Talk:Robert Stanek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] Please make a better article
The article that I just cut down to a stub was a pathetic excuse for an article. I doubt very much if I have to explain why, it was just not a very good article at all. Summing up a long career by listing an alleged controversy (including such gems as sourcing parts of it to personal webpages and livejournal!) along with a simple listing of books is pathetic. Don't do that.--Jimbo Wales 06:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, though a tac nuke solution may have been a bit harsh. I'll try to add stuff we're reasonably sure of based on official sites. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Why do you think a tac nuke solution may have been harsh. I considered it quite mild. Frankly, I should have permabanned some of the people responsible for the travesty of an article which was here before. Wikipedia is not the right place for people to POV push their hatred of this poor guy or anyone else.--Jimbo Wales 00:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- What I meant that there was information that could be picked up from the referenced websites which, for all intents and purposes, are reliable. I agree entirely about deleting stuff that's just plain dubious and speculative. All I'm saying is that this cleanup was done with the famed "kill them all, let God sort them out" method. =) However, I understand perfectly well why this was done and there's technically no damage as long as the history is kept. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- And also, I'd like to apologise anyway - what I meant was that in a sane word, in a beautiful world, I'd have expected you to be very very nice and replace the deleted vague crap with good, well-sourced material. We're yet again in a really regrettable combination of effects here: a) harsh policy and b) lack of time. Removing the crap has the highest priority and I can't expect you to have time, inclination and expertise to write the replacement in all cases. I expect you're the most overworked member of the site anyway. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you think a tac nuke solution may have been harsh. I considered it quite mild. Frankly, I should have permabanned some of the people responsible for the travesty of an article which was here before. Wikipedia is not the right place for people to POV push their hatred of this poor guy or anyone else.--Jimbo Wales 00:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I must admit I was a bit surprised when I saw that Jimbo had nuked the article. I suppose someone must have approached him about it. However the fact remains that Mr Stanek has a controversial history in the SF&F field and while he has little reputation in the field (other than the largely self-penned promotional reviews which the article alluded to), his critics most certainly do have reputations, including a 27-time Hugo Award winner and highly respected literary critic. Completely whitewashing Stanek is just as bad as a comprehensive hatchet job. -- Arwel (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Referring to well-documented behavior by Stanek and/or his fans is not "POV pushing hatred" of anything. It might be the wrong place for it but, lacking a "Stanek's Fans" page, it seems like a reasonable choice. What's truly NPOV is blindly accepting claims that Stanek is an author worthy of note, and suppressing accounts of events that have gained him greater notoriety than his books ever did. Many more noteworthy authors lack pages, and many less noteworthy net controversies have them. Censoring factual content is not the answer to much of anything, and neither does threatening to permaban people who post such content. That only reduces Wikipedia to the level of those personal web pages for which you express such contempt. If you want a better Stanek article, the first question to ask is what has made him famous enough for anyone to bother writing or reading that article. That's what the article should discuss, and it's more likely to be the Ansible controversy than his writing. Obdurodon 21:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- You know what? That's Jimbo. Jimbo probably has a good reason to nuke things and has to deal with crap like this every day. In Jimbo we Trust. Besides, we have the BLP policy. This is as transparent as it gets and I see no reason to contest it further. Now, enough of that and let's think of the situation: We have established in AfD that Stanek-the-computer-book-author is person who's notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Next, and this is crucial, we'd need some kind of definitive link that Stanek-the-computer-book-author is the same guy as Stanek-the-fantasy-author. If this is conclusive, we must find reliable information about Stanek's fiction writing career. Then we can address the shady side - but even then, we need not to dwell on it and it has to have good sources too (Ansible is probably okay, but not some random blogs). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well actually of course I agree with Arwel, whitewashing is (or can be) as bad as a hatchet job. In this particular case, though, the alleged controversy about this man seems to have never made it into an reliable sources. A few bloggers had interactions with him that they describe as unpleasant, there have been (vague, unproven, perhaps libelous) accusations of Amazon sockpuppetry, etc. If there has been actual news coverage of this somewhere, then it should be included, but the issue here is that there is, as far as I know, nothing more than a few personal websites with rants.--Jimbo Wales 15:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'd consider Ansible to be a pretty good source (and I'm surprised we don't have an article on it, as we have so many on much less notable things) - it has been winner of the Hugo Award for Best Fanzine 5 times between 1987 and 2002 (and nominated a further 6 times since 1984), and since it was taken out of consideration for that category in 2003, winner once and nominated three times for the Hugo Award for Best Semiprozine. David Langford is certainly a respected commentator in the SF&F field. It certainly has longevity, and has documented some of Mr Stanek's activities in passing. -- Arwel (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well actually of course I agree with Arwel, whitewashing is (or can be) as bad as a hatchet job. In this particular case, though, the alleged controversy about this man seems to have never made it into an reliable sources. A few bloggers had interactions with him that they describe as unpleasant, there have been (vague, unproven, perhaps libelous) accusations of Amazon sockpuppetry, etc. If there has been actual news coverage of this somewhere, then it should be included, but the issue here is that there is, as far as I know, nothing more than a few personal websites with rants.--Jimbo Wales 15:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- You know what? That's Jimbo. Jimbo probably has a good reason to nuke things and has to deal with crap like this every day. In Jimbo we Trust. Besides, we have the BLP policy. This is as transparent as it gets and I see no reason to contest it further. Now, enough of that and let's think of the situation: We have established in AfD that Stanek-the-computer-book-author is person who's notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Next, and this is crucial, we'd need some kind of definitive link that Stanek-the-computer-book-author is the same guy as Stanek-the-fantasy-author. If this is conclusive, we must find reliable information about Stanek's fiction writing career. Then we can address the shady side - but even then, we need not to dwell on it and it has to have good sources too (Ansible is probably okay, but not some random blogs). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
-
Ansible is as long-running, respectable, and widely-known as they get in SF publishing/fandom. David Langford actually CARES about getting it right and cheerfully accepts comment and issues corrections. It's better journalism than many sources cited in WP.
Did Stanek threaten to sue WP if we didn't remove evidence of his shenanigans? If that's so, caving to his bluster is the wrong thing to do. Zora 21:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pen names - something I'd like to get clarified
Okay, sourcing time.
First things first - are we talking of the correct persons?
It appears to me there's two sites - williamstanek.com, boring-grey tech books site by "William R. Stanek", and robertstanek.com, fantasy books by "Robert Stanek". Regrettably, the latter site doesn't have a bio to compare the key points, but both sites have photos of the guys in question and they show the same bearded guy. (Okay, now I know why Jimbo trimmed the article. =) It seems to me these really are the same person writing under different pen names. Both domain name records are registered to the same company (Virtual Press, apparently the new name of Reagent Press). Still pretty weak though, I'd terribly want decisive evidence here... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
