Talk:Karen Connelly

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 Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Canada: Ontario / Alberta / Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

Touch the Dragon

While I think it important to mention the controversy surrounding Touch the Dragon, I don't think it necessary that it be brought up twice in the same article.--Victoriagirl 17:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Consensus vs. Point of View

The designation 'minor' in connection with Connelly is less a mere point of view than the critical consensus in Canadian literary circles and is entirely relevant as all writers are judged 'major' or 'minor' within their national tradition. She is absolutely not of the same calibre as major Canadian writers such as Richler, Atwood, Purdy, Laurence, Ondaatje, Munro, Gallant or even Coupland. Therefore the designation 'minor' is entirely apt.--Uberall

I very much disagree with this assertion. There is no critical concensus that Connelly is a "minor" writer, just as there is no critical concensus that "Richler, Atwood, Purdy, Laurence, Ondaatje, Munro, Gallant or even Coupland" are "major" writers. To describe Connelly as a "minor" writer - a judgement I myself hold - is appropriate only in discussing the critical reception to her work. Save that for Aritha van Herk (which Uberall has also edited), I find no other entry for a writer in which a similar judgement is made in the opening paragraph.Victoriagirl 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you very much agree--you yourself admit that in your judgement she is a minor figure--with the consensus that does, in fact, exist. The consensus is there in the critical literature, or, tellingly, the lack of it, for any and all to access. And to claim that the likes of Richler and Atwood are not major Canadian literary figures is laughable; objective evidence abounds in everything from the amount of journalistic and critical material available on these writers (even Coupland, who is a contemporary of Connelly, so compare) to the "person on the street" acid test. Most literate, English-speaking readers in not only Canada but also the U.S. and elsewhere know who Coupland and Atwood are, and surely one test, though obviously not the only test, of a writer's influence is her reach so as to be able to influence. Coupland has even, Shakespeare-like (though I am in no way comparing his influence/import to Shakespeare's), added to the common vocabulary of the English language, having invented words put into and which remain in popular use and which, further, have been added to various dictionaries. Think about it. Finally, in biographical work on writers, there is always an intermixing of the critical and statistical; the statistical elements of a writer's life story are always intertwined with the critical reception of her work, and the designation writer itself invites further designations such as "major" or "minor." This is not to be feared but embraced. Of course, if there is a Wikipedia style rule on artistic figures banning the use of the critically universal terms "major" and "minor" in an opening paragraph, I will abide by it as a matter of style, but obviously the number of Wikipedia entries utilizing these designations is no yardstick as to their appropriateness critically/academically. Uberall

Before responding, I would like to point out that it is highly inappropriate to edit the contributions others have made in the course of discussion. I refer here to my statement:

"Save that for Aritha van Herk (which Uberall has also edited), I find no other entry for a writer in which a similar judgement is made in the opening paragraph",

which Uberall has altered to read:

"Save that for Aritha van Herk, I find no other entry for a writer in which a similar judgement is made in the opening paragraph."

I will be restoring this sentence.

As for Uberall's response, never did I "admit" Connelly was a minor writer, rather I offered my opinion in order to demonstrate that my own point of view as to Connelly's stature is irrelevant. My personal criticism of her work is in no way an acknowledgement of a consensus. Nor did I claim, as is implied, that Richler and Atwood were not major literary figures. I happen to think Atwood is a major writer - but John Metcalf, to cite one important critic, disagrees. The "'person on the street' acid test" is simply not relevant. We are, after all, discussing what Uberall has termed "Critical Consensus", not public stature, not book sales. While it is entirely appropriate to discuss the critical reception to a writer's work, the blanket use of "minor" or "major" is nothing more than one person's opinion and runs contrary to NPOV.Victoriagirl 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to agree with Uberall. There is definitely an academic critical consensus that Connelly is a very, very minor writer. However, I don't want to debate this. As Uberall said, the evidence is out there. No offense, Victoriagirl, but you don't appear to have done your homework. However, I agree with Victoriagirl that Connelly's minor status need not be mentioned in the opening, though I also must say there are numerous examples of this in Wiki. I also want to say that I myself disagree very much with Victoriagirl's notion that the regular reader's view is irrelevant. This is elitist, suggesting the only critical opinion that counts is academic. Talking about the "person on the street" is not the same as talking about book sales or other commercial success. I lived in Russia for three years and found that the writers deemed "great" like Dostoyovsky, Tolstoy and so on are also highly praised by the general population and I agree with Uberall's statement "surely one test, though obviously not the only test, of a writer's influence is her reach so as to be able to influence." This makes perfect sense. Lastly, please terminate this exchange. You two will never agree and are both attacking each other personally rather than focusing on relevant ideas. Excuse me but you're both acting immaturely. Alice of Wonderland

While I had no intention to carry on this exchange, I must defend myself against he accusation of being "elitist". The title of this section, chosen by another, is "Critical Consensus vs. Point of View", thus it is the issue of critical consensus that I have addressed. I ask Alice of Wonderland to please provide evidence that I attacked Uberall personally.Victoriagirl 16:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woo! Somebody's defensive! I never accused you of being elitist. I said that the attitude you expressed was elitist. You may not be, personally, but that specific attitude (that the critical opinion of the "person on the street" somehow does not count and how you relate the idea of "person on the street" to bestsellerdom and other commercial measurements) IS elitist. And, sorry, but IF that MAKES you elitist, it just does. But I'M not saying it does. And to make my own point clearer, the term "Critical" in "Critical Consensus" does not HAVE TO exclude the opinions of the average "person on the street" outside the university system. That is all I'm saying, and because I really don't like this hostile debating I'm not posting any further on this subject. No hard feelings, Victoriagirl. I really didn't mean any offense.

I readily accept that we disagree on "Canadian literary circles" being something more narrow than the average person on the street, but cannot let rest the claim that I attacked personally another editor. Again, I ask you to please provide evidence.Victoriagirl 03:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

Please don't alter another person's talk to alter their meaning.

On other points, see Talk page guidelines:

A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

So any chat of major or minor is neither here nor there unless there is a verifiable source to back it up, and should not be included if disputed. Happy editing!

Tyrenius 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

I have done a quick edit of the article, purely on stylistic grounds. I know nothing of this poet and have no viewpoint, so my edit should not be interpreted as reflecting one. I note there are no references, and strongly recommend this. See Anna Svidersky for a well-referenced article. It uses two different methods of coding a) citation templates b) manually (I have used the latter). Tyrenius 01:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert the article completely back to what you wrote before, just because you dislike another person's edit. All that should be edited is the WRONG or LIBELOUS part(s). As for phrasing like "Age seventeen..." and "Age nineteen..." and the clumsy, run-on sentences you insist on reverting to in your edits, this is just crap writing and I suggest you let more competent writers/editors clean up the prose. In addition, changing "belying" to "belied by" changes the meaning of the sentence that I originally wrote. The intended and correct meaning is that Touch the Dragon showed a self-serving streak in Connelly, an egotism and self-centeredness that is widely seen in her poetry and, actually, all other work. All you need do is read the works yourself and some criticism on it--even the titles and genres give hints--letters, diaries, me, me, me. I do not know nor care one way or another about this particular individual, nor care whether she is deemed major or minor (though I hold the latter view, as well). What I do care about is decent writing and that you not automatically and lazily revert to clumsy awkwardness and, even more importantly, do not in the process of attempting to edit mistakes or problems insert new mistakes or problems and change the meaning around. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthony Head (talk • contribs) .

Any editor's opinion about a book is not suitable content for wikipedia ... content needs to be verifiable and we should cite sources. Stumps 04:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LIBEL

There is a very big notice at the top of the page warning about libel. To say someone has done something illegal, without providing a cast iron verifiable source, e.g. a leading national newspaper, contravenes this. I think that should be perfectly clear. Tyrenius 20:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, please study WP:BLP. We don't allow negative unsourced material about living people. Get a credible reference, or leave it out. Thank you. Tyrenius 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

The following contributors to this page have been blocked indefinitely as abusive sockpuppets:

This IP is linked to those user names and has been blocked for 1 week:

202.248.159.3

Contributions to the article by the above may be freely deleted by other editors. Comments by them on this page may be ignored, or struck through. Tyrenius 18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Karen Connelly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]