Jump to content

Talk:Michael Z. Williamson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

I'm not sure who keeps changing Fascist to Socialist, but trust me, Fascism is correct in this case. I wrote the damned thing.:) I'm on record a bunch of places if you want to source it other than from me directly.Mzmadmike (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Better photos needed

While it was quite generous of Mr. Williamson to upload free photos of himself to wikipedia, they strike as a bit...unprofessional? Peacockish even. Surely there are better ones that don't seem to have such an agenda.Legitimus (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Z. Williamson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Appearance is crappy because of overly-fancy formatting depending on multiple now-extinct sources, but text in question is good. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Z. Williamson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Z. Williamson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hugo in context

The currently lead-only Hugo-nomination seems to have a connection to this Sad_Puppies#2015_campaign, but of course, WP:SYNTH. Any good ideas on how this could be presented in the article, it seems relevant? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

A source [1], but not the best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe better: [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I had a go at it, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Pointless "Books" Section

While I expect this article to be deleted soon, it is still in the system. After having removed a lot of puffery and self-cited information, we're mostly left with this really ugly list of non-notable works, which consists mostly of links to ISBN numbers. I want to delete all of it, but I figured other people would have an opinion.--Jorm (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

If this is the criteria for removing an author's Wikipedia entry, then about 90% of the author pages on here should also be up for deletion. You sure you want to open that can of worms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.57.228.95 (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you prefer direct links to the Baen EBooks Website for each of them? Just checking before I go to the effort. DocKrin (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

That's an absolute non-starter. I'm looking for an excuse to keep this information, which isn't more than, you know. A list.--Jorm (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I like Gråbergs Gråa Sång's suggestion of merging Freehold War with this BLP; ultimately we can use Amazon to prove that these books exist, however, any possibility that these books have notability, is already playing out in the BLP as the BLP's sources are so thin that any mention of his books is being used in the BLP GNG case. Britishfinance (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@ OP: Is there any specific WP-guidance on this? I see no great wrong in including non-SPS works of an author. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Themes Section: from one source that is not an RS

This section is solely sourced from a research submission from a non-notable person called Blair Nicholson in a New Zealand University? I can't see how this can be an RS suitable for Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia), and even more especially in a BLP? At the very least, the Themes section should be solely attributed to Blair Nicholson, as it gives the impression that the subject's work has been the subject of literary analysis, which outside of the University of Waikato in New Zealand, it does not appear to be? Britishfinance (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance, background on that, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson (2nd nomination). If you ctrl-f "blair" you'll find it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång and I more than agree with you re care using WP:SCHOLARSHIP. To me, this work fails the basic WP:SCHOLARSHIP-test of where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, an unpublished (by any reasonable journal) submission of a non-notable academic's thesis, posted on a university web-site, is not what WP:SCHOLARSHIP allows (otherwise, WP:SCHOLARSHIP could dispense with all of its text, and just replace with this criterion as a base, as it would capture everything).
Wikipedia is meant to be a simple aggregation of notable facts on a topic, however, in this scenario, Wikipedia seems to be being used by the topic as the primary platform in establishing their notability; I don't think it is meant to work that way.
Britishfinance (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:SCHOLARSHIP states: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used". This is exactly that case. Then it continues: "but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." And, sure, we should exercise care. But the usage in the present article really isn't the sort of primary source issue that the guideline is warning against. This is pretty ho-hum commentary (this right-wing author and some other right-wing authors portray the UN as a villain) and not bold new cutting edge primary research. Haukur (talk)
The first citation for this reference is from page 23 of this thesis, but on page 23 the thesis quotes as its source "[49] Mike Williamson, personal correspondence (email), 1 March 2013". Hence why the clause of WP:SCHOLARSHIP you are referring to highlights "care" (e.g. these types of sources should really not be used, at least until they have gone through a proper peer-review process). Williamson gets very minor references in this thesis, which itself has not been properly peer-reviewed (it is not even clear if the author got their PhD), and which is using e-mail correspondence with the subject for sourcing? Britishfinance (talk)

Haukurth, I have reverted your edit of my edit. My issue is that the Ph.D student Blair Nicholson is the only source saying what is in the Themes section (and thus could be wrong). Unless we can find other sources who mention Williamson regarding Themes, then we should at least clarify to readers that it is just Blair's views (also consistent with the "care" aspect of even using Blair as a source; which I have misgivings over). We also need to be mindful of WP:SYNTH here in a BLP, and not using sources not specific to Williamson. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Rather than reverting back to your preferred version it might move us along quicker if you take a stab at some new wording which might satisfy both of our concerns. In an edit summary I expressed the concern that your proposed version makes it sound like what's really just summarizing quotes from Williamson is some sort of edgy or questionable analysis by Nicholson. In addition, I think calling the author a "Ph.D student" is a bit odd - presumably he did graduate with this even if he has a low web profile and we haven't explicitly confirmed it. Finally, I think you are holding this source to unreasonable levels of skepticism. PhD theses that are 'unpublished' (merely hosted on a university website and distributed to everyone in the world with an internet connection) are often very good sources. They have certainly received more academic and critical review than the typical news article which we are fine with using as sources. I'm working on an article in my sandbox where I cite an unpublished PhD thesis and it's one of the best sources that exist for the topic, up to date and rigorous.
But if you absolutely insist on attribution to Nicholson in the text itself I'll take a stab at a version like that. Haukur (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Haukurth. While you were answering me, I had the same thought and took out "PhD student" (which is too harsh by me) and inserted a doctoral thesis. Ultimately, having read the paragraphs a few times, I think the material is interesting (concerns over sourcing aside), but as long as a reader is clear that it is from one source and who it is. We don't want to get ourselves caught representing material as a wider consensus, in case Blair is wrong/challenged. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, you beat me to it, which is good :) I think your last edit is definitely a step in the right direction and I'll work from there. We'll just more exactly and pedantically summarize exactly what Nicholson is doing and then we should both be satisfied. Haukur (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, perhaps Blair has other attributions or RS that would add to his weight as an expert/authority in this area given how niche it is. As you said above, I don't think that Blair is saying is in any way controversial, it is just to clarify up front to the reader that it is from one source. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I think this is Blair's LinkedIn page [3], he is now with Aotahi, a Maori-business education company. Britishfinance (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
He also has a profile on academia.edu. I've sent him a message through that venue to notify him of the Williamson debate. Haukur (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Good idea :) Britishfinance (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Over at the AfD, William Davidson points out that there is an entry for Williamson in the The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction which he calls "an excellent reference work for the genre".[4][5] This has a little bit about the libertarian themes of Williamson's books and could be used to further develop the Themes part (or whatever we decide to call the section). That would get us out of this monosource pickle and flesh things out a bit. We could also potentially bring in reviews of Freehold since both Nicholson and the Encyclopedia focus on that work. Thoughts? Haukur (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Please keep

Michael Z. Williamson has written several science fiction novels. Why would you delete his bibliography? The deletion request seems politically motivated. 131.96.217.174 (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

See WP:BASIC and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson (2nd nomination). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Printed review of Freehold by Carolyn Cushman

There is a printed review of Freehold by Carolyn Cushman on page 25 of the April 2004 issue of Locus.[6] This would probably be the most WP:RS-y review we have located so far. The review could be obtained by interlibrary loan or by purchasing the issue for $8.99 here: [7] Haukur (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There are also printed reviews by Timothy Lane of The Weapon (page 31) and Confirmed Kill (page 18) in FOSFAX, #213 December 2006. [8] Haukur (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Haukurth. Reflecting on this, I think the subject does fail a basic GNG test (e.g. there is no good RS, or at least an RS that a reasonable reader would consider an adequate RS for an encyclopedia) that has done a material piece on him (i.e. so why would Wikipedia?). I also think he fails each of the 4-criteria of NAUTHOR (e.g 1. not an important figure in sci-fi, 2. not known for a new theory/technique in sci-fi, 3. his works are not the subject of a major other work/film etc., and 4. his works are not a "significant monument" etc.).
HOWEVER, one avenue which your great work on finding refs has raised is WP:PRESERVE. I can't find any RS that supports his book sales volume (apart from his own disclosure in Stars and Stripes, which is not a good source for sales), however, the Locus Award, Hugo Award nomination, are "threads" that others think his works are worth noting, and his SF-encyclopedia also seems to be in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. It is still probably unusual for a living-author to be captured under WP:PRESERVE, but that is the best route I can see? Britishfinance (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

We had that section awhile back, I edited it to look like this: [9]. I think it's a reasonable inclusion, comments? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Endorsed. Haukur (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we can't include it as this is a BLP and all of the information there is self-sourced.--Jorm (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks good. Self-sources are fine for this kind of information. Almond Plate (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Jorm, I think it's reasonable per WP:ABOUTSELF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, or Wikipedia:BLPSELFPUB. This is fine for mundane biographical details. Haukur (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm adding it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I already did, though :) I put it in a 'Biography' section. Don't know if that was the best solution, though. Is there anything in the style guides to help us? Haukur (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Oops. You go to bed and things happen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Buzz Sports and Entertainment Magazine

Most of the RS in this BLP are really (really) weak. There is an interview with Buzznews (which I mistakenly thought was Buzzfeed News, a good RS); a free-page in Chicago whose actual title is Buzz Sports & Entertainment Magazine. There is no WP article on this free-paper, and it appears non-notable. Is this reference and content really suitable for a Wikipedia RS in a BLP? Buzz S&E was owned by the owners of a local Talent Agency in Chicago called Kimberly Katz Entertainment see here and here.

Overall, the quality of RS in this BLP is weak. I can't find a single piece that approaches WP:SIGCOV on the subject that is not a blog/non-notable RS that would be deleted in most WP BLPs. Per my comment above, Wikipedia is meant to be a simple aggregation of notable facts on a topic, however, in this scenario, Wikipedia seems to be being used by the topic as the primary platform in establishing their notability; I don't think it is meant to work that way. Britishfinance (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The Stars and Stripes article is decent and has some 300 words on Williamson. And the Publishers Weekly article admittedly only has a little bit of information but what it has is important. Selling 102.000 copies according to BookScan is really quite strong for a sci-fi novel. For comparison here are BookScan numbers for Hugo nominees for best novel in 2015:
Note that we have some coverage of all of these. Haukur (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Did I mention there's an Afd in progress? ;-) And agree that Stars and Stripes is a decent source, a few more like that would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, we shouldn't relitigate all the AfD stuff over here. Haukur (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
My focus is just applying WP standards to the article; so, are we happy with me deleting the Buzz Sports and News reference given it would not meet WP:RS? Britishfinance (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm ok with that, Stars and Stripes covers the particular point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, this seems reasonable. I removed the Buzz. Haukur (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Haukurth. I think it would be also useful to run www.sfreviews.net through the RS noticeboard. There are so few good refs in this BLP, that if SF was shown to be a good RS for this topic area, then that could move things for me; however, if SF was shown to not be an RS, then that would also have implications. I see that SF is being used by other WP articles, so perhaps this is worth doing regardless (however, not by me, as I am not knowledgeable in this topic area). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I endorse the general idea. More clarity on what counts as a reliable source in this area would help a lot and have general implications. It might be best to do this after the current commotion ends. Haukur (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Things have calmed down enough now that I'll follow your suggestion and take sfreviews to the RS noticeboard. Haukur (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Freehold (novel)

We had a Freehold article back in the day which is mostly a longish plot summary and some links. I asked for a WP:REFUND on it in case there was something we'd find useful. Since it is relatively simple to meet WP:NBOOK (two independent book reviews and you're golden) we could have a separate article if we wanted. But I'd rather focus on the author article first. Haukur (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and we still have Freehold War out there. Maybe we should redirect it here for now? In its present state it has basically nothing which isn't already covered here. Haukur (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I also got a WP:REFUND on Draft:The Weapon (novel). Haukur (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I started a sandbox at User:Haukurth/sandbox4 to get an overview of what reviews we know of for individual MZW novels. Feel free to edit. Since we have three reviews of A Long Time until Now we could probably add a paragraph on it to the article. Haukur (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Bounding Into Comics article

I'll be away today but I'm just going to note this new piece: [11] Haukur (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The images

Originally the article had three images but Jorm removed all but one. I think that was a very reasonable call. For an article of this size, it feels a bit excessive to have more than one photograph of the subject. Of the two now in the article I prefer the one in color. In an edit summary I put it like this: "This one is more just "ex-soldier with a gun" and less like it belongs to some specific context which the text doesn't explain." Thoughts?

It looks like a publicity shot, and whilst I think it makes him look like "air conditioner repair man" if this is how he wants to look, fine.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I think they're both from the same photographer but maybe we can figure out what the specific context was for each which might help us either evaluate which is more appropriate here or allow us to provide more information to the readers. Haukur (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed them because they were excessive and made the subject appear... difficult to take serious.--Jorm (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey! I removed one too:[12]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Kind of my point, but the new one is not an improvement in that respect.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is growing as more sources are found and I don't think two are excessive at the current length, as long as they show a different view. It would be nice to have one that shows more of a headshot than a weapon. Jonathunder (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair points. One possibility would be to crop the color one to make it more of a headshot. The black-and-white one just appears a bit puzzling to me. I can understand a soldier shot but in that one he looks more like, I don't know, an assassin? I keep thinking that maybe there was some specific context where this made more sense than it does here. Haukur (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey! And now you have done the cropping. I think the color crop result makes a lot of sense. Haukur (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Really have to say the black and white one looks terrible, it was "badly cropped" (yes I know it was the way it was taken, I refer to how it looks) before, now it looks even worse.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree, it was a worthwhile attempt but ultimately I don't think any crop can rescue this image. But I would be okay with having another photo in the article at this point if we could maybe get one of him signing books or something. Haukur (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
His website has a good one of him in the military.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
His website says that nothing on the site can be used on Wikipedia... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
If they're photos taken by members of the United States Military, they're very likely public domain, and he doesn't get to say anything about how they're used.--Jorm (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
For that we'd have to be very sure and have good documentation that the image was "a work of a U.S. Military or Department of Defense employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties" (Template:PD-USGov-Military). And please let's do nothing that might look to an outside observer like acting out of spite or intentionally trying to aggravate Williamson or anyone else. The way I see it, processes like AfD can be unintentionally aggravating and we should continue to try to think of ways to make them less so. Haukur (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Is not the current photograph also form his website?Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It's from the photographer's site, and is listed as a CC license, although I don't see that on the photographer's site. It must be there somewhere, though, to have gotten the attribution, no? http://olegvolk.net/gallery/friendsandstrangers/madmike/michael_z_williamson_7136web.jpg.html DBalling (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Block and bloc

Block votingSlatersteven (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  • yes, and notice that none of the three items which are Block/Bloc interchangeable apply. Bloc Voting, which describes what happened, does not indicate (in the title or the article itself) that Bloc/Block are interchangeable. In this usage, "bloc" is the proper word. So the [SIC] label is correct. DBalling (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hugo, again

IMO this [13] is not good enough. I think the previous version (mine), was a reasonable compromise. The Guardian does not mention Williamson, but say "Hugo voters, however, gave “no award” in five categories,". Another solution is to remove Williamson's Hugo-nom from the article since there's no secondary WP:RS about it. Opinions? Pinging Reyk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

If no third party RS say it was nominated neither can we, but I think (in the situation) the hugos themselves would be an RS for what they have said.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course Hugo is a RS for that, but if nobody else noticed, should we per WP:PROPORTION etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see anything in WP:PROPORTION that gives me pause on using the Hugo nom in its current form. DBalling (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
mmmm I think that if we cannot have a context mentioning the nomination is rather meaningless.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
We can always re-link to the page for the Hugo Awards if the reader needs context on what the Hugos are, their stature, etc. I feel like (a) the nomination can stand on its own merits, with the Awards page being sufficient available context for the awards themselves. (b) if we feel the need to bring up the "No Award" issue, there's language we can use to do that, from RS, without also doing the analysis that would make an undocumented connection between Williamson and Puppies. DBalling (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the Hugo nom needs a secondary source given that the straight-forward analysis free "fact" can come from WP:PRIMARY. That can stand on its own without assistance. If you want to add some nuance (quoting a combination of the guardian and hugo sources, something like "Hugo voters, however, gave no-award in five categories, including in Williamson's", that would seem to be language I could support. DBalling (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I stand by my edit summary. There was no mention of Williamson in the source commenting on the Sad Puppies, and no mention of the Sad Puppies in the Hugo Awards listing source. Drawing a connection between them is textbook WP:SYNTH, unless you can find an actual source that connects them. The third source, which I removed altogether, mentioned neither the pathetic doggos nor Williamson.Reyk YO! 10:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The relevant text was "The members of the World Science Fiction Society rejected the slate of finalists in five categories, giving No Award in Best Novella, Short Story, Related Work, Editor Short Form, and Editor Long Form. This equals the total number of times that WSFS members have presented No Award in the entire history of the Hugo Awards, most recently in 1977." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The previous version of the article made it sound like Williamson was swindled out of a Hugo because of the voting controversy. More likely that he was only nominated because of it, but there's nothing in any source I've seen that covers it. Drawing these sorts of conclusions is still WP:SYNTH. Reyk YO! 10:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

While we're at it, how should we deal with the three nominations to the Prometheus Award? I guess if a primary source for the Hugo is all right (and I think it is) we would also use a primary source here? [14] Haukur (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think (given the controversy surrounding the nominations) with out analysis we should not include the Hugo nomination.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

What's your RS for the controversy that ties it to the subject of the article without WP:SYNTH? Without that, the controversy isn't relevant. DBalling (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, this is tricky. Reyk brings up good points with the SYNTH issues but it would feel really weird not to mention a Hugo nomination. Maybe we can do a more thorough search for sources? Haukur (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, we can leave the Hugo nom, as-is, without any mention of the No Award or Puppies. That stands on its own as straight factual information. If there's further context to be added around that from RS, that context needs to stand on its own via RS. DBalling (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
What DBAlling said. Reyk YO! 10:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, a hugo nomination is a standard of excellence (and that is how it is being used here), and if (as it was) the system was gamed then that is undermined in this case. In fact one can argue that a nomination is meaningless, only being awarded one has any real meaning.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
If someone wants to demonstrate that the Hugo nomination was "tainted", the onus is on that editor to demonstrate that taint via RS and a lack of WP:SYNTH. As to "nominations being meaningless", that standard would be pretty much universal for any nominated-award, and the ripple-effect of that across WP would be ridiculous (strip out any Emmy or Oscar noms which didn't yield a win, etc.) That Way Lies Madness. DBalling (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I've stricken part of my post since at least part of the book seems to be posts from Williamson's Twitter feed, but it still has absolutely nothing to do with either science or fiction. It's also very difficult to find reliable sources about the book as such, since no-one seems to have found it worthy of a review, which is really no surprise when customer reviews on Goodreads go like this: "It's not witty, informative, or in any way entertaining. Fatally for a Best Related Work Hugo nominee, it's not sf-related", "One-liners about multiple topics. Possibly tries to be funny, and mostly fails, even when recycling old jokes. Also, this being a Hugo nominated work, starting with tired material about US (party) politics was quite a turn off, and not being SF-related doesn't help. I'm assuming the nomination was a failed attempt of a joke as well.", "Wisdom from my Internet is a really bad book. I will admit that I disagree with about 90% of Williamson's political statements; but even in the few cases where I don't, his style is just not very funny. More objectively, I've got a quarter of the way through and if there has been any actual reference to SF I have missed it." and "A collection of witticisms from the internet with no context, editorial commentary, or ... anything. How is this even a book?". - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Here we go [[15]].Slatersteven (talk)

  • I think you could pretty easily then, add two sentences to the Hugo nom para. The first using this and referencing the controversy. The second referencing the earlier discussion about "No Award" which ties to the controversy mentioned in the first. That thread ties itself through A->B->C fairly well, and doesn't represent analysis. The reader may certainly draw conclusions from those related facts, but we're not making them. DBalling (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    I felt it was fair here to link to Williamson's own perspective on this, keeping in mind that his website is a reliable source for what he himself is saying under WP:BLPSELFPUB. Haukur (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Well one could argue "well he would say that" after the event. Thus it might be argued its self serving.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Strong Keep

I have known Mike casually for around 20 years. He is a best selling author and I have read several of his books. I used to think Wikipedia was a very useful resource. It is now just another place for people to push their political views. Mike is very politically incorrect; he should not become a non-person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7787:4D10:0:0:0:46 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

We are not the only encyclopedia.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

air conditioner repair man

Is this a formal US airforce position (as in Meteorologist or Historian) or just one of the roles (say a) Services Badge holder might perform?Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up, I agree with your concerns. Can we reword this to mention that repairing air conditioners was one of his duties without implying that was his only or necessarily main role? Haukur (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
PTAL. DBalling (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I doubt it, and I just keep getting images of Bicycle repair man. And that I think sums up the problem, it just reads like someone having a joke at his expense. This is in fact major issue with that whole star and stripe article, its snippets and minor factoids that actually tell us nothing about the subjects.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think there's anything demeaning about repairwork. If we were writing an article elsewhere I would suggest tying this in with the focus on logistics in Williamson's work (which Nicholson mentions on p. 23). Running a functional army isn't just about shooting people, it's also about repairing air conditioners and a million other things. But of course it would be WP:SYNTH to make this connection here. But if it does read like a joke to you then maybe it will to others as well. Let's think about it. Haukur (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) DBalling's wording works for me. Haukur (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry still get the bicycle repair man image off it, I really cannot see how this can be worded with out conjuring images of an inappropriate and risible nature.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I think there's value to validating the legitimacy of his having served in branches of the armed forces (because that does bring experience which begets authenticity of tone and spirit). The S&S article does bring that (useful, valid) data to the article. It's then a matter of finding the balance between "implying combat duty" and "not making it sound like he was Arnold Rimmer, Technician Second Class." I think the language I added achieves that balance. If you've got a better wording, go for it, but I wouldn't strike it entirely. DBalling (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
You know, compared to the previous leadimage, I can sort of see a resemblance. But Slatersteven is also on to something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
How about "in a support role".Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Perfect. Done. Team Effort, yo. DBalling (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Endorsed! It was pretty touch and go for a while here but I think we've got the wiki magic working again. Haukur (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Just an FYI, AC repair is a specific USAF career field, 3E1XX, to be precise. The numbering system used for USAF specialties was revised in 1993, so Williamson's AFSC was likely the pre-revision version. Schazjmd (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Its a bit more then just Air conditioner repair, but (if we can source this to ensure this was his specialization) we could change it to "as a 3E1XX specialist").Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I feel like going down that route goes back to bicycle-repair route. support role seems most NPOV. DBalling (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
That is why I did not suggest the actual title, but rather the code.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
But very few readers would understand "3E1XX specialist". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Very true, so all I can see is we stick with what we have.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Stick to what the source says, rather than doing original research or synthesis. Jonathunder (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The source does not say he was an "air conditioner repair man" or even an "3E1XX specialist" it says "he was involved repairing air conditioners", now I have no idea about what that might mean in military terms. But it might mean he fetched the coffee or driving the lorries or repairing the air conditioners, or making the whole in the walls for them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
So let's say what the source says, rather than speculating or obscuring. A "support role" can mean almost anything. Jonathunder (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
If you want to propose language which matches the article, while retaining NPOV, and isn't cumbersome, I think we'd all be open to hearing your proposal. :-) DBalling (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes it can, and as we do not even know what his actual specialist designation was that might be best.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thomas.W, I have to ask why you added [16] the frivolous "failed verification" tag? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Because it was included as "collateral damage" when I reverted two edits, but the tag was then swiftly removed by me in my next edit, with an edit summary explaining why it was frivolous... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Jonathunder; use what the source says.--Jorm (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The article should say what the source says, and what I changed it back to, before DBalling changed it again. Wikipedia should report what the sources say, even if it doesn't go down well with the subject and his fans... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I am one of his fans?Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The article doesn't say he "repaired air conditioners". It says "he was involved repairing air conditioners". That's vague. (involved how?) and is best described as... "a support role". DBalling (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Also that language is best at preserving WP:NPOV, as noted upthread. DBalling (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
"Being involved repairing air conditioners" means being an "air conditioner repair person". I can imagine having the article saying he was an "airconditioner repair man" in the military, instead of something more manly/martial, isn't good for Williamsons image, but that's his problem, not ours, so the article should say what the source says. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
That's analysis. As noted above, it could mean he was the dude who drove trucks full of HVAC supplies around. DBalling (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I realize that this is Wikipedia and folks here are accustomed to interrogating sources, but you're all reading too much into the Stars & Stripes wording. Someone tangentially involved in AC repair (truck driver, hole-in-the-wall, etc) would not be described as "involved repairing air conditioners". Some reporter's sloppy writing is all it is. The article could go with "worked in air conditioner repair", if you all are uncomfortable with "air conditioner repairman". Or just leave his specialty out of it, and go with years of service per branch. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing "unmanly" about being useful in fixing the AC when the temperature climbs. Jonathunder (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing "unmanly" about fixing industrial AC. But air conditioner repair man is not an MOS, nor is it what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
What the source says is "He bases some of his characters on people from other cultures whom he encountered during his military career but doesn’t use many of the military experiences since he was involved repairing air conditioners, which he doesn’t rate as exciting enough for his stories", and that's what the article should say. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Consider not only the exact wording in the source but also the context. What Williamson is trying to get across here is that he wasn't in a combat role and isn't basing his books on combat scenarios he was personally in. The "support role" wording very well conveys the gist of the source. Haukur (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
His books are, however, based on his experience that stuff breaks down. I've added a quote from the same source to reflect that. Almond Plate (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
And takes into account the sloppy writing, which clearly seems to have an odd grasp of syntax as he was involved repairing air conditioners reads like there is something missing (as as "in" or "during the gulf war"). The fact is its a bit vague and poorly worded.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not up to us to interpret what the sources may mean by what they say, we just report what they say. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Right, so lets stop saying he repaired air conditioners, the source does not say that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Tom, and yet you're doing just that. The source implies that he repaired air conditioners in the military, but not that this was (solely) in the airforce. Also, I see no reason in your edit summary to remove the quote. Almond Plate (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Since you haven't replied, I intend to put the quote back. Almond Plate (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Prometheus Award

Having had three books nominated for the Prometheus Award does not make anyone notable, and does not even merit being mentioned in the article, since any member of the Libertarian Futurist Society can nominate a book for the award, i.e. it takes only the support of a single member for a book to be nominated. A special committee then selects five finalists (a level that equals being nominated for a Hugo), and the winner is then selected among those finalists; and no book by Michael Z. Williamson has ever been named a finalist at the Prometheus Award. So please check any and all material before adding even more puffery and meaningless cruft to the article. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting! Do you have a handy source which explains the nomination process? Haukur (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Haukurth: Of course: Libertarian Futurist Society website, a press release that presents the finalists for the 2019 award, and also, below the list of finalists, explains the nomination rules: "All LFS members have the right to nominate eligible works for the Prometheus Awards" (becoming a member costs $30 for a year, so for 30 bucks you can nominate your own book for the award; I'm not implying that MZW did that, just saying that nominations for the award are cheap, and not notable...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! This isn't quite explicit that one nomination is enough but I suppose that's what they mean? I'm trying to puzzle this together here. There are lots of books published every year so I wonder why they'd end up with 10 or so nominees rather than, I don't know, 50. Maybe there aren't that many members? There's a comment here which mentions "stacks and stacks of nominees" whatever that means: [17] But anyway, looking at third party coverage it's easy to find Locus reporting on finalists but they don't seem to report on nominees. So that's a reasonable case for Wikipedia doing likewise. Haukur (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: Nominations for the Hugo Award can be had for about $50/year. All you have to do is have a supporting membership to Worldcon. So, by your description, "nominations for the award are cheap, and not notable". You can't have it both ways. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: Nominations for the Hugo Award are voted on, with only the ones getting most votes being formal nominees, listed by the Hugo Awards, and notable, with the corresponding procedure for the Prometheus Award being a special committee selecting finalists, so being a Prometheus Award finalist is equal to being a Hugo Award nominee. And no book by Williamson has been selected as a Prometheus Award finalist. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: So a fan-nominated and -voted award like the Hugos is stronger than a fan-nominated, committee-voted-finalists, members-only-voted award like the Prometheus? Nominations for the Prometheus are voted on by a committee, which likely takes into account how many nominations any given work receives. Regardless of all that, they publish a list of all the nominees (whether finalists or not), and reliable, third party sources report on it. Therefore, the reliably sourced information you removed shouldn't have been removed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: No, nominees for the Prometheus Award aren't selected by a committee, finalists are. Which is why I wrote that merely being nominated, without being selected as a finalist isn't notable. The general procedure is roughly the same for all three awards that have been discussed here, the Hugo, the Prometheus and the Compton Crook, but the terminology differs. So being a Prometheus Award finalist equals being a Hugo Award (post-selection) nominee, and is notable since it involves having passed a selection procedure, but merely being nominated for the Prometheus Award (or being a pre-selection nominee for the Hugo) isn't notable since reaching that stage only requires the support of a single member of the organisations behind the awards (a member who might even be the writer him-/herself; "All LFS members have the right to nominate eligible works for the Prometheus Awards"). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
If we could find even one reliable third-party source reporting on the list of finalists for each year where Williamson was on it, I'd feel better about including it. Haukur (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
You mean like the reliable, third-party sources that were used for the entries Thomas.W removed from the article? ISFDB is not connected to any author, and it's considered a reliable, third-party source. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The existence of a third-party source doesn't make merely being a nominee for the Prometheus Award notable, so adding it to the article is just meaningless puffery and peacockery, in spite of it being sourced. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a fanblog, so how about trying to keep a reasonably high standard here? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
How about you stop with the personal attacks? I've created far more articles than you, and been around the block here far more times than you, so I understand how things work. You may be "a grumpy old fart" (as it states on your user page), but you need to maintain a level of decorum when interacting with other editors. I've never read anything by Williamson, so I'm not a fan, and I'm not trying to create a "fanblog". Not every fact included in an article needs to be "notable". WP:N applies to the article as a whole, not every last bit of information in it. It's possible to "maintain a high standard" while including information in an article that isn't "notable". And please, as FlightTime mentions below, stop including your entire comment as your edit summary. That's just obnoxious. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Where's the personal attack? If you feel there is one, feel free to report me at WP:ANI. Quite a few editors appreciate detailed edit summaries, BTW, since it makes it easy to see what's happening, and adding fluff, such as award "nominations" that are rejected in the very first step of the selection process, to articles, isn't maintaining a high standard, but a standard equal to that of the myriad of articles about beauty pageants that we have here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I still don't understand why editors use their entire cmt as an edit summary. Please stop. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth I did find one piece of third party coverage mentioning Kratman's Prometheus nomination: [18] I haven't found similar pieces for the years Williamson was nominated. I also haven't found third party coverage about Freehold being nominated to the Compton Crook Award, something the author has mentioned in interviews. Haukur (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
This is why we do not use SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that we would not source any award facts to an autobiographical source. I'm sure that Freehold was indeed nominated or eligible for the award but if that's not a significant enough fact for others to report on we shouldn't either. Haukur (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
From what I can see there is no such thing as being a Compton Crook Award nominee, the society behind the award lists all first English-language books by science fiction, fantasy and horror writers in their monthly newsletter, and the winner is then selected by the members of the society from among the books listed in the newsletter (BSFS rules for the Compton Crook Award). And the society does not refer to the books as nominees, it just states that they're eligible for the award. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I figured. Williamson says he was a finalist. Maybe he got some inside info that he was near the top, but as long as there are no other sources there's nothing we can do with this. Haukur (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Striking the sentence above since I now see the page you link to does mention 'Finalists', so that is an actual thing there. But it still might not get any third party attention. Haukur (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Except that maybe it does, at least in recent years. I see Locus has the finalists for 2018 and 2019.[19][20] Haukur (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Freehold War

If this article is kept, I suggest redirecting Freehold War here, there's nothing there worth keeping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; at minimum, these should be merged; better to have one proper article (if the RS can be found to support it), than two marginal articles. Britishfinance (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
No-one has objected and the AfD is over so I've gone ahead with the redirect. Haukur (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Review evaluation

I've added a citation to a review by Joseph T. Major of Contact with Chaos in Alexiad, August 2009.[21] Now, Alexiad is published by Major himself so we need to treat this as a self-published source. Policy is strict on when such sources can be used. WP:SPS has this:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

The review meets this stringent requirement. Major had previously been published by Advent:Publishers, which is a traditional outfit. Specifically, his book Heinlein's Children was published by Advent in 2006. It was reviewed in Locus and Analog (it thus meets WP:NBOOK, not that this is necessary) and nominated for a Hugo Award for Best Related Work. Major's two nominations for the Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer also help his credentials as an 'established expert'.

Sadly, it is harder to make the case for Timothy Lane's reviews in FOSFAX. We probably have to count that as self-published as well. Lane was editor of FOSFAX at the time those reviews were written and probably functionally its publisher as well. I think there's a good case to be made for him as an "established expert" considering the seven nominations for the Hugo Award for Best Fanzine under his tenure, including a second-place finish in 1989. But I can't find evidence of Lane publishing with traditional outfits so I can't make the case here under policy as written. Maybe policy could be modified slightly to allow something like this and I'm considering opening a discussion on that. But for now we probably can't use these reviews, which is a shame because they are relatively long and analytical. It's also a shame that we can't use the review by Thomas M. Wagner of Freehold which is probably the most informative Freehold review out there.[22] But that's where we are with policy so I regretfully removed it. Haukur (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure that "established expert" means "competent professional".Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The lede

The article has matured a bit and it may be time to consider the lede more carefully. It currently contains three sentences, one on Freehold, one on best-sellers, and one on Wisdom. We could use a longer lede and I'm not sure whether the best-seller stuff really belongs there. Would getting that information be a priority for the typical reader of this article? It feels more like a remnant of the AfD discussion. Thoughts? Haukur (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Superversive interview

In an interview with a fanzine, Williamson remarks that he thinks "Soft Casualty" was "a much better example" of his work than Wisdom. I thought that was kind of interesting and was considering adding it but I wanted to bring it up for discussion here first.

  • L. Jagi Lamplight Wright (May 13, 2015). "Hugo Nominee Interview: Mike Williamson". Superversive SF. I actually thought a short story I had published earlier in the year ("Soft Casualty") was a much better example of my work

Possible issues would include that the publication is not prestigious. But I don't think there can be any real doubt that this is an authentic interview. And Williamson expresses something similar on his blog but in a less quotable manner.[23] Then there is the question of how much use of primary sources is appropriate here. As the article stands, Williamson's thoughts are brought in three times: on Freehold, on the Hugo voting, and on military fiction. Would adding a fourth time be excessive? For comparison, I checked some 'good articles' and noted that the articles on Anne Rice and Terry Pratchett often quote their subjects. Haukur (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

More reviews

Van Cleave, Fran (2005). "Freehold" (PDF). Prometheus. 23 (2): 3.

Triplett, Rick (2006). "The Weapon" (PDF). Prometheus. 24 (3): 3–4.

Parker, Danielle L. (February 6, 2006). "Michael Z. Williamson, The Weapon". Bewildering Stories (184).

I've found three more reviews. The way it looks to me is that Prometheus and Bewildering Stories are edited publications (not self-published) and ought to qualify as reliable sources. But they are less prestigious than Locus or Science Fiction Chronicle so should be given less prominence. Note that the Van Cleave review takes a somewhat "inside baseball" perspective and ends with saying he won't "vote for this neo-con fantasy", referencing the Prometheus Awards. So if we were to use this we would probably have to contextualize it by mentioning the Prometheus nomination of Freehold.

What do you think? Haukur (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

We do not need umpteen reviews for every book, we need (at best) a couple of high profile reviews for high profile works.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I agree that the article doesn't necessarily need to summarize every single RS review of Williamson's works. We can get into more details at Freehold (novel). Haukur (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Lawthorn, Bill. "A Long Time Until Now (Temporal Displacement)". SFRevu.

One more, just for the record. Haukur (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

On the back cover of The Weapon there is a citation to Locus for the following quote: "... first novelist Williamson keeps it all amazingly entertaining." This must be to this review:

  • Cushman, Carolyn (April 2004). "Freehold, Michael Z. Williamson". Locus (519): 25.

So it's presumably positive but there's not much I can do with this until my issue arrives in the mail. Haukur (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Baen "readers' choice" award

A proprietary award, given by a publisher to their own writers only, is hardly notable enough to be mentioned in the lead of the article... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought so too at first but when I looked into it, this award does get enough third party attention to convince me that it isn't a nothingburger. Don Sakers sounds pretty psyched about it in a quote I brought into the article. I don't think only authors publishing primarily with Baen are eligible but rather anyone with a story in these yearly anthologies, which various authors have contributed to. Though in practice maybe only Baen authors have won so far(?) and the people who buy these anthologies and participate in the voting might be primarily fans of Baen authors. Then again, Baen is a pretty big gorilla in the military sci-fi field, so I don't know exactly what one would expect.
This is, of course, a relatively minor award but then again Williamson did win it rather than merely being nominated for it. Also, he has written a bunch of short stories so it seems natural to mention one of those in the lede, and it would probably have to be this one. Haukur (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The fact that there's nothing major to mention does not mean that we should mention whatever minor things there may be. Articles aren't required to be of a certain length, and there is IMHO already more than enough fancruft in the article as it is. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Its passed AFD now but I am always suspicious of notable people who have to have everything they have ever done or been awarded listed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It survived AfD, thanks to "no consensus", but it didn't pass AfD since "no consensus" doesn't mean that notability has been established (and adding excessive amounts of fancruft, and minor proprietary awards, doesn't establish any notability either, other than perhaps in the mind of diehard SciFi fans). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for belittling fans of an entire major field. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite, so the standards are quite a bit higher here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The article is based primarily on secondary sources and has a minimum of plot summaries or in-universe coverage. This is not a long article and I think, if anything, it should be expanded to have more fancruft. It would not be unreasonable to briefly summarize the plot of each novel or each series and I'm sure that sort of information is what many readers are looking for. But I'm reasonably happy with things as they stand.
I've deferred to you on not mentioning the Prometheus nominations, where I think you made a reasonable case, but I do think the Baen award is worth mentioning. The lede now mentions at the start that Williamson publishes with Baen and readers will have that context in mind when they read that he won an award organized by Baen.
It is possible that the current lede comes across as overly positive but we don't have a lot of critical coverage to balance things out. The Don D'Ammassa review is basically the only negative critical piece we have at the moment. Note that I'm still waiting to receive the 2004 Locus review of the book by Carolyn Cushman and I don't know what it says. That will give us a fuller picture and at that point it might be appropriate to bring the critical reception of Freehold into the lede. Haukur (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Much of the article doesn't just come across as "overly positive" but as more of a press-release from Williamson's publisher than an article in an encyclopaedia. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't think a press release would have the words "very long but frankly not very entertaining diatribe". The article reflects the sources we have and, sure enough, most of the sources are positive. If you find more critical coverage in reliable sources then, by all means, let's use that. But for most authors, most coverage will tend to be relatively positive, and our articles will tend to reflect that. But maybe we can take another look at some of those reviews and see if we can make some of the positive stuff more specific. It's more informative and less press-releas-y if we can mention the specific strengths which the reviewers are talking about rather than using general wording about positive reviews. Haukur (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that we have too much on relatively little. We have 534 words on just the Freehold series, whereas Harry Harrison has just 820 for his entire career. As I say above the article is trying to hard to establish what an important SF writer he is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The article Harry Harrison (writer) really could use more focus on his writing rather than on trivia like his Esperanto skills. But, more to the point, we have a whole category with lots and lots of content on his novels: Category:Novels by Harry Harrison. We could have separate articles for some of Williamson's books too if you'd like, but the main author article should still give the reader some information on his works. Haukur (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
But the point is the article is about him, not his work. Whereas this article is almost wholly about the work, not the author. One problem is that there is a huge amount of analysis of Harrison his work, his importance ect ect. We can write about the man. Whereas for williamson we are having to pad this out to make it any decent length. Simply put there is not real biographical information about the man. Thus this reads more like a brochure or portfolio. This leaves me with the impression he is neither notable nor important, what was (notable) was trolling the hugos and not a lot else, that is five years time no one will even be reading his books. That is the impression the article leaves "look at me I'm important".Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather not relitigate the AfD and I disagree with a lot of what you said but it's certainly true that it would have been great to have more in-depth sources with analytical coverage of Williamson's work as a whole, rather than basing the article largely on reviews of individual books. I had the same problem at Morag Hood (author) where I could not find a single negative comment in any of the reviews, which does make the article feel a little like something an agent or a publisher might string together. But for new authors and mid-list authors, even if easily notable by Wikipedia standards, we will often lack the kind of in-depth analytical sources we would really like. Haukur (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources with in-depth coverage of Williamson (and to pass WP:GNG requires multiple such sources), he shouldn't have an article. Having an article on Wikipedia isn't a God-given right, so if there are no reliable sources reporting on Williamson, and no independent coverage of major achievements or awards, we do not pad articles, and add lots of marginal, or even irrelevant, material, just to be able to have an article, we delete them. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You could try Wikipedia:Deletion review if you feel the AfD was incorrectly closed. Or if you suspect a third AfD might get the job done, you could try a renomination in a couple of months. Haukur (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the close, since there clearly was no consensus, what I'm questioning is why you add so much fluff to it; if there's relevant material only for a very short article then we should keep it short, and not add material that is marginal at best just to make it look longer and more impressive. And from the posts above it's obvious that it's not only me who feels that way. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
We may never see this the same way but I do take your concerns seriously and I think there may still be some remnants of AfD-thinking in the article text. We need to think about what kind of information would best serve our readers and not worry about selling the reader on 'notability' stuff. I'm going to take a close look at how we can improve the encyclopedic tone here and see if we can reword sentences that could come across as promotional. Haukur (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to ask this now. @Haukurth: is it really necessary to spam up the encyclopedia making separate articles for each book you can find some review on a fan-zine site for? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Welcome back! For me a big part of the challenge is always hunting down sources and seeing how complete we can make our coverage while, of course, staying within the policies and guidelines. Most recently I have been doing this for Tiberius (son of Heraclius), where we've managed to find surprisingly many scraps of information on an obscure child emperor. As for Williamson, there have been some concerns that the main article was getting too bloated so I thought some of the stuff would be better off on separate book articles and I created a couple for the books that had received the most attention. Policy would allow us to also create articles for Tour of Duty, The Weapon, Rogue and Better to Beg Forgiveness... but I think that might be overkill. However, restoring the article on the Freehold series (which I turned into a redirect) and expanding it with the relevant sources is something that might be considered. But I'm holding off on further action for now until I receive the Locus issue I ordered. Haukur (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
See wp:fork, just because it is objected to here does not mean it needs or deserves its own article. But any discussion about the notability of specific books should be on those talk pages.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Lardas

I've been wondering, who on Earth is Mark Lardas and why are we getting all our information from him? Turns out, it's not just us. Dude is cited on literally dozens of Wikipedia articles. You want to know about the Underground Railroad? Mark Lardas has you covered. The Space Shuttle Challenger? We're citing Lardas. Want to make a Ship in a bottle? Lardas will sort you out. The USS Constellation (1797)? Lardas. Sharon Lee (writer)? Lardas. 1636: The Devil's Opera? Lardas. And so on. Seems like a pretty interesting guy – incredibly prolific and almost certainly notable. Haukur (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Locus

Regarding using Locus as a source, @Haukurth:, this seems to be a problem. You have linked to several items that did not actually source from Locus itself but were merely copies from non-reliable sources. One was even not link-credited but only written with a note "via File770" that turned out to go to a submission placed on File770 by one of Baen's editors. It may be that Locus itself has become unreliable or that it is merely the Locus Online portion of the entity that has become unreliable. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you're talking about a reference you removed from Forged in Blood now so maybe we should discuss this over there? Haukur (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
If you have to you have to but you made the same mistake here with the Critters poll too, attributing it to Locus when you shouldn't have. And it didn't take that much to realize it wasn't a poll run by Locus. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this was in the text before I started editing the Williamson article. But I should have looked more carefully into it before copying it to the Forged in Blood article and I'm glad you caught the error. Haukur (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Z._Williamson/Archive_1&oldid=1116675018"