Talk:Robert Stanek/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Contents

[edit] Bibliography (Fiction)

While I am mostly amused by Stanek's apparent ability at self-promotion, I do think it would be in the spirit of NPOV to include a fiction bibliography under the nonfiction bibliography. I had a look at Regent Press and Amazon but I decided no way was I going to try and make sense of all that. If there are Stanek fans still lurking here and someone would like to compile a fiction bibliography in the style of the nonfiction bbl on the article page, I would support an edit request in favor of adding it. Thatcher131 13:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur... but one entry per title, not one entry for every edition of every title ever conceived, and no entries for books that haven't seen print yet. Nor would I object to a single picture of a cover. Perhaps just above the bibliography a note something like the following would be appropriate: "Due to the highly controversial nature of this author and his fiction titles, potential buyers are encouraged to read all the reviews for each book, both positive and negative, before making a decision to purchase." Synthfilker 16:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
"Due to the highly controversial nature of this author and his fiction titles, potential buyers are encouraged to read all the reviews for each book, both positive and negative, before making a decision to purchase." I agree about the cover photo and titles but disagree about a warning. Seems very POV, WP is not a book reviewer, etc. Thatcher131 16:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Edit (Reagent Press)

Please replace this paragraph

In addition to his non-fiction work, he has written a number of fantasy novels and fantasy series published by Reagent Press, an independent press. As Reagent Press seems to exist primarily to publish Stanek novels, there is wide speculation that it is a vanity press controlled by Stanek. Stanek's claims to bestsellerdom are not supported by any outside evidence.

with this one

In addition to his non-fiction work, he has written a number of fantasy novels and fantasy series, including the Ruin Mist series, published by Reagent Press. Reagent Press has called Stanek "America's Tolkien" and claims his books are bestsellers. Reagent Press is a sole proprietorship owned by William R. Stanek. [1] Sales claims can not be independently verified.

Thank you. Thatcher131 17:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Arwel (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Um.... I was about to agree, it seems reasonable... then I checked out the link to the state site above. Seems Reagent Press is NAICS code "511120", but that's supposed to be "Periodicals" (i.e. magazines). Books are supposed to be category 51113 or 511130. So, technically, Reagent Press is a magazine publisher, and therefore shouldn't even have a 'best seller' list - AND should probably be required to submit circulation data to some area of public record! Based on that information, I'd have to disagree with this edit in its current form. Synthfilker 18:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the NAICS codes are mainly for use by the census bureau and other government agencies involved in classifying economic activity. [2] I can't see any suggestion that they are in any way legally binding or that there are penalties for misclassification. In fact, different government agencies may assign different NAICS codes to the same business, and companies can change their NAICS code at will. [3] I'm sure there is nothing wrong with Brad T. Stanek doing business as "The Burger Bar" even though it has an invalid code 999990. [4]
Reagent Press is a sole proprietorship and I imagine it can engage in any legal business activity it wants to; that's certainly how it works in my state. Note that even incorporated businesses are generally incorporated "to carry out any of the legal functions of a corporation" and are not restricted to one particular business activity. The important things is that searching the State of Washington Secretary of State's office web site reveals that Reagent Press is a sole proprietorship and the owner of record is William R. Stanek. Unless someone wants to argue that William R. Stanek the owner is unrelated to William R. Stanek and Robert Stanek the authors (what a coincidence!), then I don't see a problem.
Frankly, if there is any problem with the edit, I thought I would be accused of making fun of Mr. Stanek by quoting a Reagent Press press release ("America's Tolkien") and then revealing he owns the company. Thatcher131 19:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
So, do you want it reverted, then? Personally I think the point of the edit is that Reagent Press is owned by William R. Stanek, regardless of what Reagent Press actually does (if much, which is the whole point of the controversy over the sales figures). -- Arwel (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested edit (Fiction bibliography)

Per my discussion with Synthfilk, here is the list of fictional works by Stanek, rescued from the edit history. I have trimmed it to include only books that have been published to date.

This looks reasonable. I concur. I think there's still a place for a NPOV "warning" of the type I mentioned earlier in the discussion, but am willing to discuss placing it elsewhere, perhaps in the "controversy" section. Synthfilker 18:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
If you could demonstrate verifiably that Stanek's amazon reviews were astroturf, then you could include a warning without violating NPOV. We can factually state he owns the press and sales claims can not be indpendently verified; but without proof, a warning would be based only on a theory about the author's behavior.Thatcher131 20:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Like this? (See "Sock Puppetry on Amazon - Evidence) If this isn't sufficient, would similar evidence on other titles be sufficient? I don't believe we have to limit this to exclusively the author's behavior - the net effect is the same whether he does it alone or has assistance. Synthfilker 22:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
But do we include lists of self-published books? The non-fiction books were at least subject to scrutiny by other humans. Doesn't listing self-published books as "publications" give them undue prominence? I'm the one who initially deleted them all, deeming them advertising. I'm willing to be over-ruled, but I'd like the list to be labeled in some way that doesn't put them on a par with the non-fiction books. Zora 19:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point; however some of the computer books are published by Reagent and some by Microsoft Press or others; unless we go through a weeding out process in that list too I think both lists could stand. They are listed on Amazon and seem to generate some sales, although the volume is unverifiable, and I think this discussion process proves he is more notable than the average vanity author (whatever that is). Also there is the issue that Stanek/Reagent Press is pushing the Ruin Mist books on elementary schools (offering group discounts, publishing a teachers guide, etc.) If the book titles are listed on WP, then a search on the titles should bring up Stanek's article. I would like say his books are terrible, most of the Amazon reviews are sockpuppets, he's a huckster who shouldn't be trusted; but I can't. I can say he owns the Press and let people make up their own minds. Thatcher131 20:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Zora, if you still feel strongly about it I would agree to an alternate edit of pruning the non-fiction to only include works not published by Reagent. Thatcher131 20:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be a pretty short list... Title it "Fiction published by other than Reagent Press or other publishers owned by Robert Stanek". The title would be longer than the list ;) Synthfilker 22:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about two lists -- one of material published by non-vanity presses, and one of material published by his own press. Each divided into fiction and non-fiction as necessary (I'm not sure that he's had any fiction published by an outside press, but it's possible). That would make it very clear which titles had outside scrutiny and which didn't. Zora 22:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Using FirstSearch, I can search for an author and exclude a certain publisher. Stanek still has over 80 entries (authored by William R. Stanek). Excluding duplicates and foreign language versions, there are still about 40 titles (quick estimate). Some appear to be actually useful in that 100+ libraries own copies. I don't see that Wikipedia is compelled to list every book by every author. I am withdrawing my edit nomination pending further thought. I still think the fanatsy books are notable, if only because of the way they are promoted. I am leaning toward two lists. Selected bibliography (nonfiction) would list ten or so of Stanek's most important computer books published by non-vanity presses with importance defined, for lack of a better measure, by how many worldwide libraries have it in their collection. The second list would be Selected bibliography (fiction) and would have immediately under the section header, "These titles are all published by Reagent Press, which is owned by William R. Stanek. Claimed sales figures can not be independently verified." Then listing ten or so of the fantasy books, including the first title in each main series. Thatcher131 23:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If you agree with the proposed bibliography, please add editprotected tag to it. Or we can discuss. Thatcher131 23:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Keep an eye out for "The Virtual Press", who I vaguely recall determining was also Stanek-owned. Shimgray | talk | 23:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Virtual Press was the predecessor of Reagent, per Reagent's own press releases. None of his non-fiction is published by Virtual. Some of his computer books were published by Sams.net of Indianapolis (whatever that is), but that was mostly in the 90s and none of those are on the selected list below. All of his fiction seems to have been published by Reagent or Virtual. Thatcher131 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
          • SAMS Publishing of 800 East 96th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 is a reputable publisher of computer books, though they use www.samspublishing.com for their website, sams.net seems to be some sort of restricted site needing a sign-in, so I don't know if they're related. -- Arwel (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
sams.net is registered to "Synergy Software Technologies Inc., Essex Junction, VT", registered 1998; they seem to be synergysw.com. samspublishing.com is registered by the Pearson Technology Centre, Old Tappan, NJ, since 1996. Different organisations. Shimgray | talk | 19:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not questioning any of his computer books. Indeed it's likely that he can write clearly, on a deadline, and produce exactly what the client wants, or else he would not keep getting PC book contracts. The issue below is whether to list his whole bibliography or selected works, and how to select them. I did not purposely exclude any books published by Sam's but the ones I did pick were more current and owned by more libraries. Thatcher131 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed edit (revised)

[edit] Selected bibliography (nonfiction)

  • Peter Norton's Guide to Java Programming with Peter Norton (1996)
  • Web Publishing Unleashed: Professional Reference Edition (1996)
  • Learn the Internet in a Weekend (1997)
  • Windows 2000 Scripting Bible (2000)
  • Microsoft FrontPage 2002 Unleashed (2002)
  • Java 2 All - In - One Certification: Exam Guide with Barry Boone (2003)
  • Faster Smarter Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003 with Greg Holden (2003)
  • Microsoft Windows 2000 Administrator's Pocket Consultant (2003)
  • Microsoft Windows Server 2003: Administrator's Pocket Consultant (2003)
  • Guide to Javascript (2005)
  • Increase Your Web Traffic in a Weekend, 4th edition with Jerry Lee Ford (2005)

Note: I realize Amazon is not the definitive source, but it is one of those people are most likely to use. It would make sense to limit the selection to books readily avalable - are those "non-Amazon" books still in print? Synthfilker 03:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Titles and dates and co-authors verified with Bowkers Global Books in Print, limited to US market, readily available, and excluding Reagent Press. Updated some editions. William "B". definitely an Amazon typo. Inclusion of co-authors is a good idea. I think the goal here is to provide a fair and representative sample of his "legitimate" non-fiction computer books--that may mean including books like the Windows Server admin guide that are special order but are nevertheless widely held by University libraries; or including titles no longer in print but significant when published (again, judging from library holdings, not the best measure but the only objective one I have access to). WP is not Amazon or Books in Print and if someone really wants to know what is currently available they can look it up (plus, if we decide to make this a "current" listing, someone has to keep it current indefinitely). Thatcher131 04:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we're ready to publish the bibliographies now. Synthfilker 15:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selected bibliography (fiction)

These titles are published by Reagent Press, which is owned by William R. Stanek. As such, claimed sales figures cannot be independently verified.

[edit] Adult Fiction Series

Ruin Mist Chronicles

  • Keeper Martin's Tale (2002)
  • Kingdom Alliance (2003)
  • Fields of Honor (2004)
  • Elf Queen's Quest (2002)

[edit] Young Adult Fiction Series

Keeper Martin's Tales

  • The Kingdoms and the Elves of the Reaches (2002)
  • In the Service of Dragons (2004)

Ruin Mist Tales

  • The Elf Queen & The King (2002)

Magic Lands

  • Journey Beyond the Beyond (2002)

[edit] Other novels and collections

  • At Dream's End (1996)
  • Magic Lands & Other Stories (2002)
  • Sovereign Rule (2003)

[edit] Proposed list looks good to me

Thanks for doing the work on those lists. They look manageable. Also, the wording is just right -- we don't trash the fiction books, we just let people know that they're self-published. Readers can draw their own conclusions. Zora 01:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've no objection to the bibliographies as now written. Fixed a minor typo and a small formatting issue, but no content changed. Let's sleep on it and see if we want to make any more changes before requesting the change. Synthfilker 03:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reagent Press book not written by Stanek

Here it is folks, the elusive non-Stanek authored book published by Regeant "Press"....

This is interesting, this book "How Mother Nature Flowered the Fields of Earth and Mars" , has appeard on Regeant's website and Amazon as published by Regeant. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1575451026/104-4425504-3708753

It is supposedely authored by a Tom Schwartz, although I'd guess that is just Stanek's new pen name, as we know that RP is a self-proprietorship of Stanek. ArrowHead 02:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Schwartz is 75 years old and looks nothing like Stanek. What is interesting is that "How Mother Nature..." is marketed as a grade 2-5 book, and Reagent has classroom guides for teachers and read at home guides for parents and offers volume discounts to schools. This is the same approach Stanek has tried with the Keeper Martin's Tales children's books. The tactic raises a certain amount of Machiavellian admiration. Stanek has learned the lesson of the tobacco companies; hook 'em when they're young. All of which is totally off topic for our mild-mannered little encyclopedia, of course. Thatcher131 04:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Edit

Please replace the bibliography on the article page with the revised bibliography below, per the above discussion. Thatcher131 15:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selected bibliography (nonfiction)

  • Peter Norton's Guide to Java Programming with Peter Norton (1996)
  • Web Publishing Unleashed: Professional Reference Edition (1996)
  • Learn the Internet in a Weekend (1997)
  • Windows 2000 Scripting Bible (2000)
  • Microsoft FrontPage 2002 Unleashed (2002)
  • Java 2 All - In - One Certification: Exam Guide with Barry Boone (2003)
  • Faster Smarter Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003 with Greg Holden (2003)
  • Microsoft Windows 2000 Administrator's Pocket Consultant (2003)
  • Microsoft Windows Server 2003: Administrator's Pocket Consultant (2003)
  • Guide to Javascript (2005)
  • Increase Your Web Traffic in a Weekend, 4th edition with Jerry Lee Ford (2005)

[edit] Selected bibliography (fiction)

These titles are published by Reagent Press, which is owned by William R. Stanek. As such, claimed sales figures cannot be independently verified.

[edit] Adult Fiction Series

Ruin Mist Chronicles

  • Keeper Martin's Tale (2002)
  • Kingdom Alliance (2003)
  • Fields of Honor (2004)
  • Elf Queen's Quest (2002)

[edit] Young Adult Fiction Series

Keeper Martin's Tales

  • The Kingdoms and the Elves of the Reaches (2002)
  • In the Service of Dragons (2004)

Ruin Mist Tales

  • The Elf Queen & The King (2002)

Magic Lands

  • Journey Beyond the Beyond (2002)

[edit] Other novels and collections

  • At Dream's End (1996)
  • Magic Lands & Other Stories (2002)
  • Sovereign Rule (2003)


[edit] Proposed edit - for comment and refinement

Expands on "Ansible Controversy" - There's more to this than was originally reported.

[edit] Amazon reviews and legal threats controversy

In the May 2002 issue (178) of David Langford's long-running speculative fiction fanzine, Ansible, David Langford commented:

Authors of fantasies on sale at Amazon.com have noticed a rash of oddly similar customer reviews that rubbish their work and instead recommend, say, George R.R.Martin, Robert Jordan, and Robert Stanek. The number of Big Name commendations varies, but not the plug for self-published author Robert Stanek. Who could possibly be posting these reviews (many since removed by Amazon) under a variety of names? It is a mystery, but Ansible is reminded of how Lionel Fanthorpe's pseudonymous sf would often mention those great classic masters of the genre, Verne, Wells and Fanthorpe. [5]

A second mention of this possible self-promotion was followed by an email threatening legal action if Glasgow University, which hosted the electronic archives of Ansible, did not take down the offending issues. [6]. The university removed the issues. Ansible arranged for other hosting.

The email purported to have been sent by a lawyer named Timothy Donaldson, claiming degrees from George Washington University [7]. No such person is known to exist.

In June of 2002, Stephen Leigh made similar observations regarding the similarity and possible marketing plan behind reviews of Robert Stanek's books and insertions of mentions of Stanek in reviews of other books on Amazon.com. In October of 2002, an amatuerish anonymous Stanek fan website accused Mr. Leigh of being part of a 'conspiracy' against Stanek. Mr. Leigh denied any conspiracy. There is no contact information on the fan website.

A similar effort to the one employed against Mr. Langford and Ansible began on September 17, 2005, attempting to pressure Mr. Leigh to withdraw comments made in his blog on the same subject, the marketing tactics employed by or on behalf of Robert Stanek and/or Reagent Press. The individual claiming to be Timothy Donaldson contacted Mr. Leigh several times, each time growing more insistent that pages making reference to this matter be removed and claiming they were doing Mr. Stanek 'economic harm'. Mr. Leigh ignored these demands, until he was informed of the Ansible situation. At this point, Mr. Leigh began digging into the matter in earnest, and discovered several facts:

  • The Dean of Admissions at the GWU Law School was named Robert V. Stanek - who turned out not to be related to the author Robert Stanek at all.
  • No one named "Timothy Donaldson" had graduated from GWU Law School.
  • There are two lawyers in the US named "Timothy Donaldson" - neither of whom attended GWU Law School.
  • When asked to provide specifics of whom he was representing, his firm (if any), and verification of his licensing and credentials, "Timothy Donaldson" failed to reply, and has appearently lost interest in further pursuing the matter.



The matter re Stephen Leigh should be reported, but at less length. The material re Timothy Donaldson seems to be original research. The original text, which says only that there's no proof of his existence, is more readable. Is the Donaldson research on a website to which we can link?
It's already linked to - it's in the material in the above Stephen Liegh link. There isn't a named sub-section to link to it directly other than the top of the page.Synthfilker 13:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I should also add that I wrote the original text and it lacks dates. Some time separated the two Ansible comments, and the letter of complaint came years later, I believe. This should be made clear. My bad. Zora 07:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As editor of Ansible, I've been restraining myself from comment here, but the proposed edit does seem like Too Much Information! Note that the newsletter is Ansible, not The Ansible. The "Timothy Donaldson" messages came from the effective anonymity of a Hotmail account which -- after seeing the email sent to Glasgow University -- Microsoft cancelled in November 2005. See Ansible 220. --DeafMan 10:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: Dates for Zora. The initial Ansible item was in #178 (May 2002) as above. A correspondent sent in some follow-up info which appeared in #181 (August 2002). After which I forgot all about this until the "Donaldson" complaint caused alarm at Glasgow U in September 2005, leading to my report in #219 (October 2005). --DeafMan 16:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
And as the author quoted above, I've also been refraining from comment on this after a friend pointed me to this page, as I'm obviously not a neutral party... Frankly, I've no wish to have my name associated with Mr. Stanek, whom I don't know and in whom I was interested only from the standpoint of marketing strategies. I'd prefer to have the references to me deleted, but if you must use them, at least get the name right. It's "Stephen," not "Steven"... SLeigh 13:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
My apologies - I have a nephew named "Steven", and make that error all the time. It's been corrected here. There doesn't appear to be much support for adding that part of the story. I think it's important because it shows that the attempt at intimidation was not just an isolated incident, but part of a pattern of behavior. Without support, though, I guess it won't be added. Synthfilker 14:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your reason for wanting to include this but I don't think it's appropriate. The sources are your own deductions, a webzine, and a blogger. It might be useful to change the section header from "Ansible controversy" to "Amazon reviews" but with the same content. It would be nice if Amazon watched their reviews more carefully and took action against astroturfing but they mostly don't. Thatcher131 17:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, they're not "my deductions". The facts are as those presented in the linked articles. Secondly, the sources are of the same quality as those presented for the original "Ansible controversy" section of the article, and in fact further support that incident as well. I don't see that a webzine and blogger of long standing are necessarily inferior sources, particularly when they are independant, corroborate each other, and have nothing to gain from the story. Did you check the linked articles? Synthfilker 19:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
When you first referred me to the Amazon review issue you pointed to a series of reviews that you analyzed on the talk page (now archived). Regarding Ansible and Mr. Leigh's blogs, please look at self-published sources under WP:V. At this point, we can't state as fact that Mr. Stanek astroturfs his Amazon reviews (no matter if we believe it), nor can we say that a source meeting WP:V has alleged that he astroturfs his reviews. I don't mind the current content, because it lets Ansible and Stanek each get a word in, so to speak, and it survived the last revert war. I don't think we should go any farther, though, unless there are more substantial sources making the allegation. (Like an editorial or book review published in Asimov's or F&SF, for example.) Thatcher131 20:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
My investigation of the Amazon reviews was by way of confirming the information in Ansible (and eventually the same information in Mr. Leigh's blogs). This is the "verification" that WP requires. Reading the info on "self-published sources" in WP:V, it does not prohibit such material, merely cautions care with its use and verification of facts. Given Mr. Stanek's... reputation... in the publishing field and the fact that these events transpired entirely within the electronic medium, finding a more "substantial" source is highly unlikely, and the two sources already cited are very reputable in their field - in fact, they are the very essence of a "primary source".
I am willing to forgo the edit as stated above if a real argument can be established against it, but the reasoning you are presenting seems weak at best. I believe the multiple incidents show that the Ansible situation was not simply an isolated event, but a pattern of behavior by or for the benefit of Mr. Stanek designed to have a chilling effect on all criticism of his behavior, and as such is quite notable. It is not the probability of the astroturfing of Amazon that is the issue here - it is the legal threats against any who even mention the possibility in passing. That is the main thrust of this edit. Perhaps renaming the section is in order to make this clear? Synthfilker 21:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deprotected

Think the sock and meat puppets have given up, or will they attack again? Thatcher131 17:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Stanek never gives up. He'll be back if you de-protect this article, without a doubt. The phony reviews...supposed phony reviews on Amazon never relent. Incidentally, Stanek's Kingdoms and the Elves book hit 52,000 on Amazon yesterday in rank, while it's been hovering around 200-300k recently. Scary. ArrowHead 04:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You know that there have been accusations that the reason Dianetics is often on the bestseller lists is that Scientology members buy them in bulk and then return them to the foundation for resale? Apparently someone at Waldenbooks opened a new crate of them and found price tags already on them. I wonder how many Ruin Mist books Amazon ships to addresses near Olympia, Washington? Thatcher131 04:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Jacques

To 131.107.0.106 (talk • contribs) who posted the info about the doctored photo. In general info on wikipedia needs to be verifiable, especially in the case of controversial articles. Can you verify these assertions? Preferably with an independent source? Thanks. Thatcher131 21:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I did some of the original analysis of the photo that this refers to, and I wouldn't word my conclusions that strongly. It's substantially overstating the situation, and I have seen no verification that an otherwise identical photo exists. In addition, I'm not sure I would consider the referenced website an encyclopedia-quality reliable source. They certainly don't have the track record Ansible does. Synthfilker 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to take seriously a web site called crapauthors.com However, the image is still posted to an official Stanek website [8]. Check out my comments in my User:Thatcher131/Sandbox. Thatcher131 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the way you've structured this - do you want to substitute this for the edit I proposed (which I think is where you're headed with it...)? Also, if enlargement of a section of a photo doesn't count as "original research" (it might be marginal), I have an extreme blowup of the section under the table that clearly shows the discontinuity of the table leg/brace. However, I would remove the reference to "Photoshop" - I could do what's shown here without that software... Just called it "copied" or "cloned". Synthfilker 01:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I had not actually intended to leave the photo as part of the article, that strikes me as going too far. And it probably does violate OR. I would rather this whole saga have played out somewhere else so we could report it more directly. As far as the substitution, let me sleep on it. Thatcher131 02:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you still sleeping? ;) Synthfilker 04:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You've got to check out this Amazon reviewer's list of reviews. [9] Thatcher131 00:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I rather like that his only "mainstream" review is of a book now known to be fictionalised... Shimgray | talk | 00:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's part of the Stanek problem, [10], a posting on teachers.net about how great Stanek was when he visited their library. It's pure Stanek. First astroturf, then a criticism, then the critic is called mentally ill, then someone posts an attack of his writing and links to crapauthors.com. How exactly can we rely on any of this to prove what we all believe? Thatcher131 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You know, at this point I think it's all rather small beer, this quibbling over commas. Given Stanek's new focus on elemetary school reading programs, what I really wish is that some professional journal for school librarians would do an exposé that we could quote and just be done with it. What we have now is a photo analysis that verges on original research and an author (Leigh) who doesn't want to be involved. (Although his blog archives are still available on the web.) At this point lets just go for it as on my sandbox except for including the photo itself, but with the understanding that if Stanek pulls the photo off his web site, we have to delete that part as no longer verifiable (anyone can fake a photo to discredit someone, it is the fact that it is on an official web site that gives it credibility.) Thatcher131 05:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Go for it. There don't seem to be any objections. Synthfilker 00:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I decided to leave the photo controversy out entirely as too much like original research, plus the possibility that I might be wrong in some way. There is some software being developed to detect image manipulation but it is not available for consumer level users. The Ansible rewrite is still useful in that it explains more clearly what the controversy actually is, and includes Mr. Leigh's experiences. Thatcher131 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Synthfilker 01:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course you could put it in yourself. I wasn't entirely comfortable so I didn't want it going in on my dime. Thatcher131 01:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/Talk%7ERobert_Stanek_Archive_2_170f.html"