|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons 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. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Overemphasis on Web Column
As with the Peter King entry, I think there's too much discussion of the web column and way too little about the rest of his career. Zimmerman is one of the great writers in football history, and frankly his web column is more of an interesting footnote to that career than anything else. His body of work is underrepresented here, and this entry makes him look like little more than a blogger. I've added a little bit on his other career, but this entry is still out of balance. --Sportswriter 01:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
HOF Selection Committee
There is also a blatant factual error: Zimmerman is still on the Hall of Fame selection committee. He resigned, I believe, from the senior selection committee, the body that selects older players that have exited the window of their original eligibility.
- That's exactly what the article says in the last paragraph Anson2995 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, thankfully, now it does. Before it was different. Check the previous versions.
This article needs a general NPOV brushup, and I have tagged it as such. I removed some blatantly POV statements but will leave it up to others who are more familiar with this guy to polish it up some more. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
IN REPLY I have amended certain additions to read more neutrally and understand the sentiment that my original additions were perhaps too subjective. (However, if one peruses, let us say, the great 1911 edition of the Encylopaedia Britannica, one will find much that is subjective--and that is exactly why that edition is highly praised.) I am also sorry that I have not, at this time, cited new sources. I did take the time to amend Zimmerman's bibliography and added publishers, books not noted, and so on, and improved, I believe, on the piece's structure and fleshed it out a bit with fair examples (e.g., "stream-of-consciousness" was in the original and thus, naturally, the reference to Joyce's novel). The Zimmerman/Mitchell comparison is based on my own reading of the material of each author; as I've an M.A. in comparative literature, I believe my education would allow me to make the observation. I do agree with the statement above that Zimmerman's career in total needs further probing (as opposed to the SI/online material). However, attention must be paid to "this guy" (that's a rather backhanded comment, btw, and unnecessary--and also it indicates at an attitude already formed on the part of the poster; if indeed Zimmerman can be reduced to "this guy," why would it seem so important for the one who obliterated an entire paragraph to have acted so swiftly in the first place, as the paragraph in question was deleted within hours of its having been amended?). Zimmerman truly is, as another poster notes above, sui generis in his field, and more than worthy of critical appraisal in the future; as it now stands, there are not many sources to cite in re: this writer's place in a larger canon, but I do intend to publish on this subject in time, and look forward to Zimmerman's own memoir as not only a great read but, as well, a source. I would hope that the thousands of other entries which contain subjective material in praise of their subjects are as carefully vetted as this one seems to have been by "Smart Guy" (sounds a bit subjective right there, doesn't it, that nickname), and protest strongly the swift axe one standing paragraph received--"Smart Guy" didn't like it, "Smart Guy" deleted same. Yes, that's the true spirit of knowledge. I believe the British phrase "Little Hitlers" would apply to all of those who, given the ability to delete, do so if something does not meet their own exact criteria. Indeed, it sounds as if the paragraph had been eliminated by someone with an axe to grind against Paul L. Zimmerman, perhaps after being treated brusquely--though this is just conjecture--when writing a question via the Mailbag feature. A bit of a tempest in a teapot, this whole matter, and, I would add, small-minded and vindictive on the part of the liberty taken in removing material. If Wikipedia is not big enough a format--for some--to accomodate praise for its subjects, then I suggest "Smart Guy" et al. establish their own vehicle. Let my comment stand against certain small-minded "editors" of material at this terrific site, against all of those who view this format as a their personal "ball," one which they can, if matters are not to their liking, then take home and thus end the game. 13:16 07 Sept 2007. Magus_Dee
- Wow. This article currently is more of a critical essay than an encyclopedic entry, which violates both NPOV and Original Research. I like Dr. Z as much as anyone, but this is absolutely inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you publish this stuff as a scholarly article, then you can cite it, but for now, this has to be removed. Slurms MacKenzie 07:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
After considerable revision and citation, I have removed the tags. The article seems much less prone to blatant POV and textual critique after several months of cleanup, wikify, and NPOV revisions. Historymike (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Mike for finding the citations for Orwell and Jimmy Cannon. But I can't help to regret that you brushed the part on common decency. This is the main orwellian theory contribution and it is present in a lot of his rants and articles. Prof tis (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)