Talk:Kevin Hart (poet)/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Kevin hart.jpg
Image:Kevin hart.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

POV
I believe this article is verging on having a POV. I believe that the use of terms such as "incisive" and "fulsome praise heaped" is not appropriate encyclopedia style. The reviews cited - most of them, in fact, negative here at present, but left in because they appear to be authoritative - speak for themselves. But this article, itself, is not a review and is therefore not the place for value-laden terms. Let the facts speak for themselves: these include that he has won awards; he has received negative reviews; he has been employed by several universities in Australia and the USA. Let me add here that I do not personally know and nor have I studied Kevin Hart. My interest is in ensuring a good coverage in Wikipedia of Australian literature in general, and in supporting the NPOV creed here.Sterry2607 (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On the negative side, there seems to be some gaming of the system here; following the rules, but with the goal of running Hart down rather than making a good (i.e. neutral) encyclopedia article about him. I agree that editorialising, both positive and negative, should be removed. Hesperian 01:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved from WP:BLP/N
[Moved discussion here, since this seems to have become the latest forum in which to peddle claims that I have abused page protection. Hesperian 02:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)]

I don't know what Hart did to piss this person off, but they persistently work to cut him down and make him look bad. Back in January, the edits were pretty obviously unacceptable. However since then the IP has learned a degree of subtlety, graduating to this and then this. The user has now learned to game the system beautifully. S/he is quite willing to invest substantial efforts in hunting down and posting negative reviews of his work, so his/her work is always well referenced, although in one case s/he turned out to have quoted from an Amazon.com book review. [Comment: the quotation from an Amazon.com book review was inserted by yet a different editor, and as it had no validity it was deleted. - 24.155.14.119] Yet they are clearly attempts to cast Hart in the most negative possible light. I have just stubbed the article as a hatchet job in violation of WP:BLP. In doing so I removed a substantial amount of referenced material. I request a review of that edit, and advice on how to proceed from here. Hesperian 06:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The hatchet job was restored. I have now reverted and semi-protected. Because of the potential perception that I am using administrative tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute (which is not the case) I ask that someone review the situation. Hesperian 13:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief, he can't be that bad a poet, can he? Seriously, I support your actions and see no conflict. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian stubbed this article after someone posted Hart's own published comments on a fellow Australian poet. I cannot fathom how removing this material is a gesture of neutrality. Now the article is left with bits of praise, with no real sense of who Hart is. That's what is missing now. Who Hart really is, and how the academic community perceives him, is the basis for an excellent article. Was the piece excellent before Hesperian stubbed it? No, but we were all working on getting it there, and at least it was informative (until Hesperian stubbed it), and anyone who felt the piece lacked balance was free to add strong and positive reviews of Hart's work. Hesperian has deleted well-researched, accurately documented, informative material about Hart, material that was not available anywhere else on the web. Significantly, it was material that was submitted by several editors, not just one. Hesperian's stub amounts to a hatchet job on what was growing slowly into a well-rounded and important analysis of a highly successful poet and critic. Such an article needs both positive and negative reviews if it is to have any validity at all. Some of that material might not flatter Kevin Hart, but so what? Is is Wikipedia's purpose to flatter? If so, it has no reliability. Please bear in mind that all deleted material was well-documented and was originally published in scholarly, peer-reviewed presses. In my view, Hesperian has abused this system, and it borders on vandalism. You should look closely at the article's contents the day Hesperian stubbed it. The inappropriate comments he cites above had been deleted long, long ago.

[moved here from my talk page] Hesperian 01:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You stubbed this article after someone posted Hart's own published comments on a fellow Australian poet. I cannot fathom how you are being neutral.  Now we are left with bits of praise, with no real sense of who Hart is.  That's what is missing now.  Who Hart really is, and how the academic community perceives him, is the basis for an excellent article.  Was the piece excellent before you stubbed it?  No, but we were all working on getting it there, and at least it was informative (until you stubbed it), and anyone who felt the piece lacked balance was free to add strong and positive reviews of Hart's work.  Let's face it: you've deleted well-researched, accurately documented, informative material about Hart, material that was not available anywhere else on the web.  Instead of deleting this legitimate material if you didn't like the point of view, why didn't you balance it?  We all have agendas, let's admit it; neutrality is an illusion, and everything has a point-of-view, no matter what the WP principles say otherwise.  (Ironically, that tenet is one of the building-blocks of Hart's scholarship in deconstructive philosophy.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We both know you're not here to write a neutral article; you're here to bag him out. I am usually loathe to cut out referenced information, but you don't get a free ride to run someone down just because you've learned the fine art of tracking down negative reviews and/or quoting the most negative sentence from a review and/or quoting out of context. One can clearly see an evolution in your edits from outright attack to subtler attack to far subtler injection of negative bias, so I'm glad you're not bothering to deny you have an agenda.
 * As for my agenda, I must say that I really don't give a fuck about Hart. I'd never heard of him before I was asked to stick my nose into this. I've never read one of his poems, and I couldn't care less about his deconstructive philosophy. That's right, I'm a complete philistine. My agenda is to improve Wikipedia articles, and removing a blatant hatchet job is one way of doing that.
 * Having removed such a large quantity of referenced material, I immediately submitted my edit for review at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. You feel free to move this discussion there, and continue it in my absence. As far as I'm concerned the matter is closed.
 * Hesperian 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not out to write a neutral article? Of course not!  That's my point.  There's no such thing, and you're a fool if you think there is.  Neutrality is not created by YOUR hatchet job--and indeed you did take the rhetorical axe to it--but by a welter of information, some of which is "positive" and some of which is "negative."  I--and several others, apparently--added material that did not flatter Hart.  Well guess what?  It's not the purpose of an encyclopedia to flatter.  Your agenda is not indeed about Hart; if it were you might have found some "positive" things with which to create balance and thus the semblance of neutrality.  Your agenda is to prevent the dissemination of useful information that will shed proper light on all the awards that Hart has received.  If you had no agenda, you should have stayed out of it.  If your agenda is to "improve" Wikipedia articles, well guess what?  You failed.  Miserably.  (And BTW those edits you cite are NOT all from the same editor.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian's guesses about an editor's motives are irrelevant. The only question is whether the material added by the editors was relevant, informative, and documented. The reviews of Hart's poetry and Hart's own views of poetry and his fellow poets are all relevant, informative, and documented. Therefore this material should stand. Hesperian needs to back down and stop policing articles about which he admittedly knows nothing at all. Let those who know something about poetry and scholarship have their say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I quote from the NPOV/FAQ page: "Lack of neutrality as an EXCUSE to delete. The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V. Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed."

This policy makes a strong case that the possible "bias" of the editor's additions to the Kevin Hart article should stand. Any editor who finds bias has the burden of adding material to balance this perceived bias. Hesperian and others need to stand down and either leave the article on Hart alone or add documented and relevant material of their own.

Let me add that Hesperian has continued to accuse me of sock-puppetry (note that his/her diatribe begins "I don't know what Hart did to piss this person off"), which is a ridiculous delusion. There have been at least four editors that have been involved in the development of this piece. I restored edits made by another editor because I agreed with that him/her that the article is valid and informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Stubbing and semi-protection an abuse of authority
Hesperian semi-protected and stubbed this article after someone posted Hart's own published comments on a fellow Australian poet. I cannot fathom how removing this material is a gesture of neutrality. Now the article is left with bits of praise, with no real sense of who Hart is. That's what is missing now. Who Hart really is, and how the academic community perceives him, is the basis for an excellent article. Was the piece excellent before Hesperian stubbed it? No, but we were all working on getting it there, and at least it was informative (until Hesperian stubbed it), and anyone who felt the piece lacked balance was free to add strong and positive reviews of Hart's work. Hesperian has deleted well-researched, accurately documented, informative material about Hart, material that was not available anywhere else on the web. Significantly, it was material that was submitted by several editors, not just one. (Moreover, Hesperian has continued to make accusations of sock-puppetry, which is a ridiculous delusion. There have been at least four editors that have been involved in the development of this piece. I restored edits made by another editor because I agreed with that him/her that the article is valid and informed.) Hesperian's stub amounts to a hatchet job on what was growing slowly into a well-rounded and important analysis of a highly successful poet and critic. Such an article needs both positive and negative reviews if it is to have any validity at all. Some of that material might not flatter Kevin Hart, but so what? Is it Wikipedia's purpose to flatter? If so, it has no reliability. Please bear in mind that all deleted material was well-documented and was originally published in scholarly, peer-reviewed presses. In my view, Hesperian has abused this system, and his actions border on vandalism. You should look closely at the article's contents the day Hesperian stubbed it. The inappropriate comments about Hart that he cites had been deleted long, long ago.

Hesperian's guesses about an editor's motives are irrelevant. The only question is whether the material added by the editors was relevant, informative, and documented. The reviews of Hart's poetry and Hart's own views of poetry and his fellow poets are all relevant, informative, and documented. Therefore this material should stand. Hesperian needs to back down and stop policing articles about which he admittedly knows nothing at all. Let those who know something about poetry and scholarship have their say. I quote from the NPOV/FAQ page: "Lack of neutrality as an EXCUSE to delete. The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V. Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed." This policy makes a strong case that the possible "bias" of the editor's additions to the Kevin Hart article should stand. Any editor who finds bias has the burden of adding material to balance this perceived bias. Hesperian and others need to stand down and either leave the article on Hart alone or add documented and relevant material of their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do wonder why the editor(s) entering the primarily negative reviews of Hart's work have not registered themselves as users? Anyhow, I have looked closely at the article and, as I understand it, the reason it was stubbed is because of the editorialising attending the, yes, well-documented reviews. It is not, I believe, appropriate for an encyclopedic article to use such terms as "fulsome praise" (used to give a negative impression in the article), "incisive review" (used to describe a negative review of Hart's work), "vicious diatribe", "reductively dismisses" unless they are part of the cited material. Let the cited material speak for itself ... We editors should describe reviews as "incisive" or criticisms as "vicious". Our job is to use more neutral terms to introduce cited material eg if Hart writes a criticism of someone, we should write something like "Hart criticises...". That is my understanding of how NPOV can be achieved in a primarily "positive" or "negative" situations (if indeed this is the case with Hart), and why I believe Hesperian stubbed the article as it stood.Sterry2607 (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I stubbed it because it had become a coatrack. It would still be a coatrack even if the editorialising was removed, because of the proportion of the article given over to negative reviews of his work.
 * The intended effect of protecting the article is to move the dispute from the article to this talk page. Any contributor is free to propose and discuss changes to the article here. Once agreement has been thrashed out, use the editprotected template to request that someone execute the agreed change. Hesperian 01:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hesperian, you are wrong about the coatrack theory (and yours is a theory, not a fact, though you state it as if it were). At this stage of the dispute you are injecting a new concept in order to retain control and authority over the article.  I find that I am in partial agreement with Sterry2607 here.  The cited material does belong and can speak for itself.    If certain phrases like "fulsome praise" need deletion, then the clean-up should be an easy enough matter.  However, the deleted research really needs to be restored.  A poet's views of other poets are relevant, and other scholars' opinions of Hart's scholarship and poetry are also valid in this sort of article.  They are just as valid--perhaps more so--than a list of Australian poetry prizes.


 * Let me reiterate the WP policy that an article's lack of neutrality does not justify either your stubbing or your protection: "Lack of neutrality as an EXCUSE to delete. The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V. Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed." I'm sorry to have to quote this a second time, but Hesperian, you seem to need this reminder. Positive reviews may be added by any editor, but the negative material must be allowed to stand. The WP policy on neutrality makes it quite clear you have gone too far in exercising your authority and control over this piece.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hesperian has suggested that this talk page be used to work out the article. How about you have a go at writing/revising it in such a way as to not put an additional negative spin on the cited material? That would be a good start to getting this article back under way - and better than to-ing and fro-ing here on the rights and wrongs of stubbing it. The next thing would be to get some balance. I don't know Hart but he must have some poetic and academic credibility - perhaps I'm naive about this but he has won awards (albeit Australian) and he has been appointed to academic positions in well regarded institutions. The article needs to show that - even if the balance is that there are more negative reviews. I'm not out to lionise Hart but I, for one, didn't like seeing every statement made about him being watered down. It did, I'm afraid, *look* like a vendetta against him. If it wasn't then let's get on with re-developing the article?Sterry2607 (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a fair and reasonable suggestion. The semi-protection is set to expire soon, and after it does I will work with the earlier versions to try to produce something that still maintains balance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have just discovered that Hesperian has extended the protection for another month. Sterry, your suggestion opens the door for a reasonable compromise.  I would like very much to get on with a compromise along the lines that you have suggested, but Hesperian seems dead-set against any such plan.  Unfortunately, he is keeping the article in lockdown, insisting on retaining control, abusing his authority, and preventing compromise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I would like to see progress on this talk page, towards a version that reflects both editor consensus and our relevant policies, namely the biographies of living persons policy and the neutrality policy. Rest assured I can ignore the "abuse of authority" rhetoric indefinitely. Hesperian 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, settle down and relax (and please sign your posts). Can you watch the personal attacks too please.  WP is a consensus based encyclopedia, not a war zone.  You now have the attention of at least three editors who are willing to consider your changes in a reasonable manner.  I too declare that I know nothing about Hart and frankly don't care about him either, but I am keen to work on a good article.  Put your suggested text changes here and let's work on a good compromise that meets the needs of readers. Gillyweed (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other contributors to this piece, but I for one will not be bullied (or patronised) by this junta. I would be happy to work on the article if Hesperian were to demonstrate some good faith and cancel the protection. However, I'm not going to waste my time editing something on this talk page. If you want a good article on Hart, cancel the protection and let's get to work. Otherwise, count me out, and Kevin Hart can be stuck with a useless, inferior stub of an article. Or worse yet, the three of you can use editprotection to try to produce an article of your own while keeping me out of it. However, I don't think encyclopedic fascism is in the spirit of Wikipedia. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but think about it: you're suggesting I do all this work for a talk page so that Hesperian can oversee it and make the final decision? I don't think so. As you rightly say, this is supposed to be about consensus, but we're not in equal positions here, are we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hesperian is an administrator and therefore has a role to play in ensuring Wikipedia articles are good ones (ie that they abide by Wikipedia policy). I am rather sorry that you are spending more time attacking Hesperian than working on the article. I understand that the approach he is taking is the standard approach used in situations like this where an article is getting bogged down in a lot of public to-ing and fro-ing/reverting/tweaking that was not good for Wikipedia and was also wasting a lot of time. I don't know Hesperian but my reading of what he is saying is not that he wants to be the one to give approval (in fact I'm sure he'd like to be rid of this), but that Wikipedia, through him, wants the contributors on this piece to achieve consensus before the article goes public again. In other words, it's not that *he* will give approval, but that he will unprotect when *we* editors come to consensus. I have a few commitments coming up but will try to have a go in my Sandpit and then make available here what I've done. OK?Sterry2607 (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, as you say, I will "demonstrate my good faith" and cancel the protection. I will also now start the ball rolling by proposing a change to the article. And I won't be shy about reverting any changes to the article that I don't think there is consensus for. The rules of this game are that the article will only reflect what is agreed on this page, so propose it here before posting it there. This is Wikipedia's Standard Operating Procedure for disputed material.

In taking this course of action, I am effectively involving myself in this content dispute, so will no longer have the right to apply page protection to this article. If I perceive a need for it in future, I will ask another administrator to assess the situation.

My proposal is this: with this edit, 24.155.14.119 removed a positive quote about Hart "because citation was false. Bloom quotation had been lifted from Amazon.com book review." However, I note that this quote can also be found at http://www.paperbarkpress.com/authors/Hart.htm. A similar Bloom quote, which apparently traces to the back of Flame Tree, can be found at http://australia.poetryinternationalweb.org/piw_cms/cms/cms_module/index.php?obj_id=678. And http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5930 states that Bloom's Western Canon "described Hart’s poetry as one of the few bodies of work that would be important beyond our current era." These are hardly academic sources — we should really be sourcing Bloom firsthand — but I think they suffice to legitimise Bloom's stated opinion on Hart. I propose that the quote be reinserted. There is another quote on the first of those pages, from Charles Simic, that could perhaps be included here.

It would be good also to include a concise quote from a critic or two, especially if both the above praise quotes are included; but unfortunately the quotes added by the other IPs are heavily manipulated, comprising a few quoted words here and few quoted words there, rearranged and stuck together with editorial commentary. None of them are suitable as they exist in the article history.

Hesperian 00:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. I apologise for lumping you (24.155.14.119) in with the other IPs. The really inappropriate material has come from other IPs, and you should not have been tarred with that brush. Unfortunately they are not party to this discussion, and if their injection of bias continues now that the page is unprotected, I can see no option other than to have the article protected again.


 * Thank you--each of you--for approaching this with a spirit of fairness. I apologize for my expressions of anger or frustration.  At times I felt rather ganged up on, though I see now that was not your intention.  All of this seems fair in principle, and I will approach this in good faith myself.  I am rather new to this process and thus ignorant of many procedures--such as how or why to sign pages--so I'm apt to make mistakes.


 * As for the Bloom quotes, unless one of us has a copy of his Western Canon it seems to me that the Paperbark Press website is our most reliable source as it is Hart's publisher. As for myself, I think Bloom is a crank and rather right-wing (I used to own Western Canon but sold it several years back, and was glad to be rid of it), and I certainly would be embarrassed to have his praise.  However, Bloom is an academic force, no matter what my opinion of him, and if Hart's publisher wants the blurb on the dustjacket then perhaps it does belong here in this article.


 * As for the other reviews, Pam Brown's seems neutral and John Leonard's negative, so I would like to see having all three included, in that order. It would be an easy matter to remove the editorial commentary.


 * There may be some disagreement about the validity of Hart's comments on Les Murray, but I think we can make that work as well. (Surely this does not represent his view of all other poets.)  Let me do some checking around, and I think I can balance that.  I vaguely recall reading some positive comments Hart made about Judith Wright's poetry at some point, and I will try to unearth them.  In general I think it is very important that the article include not only reviewers' opinions of Hart's poetry but Hart's opinions of other poets as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone - this is sounding great. How best should we proceed? Do you - 24.155.14.119 - want to have a go at editing along the lines discussed and as you offered a post or two back? My only other suggestion is that I think the Hart and Samuel Johnson section has got too great a prominence. If the academic community in general was negative about this work then that's fine to record but it is just one of hart's several publications. Does it warrant a whole section? And if it does, should it be in the early part of the article where it is now? My sense is that it should be part of a section called perhaps Literary criticism - and if that's all we have at present on Hart's literary criticism then that's OK for a start? What do you think about this issue? re Bloom - I agree that he is conservative and I didn't fuss about the mention being removed from the lead section but I agree that it is valid to include - probably in the Poetry section since that is what it refers to.

BTW You sign pages by typing 4 tildes (~) at the end of your message. You might like to register as an editor too - you can use a pseudonym as many people do here. It's not necessary but it gives you more options for managing your work and it's easier for us to be able to call you something besides a number.Sterry2607 (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing suggestions
Perhaps we should begin with a new section and heading--a proverbial clean slate, as it were. I agree that the Johnson material may be too prominent. A section on literary criticism, however, is a good idea. Hart has succeeded with his more philosophical work on the French thinkers but has been less successful with Johnson. Perhaps one section discussing all of this material would create a greater sense of balance, rather than singling out his academic misstep. I hope to find some time to work on this later today or tomorrow.24.155.14.119 (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So here's a go at starting a section on responses to Hart's poetry:

Poetry

In his early career Kevin Hart was one of a group of poets often referred to as the Canberra Poets. In addition to Hart, they included Alan Gould, Mark O’Connor, Geoff Page, and Les Murray. [Is this true? Is it important? Is a citation needed?]

His poetry has won a number of Australian prizes, including the C. J. Dennis Prize for Poetry and the Kenneth Slessor Prize for Poetry for his 1984 book, Your Shadow. He has also won the Victorian Premier's Literary Award for poetry, the Grace Leven Prize for Poetry, the Harri Jones Prize, the New South Wales Premier's Literary Award, the Mattara Award, and the Wesley Michel Wright Award.[4] In addition, Hart has been awarded the Christopher Brennan Award by the Fellowship of Australian Writers.

Hart's poetry has also generated a great deal of attention from critics and reviewers.

American scholar Harold Bloom has praised Hart as "The most outstanding Australian poet of his generation...." He calls him "One of the major living poets in the English language" and asserts that "Hart is an erudite poet, but converts his learning into passion. He is a visionary of desire and its limits."

Poet Charles Simic has said: 'Kevin Hart is one of the finest poets writing in English today. I admire his erudition, and his imagination, the way history, art, myth, literature and many things come together in his poetry.... An absolutely original and indispensable poet'. [citation: http://www.paperbarkpress.com/authors/Hart.htm]

Reception of his work has been mixed, however. Reviewer Pam Brown writes of Hart's 1999 Wicked Heat, "It’s as if these poems were written by a very serious old man and, apart from a recognisable poetic compulsion to write, it’s sometimes hard to grasp the point of this transparent yet obtuse set. Kevin Hart once wrote ‘Good poems lead us from certainty to uncertainty’. So, in his own terms Wicked Heat succeeds.".[3]

Reviewing Hart's New and Selected Poems in Social Alternatives, a refereed scholarly journal published quarterly in Australia, John Leonard noted that Hart is "a consistently accomplished Romantic lyrist" who maintains "command of tone, subject-matter, thought or language." Nevertheless, Leonard notes that Hart "is writing uncritically a kind of poem that is incredibly dated." Leonard substantiates this with textual analysis, pointing to Hart's reliance upon "a familiar Romantic desire for unity and transcendence, and a mish-mash of other dialectical oppositions, such as death and desire, the particular and the absolute, and so forth, all stirred up into a sickly brew with a generous dash of Christian mysticism." Quoting Hart's poems, Leonard notes as well Hart's tendency to make contradictory poetic statements: "For, despite his claim in one poem to exist within 'the whole of language' (73), Hart's desire for the absolute impoverishes and falsifies; when, for example, the absolute is figured it is inevitably 'nameless' (117) or speaks 'a meaning we cannot count' (185)." Leonard concludes that Hart's poems falsely equate poetry with life: "The blurb of this volume quotes Hart to the effect that 'a theory of poetry is a theory of life'. Fortunately, this is not true, a theory of poetry is theory of poetry. Fortunately too, there are other kinds of poetry."[9]

I suggest that this section be followed with a section dealing with Hart's relationsip with other poets--Judith Wright, Les Murray, and A. D. Hope (he wrote a book on Hope, though I know nothing about it).

This section could be collowed with a section on Hart's scholarship: Derrida, Blanchot and Johnson. 24.155.14.119 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good. I would remove ", a refereed scholarly journal published quarterly in Australia". And I'm still not comfortable with the fragmented and re-arranged Leonard quote. Originally the same thing was done with the Brown quote, and it read as a very negative review; when I tracked down the quote in full, it turned out to be a neutral quote that had been selectively quoted and editorialised. Therefore I am suspicious of the Leonard quote. Two specific concerns:
 * Our claim that "Leonard notes as well Hart's tendency to make contradictory poetic statements" doesn't appear to me to be supported by the quote, though perhaps I'm wrong there; the quote is rather obtuse. Even if the quote does support the assertion, we're presenting it as "Fact: Hart makes contradictory poetic statements. Fact: Leonard asserts this.", whereas it should be presented as "Fact: Leonard asserts that Hart makes contradictory poetic statements". This could perhaps be fixed by changing "Leonard note's Hart's tendency to..." to "Leonard perceives in Hart a tendency to...".
 * Hart says "a theory of poetry is a theory of life". Leonard says "Fortunately, this is not true; a theory of poetry is a theory of poetry". The proposed article text says "Leonard concludes that Hart's poems falsely equate poetry with life". That is an exceedingly liberal interpretation of what Leonard has actually said; falsely equating a theory of poetry with a theory of life is not the same as falsely equating poetry with life.
 * Hesperian 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This looks much better, thanks. I think Hesperian makes some good points about the fragmentation of the Leonard stuff but it's certainly on the way. I will certainly check some sources over here but will not get to libraries until the week after next. Re the Canberra Poets business - my sense is to leave it in at this stage. There was a citation for it I thought but maybe it didn't get in...it may have been me who put it in! From a Wikipedia point of view it provides the sorts of links between articles that helps users searching across a field (eg Australian poetry in general, which is also handled I admit by categories, but more specifically who links with whom). I think it indicates a bit of a flowering of poetry at a certain (relatively small place) place and time. I think AD Hope was a bit of a "father" to this group, but will try to confirm that. It could perhaps go under the Life section where we tend to talk more about where people have come from - it does look a bit stark where it is right now. And maybe it's more relevant to simply say some of his early associations were...? If it gets "meatier" - ie we can confirm something meaningful about their association - we could move it again later? What do you think? Meanwhile, I will look more into it...my recollection is seeing it in a poetry article or review in the newspaper last year (when I was more of a Wikipedia beginner than I am now). That's not the most scholarly of sources I know but for living people for whom biographies have not yet been written newspapers are sometimes a good source for background material. Anyhow, again, thanks for showing such good faith.Sterry2607 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * These suggestions will work for me. I don't find the interpretation of the final Leonard quote to be exceedingly liberal (rather a small logical leap to my thinking), but I'm fine with altering it to this:  Leonard concludes that Hart's poems make a false equation: "The blurb of this volume [etc.]."24.155.14.119 (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that works...how about you put this agreed stuff into the article - and if we have any questions about it we discuss it here rather than start playing with the article (unless it's just a typo or somesuch?)? I have just one question though re those numbers (73 etc) after the quotes from Hart's poems. I know they are part of the Leonard quote but what is he referring to? Are they line numbers from a poem and if so which poem/s? Are they page numbers from the Hart poetry book Leonard is reviewing? It's a bit hard when it's part of the quote but I think it needs clarification? Or is it just me who's being a bit obtuse? Cheers, Sterry2607 (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I got it in there as per our discussions. Sorry if I missed something.  As for the numbers under question, I take them to be Leonard's citation of page numbers from Hart's volume of poetry under discussion.  Is it permissible to silently delete these numbers from the quotations?  It's fine with me if someone wants to do that.24.155.14.119 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good - I've italicised titles and added Wikilinks where I know they exist. Let's leave those numbers at present - see what others say?Sterry2607 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Now for Hart's relations with and comments on other poets, including Les Murray. I suggest we begin with a reference to his book on A D Hope, and I will also try to find a useful statement by Hart on Hope. I have found this comment by Gerald Hall on Hart's view of Wright's influence (so far I can't locate the original source, but perhaps one of you can)-- Hall: "Another poet and critic, Kevin Hart, says that her poems taught him how to see the country for what it is and its people for who they are. He adds, 'whether we know it or not, we all live inside her poems' (Sydney Morning Herald, 29th June)." (Source: http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/gehall/Judith.htm) My suggestion is that Hart's remarks on Hope and Wright be followed by his comments on Murray. I think it quite interesting and relevant to see his likes and dislikes, his admissions of influence, etc. included here. The comments on Murray are harsh, but I do think that's part of what makes Hart who he is. I admit that including negative statements that Hart has made is not generally productive, but I am inclined to think his comments on Murray quite pertinent. It tells us his view of Australia's leading poet, and it gives us a flavor of Hart's writing and critical stance. What are your opinions of a section of this article that describes his views of and remarks on Hope, Wright and Murray? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, 24. Now that I've managed to distinguish between the various IPs, and you've well and truly demonstrated your good faith towards this article and its subject, I think it is time we mellowed out, put this dispute to bed, and reverted to the status quo, which is for everyone to be bold. Is everyone happy with that? Hesperian 00:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I appreciate your tolerance as I make the occasional blunder or betray ignorance. (I see for instance that I forgot to sign my previous post.)  I think I understand the "be bold" concept, having just read the link, and trust I will fulfill that charge properly.24.155.14.119 (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is looking excellent. Maybe you should go for GA status! Gillyweed (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking of my ignorance, what's this GA status? Thanks!24.155.14.119 (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See Good articles. Hesperian 23:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hart on Hope, Wright and Murray
I've started a new section here just to make it easier to read. I'm happy with all this. Maybe this is a better place for the Canberra poets bit too? Sorry I've not replied sooner - took my parents on a short -day sentimental journey. Will do some Hart source checking in the next week... Cheers,Sterry2607 (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

More on Hart
I have added a little to Hart's biography (near the beginning of the article) from the Oxford Companion to Australian Literature...I hope these additions are non-contentious as they are purely descriptive. Anyhow, it - and other sources I've read - comment on the religious focus of Hart's poetry. I think we need to add this info, probably to the lead section...and then perhaps expand it under a section on his themes/style? Ideas please? (Meanwhile, how do we want to progress the Hope/Wright/Murray material?) Sterry2607 (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this strategy?


 * In his early career Hart was one of a group of poets often referred to as the Canberra Poets. In addition to Hart, they included Alan Gould, Mark O’Connor, Geoff Page, and Les Murray.


 * As an active poet and critic, Hart engages other poets, especially his fellow Australian and religious poets, in close dialogue. He has acknoweldged A. D. Hope as Australia's finest poet, authoring a study of Hope early in his career.  To Hart, Hope is "an Orphic poet, someone who, like Rilke, believes that poetry is the celebratory transformation of nature into song."  [Source: "Sexual desires, poetic creation," in _Raritan_ 12.2 (Fall 1992)]  Another important influence and poetic relationship with Hart is the poet Judith Wright.  According to Gerald Hall, Hart "says that her poems taught him how to see the country for what it is and its people for who they are. He adds, 'whether we know it or not, we all live inside her poems' (Sydney Morning Herald, 29th June)." [Source: http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/gehall/Judith.htm]


 * Hart's poetic relations with fellow Catholic poet Les Murray have been more problematic. Hart faults Murray for restricting and reducing Hart's personal conception of "Australian poetry." He accuses Murray of a narrow and patriarchal view of Australian identity and of a backward poetics wherein "modernity is cast as the enemy" and then reduces Murray to a "sermoniser and polemicist, the man who talks chillingly of how society cannot survive without male blood sacrifices."  Hart concludes with a dismissal of Murray's poetry as ideological: "Although he [Murray] laments that Australia has 'vanished into ideology', he has transformed himself into the most ideological of our poets, and to the detriment of his verse. Over the last decade his work has turned increasingly entete [translated as "pig-headed"], animated more by linguistic dexterity than by feeling, and given to indulge hobbyhorse theories of poetry. While he has occasionally regained form, sometimes with considerable verve, his later work often seems more like material for poetry rather than finished poems." Ironically, Kevin Hart has been seen as a follower of Les Murray. Nicholas Birns writes that "the complicated poetic-critical project of Kevin Hart is powerfully influenced by Murray's example."

NB: I've found the article this quotation comes from, and it's accurate. I've done some light editing of the contributor's commentary.24.155.14.119 (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is all ok- and I like the way you start off the Murray para, and the references to his religious side. We can eventually expand on that under themes if we ever get there. I am still researching the Canberra poets bit - am getting a bit closer. My only quibble is that more space is given to Hart's negative work on Murray than his positive work on others but I can look into that when I get to the library. I say this because my sense is that the poetry community (here, at least) holds Hart in good regard. I understand that Murray and Hart did have a falling out - and I think it was over traditional vs modern approaches/styles but I have only a loose grasp of this so far. Also, Murray himself is generally known to be somewhat irascible - this article could be read as Hart attacking Murray (though it certainly reads less that way now than it did) whereas it may have been far more complex than that. However, given all this, if the others agree, I'm happy for this new edit of yours to be put into the article - and for us to add more as we can. Thanks for your work, Sterry2607 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. If you (or someone else) want to add it (or edit it first), that's fine with me.  Or if no one else comments in a day or so, I'll go ahead and add it, and we can edit the article itself as more info is found.


 * Murray and Hart probably have a long-standing feud. So many rival writers have over the centuries.  And Hart seems to be pretty ruthless himself.  Have you run across any book reviews he's written?  I've skimmed three or four in the last few days, and in those he hasn't been exactly generous with his praise.  No wonder some editors of this article haven't been so kind in return.24.155.14.119 (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right about writers and feuds...No, I haven't read any of his reviews but will try to do so when I get to the library. (My naive self wonders if Christian poets can't get on, who can?) Anyhow, I have another research project with a deadline which has to take precedence at present so may not get to Hart proper for a month or so (but he is in my To Do folder!). Will enjoy talking more on this as we progress, but I think it is coming out well now. Sterry2607 (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi 24 ... thanks for that. I hope you don't mind but I've done some formatting changes - if you don't like what I've done let me know but I think using dates rather than numbers to differentiate authors in references/notes is a more traditional way to go? The refs could perhaps be standardised more but I think they look OK at present. Anyhow, thanks again and let me know if you don't like what I've done. Sterry2607 (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, Sterry, and thanks for cleaning up, polishing, sanding the rough edges... choose your metaphor! I knew my edit would require an additional set of eyes to find all the little rough patches.  I think what you've done with the notes is much better now.  I knew the Hart refs needed to be differentiated, but I couldn't think how it should be done, so thanks for that.24.155.14.119 (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just changed the title of the section - your title 'Poetic Relations' is perhaps too poetic (!) for Wikipedia so I've tried something more mundane. If you don't like it change it back or try something else. Also, I realised that Wiki heading style is sentence case I believe - ie capital letter only for the first letter and for proper nouns. I did a little bit of research on Hart today in some spare library time - will write some stuff later tonight I hope. Nothing very controversial at this stage but at least now I've located a good source, I think, for some more material. Sterry2607 (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert
Have just reverted return of some old material - as discussed in Talk here, we need to reconsider placement of Johnson material which needs to be placed in a better context, under perhaps a Literary criticism heading? I have found another article (in Australian Literary Studies) on his Johnson book which includes positive and negative comments - and some other material. Hope to get back to this discussion soon.Sterry2607 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think editing on the discussion page is required any longer. Remember this?
 * "... I think it is time we mellowed out, put this dispute to bed, and reverted to the status quo, which is for everyone to be bold. Is everyone happy with that? Hesperian 00:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)"
 * That being the case, you shouldn't have deleted my reinsertion of the Samuel Johnson material. If you have some other material to balance the opinions, please add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.170.157 (talk • contribs)


 * I said that because it seemed to me that all parties then interested in contributing to the article, were committed to making this an excellent encyclopedia article, as opposed to a hatchet job. You were not one of those parties... but naturally I look forward to you proving yourself to be one of us, in which case the same courtesy will be extended to you.
 * What is being asked of you here is not at all onerous; only that first submit for discussion here, any material you propose to add there. Would you care to offer an argument in favour of the material you wish to add, or shall we continue discussing the oughts and oughtn'ts of the revert?
 * Hesperian 12:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern, as discussed on this talk page, is that the Samuel Johnson material was given proportionally too much weight in the article vis a vis its importance in his career. This work is but one of several works of literary criticism by him - but it is the only one described here (other than the brief mention of others in the lead section) - and it is described in some detail. I am not against including criticism of Hart's criticism but think it should be part of a larger section on Hart's literary criticism. It could be a subheading under that heading perhaps - and we need to include reviews/description of his works on Derrida etc as well to show the breadth of Hart's work and reputation. I am happy to "be bold" if we are all working from the same understanding of what we are trying to achieve - the best way of doing this at present is to discuss the directions here (without necessarily having to approve every word).  OK? Sterry2607 (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to Hesperian's request for an argument in favor of the Johnson material, here goes: Hart's book has been viewed largely by critics as an academic failure.  I've read many reviews of it and posted the most informative ones.  I have at this point little knowledge of his work on Derrida and Blanchot, so I cannot contribute to a larger article on his academic scholarship.  Someone else can add that, but leave the Johnson material in until then.


 * Would you please sign your comments? You do that simply by typing 4 tildes (ie ~) at the end of your message. I am not happy with the Johnson material going in without better context for his Lit Crit body of work - I just don't believe it is appropriate encyclopedia writing to be so unbalanced. I am happy to find some more "stuff" but have a big deadline for another writing project this month. Am keen to get back to this one in July. If others can find more in the meantime, that would be great, but otherwise I think we should wait until we can do a broader coverage of this aspect of his career. OK?Sterry2607 (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson
I have removed the Samuel Johnson section that has been added in again. It needs to be rewritten to be NPOV and it would be better included under a heading on Literary Criticism. Leaving it as it is, ie a separate section with no other similar coverage of Hart's literary criticism, creates an unbalanced article in terms of Hart's body of work. If the editor who wishes to include this material is happy to rewrite to achieve balance then that would meet, I believe, the spirit of the discussions we've had on this page...but if s/he is not, then I still do have it on my rather full agenda to get back to one day. In other words, I believe our policy should be "when in doubt leave it out". What do others think?Sterry2607 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please delete this entry
One of my children alerted me to this page a while ago. I just looked at it, though very briefly. I fully realize that my preference may not count for anything, but I would like to make it very plain that I would prefer not to have an entry devoted to me on Wikepedia, and would be pleased if this page were deleted. Information about my publications can be obtained readily from *Who's Who in Australia*, or amazon.com. Please do not contact me. I wish simply to make my view clear to the editor or editors of this page.

Kevin Hart

Kevin John Hart (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Above
This is a very good way of showing no understanding of the processes of how and what wikipedia is or not.

Publicly known and documented persons are not able to ask to be removed from Wikipedia.

Asking to not respond is also another very good example of limited understanding of how wikipedia works.


 * 1) If there are legal or privacy details - there is WP:OTRS
 * 2) If there is an issue with having limited understanding of process or how wikipedia works - there are sections of wikipedia that address the issue - WP:NOT and its converse.

Thanks for the example of the subject with no understanding of what Wikipedia is not. SatuSuro 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Above
Actually, I have a pretty good idea of what Wikipedia is, which is why I recommend that my students do not use it. I may not have a legal right to have this entry deleted; however, I have a perfectly good moral right to object to it and to advise anyone at all interested in my books to look elsewhere for accurate information about them. Responsible work in encyclopedias is done by experts in the field and is externally evaluated for accuracy; it is also signed by an author or authors. One of the things I object to in Wikipedia is that it encourages amateurishness in not requiring those who write entries to sign their proper names and to give their academic affiliations if they have any.

Kevin Hart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin John Hart (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - you are most welcome to your view - and your way of seeing things. The talk page of an article about you is probably the last place to indicate your views as expressed above - as it in effect 'goes nowhere'.

In relation to the way that wikipedia works - unless you pursue the OTRS line for specifics - that is more or less the end of the matter.

There seems no point to pursue the matter further as you (1) ask for no reply or email - your wikipedia page will not get a welcome unless someone else adds one (2) there is no precedent within the policies or practice of wikipedia for someone to have an article removed about them if they are a public figure (viz publications etc) unless there is a legal issue. To pursue this conversation any further appears to negate your original intent - leave it is best advice. SatuSuro 07:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)