Talk:James Emanuel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

[edit] Best poets

The language "some critics rank him among the best poets of our time" comes directly from the Nebraska Public Radio website here. Please stop removing information with a solid reference to support it.--Alabamaboy (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Since that wording comes direct from the NPR page, we should use the NPR language. Olliekamm (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is bizarre that one user should claim that a critic who ranks this poet is obscure, since Wikipedia has multiply referenced information on the critic and his online credits, including some two million or more hits a month. That is hardly obscure by any definition. This suggests to me that the user is a vandal who is simply harassing this page due to personal animus. Vandalism like this should be reported. Lenmatuzak (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As should all sock-puppets of said critic, if there are any of course. But I suppose any critic that important wouldn't really need to spend his time trying to to wiki himself into relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.240.169 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Sock puppets are terrible. My own listing: Oliver Kamm, is crawling with them. I see that Alabamaboy is someone of import at Wikipedia. Let's hope he looks into this matter. Immediately! Olliekamm (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to insult anyone, but what the heck is going on here? Everyone who has commented after I posted my initial statement appears to have only one or two edits to their credit or is an anonymous editor. While Wikipedia doesn't discriminate against new or anonymous users, do realize this isn't a simple up or down vote. All that matters is that an article is basing its info on reliable sources, a standard that is being met in this case. Unless someone can show that the citation is misrepresented or not reliable (which is difficult to do when the wording in the article is identical to the cite) then the info must remain here.--Alabamaboy (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)