Talk:Joyce Carol Oates/Archive 1

page edit
This article is turgid, particularly the intro, and there's lots of uncited material, red links and overall it seems to need some work. Anyone object if I do it? Jimsteele9999 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem
This article has been reverted by a bot to as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Untitled
JESUS! Talk about a prolific writer! Is she considered an "A-List" writer by academics and the literary establishment or a bit sub-par? --205.188.117.8 08:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That depends on who you talk to. She is often brought up by among some as a good canadidate for the next American Nobel laureate for literature, but that has been the speculate since before Toni Morrison received hers. Other, in the camp to which I belong, find her work of a passable but not great quality. However, she has received some critical acclaim, including a National Book Award for the novel them, The PEN/Malamud Award for Excellence. Oprah brought to a large audience with choosing We Were the Mulvaneys for he book club. --chemica 05:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * She is certainly an A-list writer by anyone's estimation. In addition to being a perennial Nobel candidate, she is also nominated all the time for every major literary award, including an unheard-of two-book nomination in 2008 for the National Book Critics Circle Award. Perhaps Wikipedia can reach out to the people at the Celestial Timeline (not sure this is right) page and ask them to help sharpen this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.103.122 (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This IP 64.113.69.215 has been repeatedly vadalizing this page Falcon4196 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gore Vidal line: What are the three saddest words in the English language? Joyce Carol Oates. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One more reason to dislike Gore Vidal.Lestrade (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Lestrade


 * She has tremendous standing with many influential critics and with a wide readership all over the world. Vidal was probably being jealous. Of course some of her choice of subject matter and her unflinching way of writing, and of confronting or investigating sexism, class prejudice/conflict and racism, are sometimes controversial, not least in her native country. If she'd been European (English or other) much more of her work would have been adapted for tv and movies, and she might even have been asked to write original screenplays, but the way she shapes her literary world flies in the face of Hollywood and US tv dramaturgy (while she is not in any sense a cheap agitator). IMO she writes incredibly good dialogue, would make a terrific script writer.
 * As pointed out already in the article, she is often bet to be the next U.S. Nobel Prize winner for Literature, and it's relatively safe to say she will live on as a classic of post-war American literature and remain widely read and appreciated for many decades from now. Strausszek (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Nobel Committee has a policy according to which "everybody gets a turn." If JCO's ethnic category has already been awarded the prize, then she will have to wait until every other has their chance. At present, the next in line are a male from Brazil, a transgender from American Samoa, and a female from Syria.Lestrade (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Landfill controversy
In 2006, Joyce Carol Oates was criticized for writing a short story based on the real life death of a New Jersey college student.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/books/11oates.html

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/15228015/ns/today-entertainment/t/joyce-carol-oates-criticized-over-story/

The article currently doesn't mention this. Should it? Zeromus1 (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like someone to please give some advice about this, because if I add this information to the article I'm not sure where it should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeromus1 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I added these sources to the article, but I'm having trouble making the citation look the way it should. Could someone else put it in whatever format it's supposed to be in? Zeromus1 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-existent award
An IP just removed a non-existent award from the Select awards and honors section. 'The Will Smith Willenium Award for clever wordplay' had been listed in this article since November, 2012! And as misinformation in Wikipedia will, it had spread. The diff of the insertion is here. - Neonorange (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2015
Joyce Carol Oates was born in 1938, not 1937.

174.28.219.78 (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, can you provide a citation? --Jeremyb (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Joyce Carol Oates. 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/20070927203055/http://www.authorsontheweb.com/features/0012author-influences/author-influences.asp to http://www.authorsontheweb.com/features/0012author-influences/author-influences.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060904190615/http://jco.usfca.edu/madness.html to http://jco.usfca.edu/madness.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070412224424/http://jco.usfca.edu:80/awards.html to http://jco.usfca.edu/awards.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Joyce Carol Oates. 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/20090526064210/http://jco.usfca.edu:80/works/novels/wonderland.html to http://jco.usfca.edu/works/novels/wonderland.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Joyce Carol Oates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121124065507/http://www.thehumanist.org:80/humanist/JoyceCarolOates.html to http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/JoyceCarolOates.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091001013304/http://www.kentucky.com/692/story/515390.html to http://www.kentucky.com/692/story/515390.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Joyce Carol Oates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150210034246/http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/schmid/oates_9.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/schmid/oates_9.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161002033321/https://celestialtimepiece.com/2015/03/10/the-madness-of-scholarship-in-the-joyce-carol-oates-archive/ to https://celestialtimepiece.com/2015/03/10/the-madness-of-scholarship-in-the-joyce-carol-oates-archive/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joyce Carol Oates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110413071458/http://www.penfaulkner.org/affWinners01.htm to http://www.penfaulkner.org/affWinners01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Twitter
The use of Twitter by Joyce Carol Oates, which has attracted significant comment from respected newspapers such as The Guardian, is affecting her reputation. This public activity is entirely relevant any article wanting to give a rounded picture of her work, views, and reputaiton. The short section reflecting this is:

Oates is a regular poster on Twitter, leading to her account being described as "infamous" and "the #1 self-parody account on Twitter." Besides ridicule ("this is the way many younger people now see Joyce Carol Oates: an older woman with a bad Twitter account"), she has been criticised for her "position of near-total cultural insensitivity". She has drawn particular criticism for the perceived Islamophobia of her tweets.

Someone removes this as being "plagiarism." It is a ridiculous assertion. It includes of very short, clearly sourced quotations. It can only be that the person doing this is trying to control the article for particular purposes. Stop it. Starple (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume the intentions of other editors. S806 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV
User:Neonorange The twitter section has had many issues with it because it's a WP:BLP especially with WP:NPOV. Currently, there is text saying "leading to her account being described as 'infamous' and 'the #1 self-parody account on Twitter.'". This is clearly not NPOV, it's a commentary not by a news article, but by an interviewer from an interview. It should be removed, because it is contentious and possibly libelous about a living person. Because this is BLP, we have to be careful. S806 (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 good catch, Sadads (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Graf could be better written, but the subject is not inherently POV-non neutral-undue. There is more than one source listed; the actual Guardian source is good and the long interview in Salon is good, the Sun Herald is ok. What you've done is remove and characterization of the impact of her tweets. And, after reversion, rereverted rather than discussing on the talk page. Getting one approval is not a discussion. This is not the way BRD works; it's not BDReRevert. The bets practice would be to develop consensus by discussing alternatives. I'm ok with the current state, but only during a discussion here. And please remove the publisher from the sentence, it's just a factoid. Neonorange (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What would you describe 'the #1 self-parody account on Twitter' as? Do you think that is NPOV? It is literally taken from a blog that the interviewer quoted https://jezebel.com/lets-all-think-of-some-fun-tight-things-about-isis-for-1744178634 The "infamous" quote is literally taken from the comment section of theguardian website https://www.theguardian.com/books/live/2015/sep/03/joyce-carol-oates-webchat-the-lost-language The source is very clearly dubious, and as I said before possibly libelous. S806 (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It honestly doesn't matter. BLP says contentious/libelous and poorly sourced information MUST be taken down immediately. S806 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Bad source/ageism and sexism
I would like to remove, or edit this piece in the twitter section.

Besides ridicule ("this is the way many younger people now see Joyce Carol Oates: an older woman with a bad Twitter account"), she has been criticised for her "position of near-total cultural insensitivity".

It appears to be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Also, the source is very dubious. I don't think the source for that will pass WP:RS. Not only that, but it appears to be ageist and sexist. S806 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Removing that section based on the above banner

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.


 * S806 (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * my curiosity about sources in this regard is using A Widow’s Story The last week of a long marriage as a source since the subject wrote it herself, wiki is supposed to use secondary sources to cut down on bias ( I suppose), and that without that source the whole third paragraph of personal life could be reduced to " after the death of her husband she immediately move on." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.235.44 (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This touches on Twitter, too. Does anyone else have a problem with how the last part of the following sentence is phrased?

"Oates is a regular poster on Twitter with her account given to her by her publisher Harper Collins"

It seems really patronizing. Abesottedphoenix (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguous or poorly syntaxed entries
Several sentences and clauses have ambiguous, redundant or poorly phrased constructions. Example: "Oates began writing at the age of 14... ." I am certain everyone agrees she started writing before she was 14. If there's little means to keep bad writers from editing this entry, will someone take the time to tidy such segments up, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.117.74.24 (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Transphobia
Hello, I recently pasted two sources discussing some anti-LGBTQA+ comments Oates recently (October 2021) made. She continues to double-down on her support for actions against trans and non binary people. WP:NOR dissuades from quoting directly from the source,so I found alternatives, but her actual quotes are present in the articles. Please stop reverting the edits. A public figure who uses a public forum should be held accountable for what they say. 142.118.18.61 (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the two sources you cited. The Salon one is at . It has two paragraphs about Oates's tweets where she is against the use of the "singular they" for grammatical reasons. And then they point out (without linking) that she was claiming to be a victim. The next paragraph talks about the backlash. Not a single mention is made about Oates being anti-LGBTQ which means it does not support the claim you made.


 * The next source is from Queerty . According to the source, Oates tweeted, "'they' will not become a part of general usage, not for political reasons but because there would be no pronoun to distinguish between a singular subject (“they”) & a plural subject (“they”). language seeks to communicate w/ clarity, not to obfuscate; that is its purpose." Basically the same claim as in the Salon article. Later on in the article Queerty states, "she’s happy to use “they/them” pronouns when talking to non-binary people, and she was just trying to spark an “academic” discussion". And then later retweets this, "No one in the real world uses this. It’s impracticable. It’s just a very small percentage that even discuss it on Twitter. These people are stuck in their own bubbles. I have nothing against it. But basically It’s a commodity online to create conversation and attention." with the ensuing backlash. Nothing in the Queerty confirms the claim that Oates is ant-LGBTQ+. Not only is the violation of WP:BLP but at best is an example of OP reading into what happened which would make it original research WP:OR.


 * If there's something I missing in these sources then please point it out. But right now I don't see anything supporting Oates being anti-LGBTQ+ in these articles at the high level required for inclusion in Wikipedia, especially when dealing with biographies of living people where the standards are very high (again, please read WP:BLP). SQGibbon (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)