| Revision as of 19:37, 22 September 2006 editBastique (talk | contribs)Administrators12,056 edits →Fandom: I didn't give this information← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:59, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,346,638 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: US and Canada.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (210 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 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) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] 06:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :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 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! | |||
| ] 14:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think the 'high praise' tag is okay, since Time Magazine (not exactly a disreputable or fan-based source) which described Martin as the USA's answer to Tolkien, but agreed it is not worth getting into a major debate over, although in this instance Amazon reviews are not eligible sources, whilst print reviews are, and every print review I have seen of AFFC has lauded it. I am inclined to remove the 'George's Cult' tag applied to the BwB on the grounds that I have never actually heard it described as such by anyone. I'll leave it a couple of days to see if anyone has any objections?--] 02:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Just praise means no more arguing, the links are there so people can read them on their own and decide. Why aren't the amazon reviews eligible sources? If there's a wikipedia-based reason, could you show me where so I can read the policy (as a personal favour 'cause I don't know where to find it)? I originally put them in for the publshed reviews, not the reader reviews, amazon seems to be the most convenient source of reviews for authors (Jordan and McCaffrey in this case), since we can't link to print sources directly. I got no opinion on the cult thing, but a quick search of BwB and "Brotherhood without Banners" linked with "George's cult" turned up 4 hits, 1 of which was wikipedia, the other was a mirror site. Doesn't seem verifiable. You could pull it and if anyone turns up a reference, they can put it back in. | |||
| ] 14:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Simply read ]. Simply put, the "Editorial Reviews" on Amazon could be considered reliable sources (such as those from Publisher's Weekly), but the various epinions are not reliable. - ] 04:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I originally included it because noteworthy persons (two bestselling authors, Robert Jordan and Anne McCaffrey) had praised the book. I don't actually mind taking it out as long as the rest of it stays, but it would be nice if someone could find where those comments came from so we could have a source where it's not two lines in the midst of a big chunk of text. They are there though, and the link does say 'authors'. I'll try to find a more direct link to Jordan/McCaffrey's opinion.] 11:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I haven't looked up the precise rule (since I don't have the time at the moment), but I believe it's something to do with the fact that any site which allows anyone to post comments is somewhat unreliable by Misplaced Pages standards since it allows potential manipulation of Misplaced Pages. For example, someone gets half a dozen of their mates to post glowing reviews of a book and can then proclaim that book as 'highly praised'. This is why forums are not permitted as Misplaced Pages sources. OTOH, an article in, for example, a reputable body like Time Magazine would be considered more legitimate as it is written by a professional and verifiably read by hundreds of thousands or millions of people. You can certainly link to the comments by Jordan and McCaffrey as quoted on Amazon, though. That's not a problem. You also can reference any print reviews as long as you provide a source for them (that is, saying which issue of a magazine and which month it was published so anyone who wants to double-check can go and do so). But agreed that 'praise' is fine. 'High praise' is rather NPOV the more I think of it, although not as NPOV as 'phenomenon'. --] 23:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sounds good. If you look at the actual page, the link that leads to amazon for aFfC discusses 'authors', which is why I originally included it (for the authors who commented on the book). The link that discusses readers goes somewhere else, a SF website that presents a reader's choice award for 1999. Unmodifiable at this point by any except the webmaster, which is a concern for any website out there. | |||
| ] 01:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Quotations== | |||
| I've got issues with the now extensive use of quotations in the article. I like the incorporation of GRRM's own words when discussing killing off characters, but I'd be happier if the other quotations were summarized rather than including them wholesale. I think they are great justification for what was there previously, and thanks for tracking them down Crawdad. Would anyone object to | |||
| "This story, and many of Martin's others, have a strong sense of melancholy. His characters are often unhappy, or at least unsatisfied, and many have elements of tragic heroes, while A Song of Ice and Fire stands out for its Hamlet-like tragedy (reference to Wagner and Inchoatus)" | |||
| rather than the acutal quotation? Hamlet-like is a bit weak, any suggestions? I also think the PW quote could be reduced to a simple reference as it's pretty much validating what is said by the sentence about character complexity. | |||
| I also think the "Best of Worldcon" is unjustified given the reference used. It's basically GRRM's opinion, which is valid to say only that he thinks they are good parties. I spent a while searching for a reference to some sort of vote to BwB as winners of 'best parties', but came up empty. In short, I think BwB throwing great parties should be taken out, perhaps replaced with a line saying GRRM likes 'em. Really, I think the second half of the Fandom section, from "For both Boston..." onwards could/should be removed and perhaps moved into a BwB stub or entry - BwB is not about GRRM, but definitely linked. I'm sure I'll get crapped on by dedicated members though. Other's thoughts? | |||
| ] 23:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I know the article doesn't read as well with the quotes in there. The only reason I put them in there was to stop an argument over whether or not the articles confirmed the assertions. I don't have any problem doing away with all the quotes and just letting the references speak for themselves. If there's any arguments, we can always just put them back in to be more concrete. | |||
| :The BwB isn't a big issue for me, but I think it is relevant and noteworthy to describe an author's relationship with his fans and official fan club. We can get rid of the "best party" thing if it's not actually a reference to a formal award and replace it with a note that Martin has complimented the parties, keeping the same reference. That would actually be more relevant to Martin than if a separate body recognized the parties anyway. -] 03:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =="GRRM"== | |||
| Someone removed the GRRM explanation, I think it's worth having, others? | |||
| ] 16:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It probably shouldn't have been where it was. It's just a shorthand abbreviation of his name sometimes used on the internet, not a well-known alias or nickname. If it were to be in the article, it should probably be in the fandom section, but I don't think it's very noteworthy. -] 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: ''It's just a shorthand abbreviation of his name sometimes used on the internet, not a well-known alias or nickname.'' Notwithstanding, of course, ]. ] 19:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hmm, well if it's referenced in the title of one of his own books, I suppose it is "official" enough to consider a nickname. -] 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fandom== | |||
| I took the liberty of removing then replacing the fluff and fancruft section. | |||
| After discussing it with an admin it seriously crosses the line. I see that even Werthead agrees with his comment on the Project page. Lets see if a better method can be uses and with out weasel words. Personally I don't see a "fan" section as being nessary. BwoB has its own page and that should be sufficient. Adding fancruft and fluff pieces just goes against Wiki policy. | |||
| Anyone have any ideas? | |||
| ] 21:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I looked on your contribution history and couldn't find a conversation concerning this issue. What were the points the admin raised? I admit I'm not an expert on Wiki rules, but it seems to me that an artist's relationship with his fans is noteworthy. I see this on musicians' pages all the time. "Rocker X frequently stays after shows to sign autographs" and so forth. For example, the ] article, which is a ] according to the talk page, has a section on ]. | |||
| :<s>Also, you might be confusing the fictional ] from the book series with the Martin fan club that is named after it. The section on Martin's page is about the fan club. The wiki article and Werthead's comment on the Project page are about the fictional organization. <s> Oops. Never mind. Actually looking closely at what I'm talking about will save me some trouble.-] 22:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Mystar - if you can provide me with ''absolutely any'' proof that you actually talked to an admin, and you aren't just making stuff up, I'll totally leave you alone for a week, you can post whatever you want. In fact, I'll even vote that the ] page should be deleted. I really look forward to this. Did you find the term 'fancruft' on the wikipedia projects page too? Incidentally, I think you should have discussed your edits before making them, since many people are active on the page. Also incidentally, I think the BwB section should be included, but re-written. How about: | |||
| Martin's official fan club, the Brotherhood without Banners, throws parties at conventions Martin attends, most notably at Worldcon and Boskone. Martin has attended some of these parties and them highly. The BwB also engages in assorted philanthropic efforts, including charity fundraising{{citationneeded}}. As of September 2006, the organization has over . | |||
| I took out the 'best parties of worldcon' completely 'cause I couldn't find any legitimate source, but the paragraph does include mention that GRRM enjoys the parties. The citation needed gives time for someone knowledgeable to track down a reference for the fundraising - I don't think the bwbfanclub website really counts (sorry!). I think the fancruft tag should be removed - the entry is brief, referenced, and does discuss the importance the fanclub seems to have to GRRM. Also, it's not really fancruft since it's not fictional. The ] (apologies for the link, you'll have to follow disambiguation I think) page says: | |||
| ''As with most of the issues of importance and notability in Misplaced Pages, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Misplaced Pages. This is primarily due to the fact that '''things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral''' - all things that lead to deletion. Such articles may also fall foul of Misplaced Pages's policy against creating "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. | |||
| Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term '''fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research'''. Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.'' | |||
| So, it's well written, referenced, and I guess it's wikified. It's neutral, verifiable, and not original research. Unlike ], which is just a listing of terms and nothing new, and could easily be replaced by a link to the geocities page in the original D'Haran wikipage. To my mind, not fancruft, should not be tagged, and illustrates an important fact - GRRM's excellent relationship with his fans. Just my opinions, any thoughts? How about replacing the paragraph with what I wrote, or something similar. | |||
| ] 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please guys, let's all keep this civil and not bring in other disputes from other articles. I don't have any significant problems with WLU's replacement paragraph. Does that seem acceptible to everyone? Maybe I'll look for a reference on the charity claim and we can plug that up as well. -] 00:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm going to echo ] on ]. The implications regarding ]'s honesty aren't particularly productive, though a neutral request for information about his previous discussions would be appropriate; I'm curious as well. | |||
| ::Otherwise, I think ] is spot-on. ] is just that: an essay, not a policy or guideline. It's a good way to summarize attitudes to a topic, but it's not binding or generally-followed in any real sense. (Besides, I've never seen a definition of fancruft that includes this kind of material.) I'm generally loath to remove well-written, properly referenced, at-least-moderately relevant content from any article, since I don't see how an encyclopedia like this one is improved by taking material out of it, though others of course have other standards. I'm fine with WLU's paragraph. ] 02:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The "Best of Worldcon" thing is sort of complicated. Every day, the organizing committe of Worldcon prints a few thousand newsletters- the Worldcon Gazette or something like that. They put them under the doors of attendes and have a big stack for anyone to pick up. On Saturday and Sunday, the Gazette names a best party of the previous night, naming one of them the best of Worldcon. There's not a trophy or anything like that, but it's an actual award with some fairly heady competition. Anyone who has been to Worldcon can attest to this, and I'd bet there are people on Misplaced Pages who have one of these lying around their home. However, it's unlikely that you'll find this on the Internet (if you want to poke around for a bunch of different reasons, primarily that Worldcon leadership tends to be somewhat old-fashioned and doesn't have the mania for archiving everything online that we Young Turks seem to subscribe to. I'm for including the specific "best of" reference, but that's only because I saw the write-up with my own eyes and know that it's 100% true. | |||
| Also, I added a link to the ] site. The BWB logo is in the "gold sponsors" section- it's the first entry on the third line. ] 02:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Could you find more charity links? Just one is OK, several is way better. At this point, given the proof that you have for the 'best of' argument, I'm still uncomfortable saying it, I don't know what the status of personal endorsement is, but it'd be hypocritical of me to agree to it here. It's an unfortunate fact that stuff we know to be true can't really be included unless it can be linked or referenced. ] 11:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Awesome I'm thrilled that you can cut and paste WLU! Good on you eh! | |||
| Were I to have logged my conversation I would gladly have shared it I did however discuss it on the Misplaced Pages IRC channel where we are allowed to ask for admin help I did discuss it with ]. While bastique did not make any suggestions for any actions of any judgment (as I asked for none) the term fits and is applicable. | |||
| ''Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Misplaced Pages to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgment of notability is lacking.'' | |||
| ''The use of the term implies that an editor does not regard the material in question as encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan......the subject of the article in question is not notable except to hardcore fans; for example'' | |||
| In short the material is non-encyclopedic. Seriously I'm thrilled at the charity giving of such a group! I would offer up a hearty kudos! But the page is not about touting the actions of a few fanatics. It is not encyclopedic. Place it on the BwoB page by all means, but also keep in mind ''Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information | |||
| Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages''. | |||
| You have a strong personal involvement in this page; however, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. If you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views you could also use Wikinfo. | |||
| The point being is that unless the material is changed it falls into that category... and using the term "fandom" is neither encyclopedic nor is it neutral. | |||
| ] 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Mystar, I'm not sure what your justification is for removing this info beyond your assertion that it is "non-encyclopedic". I've provided an example showing that the activities of a fan organization, including mention of charitable actions, is considered acceptable enough for a "good" rating on the artist's article. Doesn't that show precedent that the information is encyclopedic by Misplaced Pages's standards? | |||
| :I do agree that the term "Fandom" should be changed. The Phish article uses "Fan activities" and I see nothing wrong with that. I'll also suggest moving the section down to below the "Awards" section. -] 05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fan activities, move it around both sound good. I still think this is a good page for it, unless someone wants to set up a BwB wiki page, but I don't know how comfortable I'd feel about that, I can't say I think it falls into 'noteworthy'. I like ths short, what, two paragraph summary but if more people feel strongly about removing it, I'm not going to die if it's pulled.] 11:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Alrighty, first off I like the changes WLU made to the Fandom section, especially how it focuses on Martin's activities. Second, I renamed the section "Fan relationship" since "Fandom" isn't much of a word and "Fan activities no longer applies to the section's focus. I'm not thrilled with the title, so if someone has a better idea, go for it. Third, I stuck his stance on fan fiction into this section, since it seemed to go along with his fan interactions. Fourth, I stuck a heading on his biography. -] 20:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :"Fan Groups" or "Following"? ] 23:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :"Relationship to Fanbase"?] 11:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well here is the problem. It now reads like an advert for BwoB's parties! No offence but it sounds and looks wrong. It is poorly worded. Actually it reads like a propaganda piece. Lets not extend into an area that simply will not fit the confines of Wiki policy just because someone wants to see a reference about parties.... A Bio page is not a soap Box to wax about who has a better party. I'm sorry it simply will not work. | |||
| :Why don't you suggest some edits and we'll all have a look at them, that seems fair.] 11:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The questions we must ask are these, | |||
| #1 Why is the "and gives great parties there? | |||
| #2 Is this website really an authoritative source for an encyclopedia: http://www.bwbfanclub.com/fr_grrm.php, ? | |||
| #3 Can we really cite fan club for a NPOV account of itself? | |||
| #4 Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? (Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, and it wholly appears that this is not only biased and POV driven (Self-serving), but again non encyclopedic) | |||
| We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. | |||
| Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. | |||
| The whole "and gives great parties" isn't speaking to the content of the page, it is speaking to something someone else is doing and is not a part of an encyclopedic page. It reads poorly and it has no real place on the page. | |||
| NOW acting in ], rather that my placing a tag or deleting it all together and not fixing the offending section, I'll give people a few days to work on it and edit it appropriately. | |||
| ] 03:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :1. The topic of the section is Martin's interactions with fans. He attends the parties of his fan club and has written about his enjoyment of them. That's interaction with fans. | |||
| :2. It's a statement made by Martin about the BwB. Martin is fully aware of the organization, so if the website were printing lies about statements he had made, its very likely that he would find out about it and have it taken down. Therefore, the likelihood that this statement was in fact made by Martin is extremely high. | |||
| :3. The reference for the charity activities links to the actual charity website, not the BwB. The reference about the parties comes from Martin himself. He either made the statement or he did it, and as I showed above, this is a reliable source proving that he made the statement. The third reference shows the current number of people registered as members of the organization. Where else would you get that information but from the organization's official website? | |||
| :4. There's no room for bias on any of these three references, as I showed above. The two references we use from the BwB are about the number of its members and proof that Martin made a statement. Either they have that many registered members or they don't. Either Martin made the statement or he didn't. lying about either of these two facts, but if you can hunt down some information that plays counter to the facts that the website presents, they should certainly be listed here. Otherwise, everything is factual and unbiased. | |||
| :''"The whole "and gives great parties" isn't speaking to the content of the page, it is speaking to something someone else is doing and is not a part of an encyclopedic page. It reads poorly and it has no real place on the page."'' | |||
| :I assume you're saying that the assertion that Martin has complimented the BwB's great parties is not backed up by the text on the reference because Martin says "At Torcon and again at Noreascon, they were recognized for throwing the best party at worldcon" which would mean that commendations came from the people at Torcon and Noreascon and not him personally. Well, Martin spend the previous paragraph complimenting the parties: "At the Philadelphia worldcon in 2001 a few of them got together, and we had a dinner and a party. It was a pleasant little party, but nothing compared to the ones the Bros have thrown since. I have vague memories of flashing lights, beautiful bartenders, lamprey pies, strip trivia games, Mardi Gras beads, haiku, ice sculptures, three-fisted roisterers and red-faced Irishmen, hot babes in leather cat suits, midnight quests, and strange drinks with stranger names being thrust into my hands. (p) The Bros know how to party. At Torcon and again at Noreascon, they were recognized for throwing the best party at worldcon." I think that it is well within editorial license to distill that long paragraph of descriptive text into a single adjective of "great". If you disagree, we can always nip a direct quote to be perfectly accurate on exactly what Martin has said about the parties. I'm fine with that. -] 04:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You also keep missing the main point A fan page is not acceptable reference. But more to the point, what is not in question is that these people party. So what? What is in question is the validity and merit of it being on an author’s bio page. It is not a part of his bio; it is not a part of his work. It is not a part of anything other than a few fans want to get together and get plastered. It has no business being on a bio page. Put it where it belongs...on the BwoB page. Put GRRM's quote there.... where it is applicable. | |||
| ] 18:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There ''are'' many topics that it would be unacceptible to use a fan club as a reference, however, as I've described above, the way we use the site as a reference is acceptable. Martin made a statement, and they have 800 registered members. There's no POV or interpretation there. | |||
| == The 2020 Hugo speech == | |||
| :''What is in question is the validity and merit of it being on an author’s bio page.'' | |||
| 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) | |||
| :If you'll look to my posts above, you'll see that I cite precedent for putting fan activities on an artist's page. However, the focus of the article as it currently stands is actually about Martin's interaction with fans, including his convention attendance, partying with his fan club, and restriction on fan fiction. Thus, the section is about actions and statements Martin has made. That is pertinent to a bio page. -] 18:51, 21 September 2006 (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. ] (]) 22:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I think we should leave it pretty much as is - unless there is a significant amount of text that can be added, I think we've bottomed out on what could be included on BwB and it definitely isn't worth its own page at this point. GRRM gets along well with his fans, they have a presence at conventions, have 800+ members and he doesn't like fanfic. Sounds fine to me, any objections?] 18:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Pronunciation controversy == | |||
| ::Nope. It looks good to me. ] 19:53, 21 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 spoke to mystar, but it was someone else who told him the above referenced information. Not I. ]''' <sup>]</sup>''' 19:37, 22 September 2006 (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 ] 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) | |||
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