Talk:Donald Kaul

Why I changed this page.

I read the op-ed piece by Donald Kaul. Found and read the wiki. With regards to this gun ownership section it seemed to me that it was not objective at all. Stating that Kaul was joking is not objective. It was an op-ed. He opined, he stated. While it may be tongue in cheek, we do not know for sure. Implied humor? Implied violence? Maybe. Maybe not. But that would be entirely subjective on the part of the reader of the original piece. If we really want to know, we should ask Kaul whether or not he was joking. Tpseudo (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The statements were made, they are in print. It's what he stands for. He is notable as a Pulitzer nominated writer.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Not satire. Not humor. Opinion. Op-Ed "Opposite the Editorial page". Tpseudo (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, this was an Op-Ed, the satire section is in a different part of the paper entirely so there could be no confusion on that. Mr. Kaul's words should be factually described in the article as well as the context. Thank you for your help. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for yours. I am keeping an eye on this as well. It does seem to be developing some clarity from the original.Tpseudo (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Lynching

I removed the word lynching from the article. Nowhere does Mr. Kaul state that he would kill although dragging human beings with chains from a pickup truck does many times lead to horrific death and it is an grotesque extrajudicial criminal act of a very vile nature. Lynching generally is also carried out by a mob and involves hanging (the lynching of someone's throat). Also the word has many racial overtones that we likely want to avoid here. It's combative phrasing so I removed. Discuss here before re-adding. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We also have to be extremely careful in what we add to this page. It has to be WP:BLP. We have to be extra careful that we only note actual facts, we should not minimize or amplify the statements of the person in any way. Mischaracterizations are not appropriate in Wikipedia and least of all on a BLP page. Facts only. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

James Byrd was lynched in that manner, although I know what you mean.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mike, the horrific case of Mr. Byrd was the stomach turning criminal tragedy that came to mind when I first read Mr. Kaul's article. Mr. Byrd was black and his mob assailants white which further led to the attribution of lynching. But Mr. Byrd was executed while Mr. Kaul didn't advocate the explicit murder of our elected leaders, although by the time you tie someone to a vehicle and drag them around, you pretty much have zero regard for human life and you're very likely going to wind up with a horrific tragedy even if you do that for only 30 seconds. The horrific nature of what was proposed by Mr. Kaul can be lost given the popular media where we see heros dragged around by horse, cars, trains etc and they just miraculously get up - the reality is much more horrific in real life and sadly much of the gut wreching context is lost. For all we know though and out of an abundance of good faith, Mr. Kaul might have envisioned dragging in the sense of Harrison Ford on some movie set (hard to imagine) so given that this is a BLP, I'd rather us not inflame the statement and we should afford Mr. Kaul every benefit of doubt here and afford the reader of the article the opportunity to make up their own mind. The Byrd case was horrific though and I wish we'd just cleanse ideas like that out of our prose, especially by pulitzer nominated authors - regardless of editorial freedom one might aquire due to age - it has no place in civil discourse. -Justanonymous (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"We also have to be extremely careful in what we add to this page." Agreed. And that is exactly why I edited it. Politics and/or ideology should not enter into a factual BLP. Tpseudo (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not Satire

Several anonymous IP editors have tried to cast the work of Mr. Kaul as satire. Please stop attempting to characterize the work as satire. Satire is a particular type of writing that is published in a specific part of a newspaper. Mr. Kaul's work was published as an op-ed an opposite the editorial which is in a very particular way. We're trying to be very precise here and we're attempting to be completely fair to what Mr. Kaul wrote without embelishment either positive or negative. This is a biography of a living person and we have to be 100% factual. Please don't use softening words like irony, satire, etc in the description. Likewise please don't use combative words like lynching. Please don't mistate or mischaracterize what the author wrote, he never advocated "murder" or anything like that. Let's be 100% fair to the author here. I know it's politically charged but the Wiki is about facts. Thank you all for the help and hard work. -Justanonymous (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As a side note to the editors trying to soften or harden Mr. Kaul's words, we truly do not know Mr. Kaul's intentions with his piece. He might not want editors to soften his prose or to harden it, those decisions to "spin" Mr. Kaul's work stem from a editor's personal tastes and bias. You might think you're doing Mr. Kaul a favor by casting his work as satire when in reality you might be going against his wishes. Let's just be fair to his statements and be 100% factual without embelisment (detracting or adding), let's not marginalize nor amplify. If Mr. Kaul decides to revise his statements at some point, then at that point we can add his meaning. Please just leave it at the facts only.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I must correct myself, Mr. Kaul did advocate murder in his strong prose. Murder of those that opposed gun control but not explicitly elected leaders.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The statements were made in the vein of satire and cannot be understood separated from the article and context without labeling it as satire. By not doing so we are doing a disservice to anyone who happens on this article and wants to know his views. He does not want Republican leaders dragged through the streets. It was said in a satirical manor. He has said it himself in a subsequent piece titled "Deploying Satire at My Own Risk." http://otherwords.org/deploying-satire-at-my-own-risk/ --GD (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it. In the future, please don't simply revert the entry on the page when more work needs to be done. New information released through a clarification piece yesterday, predates this thread of discussion -- and must be put into the context of the article and it also needs to be cited correctly in the biography so that the reader is not confused. Initially, many people did not know this was intended as satire because this did not appear commonly in the satire section of a paper and also because of the polarized politics of the gun debate. Hence there was a very strong reaction by some groups. It is worth noting the chronology of how this occurred and how it has been clarified in a subsequent piece by the same author. Please help me keep the article straight, it takes a lot of work. Merely, reverting without adding the references, chronology, etc, just creates confusion and forces rework. Appreciate the link to yesterday's article by Mr. Kaul, that helped.--Justanonymous (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. To clarify, the whole piece wasn't satire. The part at the end was. Unfortunately, it was quoted and taken out of context by some to mean that he was serious. --GD (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that they should've just used the satire tag at Otherwords and this whole mess would've been avoided. At the same time, it did have the desired result. The confusion is partially understandable given the state of gun politics. Let's work to keep this article NPOV, I know it's hard. Thank you for the help.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control Section Deletion

Esteemed editors, I deleted the section on Gun Control for Mr. Kaul. My rationale is WP:Recentism and likely a violation of WP:BLP because this lone article is not the defining article for Mr. Kaul. If anything, we might want to have the work that won him a pulitzer nomination.. Mr Kaul has had a long and illustrious career as a satire writer. This one article is not his defining career action although it did get a lot of attention.. If the article was very long and detailed, it might merit short mention but in a very short article, this just dangles as glaring Recentism and POV laden. Let's discuss here and reach consensus before readding. Below is the cut content for modification and reinclusion:

Gun Ownership

On December 19, 2012, Mr. Kaul - generally a satire writer - wrote a controversial article titled, The New Agenda on Guns We Need after Newtown that he intended as satire but which was not labeled as such at the Otherwords.org site he used for distributing his work. The article was later picked up by the Des Moines Register and published on December 30, 2012 as an op-ed titled, Nation needs a new agenda on guns but the work continued to not be labeled satire. In the article, Mr. Kaul controversially wrote that:

• The Second Amendment should be repealed,
• The National Rifle Association be declared a terrorist organization, with an option to raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth,
• The ownership of "unlicensed assault rifles" become a felony with approval of "prying the guns from the cold dead hands" of those owners who refuse to give them up,
• and that Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, should be tied to the back of a pickup truck and dragged around until they saw the light on gun control.

The article generated publicity on the internet in part because it was written by a prominent writer, because the prose was very strong, and because it was unclear to many readers whether the writer was employing a literary tool like satire. On January 4, 2013, Mr. Kaul wrote a clarification piece in Otherwords.org titled Deploying Satire at My Own Risk where he clarified that his original work was intended as satire and that he had received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls, some of them threatening, regarding his original article. He further clarified that he was using strong language as a literary tool and that he did not intend physical harm to anyone nor did he advocate the repeal of the second amendment, merely suggesting that the second amendment was being misinterpreted currently.

I was one of the editors who sanitized the entry to be more neutral but even with all the wordsmithing it just makes the article and biography very unbalanced and also likely a violation of WP:BLP.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Typical.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mike, not a unilateral move, if you disagree voice the rationale and if there is a consensus to reintroduce we can reintroduce the content. To me it makes the article very unbalanced given that the rest of it is so short and the guy's career so long. This can't be his defining article. There is no entry about his pulitzer nomination article but this gets 2,700 bytes? it's more than half of his entire entry. Help appreciated to balance the encyclopedic entry on a BLP.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mike went back and added a 500 byte entry on his gun control article to the main page. That's more in line with other entries in his biography and that way the article is not entirely erased from the record. It's just the 2,700 bytes is way too much. If a reader is interested, they can follow the links and get to what he wrote. I hope that's ok.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Donald Kaul. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130106022557/http://otherwords.org:80/author/donald-kaul/ to http://otherwords.org/author/donald-kaul/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130106022557/http://otherwords.org:80/author/donald-kaul/ to http://otherwords.org/author/donald-kaul/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121230/OPINION01/312300033/Kaul-Nation-needs-new-agenda-guns
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130131115417/http://now.msn.com/donald-kaul-wants-nra-illegal to http://now.msn.com/donald-kaul-wants-nra-illegal
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130106022557/http://otherwords.org:80/author/donald-kaul/ to http://otherwords.org/author/donald-kaul/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donald Kaul. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120723161250/http://www.insideriowa.com/en/donald_kaul/ to http://insideriowa.com/en/donald_kaul/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://otherwords.org/author/donald-kaul/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)