Talk:George Saunders

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 sourced 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 a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class

	Biography portal 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Re: LaszloWalrus' edit

LaszloWalrus removed sentences regarding Saunders' dabbling with and ultimate rejection of objectivist ideas, saying they were "uncited". This despite the fact that there clearly was a citation, a reference to an interview (that is online) with LA Weekly [1] where Saunders says exactly what was stated in the article here. Since the claim was clearly cited and LaszloWalrus seems to be a self-described objectivist with an axe to grind, I have reverted this completely nonsensical edit. Inoculatedcities 19:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect information

As I found this page, I was expecting to see a page about George Sanders the English actor (note spelling). Perhaps a small redirect would be appropriate here and also a reverse one on the George Sanders page?

External link to interviews are not spam

NOTE TO shelfskewed... Apologies if we have broken rules but we do not believe we have done so... Does adding author interviews fall under the spam rules (they are Q&As with said authors)? For example, you have left interviews with other entities under said articles (Guernica, Powells, NPR, etc...) Again, since the magazine is not for profit and posting author interview with the article subjects is not spamming. Again, we mean no harm but honestly believe that said interviews with these subjects should be included among the links and since the authors are speaking for themselves are valuable for wiki users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.155.42 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fables

I don't think that Frip ought to be under fables, or if it is, then Phil ought to be there, too. They're both what Saunders has called "genocide books for children," and so they are not really children's books at all, but rather adult books, novels or novellas depending upon how you define the same, and therefore not in some separate category. Also, "fable" is a genre, while "novel" is a descriptor of length.