This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
A vandal appears to be trying to whitewash Kelly's role in the Glass scandal from the introduction. Due to the film on the scandal, that is probably what is he best known for, outside of relatively small U.S. journalistic circles, and as such belongs in the intro.
Karaff (
talk)
03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)reply
I cannot edit this page, as it is about my late father, and I do not want to violate the COI guidelines that I so frequently warn other users for ignoring. However, I do feel that this article has significant problems, namely in that it focuses almost entirely on my father's involvement in a scandal to which he was tangential, and ignores the bulk of his journalistic career. I won't pretend to be unbiased about this, but all I know is that when I meet people and they find out who my father was, they always mention his political commentary, not his involvement in the Stephen Glass scandal. There are several useful sources which this article does not reference, including
his New York Times obituary and
his official biography at the Kelly Award website. This strikes me as an article where a relatively small amount of effort could create a relatively large positive change; all an unbiased editor needs to do is look over these sources and update the article to reflect more broadly on his career, as opposed to a brief, if notable, chapter in it.
Also, would anyone object if I removed the "To hell with Michael Kelly" post on this talk page? It seems quite uncivil, and I think if I saw an editor speaking so rudely of the dead on any other talk page, I'd delete the comments. — further,
Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (
Je vous invite à me parler)18:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)reply
1. Make a specific request, such as please change THIS to THAT (using reference SOMETHING) and people here can consider it. We can't deal with a nebulous request to 'make it better'. An unbiased editor could work with such a request.
A conflict of interest is only a problem if the edit is problematic. No need for edit requests, unless it is an edit of a non-neutral or poorly verified nature.
Drmies (
talk)
00:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Very good point, and there are still a few noncontroversial things that could use some touching up. I just didn't want to look like a new user trying to pick up some credibility and then promptly get down to his real, COI-tinted motives. Of course, my general
laziness when it comes to actual content edits extends even here, so I doubt it should ever be an issue. Think I need to put up a {{connected contributor}} here, just in case? —
Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler)00:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I didn't know such a template existed. Again, I wouldn't worry about it. If an edit is highlighted and held up to scrutiny, whether it passes the neutrality test or not won't depend on a template somewhere but on its own merit. (I'm starting to sound like Pascal.) If your motives are indeed to turn this or some other article into a whatever, those edits will probably be scrutinized and reverted anyway. Just go ahead and touch up whatever needs touching up (a photo would be nice), and if it's more than a touch-up be mindful of the usual requirements. Sorry if that sounds mundane. ;) I need to read this article more carefully: he seemed like an interesting man, but I have some other issues to deal with right now. Happy days,
Drmies (
talk)
01:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Btw, a photo of his grave would also be appropriate as the cemetery he's buried in has numerous well-known people and is thoroughly documented.
Crtew (
talk)
00:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I like your enthusiasm but there are prerequisites to writing an FA-Class biography. It would be very helpful to have a well-written book dedicated to describing Kelly's career, for instance. Chip Scanlan's
Kelly bio at Poynter gets partway there but it is short on background, very short. My opinion (as an experienced editor of GA and FA articles) is that this biography can rise to GA with a little work but FA is probably too unlikely.
Binksternet (
talk)
05:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)reply
COI edits to this article
I'll quote the guideline:
"You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or your close friends." I haven't said anything about this until now, but I think its time for
User:PinkAmpersand to step away from this article. It's one thing for a new user to arrive and ask honestly "As the subject's son, I have the most direct connection to this subject, but would improvement along these lines by against NPOV?". It's quite another for the editor to actually edit the pagespace himself, especially in the arena of what sources say regarding legacy and criticism. I don't think it serves PinkAmpersand or the article well. Further, I think any edits by the son of a subject will eventually draw media attention and reflect badly on Wikipedia in general and this page's watchers/stewards in specific. I urge PinkAmpersand to stop editing this livespace. I'll deign not to go into the substance of his recent edits, but the types of edits he has made recently have, in my humble opinion, crossed the COI guideline in a slippery slope way.
BusterD (
talk)
09:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)reply
If he's made an edit that is objectionable, then we should talk about that edit. But in my dealings with him, I have found that he has followed the policy to the letter. If you read lower than the above quote, policy clearly states: "Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. The benefits of this are that most editors will appreciate your honesty and may try to help you; you lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself." That's exactly what he's done. However, any editor helping should make independent verification and decisions -- positive or negative about the subject. Furthermore, the same policy lists a number of non-controversial edits that can be made. The guideline in this case of a declared COI, is that someone can object to an edit, and that makes it controversial. So what edit are we talking about?
Crtew (
talk)
09:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)reply
The majority of my edits to this article have been minor in nature. The most controversial thing I've done has probably been to add uncited data involving the awards, after they'd been given out but before any press statements had been released. (I couldn't find anything in
WP:NOR strictly prohibiting this, since it's not original theory or anything... regardless, I added the citation as soon as it was available.) The only edits I've made vis-à-vis his legacy and criticism have been these two wording changes
[1][2], which didn't actually remove any critical comments, but simply avoided putting any point of view in the encyclopedia's voice; I also clearly invoked a variation of
WP:BRD in my edit summaries. If you and others feel that my edits weren't neutral, then I'll gladly stop touching any controversial parts of the article and use {{request edit}} in the future. Otherwise, though, I think I have just as much a right to edit this article as anyone else, since I'd like to think it's
pretty well-established that I'm not a single-purpose account. (Oh, I also made
this edit of a similar vein a few months ago... once again, a minor phrasing change so that something read more like summary than synthesis.)
When I was working with you, I actually found using your tips helpful in adjusting my search terms. As for your summary above, everything sounds above board to me, but I wouldn't add any information that can't be independently verified with an outside source (on the Internet or through other widely published forms).
Crtew (
talk)
14:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Article organization
I found the organization of this article to be a little odd and not really encyclopedic. Normally when I real a bio page, I expect the sections in this order: 1) Early life 2) Career (can be divided into early and later career, or into different topic areas or work areas, etc.) 3) Views, or discussion of critical analyses that sources have made of the subject's work, etc. 4) Personal life concluding with death, or in the case of a notable death (as here) maybe a section on death (as here). Sometimes (3) and (4) can be swapped.
However, it's really strange to read an article organized with early life followed by death (particularly a notable death, as here) leading the article before we even get to what else the man did during his career. This may not have been intended, but there is a possible interpretation that the arguably heroic death of a war correspondent in combat is being used to draw attention away from the subject's notable involvement in scandal which occurs further down the page - or at least make the leading part of the article more positive.
It would seem more consistent with the requirement for neutral tone to present the early life and career chronologically and end with the subject's death rather than leading with it.
TheBlinkster (
talk)
19:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
Michael Kelly (editor). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on
Michael Kelly (editor). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
As a non-US reader I found the sentence "Kelly was critical of the political establishment in both political parties" a bit unclear. I've added a link so it now reads "...political establishment in
both political parties". Not sure if this is the best way to approach this? Any feedback welcome.
Ascendingrisingharmonising (
talk)
16:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Gawker as a source for a high-profile biography
SouthernNights: It seems that you reverted
my removal of Tom Scocca's opinion on Kelly's legacy – I should ask, what business does his opinion have in this article? I'd have to imagine that if it criticism is to be included, it should be from somewhere much more qualified than a sensationalist gossip blog...
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/
they)
00:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The source is an opinion column from Gawker's editor at the time about Kelly's legacy. The column was referenced by
Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Atlantic (who wrote it was a "very hard—and very fair—assessment of Kelly's role in the Iraq War"), by Michael Tomasky in
The Daily Beast (who called it "a fantastic piece up at Gawker putting Kelly's death into what seems to me the proper perspective") and by
Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine, among other places. This take on Kelly's life and legacy was influential, agreed with and supported by other reliable sources, and meets Wikipedia's requirements.--
SouthernNights (
talk)
12:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)reply
This is a difficult situation. Gawker is not a reliable source for facts
per RSP, but we're not talking about facts here, but rather an opinion, and under
WP:RSOPINION there are no reliability issues. The question then becomes whether the opinion is influential enough to warrant mention. I was planning to weigh in as neutral on that, but seeing SouthernNights' evidence of several high-profile individuals referencing it, I have to conclude that it's
due and should be included. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)reply
(
COI comment) @
SouthernNights and
Sdkb: I've avoided commenting on this passage for years, even when a few people in my family have asked me to, but since we're discussing it now, I will point out briefly that the words "As Scocca said" place the subsequent quote in the encyclopedia's voice, which I would say runs afoul of
MOS:EDITORIAL and
WP:NPOV. Changing it to something like "Scocca further wrote" would solve that, I think. I offer that without comment on whether the quotes should be included at all. Oh, and while I'm here, "Gawker" should be italicized. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)07:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I've gone and made the suggested changes, including the italics, which I forgot to mention in my edit summary. I don't have any strong opinions about whether the passage should stay or go however. Graham8715:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
This
edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Would someone mind adding bidirectional hatnotes to this and
Michael Kelly (journalist)? {{
about|the American journalist|the Irish journalist|Michael Kelly (journalist)}} here; {{
about|the Irish journalist|the American journalist|Michael Kelly (editor)}} there.
(Or perhaps the latter should be at
Michael Kelly (Irish journalist), with the "(journalist)" title redirecting here. I'd say this is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for a journalist named Michael Kelly, and both men are/were both journalists and editors, so I question whether "journalist" vs. "editor" is sufficient disambiguation.) --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)02:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)reply