Talk:Tao Lin

Gawker

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)

I just put back in the Gawker quote about subject. This is a significant statement by a significant source and no reason given for its removal. Perhaps the individual who did so, under the name K2wiki may be a sockpuppet for the subject. Redandwhitesheets

This article sounds like it was written by a friend of the subject. I've deleted irrelevant information--his nickname, "The Asian John Updike," for instance--but I think there remains a notability issue. Almost all the secondary sources noted are blogs: is there enough verifiably independent, published material to justify an article?

Jweather 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Time Out New York, Time Out Chicago, Publisher's Weekly, Melville House Publishing, etc.

Blatant Advertising

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 fraud

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 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)

"I've never edited Gordon Lish's Wikipedia page." --2A01:C23:894A:FB00:1591:C672:1271:EAF2 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup

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)

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)

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))

Advert

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)

none of the "other projects" have proper references, and all of them fall either into WP:SPAM or WP:SYNTH. I've removed them, but am open to having them in the article if they are sourced, and not included for the sake of name-dropping.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

i think you've done a great job so far. keep it up. let's get these blog sources and other questionable sources out of here. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, I think a case could be made the whole article doesn't meet notability status. Most of the references seemed to be reactions based on the subjects antics, and his "publishing house" essentially is a form of vanity publisher. I might not have the time to keep an eye on this page as much as I should, so I appreciate the suggestions...Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

His works have been reviewed by numerous widely-read periodicals and his last book was published in a series that includes Joseph Conrad and Marcel Proust. I would expect his next novel (comes out sometime this fall) to be pretty buzz-worthy, and its through the same publishing house.141.161.139.181 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt his work was published with a series that included Proust. In terms of what is noteable, if we included everything that is "buzz-worthy" in this article (as it had before it was trimmed) then it'd be a mess.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Right I was lying. GOT ME. But seriously, after 5 seconds of actually checking into the issue instead of just deciding whether or not I like the person an article is about, he's published in Melville House's Novella series (along with such authors), and as the article stated was reviewed in The LA Times, The Guardian, Village Voice, etc. etc.

And I mean, it obviously depends on what 'buzz-worthy' means (a v vague term, I know). But I'd say being talked about by such large publications is more than just a few mentions on blogs that have 5 readers a day. Go ahead and campaign to have the article removed now, but when his new novel starts getting reviewed by more major publications and people want to learn about him they're gonna be stuck with his own biography instead of an unbiased one like we can provide here. 141.161.139.181 (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The definition of "buzzworthy" doesn't apply here at WP. The issue of notablity does, however, and the bulk of the references here constitute brief mentions by sources. E-books don't typically make the mark. I think there's an issue of lack of notability for this whole subject too, but if the article stays, then there needs to be no links to the subjects blogs, of which there are many nor to youtube work or obscure awards for students. All of it violates WP:SPAM, and I've reverted enough of that (as have others) for one lifetime. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're greatly understating the media attention he's received/receiving. It's not just blogs or brief mentions, just today I received the latest issue of BookForum and in there there's a full page article on his latest book and his name is even given on the cover (which is what brought me here, to see what has come of him). Prior to that, a while back, I remember reading an interview with him in ANP Quarterly, that was the first time I heard of him. I find him terribly uninteresting in all, just a cheap gimmick that has a longevity and impact in line with a piece of chewing gum, but I think he's received enough notable coverage to make this article's existence acceptable. As to the quality of the article, I don't know... --Breshkovsky (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment In the current version, I think most of the issues are fixed. While Lin has enough coverage to probably survive and AFD, I've had to block members of Lin's fan team (and probably Lin himself) in the past for spamming stuff about him all over the place. As such, this page is frequently a target of over-promotional material. Just stick with material taken from reliable sources, notable awards, etc. and there won't be an issue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. With the help of serialcomma I've been able to get this article back to where it should be. That is, based on reliable sources, not some guy in front of his webcam. One last thanks in advance to the inevitable rush of reverts my edits will provoke, from the usual suspects you mention above. Might be a good idea to protect this, because I may just unwatch this page due to the fact the reverts are getting tiresome and the article is really just not important enough to warrant so much attention.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

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)

Internet presence

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)

See: WP:Reliable sources felt_friend 00:47, 5 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)

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)

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)

External Links

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)

Allegations of Rape

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

External links modified

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:

• 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.

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).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

who the f is jezebel?

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)

Jezebel is a website - I have clarified this and added an internal link. Tacyarg (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is there still no mention of the rape allegations?

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://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/22051/1/tao-lin-accused-of-statutory-rape-and-emotional-abuse

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)

An anonymous person says without naming the supposed PR firm that is allegedly editing this article! I think the lack of coverage is related to the times, it's a challenge to present culture that: yes, indeed, some females are capable of false accusations, just like some men are capable of rape. For some reason, today many are unable to cope with the fact that both horrible things may be true. In fact its worrisome enough that I'm not going to sign this with my name, either. I'm just trying to answer the original question- consider Ellen Kennedy, and her supporters, might also have reason to erase mention of this. Ellen surely does not want to become infamous for false allegations.

Salvia

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?

Abuse allegations again

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)

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)

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)

Two things: First, WP:TWITTER contains the criterion it does not involve claims about third parties 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)