delve into that subject because I hate excessive pretentious ego trips. I've wanked myself off enough to include the fact that I'm a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and you can't be "some random individual roasting a marshmellow (p.s. it's "marshmallow") in an igloo somewhere" to join that. Cheers, CP 04:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note that your edits do not fully address the problems listed in the section that you deleted. Cheers, CP 04:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Questioning your abilities and qualifications as an editor does not constitute a personal attack, it in fact lies at the heart of the controversy over the Wikipedia. To put yourself forward as someone who is qualified to edit literary entries because you won a writing award at school is preposterous. You simply do not have a literary or writing background.

It's obvious that anyone can edit wikipedia entries, but just because you have "edited" 40,000 entries doesn't qualify you to arbitrate a final edit. Quantity is a poor substitute of quality.

Lastly, as for the other edits, some of them are considered primary source biographical details. Many, many wiki entries contain such details. In the world of scholarship, primary sources are highly valued and difficult to come by. Quoting secondary and tertiary sources is not as good and doesn't add much to the general knowledge of a subject.

The entry will be modified to include citations that involved interviews with friends, family, and literary critics of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.204.152 (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your solution is entirely unacceptable, as Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research for the many reasons outlined at that policy. You are mistaking Wikipedia for a traditional encyclopedia which it is not - everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and primary sources such as personal interviews are not. Furthermore, your accusation and attack that I "simply do not have a literary or writing background" is laughable. I could forward you the, admittedly few, things I've published, or point out that, having a mother with a Ph.D. in literature, I've always been fascinated and absorbed in the subject, but I suspect that unless I clunked the Nobel Prize for Literature on your desk, you'd never be convinced that I, nor any editor, possess the literary skills to required to edit this page. I seem to have already been pre-judged as an individual who engages only with "video games, slasher movies [and] former Olympians" (which, for the record, is my way of relaxing, blatantly false, and the subject of my Master's Thesis respectively) by cherry-picking those details from my profile and arguments in an attempt to use them against me.

I tried to be a bit reasonable (emotional, but reasonable), but apparentely you're only interested in engaging in ad hominem attacks against me, and I have neither the time to deal with them nor the desire to bicker with someone on the Internet. Nor do I lack the self-esteem to continue trying to present you with credentials that I do not require for this job. If you have a problem with Wikipedia or the way it's done, there are plenty of of other outlets for you to express your dissatisfaction, such as at the village pump; but the talk page of this article is not the place to do it. If you wish to engage in a rational debate, you may do so in public and I will respond to rational concerns related to policy and raised in a civil manner, or you may locate my personal email address (it's not hard from the not-so-subtle clues that I leave on my profile; I have no desire to remain completely anonymous) and we can chat there. In any case, I am going to head over to the admin's noticeboard and promptly recuse myself from any administrative actions regarding you but, in the process, I will make certain that they are aware of your behavior in response to what was an entirely legitimate request to review the information contained on this page. Cheers, CP 15:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The relevant administrator's noticeboard thread can be found here. Cheers, CP 15:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that on August 8, three days from now, I still plan to remove all material that is not cited by non-original-research citations, as nothing has yet been raised to my address my concerns regarding Wikipedia policy. I am still willing to work with any editor to try and incorporate this material within the guidelines of policy. Cheers, CP 21:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Most of it would have required a complete rewrite and recite to have been viable. My offer to work with the old material with any interested editor still stands. Cheers, CP 05:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)