Talk:Ray Bradbury/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Ray Bradbury. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lack of parity with Deaths in 2012

This article lacks parity with the article Deaths in 2012, which gives his date of death as June 6 - here, the date of his death is given as June 5. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

According to his daughter, as reported in the Washington Post, he died on Tuesday the 5th. JoelWhy? talk 15:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and this website:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57448127-10391698/ray-bradbury-dead-at-91/

gives the date of his death as "Tuesday night", which would have been June 5. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

So the Deaths in 2012 needs to be changed to June 5th. I've changed it there. WeatherExperiment (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Main image

Does anyone think the original 1975 image would be better? He's still recognizable as Bradbury but it's professionally taken (I.E. he's posing for the camera and smiling) and it looks a bit better than the one one from 2009.--CyberGhostface (talk)

I agree, and was just coming here to make the same request after seeing the '09 image on the main page. It is extremely unflattering. 72.28.82.250 (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll go change it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception section

The section entitled "Critical Reception" states that "[c]ritical opinion of Bradbury's work is sharply divided." However, this section only cites two critics. One, Christopher Isherwood, is a highly reputed mainstream critic. While the other critic cited, Damon Knight, is also highly regarded, he is also notorious as a contrarian who holds opinions unique to himself, and was a rival science fiction writer. You may recall him from "To Serve Man," you know, "it's a COOKBOOK."

I do not believe this section accurately represents the real critical response to Bradbury, which is nearly uniformly positive. The consensus is that Bradbury is one of the greatest authors of science fiction and fantasy. It is only sharply divided between generally recognized literary critics, and a couple outliers. I'm not saying Damon Knight's opinion has no value, but it certainly does not represent a sizable camp.

I just noticed I dumped this into a section for issues from 2008. If someone really wants to create a 2011 section, knock yourself out. I don't feel it's a burning issue to me, I just think it should probably be resolved sometime within our lifetimes. Muldrake (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Had the same reaction to the section. It's hardly an appropriate way to define "critical reception" by merely quoting two disparate opinions that equate to "I liked it" and "I didn't like it" -- claiming these are the "sharp divide" that all critics hold. I'm killing this section until someone formulates a properly written one, worthy of a writer of Bradbury's stature. --HidariMigi (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the critical reception section was removed. I don't know if it's standard for author articles on Wikipedia, but it would be strange if it were, at least for widely influential authors. Authors of Bradbury's stature are going to have a lot of positive reviews... that's why they're so famous to begin with! And the nature of literary criticism is that famous authors are going to be heavily criticized.. that's how the critics make their living. Just like with other kinds of criticism of other topics, a well-written article should really incorporate any reactions/reception in the appropriate places in the article. --C S (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Template

I quickly created the template for Ray Bradbury based on the one I set up for Cormac McCarthy and others. It needs to be fleshed out some more but I don't have the time right now. You can edit it at Template:Ray Bradbury. Remember (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, no one had created a template for him? how sad. thanks so much for the initial effort.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.189 (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Los Angeles relevance

Good to work this source in: "Ray Bradbury, science fiction writer, was grounded in Los Angeles"(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.189 (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Butterfly effect

I think we need some effort to document whether he did in fact help create the phrase Butterfly effect with his story A Sound of Thunder. the article on the effect seems to say he borrowed the idea from earlier writing. i think he was the first to use the butterfly as an example. prove me wrong.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.189 (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

He didn't come up with the idea of the Butterfly Effect. The idea is old. According to the Wikipedia article on the topic, he was the first to use a butterfly as an example in print, but yes, it'd be nice to have an authoritative source stating that. It was Lorenz, however, that coined and popularized the term itself. --C S (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And importantly I don't think it was that "he" specifically set out to coin the term, it just was a very accessible story to explain the idea of chaos effects for the popular culture. --MASEM (t) 03:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Writing process

According to a blog, he could do seven rewrites od a story; "Bradbury writes that he typically does seven rewrites of a story. This, of course, was before word processors, so he just didn’t edit a story, he started at the beginning and wrote the story again. He had the advantage of being able to borrow words, phrases and even paragraphs from the previous versions, but each rewrite was a creative experience where he would extend or compress or explore the story in a different way. Bradbury also wrote that he sometimes writes a story in a fever, puts it in an envelope and mails it out immediately on finishing. He doesn’t say which method produces the best stories." Since this is from a blog, the source is usually not seen as good enoug for Wikipedia, but the info seems to come from Bradbury's book "Zen in the Art of Writing." Just in case someone owns the book. 84.210.17.201 (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

NEA article and "Los Angeles Science Fiction Society"

The article lists the name as given in this WP entry. However, though this matches my personal memories (of little interest to other editors and none to WP), it does not match the history page of the "Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society" which claims to have been the source of the handbill. I added a note to the text, as the article redirects to the current LASFS article.User talk:Unfriend12 18:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Died during Venus transit?

The article says that he died during the transit of Venus, and there is a reference. However, a source I found says that he died in the morning and the transit didn't start until 3:09PM in his time zone. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, some other sources say he died Tuesday night, which could have been during the transit. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that Bradbury wrote science fiction, but the article calls his death a "coincidence" with a Venus transit, which might suggest he was quite interested in astronomy or observing these kinds of things. Is this true? Just wondering. --Ds13 (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, it's unclear what makes this a "coincidence". Some clarification is needed.--JayJasper (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a coincidence - whether it is important is another matter. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That's true, it's the significance of the coincidence that isn't made clear.--JayJasper (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

One of his most famous books is about Mars, the next farthest planet from the Sun and Venus us the next closest. But that is quite a stretch. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth noting it's a coincidence... after all, what else would it be? Nonetheless, I think the transit of Venus is rare enough that it's simply good writing to note the fact (but omitting the word "coincidentally"). For example, if he was born on a Leap Day, we'd note it, even though that happens far more often and is not really significant in any way for most people. --C S (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

All of the sources say Tuesday evening in California, which is when the transit was operating. As one of the premier science fiction authors in the world, who captured the world's imagination with his science-fiction visions, of course it's significance and worth noting and a major and eloquent coincidence. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Including the Venus transit without a reliable (read: non-blog) source is basically original research, putting weight on the coincidence. If other reliable sources go "hey, look at this... " we can talk about how others noted this coincidence, but we as WP editors cannot make the connection. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/Masem.--JayJasper (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a question of sources. If Bradbury had been an astronomer, it might be amusing to note. As it is there is no coincidence whatsoever. Stars and planets are always doing stuff out there, and Bradbury did not particularly write about them as far as I know. Really, this is just nonsense. Mezigue (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes - But To Be Clear - Ray Bradbury Seems To Be *Very* Well-Known For At Least One Notable "Planet Venus" Story (even made into a TV version by PBS) -> "All Summer in a Day" (sufficiently notable for its own wikipedia article) - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

To some extent, maybe. Let's say that the celestial event was something Mars related, which is probably the only aspect of space that Bradbury is connected to. I would have expected a deluge of sources pointing this coincidence out. As it was something with Venus, a planet that he rarely wrote about and certainly far from immediate association, the existing sourcing that describes this connection is as much as I expected - read: nearly nil. But in general, concidences need to be sourced before we can point them out. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - Seems There May Be (at least?) The Following (possibly reliable?) Reference Sources re The "Coincidence" Of Bradbury's Passing & The Venus Transit -> "Discovery News" AND "CNN News" AND "NOLA News" AND "LambdaLiterary News" - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

To me, it's a no-brainer that the coincidence of Bradbury's death and the transit of Venus should at least be MENTIONED in the article. Puhleeze. He wrote a very compelling story about a rare event on Venus itself, that the Sun appears once every 7 years -- a rare celestial event involving Venus and the Sun. And then he dies on an exceedingly rare event, a transit of Venus across the Sun -- happening less than twice each century -- again, involving Venus and the Sun. If that coincidence is not noteworthy, then nothing is. If Bradbury had had any control whatsoever on the date of his imminent death, I can't imagine him choosing a better event during which to die then a transit of Venus. If that coincidence doesn't belong in the article, then what does? Are we writing articles for automatons, or for human beings who can appreciate a significant coincidence when it smacks them in the face? --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 00:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A point of comparison: Pope John Paul II had solar eclipses to mark both his arrival on planet Earth and his departure. There was one on the day he was born, but despite what some sources say, he wasn’t born “during” the eclipse. It happened at a different time of the day, and it wasn’t even visible in Poland at all. Then, there was another eclipse on the day of his funeral. But these don’t get a mention in his main article, being relegated to a dot point in Pope John Paul II in popular culture. This, despite the obvious significance of eclipses to JPII's place in the Prophecy of the Popes, in which his slogan was "de labore solis". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; this issue goes away if reliable sources report this as an interesting coincidence. If they do, we can and should note that they did. And it looks like we may have those sources, linked above, from Drbogdan. Other arguments, rational as they are, risk being read as original research. --Ds13 (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think reliable sourcing is the issue. Question is if it is relevant to encyclopedic coverage. We are not writing stories here; not even biographies. We report hard, dry facts, not interesting coincidences. The goals and standards of journalistic writing are different; we can't include this tidbit here just because newspaper and magazine writers have mentioned it to juice up their articles. Their writing belongs in a genre different from encyclopedic articles. See news style. Ajoykt (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I also cannot support inclusion of this entirely coincidental event.User talk:Unfriend12 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I've attempted to render the passage in question into passably encyclopedic prose, but can't disguise the fact this is probably not encyclopedic material in the first place. We should be more wary of material that justifies its existence with "notably" or "interestingly". Especially when it's buttressed and bolstered by such an excrescence of minor online sources. I won't object if anyone removes this whole, um, "notably interesting coincidence." Haploidavey (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The way to include "coincidences" like this in general as an encyclopedic aspect is to note that reporters/journalists made this connection within the article prose, as this takes any original research out of our hands and puts it to the sources (the fact here now being that the coincidence was observed by journalists). So how to include it isn't a problem, it comes down to the reliability of the sources that provide that info. If it's just from blogs, that's less impressive than if it was coming from major daily newspapers. That's likely the only deciding line here. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree, Masem. We are not obligated as a community to include something simply because it was in the press... only to NOT include it if it is NOT in the press. While I don't see any guideline that would require it to be excluded, this seems to be trivia about his death... like pointing out that it rained miserably at the funeral... or that it was particularly hot... even if it is in the press, it just isn't encyclopedia material. On the other hand, including or not including seems trivia, heh, and I certainly don't expect to be the one to remove it. But I do support its removal, and oppose inclusion, referring to wp:NOT. My argument against is weak... but we could drown in silly but true junk that is in press.User talk:Unfriend12 18:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying my personal choice either way to include it or not. However, I will say that the fact that sources have noted it is a good sign that it could be included without violating OR/TRIVIA, in which we usually don't include such claims when there's no sources to back them up. There's still question if it is important to include and if the sources that state it are reliable enough, but the specific argument against inclusion due to it being just straight up unsourced trivia is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

wp:RS doesn't speak to trivia at all... only wp:verifiability. If it isn't in a published source, whether trivial or earth-shattering, it doesn't belong in WP. But there are entire books (popular reference books even) of trivia. Some of it, WP includes (longest marriages, for example).User talk:Unfriend12 19:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to offer another thought in defense of not including it at the present: WP:Recentism. Using the logic of the "first rough draft of history", let's not rush to include it. Let's wait until people decide to continue saying it when it no longer two recent events and it wasn't just trivia that was pulled off of Wikipedia. As an ongoing encyclopedia project, we have the luxury of time.Novangelis (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)

Self disclosure: I grew up on Ray Bradbury science fiction, and I also studied orbital mechanics during middle school some 45+ years ago. I can't blame most editors for assuming that Bradbury's death during a transit of Venus is nothing more than a trivial coincidence. However, it is not trivia, and not merely a coincidence. It is sublimely profound.

One of Bradbury's most famous short stories All Summer in a Day is about a rare celestial event in which the Sun is only visible on Venus for 2 hours every 7 years. Here we have Bradbury himself leaving this Earth during an event that is "among the rarest of predictable astronomical phenomena" (quoting Transit of Venus), something that only happens for a few hours twice each 113 years, but likewise involving the Sun and Venus.

But it's more profound than that. The reason transits of Venus are so rare is that it requires both Venus and Earth to simultaneously be at very specific points in the Solar System. Earth and Venus both orbit the Sun, but on slightly different planes. The two orbital planes intersect along a single straight line passing through the Sun's center of gravity. For a transit of Venus to happen, both Earth and Venus must happen to pass through that line at the same time, and they must do so on the same side of the Sun (not on opposite sides of the Solar System, where they would be invisible to each other because of the Sun between them).

So not only did Bradbury die at a very specific moment in time, he died at a very specific place in the Solar System (along the line of intersection of Venus/Earth orbital planes).

But it's even more profound than that. The reason transits of Venus occur in a 243-year cycle is because "the periodicity is a reflection of the fact that the orbital periods of Earth and Venus are close to 8:13 and 243:395 commensurabilities" (again quoting Transit of Venus). This commensurability is the reason the orbits of Venus and Earth are stable with respect to each other. If Venus orbited in a larger or smaller ellipse, then it would destabilize Earth's orbit until the two orbits adjusted to some other commensurability, and Earth would end up in a different orbit, either closer to the Sun or farther away, and our years would no longer be 365.25 days long. Venus and Earth, though a great distance apart, are inexorably connected through their orbital commensurability.

Knowing Ray Bradbury's work as I do, I am absolutely certain he appreciated as I do just how special a transit of Venus really is, both in time and in place. I have no doubt whatsoever that he would have wanted his death during a transit of Venus to be mentioned in his article. It is a sublimely profound conjunction among the Sun, Venus, Earth and the arc of his life. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 02:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is not an in-memoriam piece. It is not meant to honor or further Ray Bradbury's memory and legacy. There are other forums for that. The world, at large, needs to accept the "transit" coincidence as a legend associated with Bradbury before we should include it. Ajoykt (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Since when are we in the business of perpetuating legends? Our job is to make sure the content is notable, verifiable, useful, and (dare I say it?) interesting. Would you rather remove everything remotely interesting, making it as bland as possible? --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 02:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I read that twice but I don't see an argument for inclusion, and do see an ad hominem attack. Perhaps striking through your comment on other editors reasons for argument and focusing on the argument might make your position more clear?User talk:Unfriend12 03:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No attack intended. I just don't see why such a profoundly interesting verifiable fact can't even be mentioned with a mere phrase. Can't articles be interesting? --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 03:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess not. (Yawn.) --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 03:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Of the three, only verifiability has been met. Notability and usefulness require that this coincidence be mentioned by reliable sources over a long enough period, not just in the one obituary article of some magazines. As far as being "interesting" goes, how do we know if people do find this interesting? We don't make that call; we wait for others (the secondary-source media) to. If this is truly interesting, then secondary sources will continue to include this in articles about Bradbury, and, yes, it will become a "legend-like fact" worthy of inclusion here. Ajoykt (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Big quote in the lead.

I removed it, in keeping with wp:MOS, wp:lead. If it is a widely used quote, it should have a source, and perhaps add it to wikiquote. Or perhaps it belongs in the body with a tie-in to that section of the prose.User talk:Unfriend12 02:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambig in the lead for ... his own story collection?

This seems to be another departure from wp:MOS. I am moving this to a new SA section and think it should stay there unless someone knows of a reason this should be in the lead... and... seriously... an eponymous story collection is something that someone is going to ... confused with the author? By anyone able to read WP? User talk:Unfriend12 02:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, his works have their own article. I don't think this belongs here at all, but am going to move it to the bib section and add a sentence. But unless someone thinks it really needs to be here, I will cut it.User talk:Unfriend12 03:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously... someone is going to mistake the series for the author? This was restored without comment. I'll remove it soon unless there is a reason it needs to be here (that is, a consensus). And no, there is no ambiguity. This is just clutter.User talk:Unfriend12 12:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's appropriate per WP:HATNOTE; since the author and one of the books share the same name, someone could be looking for the book by searching "Ray Bradbury" (unaware that the book exists at the disamb title). It's not that people will confuse the author and book, but instead to help those searching for the book to find the article faster. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:SIMILAR is clear: "When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not, the undisambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article." I am restoring the hatnote.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Song based on a short story doesn't belong.

I killed it before... this time I just moved it out of the awards and honors (it isn't), and tagged it. I think it needs to go. Unless someone has a reason for inclusion, I'll kill it again eventually.User talk:Unfriend12 01:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That somebody has a song based on a Bradbury short story is relevant to the Bradbury article. It is, in a sense, honoring him. And "Veldt" is not an obscure story; it and others like it are the reason why Bradbury's genre is thought to include horror in addition to sci-fi. As for the citation tag you added, the inline wiki link takes you to a Wikipedia article on the song, with links to secondary-source coverage. The secondary-source coverage of the song invariably mentions Bradbury (see http://mixmag.net/words/news/deadmau5-the-veldt- and http://www.djmag.com/news/detail/3333).Ajoykt (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"That somebody has a song based on a Bradbury short story is relevant to the Bradbury article." - These pop culture sections are huge spam magnets. Every garage band in the universe might make a song dedicated to a famous person, to get listed in the person's WP article. And often do. This reflects only on the fact that the band is not stupid, and the person is famous. Nothing more.

Are you arguing that the not-a-hit, not-popular-press-covered song should remain here? Shall we limit it to the 1st 100?User talk:Unfriend12 00:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, deadmau5 himself has been on the cover of rollingstone (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/on-the-cover-the-rise-of-deadmau5-20120620), and his Wikipedia page attracts more viewers per day (8000/day) than ours does (2000-odd/day). Of course, 50 years from now, I suspect we will still attract at least the same number; don't know about him. I am no expert at gauging pop culture popularity (and how relevant rolling stone is to today's generation), but the guy does seem genuinely notable, even if not particularly notable. Ajoykt (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I still am not hearing an argument for inclusion here. Has the press covered this usage... was the use of the Bradbury story noted in the press? Or was it just mentioned in the review of the song, giving its origin? The notability of the song, its writer, its performers, is not in question here.User talk:Unfriend12 04:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Advert for article/author/Ink19

I have removed this twice, and expect to continue to remove it. If there is some content there that needs to be incorporated into the article, and if it meets wp:RS, then the content needs to be added, with the article as a source.User talk:Unfriend12 18:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Blackstone or Electrico?

I was watching an interview of Bradbury: Day at Night - Ray Bradbury. In this interview Bradbury said that it was Blackstone not Electrico who told him to live forever. I was wondering if this is an error on the article not. Could someone clear this up for me please? 68.115.195.222 (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)guineandrummerboy

Pseudonyms

The archive search hits no substantial mention of pseudonyms.

Ray Bradbury at ISFDB lists 11 alternate names including nine that are pseudonyms rather than variants. Here are the nine with hasty notes that count ISFDB listings for the pseudonym as author. ("story" means publication)

Brett Sterling — used 9 times by three people? 1943-48 and 1968-69[1]
Edward Banks — no supporting data
D. R. Banat — one 1945 story
Leonard Douglas — no supporting data
William Elliott — one 1946 story
Leonard Spalding — one 1950 story
Ron Reynolds — two 1939-40 stories
Guy Amory — three 1939-40 stories
Doug Rogers — one 1939 story

The article now uses 'pseudonym' twice, both re "Green Town" as "the pseudonym for his hometown".

My WP:COMMENTs in the template {{infobox writer}} and {{persondata}} code note that ISFDB lists several pseudonyms.

--P64 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Pseudonyms

ISFDB lists eight substantially Alternate Names, with nine works credited to them, iicc. There are three credits for Guy Amory (1939 and 1940), two for Ron Reynolds, one or none for the others.

We now give no pseudonym= in {{Infobox writer}}. That may be reasonable considering how little Bradbury's pseudonyms were used. Perhaps some annotation, eg "Several before YYYY[1]" with formal reference to ISFDB.

And none in template {{Persondata}}, which holds hidden Metadata --that is, no ALTERNATIVE NAMES value except "Bradbury, Ray Douglas (full name)"

I have not checked our prose coverage. --P64 (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Influences/influenced

These sections seem very strangely balanced for a writer widely considered one of the most influential of the twentieth century. Surely there must be more writers out there who acknowledge Ray Bradbury's influence on their works. —Dfeuer (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

These fields have troubled many biography editors. Since 2013-07-22 and 2013-08-04 they are no longer supported by {{Infobox person}}, nor by its offspring {{Infobox writer}}. There was a lot of parental discussion during July: See Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should the "influences" & "influenced" parameters be removed?. Infobox writer followed its parent with little delay and less discussion (Template talk:Infobox writer#"Influences" and "Influenced".)

These fields may have been dropped by other spinoffs such as artist, comedian, and so on.

The documentation for {{Infobox writer}} now instructs (twice): "No longer supported. Please move cited/citable instances into prose."

Here is a display of the current parameter values, adequate for reference.

|influences = Leigh Brackett,^[1] Edgar Rice Burroughs, Aldous Huxley, H. P. Lovecraft, George Orwell, Edgar Allan Poe, Katherine Anne Porter, Alex Raymond, George Bernard Shaw, Mary Shelley, John Steinbeck, Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Jessamyn West, Thomas Wolfe. Yevgeny Zamyatin, Edith Wharton, Stanley G. Weinbaum, Eudora Welty,^[2] Jack Williamson^{[citation needed]}
|influenced = Neil Gaiman, Clive Barker,^[3]Joss Whedon, Kim Harrison, Stephen King,^[4] Dean Koontz, Charles L. Grant, R.L. Stine

^ Leigh Brackett, "Sea-Kings of Mars and Otherworldly Stories", Gollancz, London, 2005, p. xii
^ Cite error: The named reference Paris Review was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Influences". Clive Barker Revelations. Retrieved 27 November 2011.
^ King, Stephen (1981). Stephen King's danse macabre. Macdonald. p. ^{[page needed]}. ISBN 0-354-04647-0. My first experience of real horror came at the hands of Ray Bradbury.

--P64 (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I think information about what writers acknowledge the influence of a given writer is somewhat valuable. Obtaining that information, however, requires a sort of reverse lookup. The most effective approach would be to build a database of acknowledged influence that can be queried in either direction. --Dfeuer (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Is clarification necessary?

The current owner of the body of work created by Bradbury wrote to suggest that the entry:

Bradbury's personal library was willed to the Waukegan Public Library, where he had many of his formative reading experiences.

needs correction.

The issue is whether it is clear that the donation was of books owned by Bradbury, not books written by Bradbury (with the exception of some foreign language editions)

I think it is clear that the term "personal library" means books owned by Bradbury, but does not imply the donation of the books written by Bradbury, but I can image that some might misread it.

Does anyone else think it needs clarification? If so, feel free to come up with better wording--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

critical assessment section

This article needs a "Critical assessement" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.242.246 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Ray Bradbury house torn down in LA

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

citation needed

I agree that "Bradbury was one of the most celebrated 20th-century American writers" - but Wikipedia requires verification for such statements. Can some-one living in America please go down to a library and get a good citation from one of the many literature reference works that substantiate this statement? Kdammers (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the "Awards and honors" section more than suffices as verification of that statement. Note that per WP's guidelines, it is not always neccessary to use citations in the lead, particularly if the statements are uncontentious and well-sourced in the body of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

About a dozen Americans received the Nobel Prize for Literature in the twentieth century. Vladimir Nabokov wrote some of the best novels in both English and Russian during the same time period and became an international celebrity, as did Kurt Vonnegut and many other American novelists, poets and playwrights from at least the 1920s on. Bradbury was essentially a pulp writer who collected his stories in a few popular volumes and wrote a novel that became a moderately successful movie. Thereafter he found himself positioned to be marketed as the foremost American SF/fantasy author who "wrote well." His serious literary reputation is nil, but he did live long enough to pick up those extremely assorted "honors", especially after turning 80. No doubt Laura Bush considers him an important addition to American letters. The reference to his work on "It Came from Outer Space" as a primary part of his oeuvre is such a hoot that I'm almost tempted to recommend leaving it in as is,where is. Otherwise, the page is disastrously repetitive, uncritical and gushing. Maybe appropriate that it reads like a piece of hackneyed homage. Did you mention Berenson? Might want to throw that in for that extra touch of class. Along with the LA streetcorner.68.178.50.46 (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Probably overstated my case earlier. Bradbury did write some great short stories, especially in his early career and it is probably safe to say that his literary reputation lies there, before he was overcome by overpraise and sentimentality. How about a section on the short stories written by some competent contributor? After all the repetitious drek has been cut down. Also a link to the 1950-51 Dimension X radio adaptations, which featured Bradbury and Vonnegut stories. I am looking for material on the early relationship of these two writers, but evidence is sparse so far.68.178.50.46 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ray Bradbury. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ray Bradbury. 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120808221828/http://www.skyandtelescope.com:80/news/home/165273796.html to http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/165273796.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

English descent?

I find it unlikely that statements "father was English descent" and "descended from Mary Bradbury" make sense at the same time. According the article of Mary Bradbury "In 1636 she married Thomas Bradbury of Salisbury, Massachusetts, considered one of its most distinguished citizens". So, that is where the name comes from? Pretty distant English descent. 85.76.140.76 (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

external links modified

Hello,

I have just added a link to a short story (the full text) by Ray Bradbury. No News, or What Killed the Dog? (full text) at The Short Story Project Please review. Oddty (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ray Bradbury. 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20120909130617/http://www.kinomaniac.ru/movie.php?id=1366 to http://www.kinomaniac.ru/movie.php?id=1366

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) 17:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ray Bradbury. 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) 18:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ray Bradbury. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005161805/http://www.spotlight.ucla.edu/ray-bradbury/ to http://www.spotlight.ucla.edu/ray-bradbury/

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) 02:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Extensive source of interviews with Bradbury, for however it may help

http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:168044/datastream/PDF/view --occono (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Simon & Schuster statement untrue as of 2021?

There's no free download visible there these days. Maybe I just can't see it: [2]. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

[1] Leigh Brackett, "Sea-Kings of Mars and Otherworldly Stories", Gollancz, London, 2005, p. xii

[Paris_Review-2] Cite error: The named reference Paris Review was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] "Influences". Clive Barker Revelations. Retrieved 27 November 2011.

[4] King, Stephen (1981). Stephen King's danse macabre. Macdonald. p. ^{[page needed]}. ISBN 0-354-04647-0. My first experience of real horror came at the hands of Ray Bradbury.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]