Talk:Tao Lin

message: 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)
replies: text: Upon a little further research and a review of the rather shameful edit histories of the article and this talk page, it looks like this article clearly merits a speedy deletion under the "blatant advertising" criterion, or at least a deletion proposal for the notability issues. Note also deletion of "dissent" in the histories. I haven't dabbled in this aspect of wikipedia, so i won't be the first to tag the article for deletion, but let me know if you agree. Also note that if these two comments are removed, I will formally propose for deletion. --Ninly 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in the publishing industry, and am not affiliated with Tao Lin. The subject of this page has had multiple books published (including on widely-distributed national presses), has had profiles in national and regional magazines; his books are widely distributed and reviewed, and he has done readings nationwide. This is quite clear from the external links available at the article. The article, as it stands now, understates his notability if anything. He also has been at the center of various controversies in the last year or two, that have apparently attracted pranksters to this page. If you want to lock the editing, that is one thing. But to delete an obviously notable fiction writer and poet because of the lack of NPOV of the pranksters seems to me to be the wrong approach. --K2wiki 18:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the article as it stands right now is extremely neutral and straightforward. I have not read old versions of the page that may have been vandalized. But again, don't hold the subject responsible for the work of vandals. A great many people have an axe to grind about this subject, as witness comments at the top of this page; I request that the editing on this page be restricted. --K2wiki 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's definitely fair and well put with regards to Lin's notability, although the article was definitely neither neutral or appropriate at the time I discovered it, and it seemed at the time like more self-aggrandizement was involved -- That is, I just didn't recognize it as vandalism. Thanks for your response. --Ninly 03:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blatant Advertising

message: 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)
replies: text: I have no personal or professional affiliation with Tao Lin, but I balk at this reactionary response, particularly labeling him as "fraudulent." I certainly understand and agree with key policies that limit the content of the entry and its associated links, but Tao Lin has garnered much of his notoriety due to what you call "ruckus;" his internet presence is largely responsible for his success. Plus, such responses only seem to amuse him and encourage his behavior. I point to the gawker link for evidence. Sisyphe42 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "I've never edited Gordon Lish's Wikipedia page." --2A01:C23:894A:FB00:1591:C672:1271:EAF2 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Tao Lin fraud 

message: 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)
replies: text: might as well delete the whole article. this is about as important to the world as another pokemon article. 24.18.229.198 (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: See: WP:Reliable sources felt_friend 00:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

text: The issue isn't the subject matter; the issue is the citations provided. One was a blog and the other a 4chan archive, neither of which are considered reliable as per the link I provided. felt_friend 22:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Smug?  Reliable independent sources are the only way a subject can be objectively covered without it being POV.  --Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet presence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Should a mention be added to the article? Though the sources aren't the most reliable. --Terukiyo (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of Rape 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tao Lin. 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/20100726002700/http://newyork.timeout.com:80/articles/books/78017/tao-lin-shoplifting-from-american-apparel-book-review to http://newyork.timeout.com/articles/books/78017/tao-lin-shoplifting-from-american-apparel-book-review
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 09:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Lin posted a statement on Facebook addressing Kennedy's accusations. He agreed that he had sex with Kennedy, with whom he was in a long-term relationship, but said that it was "not statutory rape, let alone rape" (as Jezebel had originally reported before correcting the article), and said he had Kennedy's permission to use their correspondence.[60][61][62] After their relationship ended, Kennedy and Lin remained friends, collaborating on an ebook, hikikomori, in 2007.[63] In 2009 Lin published Kennedy's poetry collection sometimes my heart pushes my ribs.[64]
:After the allegations were made, Kennedy asked Jezebel to take down an article about them, saying that only he and Lin had "the expertise to talk about our relationship" and "i shouldn't have started this im trying to recover from a hospitalization".[65] Jezebel ignored the request.
this name appears 3 times without any explanation who it is 94.154.66.240 (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  who the f is jezebel? 

message: Recently, @Timeismotion readded two sentences previously removed for WP:BLPSPS reasons. The first sentence  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  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)
replies: text: I did not re-add the second sentence. It was deleted, as per WP:BLPSPS. But the first sentence seems like it should be in there. The references for it are linked to in the interview here—"While Lin didn’t want to talk about that period, saying that he examined it in Richard Yates and that his ex-partner did not want people to discuss it because it was a private matter." Timeismotion (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the reference to the tweets sourcing the info on the sentence. As per WP:TWITTER, tweets are acceptable as sources, right? Timeismotion (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things: First, WP:TWITTER contains the criterion  and 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)
thread_title:  Abuse allegations again