This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust 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.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
A fact from Michael Derrick Hudson appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 September 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the American poet Michael Derrick Hudson, a white man from Fort Wayne, Indiana, published a poem under the Chinese pseudonym "Yi-Fen Chou", igniting a heated debate in the literary world?
This article is practically one long violation of BLP policies. It should probably be drastically re-written as, at present, it looks rather like a hit piece on a living person. Duedemagistris (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly disagree, having wrote it--it was my purest intention to be as unbiased and neutral as possible. it isn't a hit piece, because I have purposefully not included the more bombastic vitriol directed at Mr Hudson by some of the more aggrieved hatchet-bearing commentators. If you will not provide specific things in the article and specifically how they BLP policy, your complaint is a drive-by hit piece and I would behoove me to ignore it.JackTheVicar (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further in discussion of the controversial "yellowface" debate: The biographical information concerning his education and career in poetry before this incident is entirely neutral and "just the facts". And there are few facts about the subject's life and career beyond what I've been able to dig up for this article (I looked, and did so with a lot of effort to find certain details). However, in the section discussing the incident that brought Hudson out from obscurity is four paragraphs, concisely presented. I have quite neutrally stated the basic events in the first paragraph of that section. I have stated in one paragraph and a lengthy quotation stating Hudson's account (and the quotation directly in his own words). One paragraph regarding Alexie's account, quoting Alexie's own words. And one final paragraph with four commentators in prominent positions in the media representing a summary of the arguments analysizing Mr Hudson's actions, some against, some mitigating his conduct, some asking questions of the literary world, explaining the nature of the criticism, and a comment from a source that shouts at the literary world for the hypocrisy of their criticisms. That is hardly a hit piece. I have gone to great lengths to express the wide array of arguments with concision, and to do so with balance. There is no undue weight in any direction. Your complaint is unfounded. JackTheVicar (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the current article: Writing for Rumpus, Brian Spears characterized Hudson's use of a Chinese pen name to be "yellowface", and said "even in the creative world, for all our reputation as an open liberal stronghold, straight white male is the default against which all other writing is contrasted". Further, a white male adopting the name of a marginalized minority is an act that is both crass and offensive.
Note the location of the close quote mark. The last sentence, falling outside it, is presented as Wikipedia's view, which certainly violates NPOV. I have not fixed this by moving the quote mark, as that would imply this sentence is part of the quotation from Spears, which might be the case but I don't know for certain. Needs looking at. 2.24.117.123 (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The punctuation falls after the quotation (ending at "contrasted") per logical quotation, since the full quote is only part of the sentence in which it is mentioned but is mentioned verbatim. The last sentence, which seems to alarm you, is a paraphrase of Spears' opinions in Rumpus using Spears' own words (rather than overquoting). It probably does not need further looking at. Thank you for your pedantry, but certainly it is ringing the tocsin without cause. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
