| Revision as of 14:06, 16 September 2006 editWLU (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,243 edits I agree with mystar← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:59, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,329,838 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: US and Canada.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (247 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Martin, George R. R.|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectNotice|A Song of Ice and Fire}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Science Fiction|importance=mid}} | |||
| ==Ispired by wheell of time?== | |||
| {{WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire| importance =Top}} | |||
| The article say "(ostensibly inspired by the success of Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time cycle)", but AFAIK George Martin declared that was ispired by the Wars of the Roses) | |||
| }} | |||
| :-.- why can't it be inspired from both? ] 20:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC). | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | algo = old(90d) | |||
| ::It -can- be, but it doesn't mean it -was-. If someone can source either it should be included, but thats all. ] 17:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| | archive = Talk:George R. R. Martin/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | counter = 2 | |||
| :::I would frankly need a citation to prove that Martin ''wasn't'' inspired by the ], but a google search turns up first a book review: ''Martin's Seven Kingdoms resemble England during the Wars of the Roses, with the Stark and Lannister families standing in for the Yorks and Lancasters'' . It could definitely be inspired by both (it's not mutually exclusive) but the Wars of the Roses inspiration is far far far more apparent. — ] | ] 00:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| :::: a source about the War of the Roses: , another inspiration (cited in this article is a series by ])--] 21:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| }} | |||
| ==Pruning== | |||
| Why would someone remove a nasty comment, only to quote the text removed? | |||
| == Removed "eventful.com" == | == Removed "eventful.com" == | ||
| I removed the eventful.com link, since the appearences stated there (and more) are present on his own webpage. | I removed the eventful.com link, since the appearences stated there (and more) are present on his own webpage. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)</span> | ||
| == Fleshing out needed? == | |||
| This article could probably use a little more description of the ] series, though of course that has it's own entry. It is, however what Martin is mostly known for at this point, so it seems rather relevant. Certanly some discussion of the series publishing success would be good. | |||
| The uncollected short stories section should probably also be removed unless someone actually comes up with something to go there. ] 00:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Every story that was listed there was part of a collection or a novel excerpt, so I deleted the section. If anyone can find a story demonstrably not found elsewhere (I'd be surprised if none existed), restore it. ] 22:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Themes== | |||
| The themes section needs specific and reliable support; as it stands it's all ]. If no one has provided references within a week or so, I'll remove the section. ] 14:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :All I can say is that if it is Original Research it is very well done, this section describes "exactly" the nature of GRRM's prose. If no one has had the sense to write this about his writing where is the harm, it would be a real shame to loose this section. (not the author of the text - or anyone connected - BTW) :: ] : ] 14:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that it's a rather good description, and I'm sure a little research would turn up similar citations in published reviews (I'll do a little work on that myself this week). But it's hardly an irreplaceable set of information- the web is full of similar comments. The harm is that it's a clear violation of policy, by the way. ] 14:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've found a few magazine articles that should make most of the content here sourceable (I love my university's online database). I'll try to finish fixing it up in the next couple days. ] 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Latest edits== | |||
| ]'s latest edits were good, but they confused the order of Martin's biography and made it a little hard to follow, so I reverted and then readded the substantive edits while keeping the biography chronological. ] 19:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I hate to say it, but you removed the citation needed. I'm sorry but what is there is simply not acceptable. It is conjecture and spectulative. I would like to see proof. I would like to see a soruce please. If non can be provided, then it stands to reason it then violates policy | |||
| ] 22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Um, the whole section is now labelled with an "unreferenced" box. (It's right under the "themes" header.) That's the equivalent of a "citation needed" tag, and just like with a "citation needed" tag, if sources aren't added within a couple weeks you, me, or anyone else should remove the section. ] 22:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, as you should note, being rather new, some of this I'm only just learning. I regret however that some people have not followed that policy on "another" page causeing a great deal of agnst, so I was simply following "example". I shall re-read this page seeing that it conforms, and bone up on some pertnate Wiki policy. | |||
| ] 23:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ":Um, the whole section is now labelled with an "unreferenced" box. (It's right under the "themes" header.) That's the equivalent of a "citation needed" tag, and just like with a "citation needed" tag,...." | |||
| uhm, why was that not done with Goodkind then, rather than ravage his whole page? I guessing that only "other authors" are allowed this courtesy... Kind of a double standard would you agree? | |||
| ] 13:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This was not done with Goodkind's page because the dispute there was not about ] (except in the case of the Inchoatus essay and the text citing it, which you yourself wanted to remove) but about maintaining a ]. "Unreferenced" tags are not useful when no one questions that the material is referenced. ] 19:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, I must confess to having had some issues with the Themes section's lack of sources. I'll see what I can turn up in the way of references for it.--] 11:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I seem to recall that the issue of ] with Melisandre on the cover (#305, I think) featured an interview in which GRRM talked a little bit about his style and his goals as a writer. There's probably a lot of stuff floating around in old issues of Locus/The New York Review of Science Fiction/etc as well. ] 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==High Praise== | |||
| Mystar, can you explain how calling a book the best of the year cannot be considered "high praise"? ] 23:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == The 2020 Hugo speech == | |||
| :The wording is justified and obvious in the cited context. The precedent is there for its inclusion and I've put it back in. ] 04:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Believe me, I've known George for over forty years, and his speech was a major ''faux pas'' whose echoes will harm his reputation for decades to come, at least among writers and fans of color and their allies, which is sad given that he has a strongly anti-racist history. The irony is that the mood of his speech was not reactionary (he's no Sad Puppy) but nostalgic and more than a bit cluelessly sentimental. The names, though, were just plain wrong and inexcusable. --] | ] 20:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I'll give the fact that it has been praised, but lets be honest here. high is over the top you you know it. yes you are a rabid fan and think it should have more than high praise, but simply stating that someone "thinks" the book is the best that year is not "high" praise. It is an over the top fanatic view point plain and simple. it is just a bit much. | |||
| Foreign language names are difficult to pronounce.The media and Twitter are so radical about social awareness that they forget their brains. Martin isn't all at fault. ] (]) 22:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] 06:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Pronunciation controversy == | |||
| :I think arguing over "praise" and "high praise" is a bit juvinille and tedious so that's fine as is. Then again maybe "a firestorm of praise"? ;) ] 07:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have reviewed the sources given for the name-pronunciation controversy and I found two critics named therein: a pseudonymous non-notable Twitter user and a non-notable blogger. I have attributed the POV to them, but this raises the question whether the criticism is even ] or if tabloid media is just regurgitating the latest insignificant Twitter beef-in-a-teapot. ] (]) 11:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I think praise is quite adequate, I agree with Mystar that just praise is fine. I read through the reviews that aFfC has on Amazon, and they are a bit lukewarm or at least 50/50. Some say fantastic, some say a little bit wanting, I think praise is adequate. The fact that it's received it from so many sources too, fans, critics, readers and publishers quite nicely gives the impression that it is well-received. Firestorm. Zing! | |||
| : Hi, I was for the removal of the paragraph when it was first added. I think there are two issues: 1) perceived racism, which in my opinion is not ] even though more criticism can be found (the Gizmodo article links to several others); 2) mispronunciation, which may be more relevant bcs of Kuang's speech and Martin's apology. But if both of them are removed, I am OK with that. ] (]) 12:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] 14:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:59, 20 October 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George R. R. Martin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
| 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. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Removed "eventful.com"
I removed the eventful.com link, since the appearences stated there (and more) are present on his own webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirana (talk • contribs) 10:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The 2020 Hugo speech
Believe me, I've known George for over forty years, and his speech was a major faux pas whose echoes will harm his reputation for decades to come, at least among writers and fans of color and their allies, which is sad given that he has a strongly anti-racist history. The irony is that the mood of his speech was not reactionary (he's no Sad Puppy) but nostalgic and more than a bit cluelessly sentimental. The names, though, were just plain wrong and inexcusable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Foreign language names are difficult to pronounce.The media and Twitter are so radical about social awareness that they forget their brains. Martin isn't all at fault. Hpdh4 (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Pronunciation controversy
I have reviewed the sources given for the name-pronunciation controversy and I found two critics named therein: a pseudonymous non-notable Twitter user and a non-notable blogger. I have attributed the POV to them, but this raises the question whether the criticism is even WP:DUE or if tabloid media is just regurgitating the latest insignificant Twitter beef-in-a-teapot. Elizium23 (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I was for the removal of the paragraph when it was first added. I think there are two issues: 1) perceived racism, which in my opinion is not WP:DUE even though more criticism can be found (the Gizmodo article links to several others); 2) mispronunciation, which may be more relevant bcs of Kuang's speech and Martin's apology. But if both of them are removed, I am OK with that. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class science fiction articles
- Mid-importance science fiction articles
- WikiProject Science Fiction articles
- B-Class A Song of Ice and Fire articles
- Top-importance A Song of Ice and Fire articles