This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Writing as someone who theorizes Zolf's work and no doubt is more acquainted with her work than you are, I'm a bit perplexed that this article is flagged as suspect. These are legit sources and the information on the page is accurate. Can I ask that the "warning" be removed. In my professional opinion, there's no grounds for it and I'm happy to enter into a more lengthy dialogue with you if required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regula39 ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
External links should be to one page, or two pages at most, that are specifically about Rachel Zolf. The section is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every individual review she's gotten in any literary magazine, and interviews and articles about her may be used as references for specific statements of fact in the article, not just as uncontextualized offsite links.
It is also not appropriate to remove properly sourced content from an article under any circumstances, nor to simply replace it with an unsourced quote from a book review. Bearcat ( talk) 04:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Most of the links that you deleted are considered important literary sources for people in the context of the avant-garde writing community. Evidently, neither of you know anything about the kind of writing Zolf is engaged in and your editorial decisions reflect this. I'm adding the links back. I also maintain that review in the Lambda Book Report (in this case, a review of books by Zolf, Adrienne Rich and Eileen Myles is no more or less "biased" than any literary essay, and this was in fact an essay length review). To assume it is less reliable than let's say an interview from a community newspaper in Toronto seems a bit misguided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicerovention ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Writing as someone who theorizes Zolf's work and no doubt is more acquainted with her work than you are, I'm a bit perplexed that this article is flagged as suspect. These are legit sources and the information on the page is accurate. Can I ask that the "warning" be removed. In my professional opinion, there's no grounds for it and I'm happy to enter into a more lengthy dialogue with you if required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regula39 ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
External links should be to one page, or two pages at most, that are specifically about Rachel Zolf. The section is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every individual review she's gotten in any literary magazine, and interviews and articles about her may be used as references for specific statements of fact in the article, not just as uncontextualized offsite links.
It is also not appropriate to remove properly sourced content from an article under any circumstances, nor to simply replace it with an unsourced quote from a book review. Bearcat ( talk) 04:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Most of the links that you deleted are considered important literary sources for people in the context of the avant-garde writing community. Evidently, neither of you know anything about the kind of writing Zolf is engaged in and your editorial decisions reflect this. I'm adding the links back. I also maintain that review in the Lambda Book Report (in this case, a review of books by Zolf, Adrienne Rich and Eileen Myles is no more or less "biased" than any literary essay, and this was in fact an essay length review). To assume it is less reliable than let's say an interview from a community newspaper in Toronto seems a bit misguided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicerovention ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)