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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (book) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 May 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Tao Lin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The subject of this entry keeps removing anything negative. I had to put back in this " Gawker has referred to him as "maybe perhaps the single most irritating person we've ever had to deal with." [1]" Redandwhitesheets —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Jweather 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Time Out New York, Time Out Chicago, Publisher's Weekly, Melville House Publishing, etc.
Whether or not this author has enough notability to merit inclusion, this article is a blatant case of self-aggrandizement and advertising, exhibiting nothing of the style or neutrality appropriate to an encyclopedia article. See, for example, the comments (esp "this is Tao Lin's secretary . . .") at goodreads and that he is probably not, in fact, dead. If someone in publishing, criticism, or another literary field who's unaffiliated with this author and familiar with his work, influence, and level of success wants to rewrite this article with NPOV, then great; if not, the article should probably be proposed for deletion. -- Ninly 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Tao Lin is 'Carles' on a relevant blog at www.hipsterrunoff.com . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.179.205 ( talk) 20:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Tao Lin tried posting a self-promotional post on Metafilter.com [2] but since making a post about yourself on that site is against their rules [3], his post was quickly deleted, and his account was banned. [4] -- DC Hiker ( talk) 20:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Tao Lin is fraudulent in his behavior to self-promote. He has altered many entries on the Gordon Lish page in order to link it to himself. He has named himself as Lish's son (which I removed today). He has written short stories using Gordon Lish's name as teacher and friend. Gordon Lish is neither. He doesn't even like him or his work. This dude must be stopped. Do a google search and see what ruckus tao lin is causing just to have his fifteen minutes of fame. Mewlhouse 18:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on cleaning up this bio and will delete anything irrelevant or that isn't completely sourced, per BLP policy since this individual seems to be somewhat controversial. Note that I have no connection (or particular interest) in Tao Lin; just bringing this article up to code. Part of that will mean removing a lot of external links. -- phoebe / ( talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The section on Richard Yates also is a bit misleading. The mentions of by The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, New York Magazine, The New Yorker, and New York Times all are about his funding strategy for the book, not the book itself. At best this is pretty irrelevant to a section focused on critical reactions to his work. ( Adubsone ( talk) 23:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC))
This article reads like a press release. Or a long ad. The list of external links is out of proportion, and the whole article reeks of self-promotion, something the author is known to have a proficiency with. Among other things, it violates NPOV. For now, I've added one negative review. Let's get this article trimmed and informative rather then a venue for a self-described "artist." Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
As per WP:BOLD, I went ahead and removed a great deal of information that was either unsourced or cited with unreliable sources or dead links. I also reworded or removed content that came off as promotional. Whether Tao has been personally involved with editing this page or not, I suspect a great deal of the quotations used for the reception portions have been altered to reflect more positively on Tao's work (though I only checked one, which did prove this suspension to be true in relation to that particular bit). Perhaps it would be beneficial to check the sources to assure this is not the case. felt _ friend 03:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I see a lot of debate going on, these two or three small lines dealing with Tao Lin's internet presence being deleted and readded periodically; while the influence of social media (including imageboards) on Lin's literary framework is undeniable, one can indeed wonder whether this paragraph is sufficient (in terms of relevance and citations) by itself to represent Tao's presence on the internet and the way it influenced his main communication medium. I suggest we leave it alone and see whether it can be improved and added to since imageboards are certainly not the sole social medium on which Tao Lin has made himself notorious. 78.250.153.235 ( talk) 21:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Adding a single link as a reply is a rather smug and nonconstructive way of justifying one's positions. On top of that, you're wrong. As far as I know that section dealt with Lin's presence on the internet and imageboards, which is evidenced as the large number of threads on said imageboards who reference him and related rumors. 85.69.198.194 ( talk) 11:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I had removed the external links section. It had a number of external links to book reviews about particular books that the author had written. Reviews should not be pushed by external links. They should only be used if they can offer something to the body of the article. See WP:ELMAYBE. -- Xcuref1endx ( talk) 09:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Should a mention be added to the article? Though the sources aren't the most reliable. -- Terukiyo ( talk) 14:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Tao Lin. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
this name appears 3 times without any explanation who it is 94.154.66.240 ( talk) 03:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Jezebel is a website - I have clarified this and added an internal link. Tacyarg ( talk) 20:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
No surprise that PR Firm efforts trump any editorial standards Wikipedia claims to have, but this is a particularly egregious example. Lin has made public comments on the allegations himself. There’s been continual news coverage in major publications dealing explicitly with the statutory rape allegations. Some, but not all, are collected below:
https://jezebel.com/alt-lit-icon-tao-lin-accused-of-horrific-rape-and-abuse-1641641060
https://www.thecut.com/2014/10/doesnt-have-to-be-rape-to-suck.html
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jakobmaier/what-are-we-to-make-of-tao-lins-comeback
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/tao-lin-responds-to-abuse-allegations
Never mind, I made the edits myself. If you’re going to remove them, please cite the specific Wikipedia policy that justifies you doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B108:86AB:E076:8061:9C7B:3931 ( talk) 15:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
About this quote: "In Scientific American, John Horgan wrote, “If an aspirant asks for an example of experimental science writing, I’ll recommend Trip. The book veers from excruciatingly candid autobiography to biography (of McKenna) to investigative journalism…to interview-based journalism to philosophical speculation to first-person accounts of the effects of DMT and Salvia" I believe salvia is only briefly mentioned in the book, and there's certainly no extensive "first-person account". It feels a little strange to have a possibly inaccurate quote in a biographical article of a living person. Can someone fact-check this? Are there indeed more about salvia than I remember in the book? If there's not, should the quote be taken down? or maybe edited?
Recently, @
Timeismotion readded two sentences previously removed for
WP:BLPSPS reasons. The first sentence Kennedy deleted the tweets and asked Jezebel to take down the article, a request Jezebel ignored.
is now cited to an interview that does not mention Jezebel, in a website that does not appear reliable to me, quoting a tweet. The second sentence Kennedy also wrote in a tweet, "no one but me and tao have the expertise to talk about our relationship do not blog about it".
is still sourced to a tweet. To my mind, neither of these sentences should be in there if these sources are all there is. Any other opinions? --
2003:E5:1720:19D:D96B:2223:C52A:3DA7 (
talk)
12:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
it does not involve claims about third partiesand Kennedy is a third party here. Second, The Bridddge seems to be a poor source, as I cannot find information on its editorial policies or staff, and it also attributes the information about Kennedy to Lin, i.e. it does not claim in its own voice that "his ex-partner did not want people to discuss it because it was a private matter". So I'm still not convinced that these sources can support this sentence here. -- 2003:E5:1720:166:1500:26D5:C286:D608 ( talk) 11:55, 26 October 2022 (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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (book) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 May 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Tao Lin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The subject of this entry keeps removing anything negative. I had to put back in this " Gawker has referred to him as "maybe perhaps the single most irritating person we've ever had to deal with." [1]" Redandwhitesheets —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Jweather 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Time Out New York, Time Out Chicago, Publisher's Weekly, Melville House Publishing, etc.
Whether or not this author has enough notability to merit inclusion, this article is a blatant case of self-aggrandizement and advertising, exhibiting nothing of the style or neutrality appropriate to an encyclopedia article. See, for example, the comments (esp "this is Tao Lin's secretary . . .") at goodreads and that he is probably not, in fact, dead. If someone in publishing, criticism, or another literary field who's unaffiliated with this author and familiar with his work, influence, and level of success wants to rewrite this article with NPOV, then great; if not, the article should probably be proposed for deletion. -- Ninly 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Tao Lin is 'Carles' on a relevant blog at www.hipsterrunoff.com . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.179.205 ( talk) 20:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Tao Lin tried posting a self-promotional post on Metafilter.com [2] but since making a post about yourself on that site is against their rules [3], his post was quickly deleted, and his account was banned. [4] -- DC Hiker ( talk) 20:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Tao Lin is fraudulent in his behavior to self-promote. He has altered many entries on the Gordon Lish page in order to link it to himself. He has named himself as Lish's son (which I removed today). He has written short stories using Gordon Lish's name as teacher and friend. Gordon Lish is neither. He doesn't even like him or his work. This dude must be stopped. Do a google search and see what ruckus tao lin is causing just to have his fifteen minutes of fame. Mewlhouse 18:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on cleaning up this bio and will delete anything irrelevant or that isn't completely sourced, per BLP policy since this individual seems to be somewhat controversial. Note that I have no connection (or particular interest) in Tao Lin; just bringing this article up to code. Part of that will mean removing a lot of external links. -- phoebe / ( talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The section on Richard Yates also is a bit misleading. The mentions of by The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, New York Magazine, The New Yorker, and New York Times all are about his funding strategy for the book, not the book itself. At best this is pretty irrelevant to a section focused on critical reactions to his work. ( Adubsone ( talk) 23:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC))
This article reads like a press release. Or a long ad. The list of external links is out of proportion, and the whole article reeks of self-promotion, something the author is known to have a proficiency with. Among other things, it violates NPOV. For now, I've added one negative review. Let's get this article trimmed and informative rather then a venue for a self-described "artist." Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
As per WP:BOLD, I went ahead and removed a great deal of information that was either unsourced or cited with unreliable sources or dead links. I also reworded or removed content that came off as promotional. Whether Tao has been personally involved with editing this page or not, I suspect a great deal of the quotations used for the reception portions have been altered to reflect more positively on Tao's work (though I only checked one, which did prove this suspension to be true in relation to that particular bit). Perhaps it would be beneficial to check the sources to assure this is not the case. felt _ friend 03:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I see a lot of debate going on, these two or three small lines dealing with Tao Lin's internet presence being deleted and readded periodically; while the influence of social media (including imageboards) on Lin's literary framework is undeniable, one can indeed wonder whether this paragraph is sufficient (in terms of relevance and citations) by itself to represent Tao's presence on the internet and the way it influenced his main communication medium. I suggest we leave it alone and see whether it can be improved and added to since imageboards are certainly not the sole social medium on which Tao Lin has made himself notorious. 78.250.153.235 ( talk) 21:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Adding a single link as a reply is a rather smug and nonconstructive way of justifying one's positions. On top of that, you're wrong. As far as I know that section dealt with Lin's presence on the internet and imageboards, which is evidenced as the large number of threads on said imageboards who reference him and related rumors. 85.69.198.194 ( talk) 11:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I had removed the external links section. It had a number of external links to book reviews about particular books that the author had written. Reviews should not be pushed by external links. They should only be used if they can offer something to the body of the article. See WP:ELMAYBE. -- Xcuref1endx ( talk) 09:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Should a mention be added to the article? Though the sources aren't the most reliable. -- Terukiyo ( talk) 14:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Tao Lin. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
this name appears 3 times without any explanation who it is 94.154.66.240 ( talk) 03:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Jezebel is a website - I have clarified this and added an internal link. Tacyarg ( talk) 20:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
No surprise that PR Firm efforts trump any editorial standards Wikipedia claims to have, but this is a particularly egregious example. Lin has made public comments on the allegations himself. There’s been continual news coverage in major publications dealing explicitly with the statutory rape allegations. Some, but not all, are collected below:
https://jezebel.com/alt-lit-icon-tao-lin-accused-of-horrific-rape-and-abuse-1641641060
https://www.thecut.com/2014/10/doesnt-have-to-be-rape-to-suck.html
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jakobmaier/what-are-we-to-make-of-tao-lins-comeback
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/tao-lin-responds-to-abuse-allegations
Never mind, I made the edits myself. If you’re going to remove them, please cite the specific Wikipedia policy that justifies you doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B108:86AB:E076:8061:9C7B:3931 ( talk) 15:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
About this quote: "In Scientific American, John Horgan wrote, “If an aspirant asks for an example of experimental science writing, I’ll recommend Trip. The book veers from excruciatingly candid autobiography to biography (of McKenna) to investigative journalism…to interview-based journalism to philosophical speculation to first-person accounts of the effects of DMT and Salvia" I believe salvia is only briefly mentioned in the book, and there's certainly no extensive "first-person account". It feels a little strange to have a possibly inaccurate quote in a biographical article of a living person. Can someone fact-check this? Are there indeed more about salvia than I remember in the book? If there's not, should the quote be taken down? or maybe edited?
Recently, @
Timeismotion readded two sentences previously removed for
WP:BLPSPS reasons. The first sentence Kennedy deleted the tweets and asked Jezebel to take down the article, a request Jezebel ignored.
is now cited to an interview that does not mention Jezebel, in a website that does not appear reliable to me, quoting a tweet. The second sentence Kennedy also wrote in a tweet, "no one but me and tao have the expertise to talk about our relationship do not blog about it".
is still sourced to a tweet. To my mind, neither of these sentences should be in there if these sources are all there is. Any other opinions? --
2003:E5:1720:19D:D96B:2223:C52A:3DA7 (
talk)
12:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
it does not involve claims about third partiesand Kennedy is a third party here. Second, The Bridddge seems to be a poor source, as I cannot find information on its editorial policies or staff, and it also attributes the information about Kennedy to Lin, i.e. it does not claim in its own voice that "his ex-partner did not want people to discuss it because it was a private matter". So I'm still not convinced that these sources can support this sentence here. -- 2003:E5:1720:166:1500:26D5:C286:D608 ( talk) 11:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)