Talk:Cathal Ó Searcaigh

Extraneous material smacking of political agenda

Please indicate why Mhac an tSaoi's views on the rearing of Asian boys are germane to this article. They appear to be taken out of context in order to smear her and undercut her activities in defense of O Searcaigh. Haiduc (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

it's removed as unsourced. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rent Arrangements

It's a *fact* that Cathal Ó Searcaigh has received signigicant state grants and stipends to fund his work as an artist, including: His house paid for, various grants, and tax free income in the form of an Aosdana Cnuas, a theoreticly means tested grant of around 18,000 euros year. This becomes relevent when you consider that despite being officially poor and *paid* to work on art full time in Ireland he has taken on the role of charitable benefactor in Nepal. Having said that I understand the need for documented sources etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.241.8 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

and that can be covered in the article - but it's not the sort of thing we flag in the lead section - I'm also not sure why "he's openly gay" is in that section either. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood. 'He's openly gay' came about because he keeps going on about it in public - I didn't put it there. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.241.8 (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea - I've never heard of him - I just judge what I see based on our policies and normal practices. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Homophobic diatribe

I have again removed distasteful material implying that gay men "choose" their "lifestyle" and falsely hand-wringing about the "welfare" of young men above the age of consent. The lawful activities of Nepalese young men are none of our business, or the law's. Haiduc (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

--

This is nonsense, and you are simply removing material that you do not like. Brian Finnegan, editor of Dublin's Gay Community News has expressed his concern (on RTE's Newsline on 5 Feb) about O'Searcaigh's behaviour - are you saying that _he_ is homophobic?

I've left a warning on your talk page; any further repeated removal of chunks of material, and I will ask Wikipedia to open a case for arbitration.

P--Paul Moloney (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You would be well advised to desist from leaving spurious material on my talk page, and from pursuing a slanderous agenda against a living person, or anyone at all. This is not what the Wikipedia is for. Your activity HAS been reported, and I will continue to draw attention to your abuse of this project. Haiduc (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Haiduc, you left the following message on my talk page and also this page:

"You would be well advised to desist from leaving spurious material on my talk page, and from pursuing a slanderous agenda against a living person, or anyone at all."

This is quite comical. My single contribution to the Cathal Ó Searcaigh page was a sourced quote from his defender, Maire Mhac an tSaoi. The source is backed up with the actual audio from the radio program she appeared on.

I'd be delighted if you could explain how repeating someone's exact quote is "slander". I have to come to the conclusion that (a) you have no understanding of legal terminology whatsoever, and/or (b) you are throwing around threats in an attempt to intimidate other editors of the page. Not a tactic that will work.

P.--Paul Moloney (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a false statement. Beside trying to insert homophobic material in the article you have engaged in the wholesale deletion of a number of edits which I made in order to done down the vitriolic tone of the article. The hysteria roiling Ireland at the present time is not appropriate for inclusion in this or any other encyclopedia.

What is a "false statement"? I inserted a single quote. Period. Others have added other material. That was not done by me, period.

I think there is no other resource that to ask for mediation on this issue. From your history you appear to a be single-issue Wikipedia contributor and perhaps just way too close to the subject to be objective.

As for accusations of being homophobic, I've gone on gay-rights marches and worn the pink triangle badge in the past, buddy. Let's not pretend that homosexuality is the same as sexual tourism.

P.--Paul Moloney (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

P.--Outragedinorinda (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC) The user Haiduc is entitled to freedom of speech but not distortion, lies, and selective use of words. I think he should be removed from editing this article. Indeed, this individual might well be advised to read more on the subject - if anything at all has been read by the person concerned. Start with this: It is lamentable when people's judgment fails them in the heat of collective self-interest. We have seen churchmen unwilling to root out institutional abuse for fear of damaging religion. We watched Irish people and liberals avert their gaze from Bill Clinton's abuse of an employee because he was a "friend of Ireland" and a Democrat. Now we have the spectacle of gay rights activists and artists slighting critics of one of their own. They confuse the admirable trait of privately standing by a personal friend, no matter what he has done, with publicly defending the indefensible. (http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2008/0213/index.html#1202509768189)Outragedinorinda (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I Give Up

Actually, I could follow up this issue, but it's pointless, seem you appear to have far time and devotion for this article that I do. So, I give in. Feel free to edit the article as you fancy. The unfortunate fact of Wikipedia is that those who have more time to edit and revert other changes eventually win the argument; in this case. So, feel free to whitewash the article in the manner of your choosing. I can't be bothered with the Sisyphean task of combating single-issue zealots on Wikipedia anymore.

P. --Paul Moloney (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a great pity, Paul.Autarch (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Some Of Us Never Will

P. --Outragedinorinda (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)I can totally understand your frustration. As I've some energy left, I'll keep on. All it takes for zealots and fellow-travellers of distortion to triumph and for wikipedia to fail (and for exploitation in places like Nepal to continue) is for decent people to stay silent and do nothing.--Outragedinorinda (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

We should definitely report on the controversy and its effect on the curriculum, and on the police investigation. I've removed one entire paragraph based on a letter to a newspaper, and another based on podcasts and opinion columns. This is mainly because of undue weight. This is an article about a person, not one about the debate over homophobia or abuse of power and sex tourism. --TS 15:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a fairly sizeable quote where Neary elaborates her views. In my view this would be putting undue weight on the opinion of one person. I think it'd be better, frankly, to lay off reporting personal opinion until the police investigation comes to a conclusion. Although obviously the newspapers have to deal in such immediacies, we're an encyclopedia and we can wait until we know what's up. Reporting the facts is enough. --TS 18:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

I've reverted edits that changed and has an adopted son to and has what he calls an "adopted" son. This use of weasel words is not suitable for Wikipedia, and in particular by calling into question the relationship with his adoptive son contravenes the spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. --TS 19:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony, Wikipedia itself has the definition of adoption as "Adoption is the legal act of permanently placing a child with a parent or parents other". There was no legal process with O'Searcaigh's "adoption", therefore I do not see what the problem is with referring to it as an alleged adoption.

--89.101.80.209 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)P.

"Alleged" is derogatory in this instance. I would have no objections to calling it an "informal" adoption. Haiduc (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here was the use of scare quotes. It is appropriate to note that no formal adoption proceedings were undertaken. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Adopt" is a legal term - it's use by O'Searcaigh is so unusual as to be meaningless in everyday English usage - it would be better to refer to "who Ó Searcaigh calls his adoptive son", but that runs the risk of being very clumsily written. Autarch (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of references to relevent legisliation

I;m assuming that removing the links to Ireland's "Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act, 1996" was an oversight - it's hard to see how any material could be *more* relevent to this situation. From the perspective of the Irish legal system he was engaging in sex acts with Children if any of his partners were under 17, regardless of where he was at the time.

Fredrick day : I appreciate your efforts to impose sanity on this page but if you think things are bad now wait until the middle of next month when the documentry is broadcast on national tv. You may wish you'd picked an eaiser challange, such as PR for Micahel Jackson or Mr. Bush...... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.87.96 (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't turn this article into a Coatrack

I'm removing overreporting of the Kathmandu controversy because of concerns about undue weight. Sticking to the facts, we have a police investigation and an education minister questioning the appropriateness of including Cathal Ó Searcaigh's work in the curriculum. The rest is a much wider debate over sexuality, sexual tourism, and other matters. It may well be that that debate is worthy of an article of its own, and that article should be created if it doesn't already exist. But let's keep this article as a biographical article about a person, and not a record of that debate. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A good point. Most of us in Ireland hadn't heard much of Cathal and his work before the stories about the Nepali boys became public. The TV documentary is being broadcast here in March and further comment before then would seem like coat-racking.Red Hurley (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was initially willing to go along but I see that some elements have restored the accusations so I have restored the defenses, to maintain some semblance of balance. Haiduc (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If we can agree that neither should be inserted, then we will have made progress. Getting into a battle about "balance" is only going to end up with an inappropriate expansion of that area of the article. Consensus does matter, and those who add inappropriate content should be seen to be doing so against consensus. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not persuaded that we can say nothing, and if we say anything we need to present pro and con aspects so as not to appear slanted. Haiduc (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is the biography of a poet, not an article about a controversy. I suggest that the controversy itself may merit an article of its own, and this would avoid the problem of overweighing the article with information about one event in his life. Due weight is not only about balancing pro- and con-, but also giving appropriate weight overall. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To avoid confusion I should remark that, because of the semi-protection, I have had to edit the article using my main account, Tony Sidaway. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, then let's keep it really clean and simple. I have justdeleted some more stuff that struck me as irrelevant innuendo. Haiduc (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc: Give us a break!

Eoghan Harris and Mac an Tsai are expessing opinions and have no additional facts to add. Desrcibing the contents of the documentatry and the allegations are 100% relevent on the other hand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.87.96 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This has triggered a media controversy in Ireland and I think some reference should be made to the fact that he has a few media supporters.Knockadooma (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a redlink to an article called Fairytale of Kathmandu controversy. Stick to the bare facts in this biographical article, and expand as much as necessary in the new one which will be specifically about the controversy. --TS (aka Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The) 16:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The separate article for the controversy seems to be the best solution. Autarch (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I have changed or removed passages which read like a blurb rather than a sober description of the subject matter.

Colin Ryan (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Insanely Long Bibliography

Very minor poet, not only every book and pamphlet under his name, but every collection appears to be included. Member of circle-jerk arts organisation Aosdána, who vet and edit his page to make sure the details of the sex-with-minors issue is left out, the same friend(s) who have provided the bibliographical blizzard that's several times longer than the actual article. 37.228.200.69 (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This anonymous editor may or may not have any qualifications which allow him/her to express an opinion on the merits of a well-known Irish-language poet, or to judge the long-established academy of artists Aosdána. (By the way, what does 'circle-jerk' even mean??) If he/she has any such expertise he/she should 'come out', explain his/her judgement and give references supporting that judgement, but stop sniping impotently from behind the cover of anonymity. If that doesn't happen, we can't be blamed for thinking a very minor, nameless poet is probably venting his/her frustration against a major poet who has had huge success and acclaim within the admittedly limited field of poetry in Irish, as well as international recognition through widespread translation.

And furthermore, I and I'm sure previous editors of this article, make no apology for including a comprehensive list of the admittedly large Ó Searcaigh canon. And in the interests accuracy, I do not live in Ireland and am not a member of Aosdána. Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The anonymous editor makes a valid point. We don't normally list inclusion in anthologies, foreign editions of publications, or interviews, for example. The article is in need of a good review, and restoration of referenced material that seems to have been excised over time, perhaps by editors with a conflict of interest. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, but the answer isn't simple. The anonymous editor was lashing out wildly at everything about the article – including, bizarrely, an obscene remark about Aosdána – and the editor's true intention was revealed by the "sex-with-minors" jibe. This was the main point of attack early in the controversy involving the poet, and it was eventually abandoned because the evidence was that not one of the adolescents involved was under the legal age of consent. To drag that up again so long after the event seems to me to be decidedly malicious. Ó Searcaigh's critics didn't leave it at that, continuing with allegations of 'imbalance of power'. (I'll add, for perspective, that I knew of but had never met Ó Searcaigh at the time all that was going on.)

Regarding interviews, I think I'm right in saying that the only interview in the article is nothing to do with poetry or literature, but consists solely of a defence against the clamour of accusations at the time of the controversy; to remove that interview would mean having to remove some of the material on the other side, which would probably cause another wave of complaints and edit wars. I've had enough of them! Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Three interviews with Ó Searcaigh were previously listed in the bibliography. It is somewhat bizarre that the only thing that would make the subject notable to the vast majority of non-poetry-following readers is dealt with in five sentences, one of which is a non-sequitur "was interviewed by Hot Press." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

p.s. I see that you have removed much of the material you mentioned as not normally included in Wikipedia biographical articles. Thank you for that improvement, and thank you for not removing the interview which I mentioned.

I won't say it wasn't a hard lesson for me – a large chunk of research chucked in the bin! I'll know better next time. Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry :-/ The material is all still there in the page history, though, and I'd have no objection at all to a separate Cathal Ó Searcaigh bibliography article (see, e.g., Stephen King bibliography), with just main works listed here and a link to the full bibliography article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Evidence required for serious allegations

For Bastun, this regards my revert of an edit which used the phrase "some of the underage teens", which you have re-reverted. It's the word 'underage' which is the problem. You claim the material is already well sourced. I don't agree: where is there a good source (which is not unevidenced personal opinion) of any of the adolescents involved being underage? Until that evidence is produced, not having come to light after almost 2 decades, I will continue to regard such allegations as unsourced and potentially libellous, and I will revert them. I can't let that edit stand while a long debate goes on. I will only stop reverting such material if and when valid evidence is brought to light, and sourced in the edit. Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Then let me warn you now that there is a limit of three reverts in a 24 hour period. See [[1]]. I've partially restored the material you deleted, leaving the word "underage" out. I trust you've no problem with the factual reporting of Ó Searcaigh's sexual relationships with teenage boys, seeing as he himself admits that's what happened. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Bastun, I'm satisfied with that compromise. That's one of the possibilities which crossed my mind briefly but in my haste to remove the libel I didn't think too long or hard. And yes, I knew I was sailing close to the wind of being blocked by a third revert! Dmhball~enwiki (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:Peacock?

User:Autarch has deleted a section referring to Ó Searcaigh's poetry having been on the Leaving Certificate and studied at University level. These are both statements of fact, not personal opinion, the former being easy to reference (which I'll do), the latter a little harder but still just a fact. If Autarch prefers, I'll pare down the presentation, avoiding the word 'extensively' (which is the only possible 'Peacock' word I can detect), also I'll move it to the end of the Personal Life section where it may sit more easily. I think it's simply relevant information about an important Irish language poet. Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)