Talk:Gene Youngblood

Original Research
I stamped this entry with an "Original Research" template because it makes very strong claims about Youngblood's work while only citing an unverifiable personal email. --Furste (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'unverifiable personal email' in question simply contained Mr. Youngblood's biography that he uses in his press packet. I didn't know how to write the citation to reflect that. I'll gladly change the citation to reflect that the source was Mr. Youngblood's press packet bio rather than the email, if someone would show me the proper citation format for this type of source. -- Jcraford (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2010

WP is not a CV
Dropped a couple tags, but decided to just fix the most glaring problem: the ludicrous amount of detail (all his academic and popular publications, lectures, reviews, boards.... come on). Wikipedia is not a place for a CV. Did some rewording, wikilinking, ref fixing, etc. too but I can't say I was previously familiar with the gentleman, though, so I hope someone else will continue to improve the article (the section headings and the academia section in particular are quite weak as I've left them). --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Bibliography section started to explode again. Authored books are generally good for inclusion, but please don't list all of his articles, presentations, recordings, etc. The recordings in particular are given no context in the article. If their notability can be shown via third party reliable sources, you may want to add (a) a short section explaining his production work and (b) a section like Bibliography but [depending on the kinds of materials] Discography, Filmography, Exhibitions, or the like. --Rhododendrites (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A long list of works and other material is available in the history of this redirect: Gene Youngblood (media arts) if any of it is ever deemed appropriate for the article. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)