Talk:Anti-poetry

The vast majority of this page appears to be original research - is there more to anti-poetry than Colin Deans? StuartDouglas 13:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it appears to be promoting Colin Dean, I was hoping that the original contributer was going to fill out the other sections. I've delayed prodding it because there seems to be plenty of source material for it out there (and the term is in the Britannica online, for example) and was hoping that the peeps at WikiProject Poetry could help). Marasmusine 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something I know anything about so hopefully someone will step into the breach and produce an article worthy of inclusion - it does sound like an interesting concept so worth holding off a prod for a week or so? StuartDouglas 15:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to anti-poetry in Australia yes at the moment there is no more to it than colin leslie dean- so what. StuartDouglas has been going around Wikipesia on a hunt for articles that feature colin leslie dean- he has a bee in his bonnet-,Sure if any one can add more information to anti-poetry thast would be great, even to Australian anti-poetry, but if colin leslie dean is the main if only poet doing this in Australia so what As Marasmusine points out it is a fertle area well worth an entry-if Australia can only produce one anti-poetry then to bad for Australia when other countries have many. Just because coloin leslie dean is Australias only anti-poet StuartDouglas is no reason why you shpould go on a witch hunt after him and try and get this entry deleted -when Marasmusine acknowledges it is a fertile area around the world- Even if StuartDouglas gets his way any article dealing with Australian anti-poetry will have to meantion colin leslie dean any way. Or are you advocating the exclusion of a section called Australian anti-poetry soley in order to not have an entry by mr dean. It seems that when someone is the first in an area they have to put up with criticism because there is no orthodoxy upon which certian types can draw for authority. To be in the forefront of anything is to bring down the rath of people who cannot deal with orginality. But when this orginality becomes part of an orthodoxy watch them then change their tune and jump on the bandwaggon singing hyms of praise like sheep when before they scream rage at the newness of the ideas.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs) 08:26, March 7, 2007.

Really, it's not a 'bee in my bonnet' except in that I find the abuse of Wikipedia in this way vexing - my interest in Australian poetry is slight, never mind anti-poetry. I only came across your various edits when commenting on the Austrlian erotic poetry AfD and pointed out that every single thing you have written on Wikipedia is an inappropriate attempt to promote a self-published poet called Colin Leslie Deans (including cutting and pasting him into an article on a music CD by an American band called Erotic Poetry). This is not the place to debate the literary merits of Mr Dean, but his only GHits are a library note of a book which you apparently publish, plus numerous inappropriate Wiki edits and a couple of web poetry fora where a mysterious new user has come on, praised Mr Dean in much the same terms as you use here and then been roundly and unanimously told to stop self-spamming. If Australian anti-poetry solely consists of Mr Dean then there is no notability whatsoever in Australian anti-poetry and any finished article on anti-poetry will not require an Australian section (there is one just now but unless more verifiable notability can be demonstrated I can't see it lasting very long). Apart from anything else, your definition of 'anti-poetry' clashes with the other more prominent sources on the web and your claim that Mr Dean founded it is in fact incorrect, except perhaps for your own personal and very specific definition of the term, as reflected by Marasmusine's edit. Hopefully Marasmusine can work on the article, because there is certainly notability in the actual topic, however. StuartDouglas 09:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that it doesn't appear to be written from a neutral point of view. The tone needs changing and independent sources need to be gathered. Otherwise it will appear that this article is only here as promotion and/or opinion. I'll see if I can work on it at some point. Marasmusine 08:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some intro text on Parra, which should lend the subject some weight. Dean's section still needs editing. Marasmusine 09:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the section again in order remove any sentence that was opinion and original research and in the end had to take it all out. As I mentioned above, any verifiable source such a s a literary critic's review will help. The link to the manifesto remains. Marasmusine 09:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok Marasmusine your edit seems at least an attempt to be consructive nothing wrong with that I like what you have done with a bit of history and your work on mr dean i can live with-least you are acknowledging Anti-poetry in Australia I really cannot understand StuartDouglas even what you have put on Para he would delte because if this was the 1950s because Parra would have been a lone orginal poet not in any canon and by StuartDouglas not notable. Now that Para has become notable that sems all right by StuartDouglas. Similary mr deans version does not fit any know canon of anti-poetry so what does StuartDouglas say but DELTE IT. He cant see that for budding Australian poet mr deans version may be inspirational for them if they came across something new and reveolutionary in Wikipedia But again Marasmusine thanks for being constructive and see a bit further than StuartDouglas. An by the way i posted in erotic poetry-a cd section because if you put "erotic poetry" in Wikipedia that is what cam up -so that is all i had to work with —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs) 12:01, March 7, 2007.

"if this was the 1950s because Parra would have been a lone orginal poet not in any canon and by StuartDouglas not notable. Now that Para has become notable that sems all right by StuartDouglas." - that's the problem in a nutshell. Mr Deans is not currently notable and so, while he might be mentioned in passing in this article on a wider subject for there is a notable proponent, there is no need for any article on a subject whose only proponent is Mr Deans. Should he become notable (peer reviewed, critical appraisal etc) at a later date then you should certainly create an article on him, but not until then. In much the same way, a 1950s Wikipedia would be unlikely to feature Mr Parra prior to any critically reviewed publications, because he was at that point non-notable. Now that he is notable, he does have an article and his role in anti-poetry makes that subject worthy of an article. I can't stress enough that there is nothing personal in anything I've said here or on the Erotic Poetry AfD, merely an attempt to explain why I believe that your edits are inappropriate. StuartDouglas 10:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't get into it here, but I'll post some links on your talk page about wikipedia so you can at least see where StuartDouglas is coming from (and why you might be struggling with some of the other articles). Marasmusine 10:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]