Talk:Cathal Ó Searcaigh

message: 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)
replies: text:  it's removed as unsourced. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraneous material smacking of political agenda 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rent Arrangements 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's a great pity, Paul.Autarch (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I Give Up

message: P. --Outragedinorinda (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Of Us Never Will

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inclusion of references to relevent legisliation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Please don't turn this article into a [[Wikipedia:Coatrack|Coatrack]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The separate article for the controversy seems to be the best solution. Autarch (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Haiduc: Give us a break! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: Then let me warn you now that there is a limit of three reverts in a 24 hour period. See []. 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Evidence required for serious allegations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WP:Peacock?