Talk:Alan Morrison (poet)

Notability?

This relies on a lot of primary sources, and I've tagged it as such, also added one secondary source that I could find, which was a news story not an interview. I'd never heard of this guy -- though I don't know current British poetry well -- but I'd expect a notable poet to have more major mainstream news coverage than he does. Is he notable? I don't want to flag it as "might not be notable" on page, but thought I'd raise it for discussion here. AdventurousMe (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As someone who is closer to the scene of current British poetry, I contest the notability discrepancy as this poet is unquestionably notable and has been mentioned in such illustrious media as The Guardian, The London Magazine and the Times Literary Supplement. Also in the reference section you will note that there are many secondary sources so the 'primary source' tag should be removed. Bjbeamish (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

General Notability Guidelines state: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band."

I'm not seeing *significant* coverage in large-scale media so I'm still not convinced of his notability. If you can find substantial coverage, that would make a great addition to this article, which is in appalling shape at the moment. AdventurousMe (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is not in "appalling shape", it just needs a little bit of editing here and there. Who appointed you to police these pages? User:Yorkshades

Tidy up

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems like the subject does meet GNG, however the article is really poor. Lacks sources for entire sections. The tone of language. The excessive linking to external sites. Overly detailed. Prime for a massive rewrite/TNT. Rayman60 (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Could not agree more Rayman60. I'd note that the only substantial source does not cover his work but his role in organising a protest - it's a news piece, not an arts piece, which is where I'd expect a significant poet to appear. Also, whoever wrote the bit about how he got his name seems to have a hotline to his father, LOL. Do you have the time to strip out the verbiage and prune right back? AdventurousMe (talk)

AdventurousMe What is your problem about this page? You seem to have a real agenda here which is quite puzzling. The Guardian piece is a 'news piece', yes, but then many of the other pieces are 'arts pieces'. At least two covered by The Morning Star, which is a national UK newspaper. Red Pepper, which carried an 'arts piece' on Morrison, is a national magazine. Having said that, only the highest profile poets in the UK regularly get pieces written about them in the mainstream media, the majority of poets do not. You seem to be under the impression that all 'notable' poets should be written about in mainstream newspapers. Is it like that in the US? It isn't like that in the UK. Your constant tinkering on this page and rather sarcastic comments might be in danger of coming across as malicious. You have also yet to show the courtesy of answering Bjbeamish 's message of 4 August 2017! comment added by Yorkshades (talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yorkshades I'd be interested to know your connection to the subject of this article. I'm not sure what you mean by "constant tinkering" but I look at a lot of Wikipedia pages and edit many: you can check my contributions to see how diverse my interests are. A look at yours shows that you have ONLY contributed to this one page, and have been "tinkering" with it on and off since July. I haven't proposed it for deletion, but I have flagged it for GNG: that's because I'd expect a notable poet to have been the subject of profile pieces, for example, and full features, in decent media, which this guy hasn't. Can I suggest you read up on Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines? And, no, I haven't replied to BJ Beamish: I was leaving it up there for discussion. AdventurousMe (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

AdventurousMe I'd be interested to know why you've appointed yourself to police this page? Going by your definition of a "notable poet" as one who has been the subject of "full features" in newspapers, you should be flagging up the GNG rule on the pages of hundreds of poets who lack or don't have any media pieces featuring them in their Wikipedia entries. Why do you keep picking on this particular poet? And what does "decent media" mean exactly? Red Pepper and the Morning Star are proper media outlets. This poet has also been, incidentally, listed in The Guardian Birthdays page, which a random search on Google flagged up. I would say anyone being listed in The Guardian on their birthday -something reserved only for 'notable' people- meets the GNG criteria, wouldn't you? But why in any case do you expect a "notable poet" to be the subject of newspaper profile pieces? Only the most famous 1% of poets are featured in mainstream newspapers. Are you seriously suggesting just because a poet isn't in the newspapers they are, irrespective of their actual poetic output, or critical reputation, not "notable"? Seriously? You clearly have no clue at all about the British poetry scene. I don't know what world you live in, but in British culture, most poets are not talked about in major newspapers, only a tiny minority ever are. User:Yorkshades

Yorkshades I'm sure there are many other pages on Wikipedia at least as bad as this one: however, this happens to be one of the ones that I've found, and am keeping an eye on. And, no, nobody "appointed" me to police this page: that's not how Wikipedia works. It's just one of the pages I keep an eye on. The reference to "significant coverage" is Wikipedia policy on notability: that someone who is truly notable in their field will be the subject of significant coverage (and, yes, in most fields, including poetry, that would only be the top 1% or thereabouts). I'm going to ask you again: what is YOUR connection to this subject? You seem very passionate about it, and the text includes information that would only be known to family, close friends, or the subject: even the entry on Seamus Heaney doesn't go into why he was given the name he was given. AdventurousMe (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

AdventurousMe Okay, so you concur that in any field it will be pretty much the top 1% who have significant mainstream media coverage -in which case, that would imply a significant percentage of Wikipedia entries fall short of such credentials and yet a trawl through your activity log reveals this page is one of only a tiny amount you've flagged up notability on. This is why your continued comments here come across as hectoring. Lots of Wikipedia entries contain biographical information on the subject that would only be known to close family or friends. But if you find that so offensive, why not suggest those parts for deletion, or remove them yourself? You've still not acknowledged that the secondary sources are valid. The Morning Star and Red Pepper, both national titles, have carried proper features on the subject, yet you have questioned these. I'm just passionate about fairness and consistency and am irritated by what I see as nitpicking, pedantry and overt officiousness in anyone. I say again, if you are so hung up on this vaguely defined 'notability' issue then why aren't you investigating all the other Wikipedia entries that -compared to this page- really do fall short in that regard? Yorkshades (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Translated1 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A serious issue here raised by AdventurousMe not addressed by Yorkshades is on the connection to the article. Purely editing one article in a promotional manner and being overly enthusiastic in the talk pages is typical of a WP:COI issue. Strengthening this view is the accidental appearance of Translated1, whose only prior activity was editing this article 9 years ago. As such, 'both' users have been advised on the COI policy and I expect them to not make further edits to the article. Rayman60 (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have now tidied the article and removed all inappropriate content. I expect none of those editors whose activity is limited to this article do not revert or act directly on the article but if they do have any comments, to raise them on the talk page. Rayman60 (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Rayman60 You have removed lots of appropriate content such as the list of grant awards... Why? You get such lists on numerous pages of other poets and writers so why aren't you removing those lists too? Information simply detailing aspects to a particular book by this author is not 'promotion', it is information. So why did you remove whole paragraphs which simply detailed aspects to some of his books? Neither you nor AdventurousMe have ethical consistency: you both pick on this page and yet seem fine to leave tonnes of other pages unedited in spite of some of them being far more promotional. There are numerous other poet pages where critical quotes are included. There are none on this page. So how come you think it promotional? I have therefore undone a number of the things you removed on the basis that they are appropriate information and there is no objective justification for your removing vast chunks of this page, which is tantamount to vandalism. Haven't you got anything better to do with your time? Translated1

First of all, everything about your activity screams conflict of interest. You still haven't addressed this. Secondly, awards need to be notable as per wiki definition. This is not the private site of the subject to list any accomplishment, not matter how minor. WP:NOTCV.

and paragraphs like this breach so many guidelines:

In 2014, Morrison published parts of an epic polemical poem-in-progress, Odour of Devon Violet. The poem -attributed to 'Ivor Mortise', a fictitious alter-ego- satirises contemporary austerity culture using the leitmotiv of Devon Violet, a cheap perfume particularly popular during the Thirties and Forties, as an olfactory metaphor for the retro-rhetoric, and synthetic nostalgia (a sort of austerity nostalgia or 'nosterity'/ 'austalgia', as Morrison refers to it) for a pre-welfare state Britain, promulgated by politicians. The work draws on the period polemical works of Christopher Caudwell (Illusion and Reality, Studies in a Dying Culture etc.), Edmund Wilson (To the Finland Station) and Cyril Connolly (Enemies of Promise), as well as focusing on other key cultural figures of the inter-war years, such as W.H. Auden and George Orwell.

lack of reference, not encyclopaedic, promotional, not neutral tone. So overall, adding to the fact that you're dangerously close to 3RR territory, you've breached so many fundamental rules. And lay off personal attacks. I do what I choose to do with my time. I ask you again to NOT revert my edits and to raise any issues on the talk page, but first familiarise yourself with all the relevant policies, starting with WP:COI. Rayman60 (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing 'promotional' in the paragraph you have removed! All it is doing is explaining more in-depth about the nature of the work. The political comment in it is based on facts which even the targets of the work wouldn't deny. You are simply misinterpreting the text. Also, you still haven't answered why you do not make a habit of going into numerous other poets' pages and removing their lists of grants and awards. Arts Council awards are significant, as is the RLF, both of which are awards based on literary merit. So why are they not relevant and appropriate to list? Your removing the entire list is nothing short of vandalism Translated1

The nature of my edits are irrelevant and I don't have to justify anything. All that matters is wiki policy is adhered to, and there were numerous breaches. You clearly have an ulterior motive here, I demonstrably do not. As for the awards, none appeared significant or notable due to them not being linked to an existing wiki page for those awards. I used that as my metric and rationale, and given the significant issue of promotional activity from yourself and the related account, it was fair to assume lesser awards were added to pad the article/section out and paint the subject favourably. Happy to take guidance from an informed unconnected editor. I also suggest you teach yourself the meaning of vandalism in a wiki context. To suggest my activity is vandalism is factually incorrect and you know this so stop throwing such statements out. Rayman60 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Rayman60 Neither do I have to justify anything. Here is the link to the RLF Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Literary_Fund. But you took it upon yourself to remove the list of grants, awards and nominations altogether. The RLF only awards grants based on literary merit, they are highly competitive, therefore are not without prestige. Again, you betray a lack of knowledge in British literary culture, which is exactly why you are unqualified to do such sweeping edits to this page. Your 'metric and rationale' is deeply flawed. You do not seem to think before you make sweeping judgemental remarks about myself, and by implication, about the subject of this page, so you need to look to yourself before accusing others of 'throwing' statements out or 'getting personal'. Much of what you have written on this Talk page can be interpreted as 'getting personal'. You say you have no ulterior motive: I would argue that the tone of your comments suggests the opposite. And why are you not editing other poets' and writers' pages where things such as Arts Council Awards (again, which you removed) are listed? Or where critical comments are included (none are on this page!)? Ethical consistency!? Or is it one rule for one and another for the others? I advise you strongly to consider the tone of your comments on this page since, quite apart from an air of officiousness, they might well also be in danger of defamation by implication. Translated1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Translated1 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute

A case has been filed at WP:COIN and in response I have tried to open a discussion with Translated1/Yorkshade at their talk page. Please let the article rest while that unfolds. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Things appear to be about as squared away as they can be so please continue cleaning up the article. Thanks for your patience! Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)