Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brendan Moody (talk | contribs) at 02:31, 20 September 2006 (→Fandom: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner

Ispired by wheell of time?

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? 83.130.227.185 20:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC).

It -can- be, but it doesn't mean it -was-. If someone can source either it should be included, but thats all. Arkon 17:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I would frankly need a citation to prove that Martin wasn't inspired by the Wars of the Roses, 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. — Laura Scudder | Talk 00:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

a source about the War of the Roses: Amazon interview George Martin, another inspiration (cited in this article is a series by Tad Williams)--Moroboshi 21:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Pruning

Why would someone remove a nasty comment, only to quote the text removed?

Removed "eventful.com"

I removed the eventful.com link, since the appearences stated there (and more) are present on his own webpage.

Fleshing out needed?

This article could probably use a little more description of the Song of Ice and Fire 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. Ocicat 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. Brendan 22:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Themes

The themes section needs specific and reliable support; as it stands it's all original research. If no one has provided references within a week or so, I'll remove the section. Brendan Moody 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) :: Kevinalewis : 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. Brendan Moody 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. Brendan Moody 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits

Mystar'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. Brendan Moody 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 Mystar 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. Brendan Moody 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.

Mystar 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? Mystar 13:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This was not done with Goodkind's page because the dispute there was not about reliable sources (except in the case of the Inchoatus essay and the text citing it, which you yourself wanted to remove) but about maintaining a neutral point of view. "Unreferenced" tags are not useful when no one questions that the material is referenced. Brendan Moody 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.--Werthead 11:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the issue of Dragon 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. Stilgar135 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"? Stilgar135 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. NeoFreak 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.

Mystar 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"? ;) NeoFreak 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! WLU 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?--Werthead 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. WLU 14:46, 17 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'. --Werthead 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. WLU 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? WLU 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. -Captain Crawdad 03:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"GRRM"

Someone removed the GRRM explanation, I think it's worth having, others? WLU 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. -Captain Crawdad 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, GRRM: A RRetrospective. Stilgar135 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. -Captain Crawdad 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? Mystar 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 Phish article, which is a good article according to the talk page, has a section on Fan activities.

Also, you might be confusing the fictional Brotherhood Without Banners 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. Oops. Never mind. Actually looking closely at what I'm talking about will save me some trouble.-Captain Crawdad 22:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles