Talk:Kevin Myers

Archives
To May 2008

Lies damned lies and the wickedness of wikipedia

I'm finding Myers article "Lies damned lies and the wickedness of wikipedia" a little hard to swallow.

What was the premise? Myers opens up wikipedia one day to find his page has been vandalised, and on that basis writes an article condemning the whole of wikipedia? Or, perhaps, Myers, wanting to codemn the whole of wikipedia, opens up his article and - surely not - vandalises it himself with a new account [1], and then reverts the edits with a new single person account [2]? Oddly, the vandalising account comes back a fwe days later to tidy up a Myers quote [3].

Bottom line for me: it is too convenient that the account was vandalised at much the time that Myers would have been writing the article, and it is improbable in the extreme that a single purpose account would appear merely to revert the vandalism of another single purpose account.

The conclusion I draw - on the cui bono principle - is that Myers himself is the vandal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Note the following lines from cui bono:Cui bono can be applied only in cases where some act was planned with the intention of obtaining a benefit. and The cui bono principle is often applied to explain acts of political significance, but may not always be reliable or useful. Malicious editing isn't new to wikipedia - consider the Seigenthaler incident.Autarch (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a coincidence, but sometimes coincidences just happen. It is still possible to have a page with an error that lasts a few days. The Category:Living people didn't really end that. During a period I was mad at Wikipedia, and went on a vandalism spree that rightly got me blockd, I intentionally looked through the "Living people" category to test that. I vandalized Jacqueline Obradors and it lasted three days. I eventually reverted the vandalism myself, so I don't know how long it'd have lasted on its own. I'll admit though the coincidence is interesting, but I don't know if it's remarkable.--T. Anthony (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the supposition is that KM gained the benefit of a vandalised article, which he could use as a peg on which to hang his story. Keep up, Autarch. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that assuming that Myers instigated the article directly or indirectly? Unless there's clear evidence to the contrary, it's wiser to assume it was the work of a Myers-hating vandal. In this case there is no corroborating evidence for that view. Autarch (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's of any help to you, I can absolutely guarantee you that I (second edit cited above) am not Kevin Myers. Mmmerfa (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent, although it rather does for my supposition :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, I'm not Kevin Myers either. Autarch (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nor am I Spartacus or Brian! ;-) Autarch (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats enough now, Brian. Ceoil (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Hate Speeches

Does anybody have a source for the alleged comments made on NewsTalk and the alleged lawsuit under Incitement to Hatred being brought in that case? There are sources for the first paragraph, but we have to verify any allegations made if true and delete untrue ones, as per Wikipedia:BLP. Autarch (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed that para just now. Per WP:BLP, and as its unsourced and speculative "a resident... is to make a complaint...". As and when s/he has done so, its been investigated and the oucome reported in the news or an annual report, it can be included, but until then, I don't think so. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure how to use this website. Kevin Myers did make the comment in question. I have filed a complaint to the Gardai. Hope I am using the webpage correctly, if not, it's ok to delete my post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintpadraig (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Saintpadraig. I've reverted your edit again. I'm absolutely assuming good faith here - although I've no doubt Myers did make the remarks you claim - including them would be a breach of a couple of policies - namely WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:COI. Assuming the Gardaí were to act on your complaint and that the outcome was reported, then someone else, other than you, could include it. If Newstalk has a podcast link to the segment in question, then you could include the first part of the deleted paragraph if you include that link as a source. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Homophobia"

Hi,

The citation given for the deleted paragraph does not support the claim that Myers is homophobic. It was a newspaper column by the subject of this article, which was about political correctness in the press and society. For it to support such a claim, he would actually have to say outright, "I am homophobic" - which he clearly did not. It is not enough for an wikipedia editor to read an article, and find that it is self-evidently biased in one way or another.

This is a WP:BLP, one cannot read a writer's articles, dislike the content and then write on wikipedia that that man is "homophobic" - itself a libellous and outrageous claim. As per WP:Sources, to state that he is homophobic here one must have multiple, reliable, non-partisan sources. Thank you Ktlynch (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Could contributors to the article please provide sources for their claims, as per WP:BLP.Autarch (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Myers and The Phoenix

Myers is referred to as Colonel Myarse or Kevin Myarse reguarly in the Phoenix. I find it odd that this was removed given the fact that on the Peter Carter-Ruck article it mentions the fact that he was referred to as "Carter-Fuck" or "Farter-Fuck" by Private Eye magazine.ĵ

Exiledone (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Juvenile and puerile humour, or repeating of same, is not appropriate here. Snappy (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well put. Ceoil 17:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not exactly answering my point given the fact that the Peter Carter Ruck article mentions he was referred to as "Carter-Fuck" of "Farter-Fuck", which I think would be considered more "Juvenile and puerile" than "Colonel Myarse".

Can we just mention the fact that he is a fairly regular target of satire. Exiledone (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Obviously other than the Phoenix. Please be aware of WP:BLP. Snappy (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No way are we going down the Farter-Fuck route. But given he is a professional controversialist, and earns money that way, I'd mention satire, but not repeat it. Ceoil 15:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and just because other crap exists does not mean it is to be repeated elsewhere. Snappy (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only does other crap exist, but its a constant fight to keep it out. Explaining basic decency to idiots. Ceoil 00:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Dont refer to me as an idiot Ceoil. Also if you want to explain basic decency to idiots my advice is to explain it to the subject of the article.

Exiledone (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have struck your personal opinion of the living subject of the article - please be aware WP:BLP applies to talk pages just as much as the article space and that the talkpages of living subjects in not a place for you to vocalize your dislike or opinions about the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)