Talk:Syd Zolf

Untitled
Writing as someone who theorizes Zolf's work and no doubt is more acquainted with her work than you are, I'm a bit perplexed that this article is flagged as suspect. These are legit sources and the information on the page is accurate. Can I ask that the "warning" be removed. In my professional opinion, there's no grounds for it and I'm happy to enter into a more lengthy dialogue with you if required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regula39 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

External links and references
External links should be to one page, or two pages at most, that are specifically about Rachel Zolf. The section is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every individual review she's gotten in any literary magazine, and interviews and articles about her may be used as references for specific statements of fact in the article, not just as uncontextualized offsite links.

It is also not appropriate to remove properly sourced content from an article under any circumstances, nor to simply replace it with an unsourced quote from a book review. Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I came here after this page was posted to the Third Opinion noticeboard. I don't know Zolf from Adam, but I know how we typically work pages here. The sourcing on her being out was sufficient and unobjectionable, and the stray comment in a book review is, as Bearcat says, less reliable. Also, we are not a web directory, so there's no need to list anything and everything that has pages of poetry and so forth. I do think, however, that e shold have some external links, and surely she must have one or two sites somewhere that are what can reasonably be considered as official websites. Those should certainly be linked to, and if those were among those deleted, make ti clear what they are and add them back. DreamGuy (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the links that you deleted are considered important literary sources for people in the context of the avant-garde writing community. Evidently, neither of you know anything about the kind of writing Zolf is engaged in and your editorial decisions reflect this. I'm adding the links back. I also maintain that review in the Lambda Book Report (in this case, a review of books by Zolf, Adrienne Rich and Eileen Myles is no more or less "biased" than any literary essay, and this was in fact an essay length review). To assume it is less reliable than let's say an interview from a community newspaper in Toronto seems a bit misguided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicerovention (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A review is, fundamentally, a statement of opinion. Whether it's an essay-length review or a 100-word squib in the National Post doesn't change that fact. Xtra!, conversely, is a reliable newspaper whose value as a source is not up for discussion, because the article in question is an objective news piece which actually quotes her directly about her sexuality, and it appears in a notable, internationally-known newspaper with a reliable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. At any rate, the Lambda review is now acceptable, since you've now actually stated who wrote it and provided an actual source for it — as originally written, however, it was simply a decontextualized and random quote with no references to actually back it up, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. We can't just state an opinion as fact on Wikipedia — we need to credit the opinion directly to the person who actually expressed it. As originally written, the statement didn't do that; as now written, it does. But it also can't replace an objective statement of fact referenced to a more objective source — it can supplement the Xtra! reference, but it doesn't replace it. Without the Xtra! source, we'd only be able to say that one specific reviewer thinks she's a lesbian; we wouldn't be able to say that she is, because we wouldn't actually be referencing her own words on the subject.
 * An External links section on Wikipedia, meanwhile, is meant for no more than a small handful of the most centrally important sites. It's not meant to be a web directory of every page you can find with any degree of relevance to Rachel Zolf whatsoever; it's meant to be a short list of at most two or three sites which are as close as possible to being "Rachel Zolf's Official Website". Since she doesn't actually seem to have an "official website" of her own, we can pick a couple of other sites instead, but we still can't turn it into an extensive web directory — we still have to pick only the two or three sites that are the most immediately relevant and useful. Anything else can be cited as a reference, but does not belong under external links as a direct weblink.
 * And as for "neither of you know anything about the kind of writing Zolf is engaged in and your editorial decisions reflect this"? Clearly you don't know anything about the kind of writing Wikipedia is engaged in, and your editorial decisions reflect that. My familiarity with the genre — which is far deeper than you think — isn't for you to evaluate. My editorial decisions are based on Wikipedia rules about the proper structure and formatting and reference requirements of an encyclopedia article, not on the presence or absence of "personal familiarity with the topic". Actually, I'd quite happily stack my avant-garde writing community credentials against yours any day of the week — but our job here is to write a genuine, properly formatted and correctly sourced encyclopedia article about her, not an informal profile for an avant-garde writing community website. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Most of the links that you deleted are considered important literary sources for people in the context of the avant-garde writing community." Perhaps, but this isn't a writing community, it's Wikipedia. The goals of a writing community aren't likely going to coincide with the goals of an encyclopedia. We don't publish fiction here either, for example. Perhaps you should spend some more time reading through the policies that explain what Wikipedia is not here to do, as well as the rules on external links. I don't want to trade barbs with you, as that accomplishes nothing, but you might have to modify your expectations to better fit this site's goals and policies. DreamGuy (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)