Talk:Eileen Myles

message: The plagiarism introduced by Tom.bair on 2 March 2013, wherein this editor appropriated the words, verbatim, of Craig Epplin, from his review in The New Inquiry—see their addition to the "Critical reception" section, here —has been corrected. For the current status, which places the entirety of cut-and-paste cribbed text into a quote, see the same section in this version (current as of this date, ). Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarised text addressed

message: My work today began after finding a paragraph plagiarised, see preceding note. In reading the entire article carefully, it contains section after section, paragraph after paragraph of unsourced text. These sections and sentences are marked out by tags, which should remain until all material that violates WP:VERIFY is checked, and removed if incosistent with the sources.
As well, I found a reliance on the self-published biographical materials of this prolific writer, which again, is contrary to WP policy, esp. in BLP articles. Regardles of how trustworthy her own accounts are of her own life and experiences, we are not to present them as encyclopedic writing. Hence the WP guidelines regarinding independence of sources.
As well, in checking sources—initially, only to ensure links were not dead—I found time and again that the contributing editors were editorializing, though this is forbidden by Wikipedia. (We are called to reflect the published opinions of experts, and not to state our own.) Compare for instance the sentences associated with the Index Magazine source. Myles Irish grandmother (who the magazine mentions) is, however, not named, nor is the duration of her stay in hospital stated. These are historical facts, and are as good as fabricated, if they are unsourced. (They are certainly not in the only source appearing in the paragraph.) It is WP:Original Research, which is another pattern of this article that is prohibited in this encyclopedia.
In short, the near entirety of the article is based on self-published or no source at all, and so stands in bold defiance to WP policies and guidelines. If you remove tags without fixing problems you support the deception of our readers, that this content, unflagged, is all right as is.
Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While the article clearly needs work, I don't think it helps readers when there is a separate "citation needed" tag for nearly every single sentence. The message boxes at the beginning of the article and its various sections are a more user-friendly way of indicating the problem. Jd4v15 (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of this date

message: I'm not sure if the details about hearing Larry River's eulogy for Frank O'Hara are really relevant in Myles' "Early life and education," especially since none of it is supported with citations. Any objections to deleting them?
"At St. Mark's she also first heard the story of Larry Rivers's eulogy for poet Frank O'Hara,[citation needed] which presents a disturbing and detailed account of O'Hara's deathbed scene.[citation needed] Myles has stated[where?] that she saw this as a gesture of true artistry, in that Rivers sacrificed taste and risked the discomfort of others in order to honor O'Hara's monumental presence, even while dying.[citation needed]"
Cixxxous (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting details abt. Frank O'Hara eulogy, irrelevant  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Eileen Myles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120618085715/http://www.eileenmyles.com:80/cv.php to http://eileenmyles.com/cv.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I read the Eileen Myles section in Maggie Nelson's Book 'Women, the New York School, and Other Abstractions'. I researched the impact and analysis of her work and publications on the LGBTQIA community in New York City and beyond. The problems with this entry are lack of citations, personal analysis and research, and conversational not news-like summary or tone.Horse.dot.horse (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  publications and impact 

message: Should we change the pronouns in the article to singular "they"? I'm seeing sources that assert that both Myles and Soloway both prefer that usage, see  for an example. humblefool® 19:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed this. Agree that pronouns should be singular they per source and MOS:GENDERID . EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  So-called "singular they" is totally inappropriate and ungrammatical when talking about a specific person. It is barely acceptable when talking about a person whose gender we do not know, not a person who has a defined gender, whichever that may be. "s/he" is a much better solution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.116.61 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my view, "it" would be the best solution, but it is all but universally regarded as dehumanizing and so it would be non-neutral. It would also be against common usage, and so unacceptable according to policy even if every last Wikipedian suddenly joined me in asserting that a gender-neutral, unambiguously singular personal pronoun should be part of standard English and should not be employed with or viewed as possessing negative connotations. "S/he" is inappropriate because it implies ambiguity or duality, but not non-binary; it is itself ambiguous and inaccurate. "They" is the most appropriate term—its use as a singular pronoun for unconventionally gendered individuals is unambiguous in context and established by convention. Prescriptivist arguments will always fail when there is a clear and convincing case that a particular meaning of a particular word is necessary to communicate a particular idea, which is exactly the situation with the singular "they". I hasten to add before it is suggested that Wikipedia contributors are making things up that they have done no such thing; this is common practice and generally accepted—albeit with some prescriptivist pushback—which is the only standard that language needs to meet. 108.34.186.243 (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender Pronouns 

message: at a recent reading, Myles stated she has Irish citizenship, but there is no easily found reference for this online. 162.51.225.223 (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. Don't suppose there's video of the reading is there? This secondary source mentions Myles's Irish ancestry and IIRC correctly it is possible to acquire Irish citizenship through relatives but that doesn't confirm Myles did...  is great with sourcing (particularly for Texas women which, the source indicates, now includes Myles!) and doesn't have much going on at the moment, maybe she'd have an idea? ;) Only if you could do with a distraction, MLG! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  More specifics on ancestry but still not citizenship. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  citizenship