Talk:Matthew Stadler

user MatthewStadler not making any major (or further) contributions to this page

I understand the Wikipedia guidelines and have made no major contributions to this page, nor will I make future ones. Though I had no role writing this article I became involved in editing it because there are inaccuracies. I encourage disinterested Wikipedia editors to please update and correct the article. If you could even just put in a whole new article, without any input from me, maybe the warning (above) can be removed. Thanks. MatthewStadler (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed ratings and notices

I updated the article's ratings to reflect the recent major revisions made by Eddorn. I also removed the warning about MatthewStadler's edits considering that the article has been completely revised since that time. Gracehoper (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to roll back the changes to previous to Lame Name. Please use this space to discuss your proposed changes. The nature of the changes do not seem to add value to the content of the page, nor do they seem applicable, since nearly every line in the article is sourced. The author Matthew Stadler has a long history of publication by third-parties. His current work explicitly confronts ideas of publication via standard vehicles and has received a fair amount of press in traditional major media (qualifying it for inclusion in Wikipdia under the most strenuous Wikipedia guidelines. I think some of this will have to change in terms of sourcing since many major media outlets are becoming blogs, such as Seattle 100+ year old paper, The Seattle PI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddorn (talk • contribs) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is the quality of the article not the subject that is questionable. "A year before Stadler's first novel was released, he began to run a writing class at his kitchen table in Seattle." Do we have a reliable third party verifiable source for this notable event? Lame Name (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay ... because your edit was very broad, it seemed you were focused notability. I agree there are sentences throughout the article, here and there, that could be better sourced. I will try to track down sources for things like the one you pointed out ... I recall an somewhere where Frances McCue, a Seattle educator where she talked specifically about Matthew Stadler's informal classes. I also agree that somewhere along the line someone has added some flowery language for an encyclopedia entry, such as "suddenly cultivates conversations that then draw the books out one-by-one from the printer, like sponges drawing water." This was not in my initial update. I actually prefer my reference material to be eccentric, I can see why the wiki-editors might shy away from this, although I'm not sure if there is a recommended style guide either. But in reading other wikipedia entries, sentences like the one at the end of the current article seem irregular. Eddorn (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has actually changed a bit since i last walked through the facts in it. There are sources for just about everything. The source for that particular item can be found in Stadler's introduction to Frances McCue's memoir about Richard Hugo. I don't think on its own a source from an unpublished manuscript would hold up, but my understanding is that blogs and other "self-published" information can be included if by-and-large there are three or more sources for the general article. As such, that particular sentence makes sense and doesn't seem to be an issue to me. Alone, it would be poorly sourced. If you need to verify the accuracy of the claim that Matthew Stadler taught at his kitchen table, you can talk to Lee Hartwell or Frances McCue who participated in this classes and ask them. Are there other unverified pieces in the article? Thanks for helping to improve the quality of this article. Eddorn (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Requirements for a Wikipedia article

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such the content of an article should meet the requirements of notability and verifiability. Content should be referenced to reliable third party sources and should not be original research. Any content that is not acceptable should be boldly edited. Lame Name (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matthew Stadler. 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/20060825133143/http://www.brucebawer.com/stadler.htm to http://www.brucebawer.com/stadler.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove notability tag?

I propose removing the notability tag. Stadler has won a number of awards for his novels, including the Lambda award, and was widely reviewed in major magazines and newspapers at the time of their publication.

I believe the appearance of non-notability of the subject comes from the page's current focus on his more recent non-fiction and his ideas on urbanism, which have been less widely seen. This isn't a problem with the subject's notability but with the emphasis of the article.

Edmund White wrote in the NYTimes: "What makes Allan Stein unusual is the lyric suppleness and restraint of the writing, a kind of mandarin American casualness that is peculiar to such West Coast writers as Dennis Cooper, Dodie Bellamy, Kevin Killian and Robert Gluck, a school of refined but deceptively offhand stylists. Matthew Stadler is its newest star. In Allan Stein we encounter the trademark passages of stark beauty...With it Stadler demonstrates that he is among the handful of first-rate young American novelists, one with a wide reach and a quirky, elegant pen."

This should be enough in itself to demonstrate notability, no?

Distingué Traces (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)