Talk:Robert Stanek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: While I am not the foremost expert on the subject of William Robert Stanek, I do see that most of the material in "Self-promotion" subject heading, falls into the "hearsay" or "personal opinion" category instead of factual information. It is my understanding that an encyclopedia whether in wiki or paper form should conform to the standard of stating facts. Nobody can positively identify the person making the previous reviews of this author's work. It would seem considerably more logical to see the material written by this author before the self-promotion subject listing on the page. Then, if facts warrant this author did indeed self promote himself, evidence showing this action should include itself in this article. Currently the article does not cover the recent material covered by the author, his MVP status with Microsoft, or any of the technical works completed within the last 3 years. I find this aritcle to be inflamatory, poorly written, and more of a scourge against the author than a biographical description of his work. While you may find the individual offensive yourself, this type of behavior does not fall within the guidelines of Wikipedia or any other online listing. (edit)

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives
Split discussions February 20–22, 2006 February 19, 2006 – February 28, 2006 February 28, 2006 – March 30, 2006

[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)

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)

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)

I think it's rather clear that Ansible and Dave Langford are well within the range of what Wikipedia itself officially considers a "reliable source". To wit: the applicable section of the "Reliable Sources" guidelines. His peers and SF fandom consider him highly reliable, and have recognized that fact with several awards and many nominations (as previously noted). Frankly, the only people who would NOT consider him a reliable source would be those ignorant of the history and reputation of Ansible. If publishing on the web is the only criteria this judgement is being made by... well, then where does that leave Wikipedia itself? I also note that the Wiki guildlines DO allow for exceptions when other source material is unavailable. There are several potentially valid arguments (which have not been raised, and might be topics for further discussion) that could be made for striking that part of the article... but questioning the reliablity of Ansible as a source is NOT one of them.

The BLP policy is important... but not to protect people from getting their feelings hurt because of uncomfortable truths coming out. I note that the entry on Bill Clinton mentions Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky. The mere fact that information might reflect badly on someone's behavior is not sufficient grounds for it being deleted.

One thing that hampers this article is the restriction on "original research". Interpreted strictly, we are prohibited from drawing the conclusion that photographs of an individual published on the same web site, with the same photograph, with very similar names ("William Robert Stanek" and "Robert Stanek") and are tied to the same publisher, are in fact the same person. Such evidence would be sufficient for a legal conviction, establishing identity "beyond a reasonable doubt", but not here. So we are left with no published information from other sources (when they are shouted down or threated by the subject and/or fans and synchophants) and no acceptable way to formulate the conclusion through documented sources. I feel much like an expert witness called to testify in a trial who is sworn to tell "the whole truth", and yet is prohibited from giving more than a "yes" or "no" in response to questions.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the "delete" discussion. There is certainly nothing worthy of note , for good or ill, in the current article as it stands. Synthfilker 18:25, 13 May 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)

You know, something just occurred to me... If we cannot accept/prove that "William R. Stanek" and "Robert Stanek" are the same person... then what the hell are the tech books by "William R. Stanek" doing under an entry for "Robert Stanek"? This entry was originally created by a Stankite as a puff piece promoting the FANTASY books and their author...

Therefore, these tech books and their author have no place in this article... because we cannot show they are the same person without undertaking "original research"... ;) 69.213.250.207 04:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)