Talk:Joyce Kilmer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Trees

The article should delve into kilmer's life before a discussion on "trees". He did more than write that poemAdambiswanger1 19:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• The issue's been corrected since then, but "Trees" is the only thing he's really remembered by. Heck, you don't immediately think of "Rouge Bouquet" do you? —ExplorerCDT 04:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit 25DEC06

Trying to bring this article up to Good Article standards and nominate it before 01JAN07. —ExplorerCDT 21:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Meets guidelines at WP:LEAD.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Done. Per guidelines.
• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
  • Been informed that the Automated PR ignores or does not recognzie images in the infobox. One image seems to be enough.
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • Done, see previous comment.
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
  • Done.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
• There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • Finished article today. Taken care of.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
  • I think this has been satisfied, but will continue to proofread, copyedit, etc.)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 13:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for running that, Ruhrfisch. —ExplorerCDT 16:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Result

There are 7 things that must pass before an article reaches GA status. I have reviewed it and the result is as follows:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

Well done, the GA has passed successfully.

Reviewer's notes:

Well done to all involved - this is a very good article. My only suggestions might be that the section on the poem "Trees" could be split into a new article, with a smaller summary and a "main article" type link, although if this is the poet's most notable work then it probably deserves to be here. Also, perhaps the list of places named in honour of the poet could be made into prose, although the list is effective in relating the information, so is fine. Well done and happy new year. Bob talk 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! Yeah, Trees deserves a standalone article. I'm going to move the GA to the top of the talk pageValley2city 20:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing the Joyce Kilmer article, i'm grateful... 1 hour and 56 minutes as GA nominee has to be a new record. —ExplorerCDT 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

For FA you will need a two paragraph lead, use {{cite web}} to cite your web sources, and the image needs to be made a bit smaller. M3tal H3ad 01:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• In what ways should I expand the lead? According to WP:CITE, CSS templates for citations are not mandatory. How small for the image? Will I need other images? —ExplorerCDT 01:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of genealogical materials

Father

If the article can read "Frederick Barnett Kilmer (1851–1934), a physician and analytical chemist employed by the Johnson and Johnson Company and inventor of the company's baby powder." is ok in the article, why was mentioning he was from Connecticut deleted from the article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 10:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• I provided sufficient reasons for the removal in the edit summaries. If you can't grasp those simple reasons, then you have problems I can't help you with. —ExplorerCDT 10:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The deleter wrote: "Stop also putting in information about the location (seemingly birthplaces) of Kilmer's parents that could potential confuse the flow and content of the article to readers. It's not relevant to Joyce Kilmer himself, and should not be in his article. Feel free to add that information to articles regarding Frederick and Annie Kilmer should you decide to start them. However, it is not relevant and will continue to be reverted from the Joyce Kilmer article." It seems like a double standard invoked with the aim to delete any content I add. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 10:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence, simplified, as you had it said, in gist: JK is born in New Brunswick, NJ to AKK from New York and FBK from Connecticut. However, the origins or FBK or AKK aren't relevant as FBK and AKK weren't in Connecticut or New York at the time JK was born in New Jersey. Neither are their origins even relevant to a discussion of JK. Such tangents only lead to confused readers, especially those whose grasp of English is poor. If you want to discuss their origins, discuss it in their articles (which you can start, if you're so passionate about it), provided they're notable enough (FBK is, I think). Simple. Get it? —ExplorerCDT 10:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Here is a featured article I based my style decision on: "Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. of Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya and Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas." Does this statement confuse you? What is your style decision based on? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 10:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I'm rather intelligent so as far as I am concerned, I'm unlikely to be confused. But it is badly written. As Obama's father was unlikely in Kenya and his mother unlikely in Wichita when he was born, neither does anything to add to the statement that BO was born in Hawaii. But it could be potentially confusing to children and foreigners with a low grasp of English. While it is slightly relevant to the article to mention the Kenyan origins of Obama's father, I would not have mentioned it in that sentence. Why? Bad writing. The way you added material to the JK article, it was potentially confusing and irrelevant to the matter at hand. Also, similarly, it was bad writing. You have to ask yourself: Do people really need to know in the JK article that as of 1900, the census said his father was born in Connecticut (and hadn't lived there for over 40 years) and that his mother was born in New York (and she hadn't lived there in 40 years). Simple answer: No. I don't know why a bad edit like yours is so important to you. dash;ExplorerCDT 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You just gave me an article to put up for FA review. I don't know how Barack Obama could have ever been made a Featured Article as it's badly written, violated WP:LEAD, has way too many two-sentence paragraphs/sections. The only thing is has going for it is extensive referencing. I wouldn't, if I were you, be proud to say you based your style decision on a badly written article that didn't deserve FA status. —ExplorerCDT 18:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to write the article for the lowest common demominator write the article in the Simple English Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Misascribing my intentions. Typical for lesser-intelligent lifeforms. Mine were weeding out bad, confusing writing. We butt heads only because I am compelled to weed out those contributions of yours. If you notice, I don't remove all your contributions. Only the ones that are badly written, wrong, confusing, irrelevant, etc. And your reliance on "Third Opinion" doesn't seem to get you far...as I've seen your position has been turned down consistently when you ask for third opinions. —ExplorerCDT 20:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Bad writing" is inherently subjective. Stick to citing Wikipedia policy and not your own personal preferences. Your showing classic "ownership syndrome". Your writing style is that biography starts with the birth of the subject and contains no background material on the parents, but that is just your personal preference, not Wikipedia policy.
  • "Bad Writing" is like Potter Stewart's dictum about spotting pornography (see: Jacobellis v. Ohio). Call my maintenance of the article "ownership" if you'd like, but it's far from it. There's nothing wrong with protecting/maintaining an article against bad edits. I refer to your notice that I only revert your bad edits. Good ones (like your re-citing Hillis' thesis), I didn't bother reverting and actually applaud. The background material about the parents is relevant say, for a 300-page biography, but not an encyclopedia article. In fact, I think my reversion of your contributions was in keeping with Wikipedia's policy. I do recommend you remind yourself that Wikipedia's policy does have an issue about things being "encyclopedic" and, to quell one of your other bad-edit habits, Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Your objections smack of sour grapes, and your fishing for support and third opinions leads me to think, with a semi-professional psychiatric opinion, that because of self-esteem issues and an underlying (but not a worrisome psychosis) narcissistic personality disorder you both seek something you have in short supply in real life: approval and attention from others. —ExplorerCDT 22:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Adding where someone's parents were born does not make an article a genealogical database. I think you meant "narcissistic". Maybe its time to reread the DSM before you hand out your psychology updates. Also, adding a primary source document to the article should trump a secondary or tertiary source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A spelling error (the omission of an "s"), since corrected, doesn't negate a rather apt diagnosis. While I don't agree or disagree with your assertion regarding primary/secondary sources (tertiary sources don't count), I point out that there is already a primary source document, AJK's birth certificate—which trumps your census paper. —ExplorerCDT 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To counter your denial that you try to turn pages into genealogical databases, one only has to look at your frequent additions of siblings (none of which are really relevant to the articles...especially this one, after it already mentions that AJK was the fourth child of FBK and AEK, no other information really is necessary, or published in other encyclopedias...again...think "ENCYCLOPEDIC."), or tacking on that so-and-so-married so-and-so, x and y had grandchild z, etc. on this article, the Frelinghuysen family articles, and many others to see that you completely ignore the provision that Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Your addition here of AJK's parental origins is only one minor infraction in a rapsheet of your repeated breaking of that rule. And just because I have to correct your attempts to subvert that rule doesn't mean I exercise "ownership", it means I'm keeping an article within guidelines in the best interests of Wikipedia and her policies. Thinking otherwise is just aggrieved narcissism. —ExplorerCDT 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Why are children given automatic coverage and siblings are not? Why is one entry "genealogy" and the other not? Both seem valid to me, unless there is a rule that no siblings or children get mentioned unless they are worthy of their own Wikipedia entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See subsection marked "Siblings" below. Also, you might want to actually read the article, especially the part about his kids and his conversion to Roman Catholicism. —ExplorerCDT 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Hi, can we make sure this discussion about content doesn't end up being an argument, please. Remember the Wikipedia policy on no personal attacks. Thanks. Bob talk 21:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

While I don't agree with ExplorerCDT's unnecessary personal attacks, I do agree with his argument. The fact that Kilmer's parents were from NYC and CT doesn't help the reader understand him any better, and isn't really anything other than trivial information. In Senator Obama's case, it is a bit more appropriate to mention, because his father was from someplace unusual (well, unusual for the father of a US Senator), and it gives a little more insight about the Senator. I would also point to other featured articles, such as George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, none of which explicitly name their parents' places of birth (although TR's does mention his family background, but it is quite relevant to his later entry into politics). Cheers! --DarthBinky 23:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Siblings

Also (ATTN: Norton), stop adding his siblings names. They aren't essentially relevant, it violates WP:NOT's anti-genealogical database policy and the first sentence describing Joyce Kilmer as "fourth and youngest child of" is more than adequate. If people want a genealogical database or page, they can go to the cited reference. Here, it is inappropriate. Kilmer's siblings do not impact his life, and if they belong anywhere, they belong on a future article for Frederick Kilmer and his wife, provided they meet notability guidelines (FBK does, IMHO). To compare your added information regarding his siblings to the inclusion of mentions regarding Kilmer's children and wife is specious, as they do have an impact on the course of his life and work. His siblings, unfortunately do not. —ExplorerCDT 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Alansohn has re-added the siblings interpretting the WP:NOT Policy in that lesser-known figures can be mentioned in an article. I have reverted. The example on which, presumably, Alansohn's interpretation of WP:NOT is based is not analogous to this situation. Besides, these aren't just lesser-known individuals, they are "not-known" individuals. And anyone familiar with the subject of the article will attest they are not encyclopedic or essential the purposes of inclusion. Keep them out. The first sentence of that paragraph is sufficient. —ExplorerCDT 02:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you please point me to the portion of WP:NOT that says that information about siblings makes an article a "genealogical entry". Why is it acceptable to include information about his parents and children, which would clearly be of a genealogical nature? While his father is renowned for his development of baby powder, why is his "not-known" mother mentioned? Nor are his children well-known, other than for their father. Father and mother, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters are all relevant information about an individual and the course of his life and work, and their inclusion is supported and justified. Other than, random arbitrary inconsistency, and hypocritical misinterpretation of WP:NOT, there is no justification for removal of information about his siblings. Alansohn 09:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Explained above. No need to repeat. —ExplorerCDT 09:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Here via the RFC. The most relevant policy is not WP:NOT, but rather Wikipedia is not a dictionary:

There are special reference works known as genealogical or, more often, biographical, dictionaries. These tend to focus primarily on the immediate family connections (parents, spouses, children and their spouses) of the article subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such focuses more on the actions and contributions of an article subject. This means that many genealogical details may be omitted in exchange for a better-flowing, more rounded article.

This does not directly ban mention of siblings, but it does illustrate the issue. Unless the siblings are notable in themselves, or have a particular importance to Kilmer's life that can be explained, their names and dates aren't needed.

That said, I would encourage everyone to dial down the level of rhetoric. Even though I agree that it's better to leave out the siblings' names and dates, their presence is not a major blot on the article. It's a pretty minor difference either way. —Celithemis 10:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• At least there is a hope with sensible editors who see the light (and give refresh my ammo supply to beat back the philistines). Thank you. —ExplorerCDT 17:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You obviously aren't reading what has been suggested, which quotes that "that many genealogical details may be omitted in exchange for a better-flowing, more rounded article" and states that "This does not directly ban mention of siblings". In fact, nothing prohibits mentions of siblings, other than your insistence that the details don't belong there. It seems rather difficult to argue and insist that the exclusion of 50 bytes of relevant family information in a 31K article makes this "a better-flowing, more rounded article". Again, barring discovery of any relevant Wikipedia policy that forbids the inclusion of the information, it will be reinserted to elaborate on Kilmer's family background. As suggested, I'm willing to remove the dates in the spirit of reaching consensus. Alansohn 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What about "Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory/dictionary/database etc. do you not understand? Nothing explicitly bans it, but nothing also instructs you to include it without it being subject to the possible semi-criteria mentioned in WP:WINAD. My insistence that they don't belong is based solely on the strict construction and application of WP:WINAD and WP:NOT, both which are simple to understand, and the circumstances of their continued exclusion with regard to the semi-criteria I've already established above. But to repeat it for you and Norton, who have ignored it thus far: His siblings are not important. His parents, his kids, a little bit more than marginally important and thus worthy of inclusion, especially since it's logical in a biographical article to say X was born to parents Y and Z. His kids also impact (through deaths and illness) the influences on Kilmer's work, the conversion to Roman Catholicism, etc. His siblings (who had no essential impact on his life/writing/etc.), marginal and unimportant, and thus are not worthy of inclusion. This is the case with many famous individuals in history. Encyclopedias will often mention that they are the 2nd, 5th, 20th, child of parents Y and Z, but because the other kids that were born of Y and Z didn't do anything of note, or didn't have any impact on the important child, they aren't mentioned in the biographies in encyclopedias. If any of Kilmer's siblings had anything to do with his work, they'd have been mentioned already and we wouldn't be having this discussion. In fact, if they were important, Robert Holliday would have mentioned them in his biographical memoir included at the beginning of his compilation of Kilmer's complete works published a year or so after Kilmer's death. Holliday doesn't even mention Kilmer's siblings. Not even once. Heck, this article doesn't even mention that his son Kenton went on to become a rather noted poetry editor, following his father's footsteps...which is far more noteworthy (but not of encyclopedic value here) than who his unknown siblings are. The key word to be applied here is "encyclopedic." If you and Norton want to turn Wikipedia on its head by on adding unnecessary genealogical information against its policies and guidelines, I'd suggest your efforts would be better applied by spending more time in the greener pastures at ancestry.com. Kilmer's siblings are genealogical minutiae, no matter how you slice it. From WP:WINAD:

There are special reference works known as genealogical or, more often, biographical, dictionaries. These tend to focus primarily on the immediate family connections (parents, spouses, children and their spouses) of the article subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such focuses more on the actions and contributions of an article subject. This means that many genealogical details may be omitted in exchange for a better-flowing, more rounded article.

And insertion of the siblings ruins flow, diminishes focus, and have nothing to add to dicussion on the "actions and contributions of an article subject." The article already mentions that he was the fourth and youngest child. Nothing about his relationship with his siblings is worthy noting or offer any great insight into Joyce Kilmer's "actions and contributions." Therefore, as long as I'm here, I'll see that they remain omitted. Further from WP:WINAD:

Biography articles should only be given for people with some sort of achievement. A good measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources. Minor characters may of course be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered).

Kilmer's siblings aren't even "minor characters". Keeping with this analogy, they aren't even stage hands dressed in black hanging around backstage while the play is being performed. Therefore, they shouldn't be mentioned. Very Simple.

What is so damned difficult about this that you and Norton can't cope with their absence from the article? You seem to ignore the suggestion made in WP:NOT. Put this in WikiPeople or WikiTree, if you feel so passionately about building a monument to anyone's insignificant siblings. —ExplorerCDT 20:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Line you should consider before responding to the above: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether. (from WP:PG) The other projects have been listed: WikiPeople and WikiTree. Take your passion for insignificant siblings and those history has left in the dustbin of obscurity and memorialize them there. —ExplorerCDT 21:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You've spent a lot of time writing, but still have little understanding of what it is you're quoting. "Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory/dictionary/database" forbids complete articles that are solely genealogical entries. There is genealogical information already in this article, it's one part that you have arbitrarily decided doesn't belong here. WkiPeopel or WikiTree would be relevant if this entire entry contained genealogical information, which is not the case here. You're reference to WP:PG "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether." is completely worthless, as you have set yourself up as the sole arbiter of what stays and what goes, and any claim that the information does not belong is solely based on misreadings and misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy. I have tried to enhance the article and tried to reach a consensus, but you're stubborn refusal is standing in the way to resolve this. As another effort to reach consensus (or is it to make a change to "your" article that won't have you hurling insults) will be to include the information in the existing statement about his birth order. If you will not accept this or cannot offer a constructive suggestion as to how to accommodate this information, you will only prove yourself to be the obstacle. Alansohn 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• My interpretations and applications are sound. Your stubborn refusal to abide by the anti-genealogical database provisions plainly written in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is what is causing the inability to achieve a consensus. You're trying to add stuff to this article that is a.) against guidelines and b.) non-encyclopedic. The only genealogical information that is there is relevant to the article. His kids impacted his work, and that he was born to his parents. Other than that. His siblings aren't relevant and don't meet the "minor characters" semi-criteria in WP:WINAD. Move on. I don't claim ownership, I'm just playing by the rules...especially ones that tell you to take this shit to wikipeople or wikitree...or better yet, ancestry.com. You're so-called "enhancement" of the article is not an enhancement because it perpetuates something that Wikipedia is not. And your dogged determination to add onto this article things that would move Wikipedia into a direction it is not, is the only obstacle here. My constructive suggestion is to keep the article as it is...without any mention of his unimportant, irrelevant siblings. That—a holding to the status quo—should have been obvious as the viable alternative, and I note that it is the only position that keeps within Wikipedia's guidelines. Therefore any inclusion of that information does not, and should not be accomodated. Please take your intended genealogical work to another wikiproject or some outside genealogical database (like ancestry.com). They will likely accomodate you. —ExplorerCDT 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• • What will it take to get you to accept that this is information about the individual and his family, not a "genealogical entry"? It is just as encyclopedic as any of the other information in the article. You stand alone in the minority in refusing to work out a consensus to include this information. This is not "your" article, and you do not decide what the "status quo" is, especially as your decision is based on a deliberately false misinterpretation of every policy you have quoted. By your own demented logic, all information about his parents and children -- equally genealogical in nature -- should be removed, yet your hypocrisy only has you including what you see fit. It's time to knock off the nonsense and start cooperating. You have a widespread problem with this arrogant and uncooperative behavior and it's starting to more than overshadow any positive work you've done. If you cannot find some way to keep this information in the article, after several attempts at achieving consensus, then clearly you, and only you, are the problem. Alansohn 22:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• It's time for you to cut the crap about demanding the inclusion of unencyclopedic, genealogical information about irrelevant people that have no bearing on the subject of the article. Call me uncooperative or an "obstacle" if you want, but then you should also look in the mirror.—ExplorerCDT 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. Between you and Norton, you've contributed things to the article that I haven't reverted. Contributions to this and other articles I have actually applauded. The only thing I've reverted is this genealogical junk. Oddly, you and Norton are the only people I have these problems with (you call it "widespread"...LOL...you're resorting to rhetorical flourishes, eh?). Sure, arguments get heated. But I can be won over. On the other hand, YOU HAVE NOT produced a reasonable argument for its inclusion. YOU HAVE NOT cited any policy to counteract my reliance on clearly-stated policies. You attempt to apply convention based on non-analogous situations. Instead, because you can't come up with one, you can go on calling me an obstacle, demented, hypocritical, stubborn, or that I'm deliberately and falsely misinterpreting the guidelines (which, i'm really not...open a dictionary and go through it word by word and see how it's applied at other articles), and that I'm being arbitrary and subjective. Just because you can't find a guideline (even a single guideline that explicitly states you can include it...you automatically dismiss this "me" being the problem. I'm demented just because I happen to disagree with you, and frustrate you because I'm stubborn in disagreeing (I can afford to be stubborn, I've been citing the policies that support my argument). Now, your words aren't just accusatory, they sound like an ultimatum. If that continues, I'll respectfully tell you where you can put that rhetoric and then pound some salt along with it for seasoning. If you don't like it then, I bet the people at ancestry.com will gladly take your genealogical information and your frustrations. —ExplorerCDT 23:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you recall, we had a somewhat reversed situation at Voorhees Mall, where I had an issue with the encyclopedic nature of a statement you had inserted regarding a statue that whistles at virgins. I felt that the statement was entirely nonencyclopedic and should be removed, while you felt that the statement should remain, first without any source and then with a rather unreliable source. When I attempted to remove the statement, questioning the encyclopedic nature of the material and the lack of a source, your response was "accept the fact that I said I'll have a source in a day or two and stop being a dick." Despite the fact that I had issues with a claim that an inanimate object in a park can determine an individuals status as a virgin and decide whether or not to whistle, and despite the fact that the source provided was far from reliable, my attempts at removal were met with "removing cited information is plain wrong...stop vandalising this page." While I disagreed thoroughly with your interpretation on the issue, I let it stand in deference to your repeated threats and bullying. While our standards on encyclopedic information and reliable sources seem to differ greatly, I would hope that you would follow your own standard and accept the inclusion of information that is fully sourced, using a far more reliable source, which is in fact referenced elsewhere in the article. I refrained from telling you what you could do with that statue of yours, and I would hope that you would at least follow your own standard in deciding what should be included in an article. Any less would meet the dictionary definition for hypocrisy. In that light, I would hope that you might find some greater flexibility in reaching a consensus on inclusion of the information regarding Kilmer's siblings. Alansohn 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's really a non-analogous situation. And it only illustrates that I continue ONLY to have problems with you and Norton. If it weren't antithetical to Wikipedia, and we were elsewhere it would be adviseable for you and Norton to stay on your side of the river, and me on mine, in terms of articles. Instead, I have to deal with your psychosis and stubbornness and you ahve to deal with mine. Besides, that information is still there in the Voorhees Mall article, and someone (not me) has saw fit to include it in some article titled something like "list of statues on campuses which react to virgins". So there are people around here who think campus legends are somewhat encyclopedic. But campus legends that don't really violate any policies and genealogical fluff that does violate policy are two different things, and therefore—once again—your analogy is invalid. There will be no flexibility until a.) the rules around here change (they're on my side, very plainly), b.) or you provide a good rationale for the inclusion of the contested information (which you have not yet provided and likely will not provide) and c.) stop demanding I bend to your will. I don't bend on matters of principle when those principles are well-supported by guidelines, conventions, fact, rules, &c. So, go ahead and continue calling me a hypocrite...in addition to asserting that I'm "demented", "obstructionist", etc., etc. ad nauseam. I couldn't give a damn that you can't win on argument and have to resort to calling me "demented", but again, I'll advise you to look in the damned mirror. —ExplorerCDT 00:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To achieve consensus, Alansohn, we're going to have to shut up and reach out to other people. Because we'll just keep butting heads over the same points and inserting-reverting. I'm left notes at WikiProjects Biography and Poetry. —ExplorerCDT 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Building

All those invited from various WikiProjects, please post your comments below. Please avoid reminding User:Alansohn, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and I about WP:CIVIL, because that's never really helpful in tempore belli. Thank you though, in advance, for your opinions. —ExplorerCDT 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I had thought the suggestion was appropriate, and I had taken a back seat, waiting for constructive input from other Wikipedians. In a heap of problematic posts, I must say that ... you and your buddy Alansohn want to rape Wikipedia policy and turn this article into a page worthy of inclusion at ancestry.com. So, do something productive instead of fucking up articles with unencyclopedic shit. goes a tad over the edge of WP:CIVIL, even in tempore belli. If anyone would like to suggest to ExplorerCDT to do a major tone down of the rhetoric, it would be greatly appreciated. If anyone has a constructive suggestion as to how to build consensus in the face of this type of conduct would be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Calling a spade a spade, truth hurts, that sorta thing. —ExplorerCDT 19:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion brought over from WikiProject Biography talk page

Please visit the talk page and review the recent edit-warring history for Joyce Kilmer and please comment on whether certain genealogical information (which I think is irrelevant and anti-policy) should be inserted into the article. —ExplorerCDT 00:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• As I see it, three questions are involved. Should biography articles at least mention: 1) the place(s) from which the subject's parents come? 2) the names and birth and death years of the subject's siblings? 3) the names and birth and death years of the subject's children? These least two questions are obviously only for cases where the subject had at least one sibling or child. Ruhrfisch 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that's an over-simplification of the issues at hand. The three questions should be. (1) Should an article mention the place where his parents come from when it's only from one u.s. state to another and it happened way too many years before the birth of the subject of the article? In the case of Barack Obama, it's relevant to discuss the Kenyan origins of his father to understand some of his worldviews, his coming-of-age, his identity and self-identity. But in terms of Joyce Kilmer, the fact that his father was born in Connecticut and his mother in New York offers nothing to the understanding of Joyce Kilmer except to say, in a modern way..."yeah, his parents moved to the suburbs." (2) Should the subject's siblings be mentioned, even after the article describes the subject as being "fourth and youngest" child of the parents when (a) the siblings are not notable; and b.) the siblings had no impact on his life's accomplishments; and c.) they aren't mentioned or discussed anywhere in the article? In the case of Napoleon Bonaparte, we should discuss his brother Joseph, and some of his siblings he made Kings and who lead divisions of the French Army. Joyce Kilmer's siblings did nothing in relation to his life except, perhaps, attend his wedding and show up for Thanksgiving. (3) As you said it. The answer to that is up in the air. Part of what makes Kilmer's children worth mentioning, especially his daughter Rose, is that her brief life had a considerable impact on his poetry and his hardcore conversion to Roman Catholicism. Same with Antonin Dvorak and his kid's deaths in relation to his composition of the Stabat Mater. But I don't think "dates" should be an issue. —ExplorerCDT 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR has been violated

I'm not going to point fingers here, but the 3RR has been violated. Lets stop this edit war and build consensus. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My read on this is pretty straightforward: someone's family status, including all the material about someone's siblings and where one's parents are from, certainly can be highly relevant (see, for example, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt article, which not only notes that both Franklin's parents were from old New York families, but also finds space to discuss kids, cousins, siblings, and family ethnic background. That is an article where space is at a premium and there are many daughter articles (including an article on the Roosevelt family geneology). HOWEVER, before seeing the material in I'd want to see that an independent source from a peer reviewed journal or a significant press, preferably an academic press, found it important; citations to the census, birth certificates, or genealogical web sites all smack of original research. In general, this article could use more information from higher quality sources focused on poetry rather than local history or genealogy (Joyce Kilmer has certainly made it into a range of anthologies, and there must have been quite a bit of review material from the period). Also, this just isn't worth this edit war. I hope the third party input is helpful. Sam 16:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• REPLY: The difference there is precisely that the Roosevelts were a prominent, influential family with several notable members who gained their notability themselves, not because of their association with a famous relative. The Kilmer siblings are, for lack of a better term, not notable enough for inclusion other in saying "well, these people just happen to be related to a famous person". It smacks of that episode of Arrested Development with the four brothers of Andy Richter, or being the non-acting siblings related to Baldwin brothers. —ExplorerCDT 19:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's part of why the independent source is important. I was looking earlier at another poet, Mary Sidney Herbert, and her bio is rife with discussion of her family (a poem reacting to the death of her brother is going to be the poem of the week next week on Portal:poetry), but it is because it is material to both the discussion of her life and to her poetry. Some of them are notable on their own, some aren't. I don't think there is an automatic answer. But, it's not to we humble editors to determine this. What authorities have said this is important to Kilmer or his poetry? That's how I'd figure this one out, but what gets done on this page is up to you all. Sam 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• See below, i just touched upon that in the subsection below titled "A shift in focus" to Ruhrfisch's comments. —ExplorerCDT 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"it is disingenuous to remove valid, referenced material."

Can anyone tell me which Wikisage said that? Look here for the surprising answer: it is disingenuous to remove valid, referenced material. no legit reason given for removal, therefore reverting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I did, and proudly. However, again, another non-analogous situation. The material from the Princeton University article was dealing with a ranking of the university academically, who some individual wanted removed SOLELY because it originated from a Chinese university and the user accused those who advocated its inclusion as being part of some Communist plot (read their edit summary). The difference here—the chief difference—is that the "cited" material I removed here at Joyce Kilmer is solely genealogical, with no relevance or worth to the article aside from stating a genealogical relationship, and as such (since their inclusion doesn't even meet the minimum guidelines for inclusion under above-quoted policies), it violated the anti-genealogical information provisions in wiki-policy. I love how you and Alansohn like bring up examples that are in no way comparative or analogous to the situation at hand, thinking falsely that they will paint me as a "hypocrite." Can't win on rule or fact, so you're going to attempt to smear, eh? —ExplorerCDT 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Further reasons why this example is not even close to comparable with our Kilmer-genealogy argument: [1]. —ExplorerCDT 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  I believe that was concerning this edit: REVERTING removal of lead information by Laszlo, if UMichigan (an FA) and several others university articles (FAs and GAs) are allowed to state this, no reason Rutgers shouldn't. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You know, this discussion is getting stale. Not to mention the fact that you can't cite anything damaging or worth my time (Luci Sandor from your first link isn't Laszlo from link 2...bad research on your part) and when you do cite stuff, it's random things that are irrelevant and oddly ones that show me in a good light (reverting unwarranted changes, reverting quasi-vandalism., etc.). But none of this witchhunting has anything to do with Joyce Kilmer, or the fact that you and your buddy Alansohn want to rape Wikipedia policy and turn this article into a page worthy of inclusion at ancestry.com. So, do something productive instead of fucking up articles with unencyclopedic shit. Lastly, your attempts to intimidate me, while they likely will fail given I'll outlast any of you, are well appreciated. (sarcasm) —ExplorerCDT 09:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Also, Norton, such an attempt at pointing out supposed shortcomings is entirely disingenuous (if it weren't so laughable) coming from someone who was indefinitely blocked (and did resign) for uploading copyrighted pictures taken from other websites (easily traceable) and then deliberately fudging the image-tagging (often claiming them as your own) to avoid getting them deleted (see: [2]). —ExplorerCDT 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think pointing out your quote is causing you to lash out and smear. If I remember you previously said "If you can't grasp those simple reasons, then you have problems I can't help you with", "Your objections smack of sour grapes, and your fishing for support and third opinions leads me to think, with a semi-professional psychiatric opinion, that because of self-esteem issues and an underlying (but not a worrisome psychosis) narcissistic personality disorder you both seek something you have in short supply in real life: approval and attention from others" and "if you're descended from them, you're related to me and that scares the living fuck out of me." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I simply pointed out that one those who took a shot at smearing when they started losing the argument lived in a glass house. Mine, are tongue-in-cheek comments. Smearing implies using material out of context, or by rhetorical/logical fallacy with a potential intent to raise a lynch mob or ostracise the target. I have no such intent. I'll just point out your shortcomings. The latter quote, I should point out for any unwitting reader, came from when Norton was fucking up Frelinghuysen family articles by packing them with genealogical database crap in violation of policy, listing the wifes of sons and husbands of daughters and "so and so had grandchild x" with so many lengthy genealogical tangents in which the article subject wouldn't be mentioned. It would be nice, when you point things out, Norton, to also point out the reasons why those comments came into being...especially, in the above instance, because you were violating policy and fluffing up articles with UNENCYCLOPEDIC material. But like all aggrieved and self-deluded souls, they can never admit they, themselves, have tragic flaws. Norton, note well that that affectation is part what leads me to think you have a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. —ExplorerCDT 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to mention that I'm a direct descendant of this guy, and I don't care about every bit of genealogical errata. I think information about his wife's career is important, and to mention who his parents were, but other than that, I'm not sure it's really relevant. I'd like to also suggest that everyone take a big deep breath. Mak (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A shift in focus

As I see it, three questions are involved. Should biography articles at least mention: 1) the place(s) from which the subject's parents come? 2) the names and birth and death years of the subject's siblings? 3) the names and birth and death years of the subject's children? These least two questions are obviously only for cases where the subject had at least one sibling or child. Note: I posted the preceding on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography too. Feel free to edit it there if it does not accurately reflect the issues involved here. Hopefully this has been resolved there in other cases and that should settle the questions. If not...

How about a shift in focus? Since the article is about Joyce Kilmer, perhaps the answers to these questions lie in focusing on Kilmer. If something made a difference in his life (like where his parents came from), include that information. If not, do not. The standard is (as always) verifiability - if a biography discusses his siblings or children and their influence(s) on Kilmer, or he wrote of them, then I think it is acceptable to include this information.

I personally would imagine that both Kilmer's siblings and children made some difference in his life and, if this is so, would therefore mention them. It appears from their birth and death dates that his siblings all were dead by the time he was thirteen years old. One possible way to include them would be to say something like "Two of Kilmer's siblings, Ellen Annie Kilmer (1875-1876) and Charles Willoughby Kilmer (1880), died before his birth, while Anda Frederick Kilmer (1873-1899), died when he was thirteen years old." Then go on to briefly discuss the effect these deaths had on him (much as the death of his daughter Rose is now handled in the article). What do the biographies say about Anda's death and Kilmer? What about his parents having lost two children - did that make them more protective of him as the (last) baby of the family? Focus on the subject and see if these merit inclusion on that basis. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oddly, I copied and pasted the stuff from WikiProject Biography's talk page above just a few moments ago. Perhaps you'd like to bring it down here? or move this up there? In my researches, especially reading grad theses on Kilmer, and Holliday's memoir of Kilmer in the posthumous edition of his collected works, there are absolutely no mentions of his siblings, so there might be scant material if any, that would make such discussion verifiable. Rose's death, on the other hand, is easily verifiable in the scholarship. —ExplorerCDT 19:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I see two possible solutions. If there is already a consensus or style guideline at WikiProject Biography that siblings and children should be included, then it is a no brainer. If there is no established consnsus or guidleline (and I could not find one) then I think focusing on Kilmer becomes the guide for inclusion (as well as consistency, if you list one sibling or child's full name and birth and death dates, then I would list them all, with children and siblings decided separately). Feel free to move this if you think it better placed above. I have said what I wanted here and am done. Ruhrfisch 20:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As always, I appreciate your wise, and calm counsel on these matters. I would tend to agree with your take on this as stated in 20:01/10JAN07 comments. (immediately above). —ExplorerCDT 21:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

There are currently five statements in this article that are followed by "citation needed". The statements either have to be removed or citations included for it to keep its GA class. --Nehrams2020 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• they were tagged only days ago. —ExplorerCDT 06:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation for sentence in lead

The sentence:

Kilmer was considered the leading American Roman Catholic poet and lecturer of his generation, whom critics often compared to British contemporaries G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936) and Hilaire Belloc (1870–1953).

was sourced by the "Hillis, John. Joyce Kilmer: A Bio-Bibliography. Master of Science (Library Science) Thesis. Catholic University of America. (Washington, DC: 1962)" reference. I hold some doubt over whether this is applicable, given the source is his grandson-in-law. "Kilmer was considered the leading American..." being sourced to this reference isn't proper, given this relationship. I've added a {{fact}} tag, rather than removing it under WP:V, and I would appreciate that this sentence be reworked or sourced by a reference which doesn't have a COI like the previous one did. The part about the critics could also benefit from this as well, as it is another opinion, and an opinion sourced to a family member, which does not constitute a reliable source in this instance. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 06:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• A guy becomes an academic, does an academic project about a relative by marriage, and you're going discount it. Doesn't work that way. I think the fact that it's a graduate thesis overshadows the family relationship by a long shot. Besides, this doesn't meet the WP:COI discussion about what constitutes a COI.

A conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the individual agendas or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article. This includes promotion of oneself and of others -- including individuals, causes, organizations, and companies you work for and their products -- suppression of negative information, and criticism of competitors, as well as misuse of editorial access and powers.

I'm not an individual, company, organization, what-have-you pushing my/our own POV. I'm not related to Kilmer in any way. I'm an editor who found an academic source. The academic source doesn't maintain a COI, infact, it's rather NPOV given the relationship. The COI provision about "close relationships" does not count here either. If your assertion is the case, half of the sons of famous men who wrote biographies of their fathers wouldn't count as reliable biographical sources. Also, given the guidelines of WP:CITE, etc. when quoting something that quotes another source, quote only the first thing when you don't have access to the other sources being quoted in that first thing. This is a valid, reliable (ACADEMIC) source and it doesn't post a COI or danger to RS, or V. —ExplorerCDT 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. Hillis states that emphatically. He gives sources. When I check his sources, this discussion gets expanded in the Criticisms and influence section. Unless you get a copy of Hillis' thesis and read what he says, you shouldn't be removing citations. —ExplorerCDT 06:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think if we're going to make such a strong and central statement in the lede, the claim should at least be examined a bit more closely. Which critics said this? When? In what context? The source has to be taken with at least a grain of salt, and I think if any claim should be examined, it's this one. Mak (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. Who were these "critics" (note the plural)? Who "considered" him one of the greatest? Is this a marginalised opinion that he is the greatest, or is it widespread? If it's marginalised, then it needs to be rephrased to saw "Considered by x to be..." If it's widespread, provide multiple sources in the article to show it. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 06:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think your concern is now assuaged, at least temporarily until this issue is expanded upon in the section Criticism and influence when i get around to it (read: not now). Making me jump through hoops at 11:43 in the evening when I'm on vacation ain't going to get anything done anytime soon. —ExplorerCDT 06:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, could you please give page numbers when giving paper sources? (It'll save time if there's ever a question in the future) Thanks. Mak (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I only have an electronic edition of that source. Alas, no page numbers. —ExplorerCDT 06:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I wait with great interest for the completion of the aforementioned section, and considering the rest of the article, I;m sure you'll do a great job of it. I'd just like to second Mak above regarding page numbering - see [3] (and then the references below it) for a good way of structuring. Cheers, and best of luck with the article, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 06:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hate to be a bitch, but even the Belton House example you gave me doesn't conform to the requirements of WP:CITE. —ExplorerCDT 06:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please include page numbers for book references. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 06:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is that all the necessary information is included. It's not as important how it is included, as long as it's there. Mak (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• (relocated thread) Per Wikipedia:Lead section, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Since the lead section is a summary of information already cited in the article, citations usually are not appropriate in the lead section. Adding the above sentence without including detailed information from the Hillis reference in the main body of the article may move this article away from FA status. Also, to include the above sentence in the lead section as a summary of a most important point covered in the article, the main body of the article may need to describe the comparisons, identify at least two critics who made comparisons, and somehow convey that such comparisons were made often. Similar information about being a leading poet and lecturer should be included in the main body of the article to support the above sentence as a lead sentence. -- Jreferee 17:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you need to read the article before making claims about what does or does not belong in the lead. Reading your post, and knowing the contents of the article, it indicates, you gave the article, at best, just a cursory glance and not enough of one to justify your pedantry. —ExplorerCDT 22:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted, that Daniel.Bryant's allusion that the Hillis thesis might not meet WP:RS, I respond with these two lines from WP:RS, under the section Aspects of reliability:

• The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
• Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.

The Hillis Thesis, under these guidelines, is a reliable source, per WP:RS. —ExplorerCDT 01:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The notable person and their relatives

Wikipedia is not a genealogical database addresses whether an article topic may be devoted to a notable person. It does not answer the question of whether relatives of the notable person should be included as part of the article. Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary states that many genealogical details may be omitted in exchange for a better-flowing, more rounded article. Template:Biography clarifies this and explains how to handle marriage and offsprings to maintain a better-flowing, more rounded article. In regards to the above behavior (not anyone in particular), some of the above discussions seem to have heated somewhat because some posted opinions do not include a reference to a Wikipedia policy, guidline, page, etc. Withough justifying an opinion with a Wikipedia policy, guidline, page, etc., that opinion is just a personal opinion that is equally valid as another editor's personal opinion. The editors behind these two competing personal opinions may resort to name calling, reverting, and other not nice things. To work towards maintaining a cooperative spirit on this already great article, please resort to a Wikipedia policy, guidline, page, etc. -- Jreferee 18:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I believe WikiProject Biography endorses the use of Charles Darwin for comparing the inclusion of non-notable relatives of a notable person into an article about the notable person. As Darwin's article does not mention his siblings, I take it, and while noting his parents (and notable grandparents), on the subject of siblings, the Darwin article just states that he is the fifth of six children, this should conclude this debate in favour of omitting such a reference, in addition to the above. —ExplorerCDT 23:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • While I recognize that you have beliefs, and I do recognize that there are many articles that do not include information regarding siblings, you have provided no source whatsoever to demonstrate that they cannot be included. Furthermore, not a single individual who has commented has stated that such information cannot be included. There are many biographical articles that do include information regarding siblings, none of which have been deleted as "genealogical entries" as falsely claimed. This would seem to conclude this debate in favor of inclusion of this information. I have offered several times to hear a suggestion from you as to how to best include this information in the article. ExplorerCDT's obstinate and arrogant attitude, combined with repeated use of foul language, bullying and threats to multiple users in patent violation of WP:CIVIL is reprehensible. Alansohn 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:NOT, WP:WINAD, and the comparison guidelines of WikiProject Biography are rather clear on the subject. Your refusal to accept them does not negate their validity as guidelines, policies, etc. Again, Alansohn, look in the mirror when you get up the gumption to lecture others on "conduct" as you, also, are rather culpable. And, much to your chagrin, many editors have commented that the material in dispute is irrelevant. —ExplorerCDT 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Please don't tell me again that you believe the nonsense you're writing. There is nothing, not a word, in WP:NOT, WP:WINAD or the comparison guidelines of WikiProject Biography that specify that such material must be removed. We have a consensus wording that addresses the issue. Why do you refuse to accept it? Alansohn 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I refuse bow down to your altar because 1) there hasn't been an achieved consensus, and (2) despite your opinions, the above-cited guidelines are rather clear as to this information not being relevant and that it should be omitted. Regarding my holding to clearly-stated guidelines as nonsense goes against the WP:CIVIL guideline you like to hypocritically apply to others, but not to yourself. —ExplorerCDT 01:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Please offer a compromise, so that we may all consider it. For once, please try to work towards a consensus, and not just keep out what you have arbitrarily decided doesn't belong. Insisting that nothing be kept in, despite the source provided, is a patent violation of Wikipedia policy. As to WP:CIVIL, I have never stooped to your level of "accept the fact that I said I'll have a source in a day or two and stop being a dick.", or your wittily worded ... you and your buddy Alansohn want to rape Wikipedia policy and turn this article into a page worthy of inclusion at ancestry.com. So, do something productive instead of fucking up articles with unencyclopedic shit. Can you point me to the part of WP:CIVIL that condones your foul language, or anything in Wikipedia:No personal attacks that would justify why your behavior is acceptable. Alansohn 02:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
            • No, and can you point to which ones justify yours? No, because you're being rather hypocritical (and suffering from the blindness that is often a side effect of self-righteous hypocrisy) in reading the Riot Act to me while you simultaneously violate it. You shouldn't be shooting accusations at me when you're just as culpable, if not moreso for persisting in this madness despite being quoted several policies that shoot down your opinion that irrelevant material should be included. —ExplorerCDT 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Also, aside from prohibitions about turning Wikipedia into what it is not (a genealogical dictionary, a place for genealogical entries, etc), the lines regarding irrelevant genealogical information should be and will continued to be removed because, per WP:WINAD, etc. as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such focuses more on the actions and contributions of an article subject. This means that many genealogical details may be omitted in exchange for a better-flowing, more rounded article. Clear, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. —ExplorerCDT 02:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
              • You have still failed to explain how information about his siblings turns this article into a part of "a genealogical dictionary." The source added explicitly describes why his sibling is relevant, and the fact that by age 13, that Joyce Kilmer was the only surviving child. You're going to have to provide a far better explanation to justify removal at this point. Alansohn 02:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
                • The source to which you're referring the suicide/and its impact is "find-a-grave.com" and establishes no scholarly-supportable background for the making of the claim. Something like a letter from Kilmer saying "his death moved me to poetry", or a scholarly biography discussing the subject, would be a source. But find-a-grave.com is not a reliable source, per WP:RS or WP:V. As for genealogical dictionaries, WP:WINAD is clear on what it is. And by adding irrelevant genealogical details, you're turning the entry into something akin to it. I don't need to explain more, the policy is clearer than distilled water. —ExplorerCDT 02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • As you seem to have an obsession with falsely criticizing the material as a "genealogical dictionary" entry, misreading what WP:WINAD states, and in the spirit of compromise, I have removed the information regarding the names of the siblings who died before Kilmer's birth. I have reinserted the information in the section regarding his early years, focusing on the suicide of his brother while Joyce was 13, and how that left Joyce as the only surviving child. The source is at least as reliable as your preferred source at fatdarrel.com regarding whistling bronze virgin detectors in New Jersey public parks. I assume that under your dictum of "accept the fact that I said I'll have a source in a day or two and stop being a dick." that you will wait 48 hours to allow me the opportunity to provide additional sources to meet even your most imperious demands. Alansohn 03:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • • I've e-mailed the find-a-grave contributor who made the claim you want to cite. In the meantime, given the WP:RS/WP:V policies, I'm removing unreliable information until it can be cited from a source that meets the requirements of those policies. Have a problem with that? Too bad. Your comparison is non-analogous, because I cited a book along with fatdarrell. —ExplorerCDT 03:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)*************You may want to check your original reinsertion of the notably nonencyclopedic whistling bronze virgin detector where you insisted that the addition was "not nonsense...actually, that is a school legend...i'll provide a source in a day or two. same with the turtle statue down at u-maryland." Unless you have a reason to believe that the source provided is inaccurate, or you refuse to allow a day or two to provide additional sources, there seems to be little reason to stand in the way of a relevant sourced series of statements, other than hypocrisy. If you can muster consensus support for removal of the information I will be more than willing to acceded. Other than that, you are standing directly in the way of consensus. Alansohn 04:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that WikiProject Biography endorses the use of Charles Darwin to address the issue of whether to include siblings name in an article. If Darwin's siblings are not included in the Charles Darwin article, to include the names of Kilmer's siblings in the Joyce Kilmer may require more. Were any of Kilmer's siblings notable in their own right? Did any of the siblings influence Kilmer's work? If there is reason to mention one or more of the siblings in the article beyond that sibling's name, then that sibling's name should be added to the article. -- Jreferee 03:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To answer your questions. None of his siblings were notable in their own right. None of his siblings influenced his work. —ExplorerCDT 06:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about you both read the essay here at WP:FUCK. That might sort out this edit war. Grover 06:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

British English vs. American English

Among the edits made to the article article are a number of changes that impose a British English spelling on several words, such as "honour" and "valour" among others. As this article is about an American, born of American parents (there's that dreaded genealogical information again), who doesn't seem to have ever stepped foot in England, there seems to be little justification for use of any British English. More importantly, the article is largely written using American English wording and grammar, and inconsistently uses such words as "center" and "honor", among many other inconsistencies. Can anyone offer a valid explanation as to why any British English (except where included within a quote) should not be modified to reflect the appropriate American English usage? Alansohn 02:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Simple, regardless of the nationality of the subject, and because both spellings of english are as popular in the world, the policy seeks to prevents pathetic (and often nationalistic) edit wars like this over whether someone spells it honour or honor. Find something more productive to do than worry about a little "u". —ExplorerCDT 02:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling), Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Now while they discuss the concept of "American topic, American spelling" I should note that according to industry publications regarding sales, Kilmer sells more in England and in several countries in Europe than he does in the U.S. So, Kilmer has become rather "international". Also, the latter policy states: If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor. I am he, with about 80% of the article attributable to my edits. —ExplorerCDT 02:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As a stickler for policy, you should recognize that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English specifies "American topic, American spelling" barring an explanation for why British English should be used. No source is provided demonstrating that sales in England surpass American sales. As such, there's no reason to compound the original erroneous use of British English in the article, when the overall grammar, usage and spelling in the article conforms to standards of American English. Alansohn 02:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The policy says no such thing about "American topic, American spelling" barring an explanation for why British English should be used. Your interpretation of policy smacks of two methods...refusal to comply with things you disagree with, and adding words or meanings to others that are not even mentions, in practice, but only to suit your own (often askew) desires. The policies are clear, and if you would read them like a strict constructionist would (and like they largely are used in practice), we wouldn't have this debate. I'm a strict constructionist and when it says genealogical details can be omitted, to make a better flowing article, and it makes a better flowing article, I'm right no matter how you slice it. Modus ponens. —ExplorerCDT 03:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• The article probably should retain that national variety of English used while being reviewed for GA status. As stated in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page. -- Jreferee 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI: The article had the British English spellings when reviewed and promoted to GA. —ExplorerCDT 03:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If the GA review said to change the spelling, then it should be changed. If the article passed GA review without requiring a change in the spelling, then the British English vs. American English issue should be tabled and brought up during FA review. -- Jreferee 03:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Never brought up 'til now, so we'll wait until FA candidacy or review. But that'll have to wait a while because Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton continuing their crusade to ignore WP:NOT, WP:WINAD, WP:RS, WP:V (and others) will cause the article to fail because of the criteria regarding "stability". —ExplorerCDT 03:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • WP:STYLE#National varieties of English states explicitly that "If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect.", noting that "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." As this is an article about one of the greatest American poets, who was born in the United States of American parents, who seems to have never stepped foot in England, this would seem to be a a rather distinctly American article. The article as is, and as passed GA status, contains a potpourri of American English and British English spellings, though patterns of grammar, usage and spelling seem to strongly favor (not favour) use of American English. There is little valid reason not to address this oversight given the opportunity to consistently use American English by modifying five words -- "baptised", "paralysed", "valour", "rumour" and "honour" -- which were surely a mere oversight in the GA process. No reason to compound the error by ignoring it. Correcting the mistake now can help avoid any further embarrassment at the FA level. Alansohn 03:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

British English/Oxford usage (regarding ize vs. ise), per the above policy. WP:DICK applies here, as well as WP:POINT, in addition to admonition for being just wrong...since you only wanted to modify 2 words, honour and valour. —ExplorerCDT 03:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • I corrected a few words that improperly used British spelling as part of other edits to the article, without any intention whatsoever of pointing out the inconsistent usage in the article. You were the one who decided to make violate WP:POINT by falsely insisting that "Wikipedia policy also says not to revert british english spellings for american english spellings. stop continuing to do so." Again, claims of WP:DICK and WP:POINT are the tool of those who can't find support in any actual Wikipedia policy. Can you justify the mish-mash of American English and British English per policy or are you just going to resort to more personal attacks? Alansohn 04:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
            • The article is still a hodge-podge of American English and British English usage, grammar and wording. As suggested, and as added to the to-do list, we ought to decide which should be used, one or the other, and make the article consistent, addressing the mistakes that had been overlooked in the past. Alansohn 06:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
              • WP:DICK and WP:POINT are just two more guidelines, along with British vs. American English, WP:NOT, WP:WINAD, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and undoubtedly many others, you refuse to abide by. Think about this, you're wasting your time over two words..."honour" and "valour"...there is not a "mish-mash" or "hodge-podge" as you falsely claim. Can't you find a better way to contribute than to get all up in a huff about two letters? —ExplorerCDT 06:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
                • The article uses five Britishisms: "baptised", "paralysed", "valour", "rumour" and "honour". The rest of the article follows American English in usage, grammar and orthography. While I think that the subject is inherently American and should follow American English standards, you are more than able to suggest a rational argument that the article be edited to consistently to follow British English. I am more than willing to adhere to one or the other based on the consensus of other editors. There is no reason that the random mix present in the current article should be left unchanged. Why do you again refuse to try to reach a reasonable consensus in a rational manner? Alansohn 06:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Two words: Wikipedia policy. Now find something better to do with your time. —ExplorerCDT 06:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • Agreed. The relevant Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. This article violates it. I am trying to suggest a means to determine a consistent usgae. Why do you persist in standing in the way of solving this problem? Alansohn 06:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • Because you persist in being a problem. —ExplorerCDT 06:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Kilmer, Suicide and Alansohn

Alansohn's contribution citing Kilmer's discussion of suicide in review of Richard Barham Middleton's "Monologues" in the New York Times. This article he cites Kilmer discusses his boredom with those who :praise of suicide so common in "aesthetic" circles" and dismisses Middleton's work as third-rate. He later echoes this reviews in a 1914 letter. It's a false citation provided by Alansohn, and I've removed it. —ExplorerCDT 03:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• I make no claims regarding his review of Middleton's work other than its discussion of suicide, so there can be no aspect that is "false". Again, please live by your own dictum that "removing cited information is plain wrong...stop vandalising this page." Alansohn 04:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • By associating that line directly next to a line mentioning Kilmer's brother's suicide you're implying that the suicide was referenced in his writing, and particularly in his review of Middleton. It was not. That makes it false. Your citation of it reads like a deliberate attempt to justify something it doesn't justify, and it is not in the best intersest of wikipedia to be confusing readers with false information (and the only reason here on your part, IMO, for including it, even though it is wrong, is to satisfy your ego in getting your way, nothing more.). It's a logical fallacy to try to link two unrelated premises just because they happen to share one word "suicide." Such a claim, aside from being irrelevant (it's rather trivial to say..."yeah, Kilmer wrote about suicide once.") is false, and subject to removal. You should be ashamed of yourself. —ExplorerCDT 04:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. You're also misquoting me. Which indicates that you don't really care about accuracy, you just want to win, and that's sad. —ExplorerCDT 04:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Your mindblowing and neverending hypocrisy has no limits. When you try to shove in utter nonsense about a statue that whistles at virgins you expect forbearance at the lack of sources and the use of an utterly unreliable source. When I provide statements that are directly relevant to Kilmer's career and psyche, each statement explicitly sourced, you impose a brand new set of rules that require an utterly false set of standards. I have tried to reword and expand this material to satisfy your childish demands, but you simply refuse to try to reach a consensus. What will it take to get you to accept relevant changes to what you are monopolizing as "your" article? Alansohn 04:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Unreliable citations and outright false associations are not proper sourcing per WP:RS or WP:V, and neither are they relevant (despite your protestations to the contrary). I will continue to defend this article against your repeated attempts to inject false, irrelevant, and unreliable claims. I only demand that you stop inserting false, irrelevant, unreliable claims into this article and comply with clearly written policies. I will not bow down at your altar and give-in to your ego-hungry demands if it means ignoring policies, sacrificing accuracy and letting irrelevant material impede a good article. —ExplorerCDT 04:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I have provided sources for every statement, in contrast to your insistence that unsourced details of whistling virgin detectors be retained in another article in whcih you insisted that other editors wait 2 days while you attempted to dig up a relevant source for the nonsense. You have requested a peer review, which states that "A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article." I have made edits, provided sources, and reworded the changes in an effort to mollify you, desperately trying to meet your never-ending misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy and your persistent refusal to try to reach any form of consensus. If you can muster consensus that the statements regarding his brother's suicide be removed, I will readily agree, but until then I will hope that you will support the addition of relevant, sourced, encyclopedic material. Alansohn 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I've substantiated why your recent edits are irrelevant, unreliable, unverifiable and clearly against policy, not to mention that they do not improve this article. If you want to continue this course, there will be repercussions. I'm through with arguing with you, because you're unreasonable, unrelenting, and refuse to abide by policy. I will continue to protect this article from any statement you make that is irrelevant, unreliable, unverifiable or contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but I refuse to continue arguing this with you because it is getting us no where and I have better things to do.—ExplorerCDT 06:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
            • The additions have been repeatedly changed to address your concerns, illegitimate and otherwise. They have been proeprly sourced in far excess of the standards you demanded on other articles. I don't mind the arguing, it's the pedantic refusal to try to reach a consensus despite repeated efforts to meet your demands. Suggest an alternative wording and I will try to work with you on this article. Otherwise you're just demonstrating your continued intransigence. Alansohn 06:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
              • My continued intransigence will not change until you realize that your recent contributions have been unreliable, unverifiable, misleading, FALSE, irrelevant, and against clearly-stated Wikipedia policies. Until you realize that, you're wasting my time with arguing, deluding yourself, and stressing yourself and others out for no decent reason. I will continue, no matter what you say, to defend this article against any edit you put forward that is a violation of policy, unreliable, unverifiable, irrelevant, misleading, FALSE. If you come to your senses and find something reliable, verifiable, not misleading, relevant, and true, I'll be glad to sit down and break bread with you. Until then, it doesn't seem likely. —ExplorerCDT 06:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Finally, you acknowledge that it is your "continued intransigence" that is causing the problems here. I have followed every single Wikipedia policy, bent to a whole bunch of "policies" that you manufactured out of whole cloth, tried to refer you to your own past practices in which you tried to ram through unsourced changes and blamed me for your reckless work, tried to modify the added text to meet your petty, erroneous demands, and pleaded with you to find any rational middle ground. You know full well that there is nothing that I have added that is false and that no change I have made violates Wikipedia policy, despite all of the irrelevant acronyms you've tossed around. My question is no longer why you won't try to work together, it's why you are allowed on Wikipedia in the first place. You are capable of excellent work, but you have a long way to go as a human. Alansohn 06:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
                • • No, my continued intransigence is because you're a problem to this article by bringing in unreliable, unverifiable, misleading, false, and irrelevant information, and hell-bent on ignoring way too many policies, including continued violations of WP:CIVL and WP:NPA while I'm trying my damnedest to be nice. —ExplorerCDT 06:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • If "accept the fact that I said I'll have a source in a day or two and stop being a dick." and ... you and your buddy Alansohn want to rape Wikipedia policy and turn this article into a page worthy of inclusion at ancestry.com. So, do something productive instead of fucking up articles with unencyclopedic shit. are evidence of your "damnedest" efforts "to be nice", there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong, that goes beyond your abuse of Wikipedia policy to prevent other editors from improving the article. There is nothing that I have added in my most recent addition that is "unreliable, unverifiable, misleading, false, and irrelevant information", and one doesn't have to look hard to find some of the most despicable violations of WP:CIVL and WP:NPA. What will it take to get you to allow an edit to be made to the article? Alansohn 06:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • Something that's reliable, verifiable, not an irrelevant genealogical tangent, not misleading, not false, and according to hoyle with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So far, today, nothing you've added has met that threshold or could be considered an "improvement." Maybe you could try something like Richard Arthur Norton's recent edits. I have no problem with them (though I did correct one). Maybe if you'd like to add a little bit of literary discussion about Kilmer in the "criticism and influence" section, which, I admit, needs to be expanded a bit. —ExplorerCDT 07:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
                        • In trying to accommodate your demands, I have removed any and all genealogical information. I have added three statements: 1) that his brother committed suicide, 2) his brother's suicide left him the only one of four children to survive, and 3) that he focused on the subject of suicide above all other subjects in a book review. In what way is every single statements unreliable, unverifiable, an irrelevant genealogical tangent, misleading, false, and in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am proud of the work that I have made to improve this article. These changes bring to light a specifically relevant, previously uncovered, detail of Kilmer's life and work. I am appalled at your efforts to serve as gatekeeper, arrogating to yourself the right to decide that these edits don't meet your own personal standards. This is all the more galling in light of your behavior in the somewhat reversed Voorhees Mall debacle, where you used your bullying tactics to demand that patently nonencyclopedic nonsense regarding a whistling bronze virgin detecting statue be inserted with no sources at first, and then abusively demanding that I ignore the lack of a source and insisting that I must "accept the fact that I said I'll have a source in a day or two and stop being a dick." That you don't see that there is something fundamentally inconsistent is disturbing. I will ask you again to respond to specific issues with relevant Wikipedia policy violations, particularly in light of the standards you have set previously. Alansohn 07:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

These changes bring to light a specifically relevant, previously uncovered, detail of Kilmer's life and work.

Bzzt. Original research. Twenty-yard penalty. --Calton | Talk 15:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Clever, but a failure to read or understand my statement. I cannot possibly claim to have any knowledge about Joyce Kilmer that I could possibly have determined through my own original research. By "uncovered", I clearly meant not covered in the article. Penalty declined. Offense accepts unnecessary roughness penalty, fifteen yards, automatic first down. If you have any issue regarding the statements or sources, that would be far more useful. Alansohn 17:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think Calton has a valid point, and it's improper of you to dismiss it. It's actually quite wrong-headed of you to dismiss it as malicious (your edit summary). But both seem to be your stock in trade when anyone points out policy you don't agree with (or when your edits are contrary to). But the officials are currently reviewing the play, and the call on the field may be reversed. —ExplorerCDT 17:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Confused

Sorry to bother everyone but I just got done reading this article and thought it was excellent! However, I was about to make a remark regarding the inclusion of his children and I see that there is a heavy debate going on. I apologize in advance for causing anymore tension here, but why exactly are the children included? Have they done anything notable that warrants their inclusion in the article? MetsFan76 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Because they are directly relevant to Joyce Kilmer's life...to put it frankly, they're something he produced...which any biographical article will include. Are they notable. Well, they don't have any articles written for them, so not really in and of themselves. The debate above is whether his siblings, two of which died before he was born, and his older brother (who died by suicide) merits mention...and here they are unencyclopedic, irrelevant, and there's nothing to add regarding their impact on his work, because, quite simply, there is no impact. No encyclopedia mentions siblings unless they were (a) famous in their own right, or (b) had an impact on the subject's contributions in history. However, this article in particular mentions the impact his daughter Rose had on the Kilmer family's conversion to Roman Catholicism, which is a theme throughout much of Joyce Kilmer's work. It's not a matter of inconsistency in the debate, it's actually rather consistent because the kids are directly relevant to Joyce Kilmer's life in that they are a product of his marriage, impacted his work, and are immediately direct descendants, the siblings are not relevant because they don't meet anything discussed above, and their inclusion, even nominally, per WP:NOT, WP:WINAD interferes with a better flowing article and renders this article genealogical in ways that wikipedia is decidely not. —ExplorerCDT 04:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok because I also had an issue with the siblings as well. I really don't find them relevant for this article. MetsFan76 04:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Todo list, FA, and Stability

I added an above todo list template. Please add to this list only those items that will move this article to FA status. Limiting the edits to the article to those items on the todo list may help bring some stability to the contributions to the article. -- Jreferee 05:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Stability, at this point in time, is a lost cause. FA will have to wait a long time. Please try and talk some sense to User:Alansohn. —ExplorerCDT 06:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I must admit that I am baffled by the conflict that is apparently raging between you and Alansohn. What is the crux here? That you think this NY Times article doesn't exist? (your original statement of your case above is somewhat mangled.) Has an RfC been filed? No offense to you or Alansohn but what I see above is a lot incivility on both sides (including, if I may say so, your recent request for him to be blocked because of a content dispute) and not a lot of actual discussion of the SPECIFIC issues at hand.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The New York Times article he cites is irrelevant. It's trivial. Basically saying. "Kilmer wrote about suicide, once." But what's sinister is that Alansohn desires to use it to justify an unreliable and right now unverifiable statement (contrary to WP:RS/WP:V) that the older brother's suicide impacted Kilmer's work. The NYT piece mentions suicide to criticize a writer Kilmer thought was third-rate and that his work was only being talked about because of the novelty of the author's suicide. Nothing dealing with his brother at all. That makes his attempt at truth by unrelated association false, and misleading. Blame the tangents of the discussion on others. I try to keep this on policy, with the occasional acerbic insult. Others have thought it necessary to attempt a smearing campaign. —ExplorerCDT 18:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I modified the Todo list based on FA criteria. Please work together to complete the items on the list. -- Jreferee 17:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)