Talk:Elizabeth Moon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Science Fiction  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Autism (Rated Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Elizabeth Moon is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women writers (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

New categories[edit]

Hi there, I saw that there were quite a few articles on EM's novels, so I made [[Category:Elizabeth Moon novels]] and also [[Category:Elizabeth Moon]] to contain it. If you make any new pages for this author please add them to the new categories! Thanks - ben 06:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

D&D "monster[edit]

I have never played D&D, but I am intrigued by the reference to a monster that only appears in D&D rules mentioned about the Deed of Paksenarrion. Can anyone shed any light on that? Such as a name or description? Boesie 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

At least one of her books is now online[edit]

Elizabeth Moon's book "Sheepfarmer's Daughter" is now at http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/0671654160/0671654160.htm

I wonder if the article about her should link to it?

The etext is listed on the Online Books page, and I've found they're meticulous about making sure their listings aren't under copyright. So it should be a legal copy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve Murgaski (talkcontribs) 07:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

This book and many others were removed from the Baen free library late in 2012, in preparation for when Baen ebooks became available from the iTunes Store. It was not available for free on 8 Feb 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.227.85 (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Deed of Paks not related to D&D?[edit]

I've put a {{fact}} tag on the statement the Elizabeth Moon says The Deed of Paksenarrion "has nothing to do with FRPG games and had no inspiration from that venue." To be honest, my main motivation is that I would really like to read (or hear) her explanation for the inspiration for one of my favorite trilogies, but a cite for this would improve the article. Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

At some time or other, I've definitely read a statement by Elizabeth Moon that contradicts that statement in detail but still insists on no more than a tangential connection with FRPG games. What I remember of Moon's position agrees with Ryk E. Spoor's statement in an Amazon review of The Deed of Paksennarion: "The Deed of Paksenarrion does, in fact, have its roots in roleplaying, but not in the usual sense." (You may need to page down a bit - and read the rest of the paragraph, because he says more and that also agrees with what I remember.) PWilkinson 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I've edited the article accordingly. I view that Amazon review as being a Reliable Source for what Ryk Spoor claimed, if not for what Moon has said or written. (Note that the review has one of Amazon's "Real Name" tags, and the Spoor is a Baen Books author, Baen being the publishers for the Paksenarrion books.) Also, that explanation makes a lot of sense to me ... a lot more than Elizabeth Moon being an avid D&D player ... ;-). Thanks again, CWC(talk) 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Text from Elizabeth Moon[edit]

The article currently contains 3 paragraphs written by Elizabeth Moon herself about the background to the Paks/Gird stories. (Search for "(Added by Elizabeth Moon, the author)".) I've sent Ms Moon a copy of that text and suggested she post it on her website. (I gather she's been busy with revisions for the next Vatta novel.[1]) If/when she does that, we should 'encyclopedify' that article by citing and quoting the essay. I'm happy to leave those 3 paragraphs there in the meantime, largely because they give some fascinating insight into the writing of one of the best fantasy series around. Cheers, CWC 11:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've stuck it in quotes, to make it clear that they're her words. I agree that it would be better to have it on the Paksenarrion page or on her homepage and reference and quote it. I'm not really comfortable just moving it though, for obvious reasons.
The article as it stands is a horrible mess.CaNNoNFoDDa 00:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Christian or Not?[edit]

I removed this link from the external links section as it was posted by someone with the same name as the author of the blog. I think he was probably just adding it in case anyone was interested, however it don't think it adds to the article factually. Anyone who is interested can read it from here. Refer to WP:LINKS. CaNNoNFoDDa 19:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Was she a Marine?[edit]

I linked to her page from Category:Women in the United States Marine Corps but I don't believe that you should link an article like this under female Marines if there is not a reference fact showing that she is a Marine. It is never even mentioned in the article. I will remove it if it isn't added in the next two weeks. Chexmix53 (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Biography section, second paragraph: "In 1968, whe joined the United States Marine Corps, attaining the rank of 1st Lieutenant while on active duty." Cite at the end of the paragraph goes to her hom page, which has the info there. So she was a 1st LT on active duty in the USMC, but she was not a Marine? Huh? Am I missing something in your question? - BillCJ (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see it. Usually being a Marine isn't a one liner in people's bios. Thanks for pointing it out.Chexmix53 (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
What more do you expect? What qualifications she obtained, what weapons she used, how many battles she fought in, details of those battles, who her superior officers were, what she ate as a marine? She is notable for writing books, not for being a marine. Not surprisingly, as with the vast majority of articles on wikipedia (and according to our guidelines and policies)*, the article concentrates on what she's noteable for. Her being a marine is obviously of relevance (after all, many of her books have a military theme) and she does mention it in most of her bios but it isn't a primary issue of her life as it concerns readers of an article about someone notable for being an author. And who knowns if there are even reliable sources describing her life as a marine beyond the bare facts we have at the moment. *P.S. Yes this means that there are probably many other articles with ones or two liners about someone being a marine and they should be that way, as with other details that aren't of great concern to someone's life. E.g. the way J. K. Rowling mentions "Rowling then moved to Porto, Portugal to teach English as a foreign language" but doesn't go into extensive detail of her life as a teacher (it does mention other relevant details of that time of her life but doesn't mention what her style of teaching was, who her students were, how often she taught, what the GPA of her students were, who the principal of her school was, whether she usually ate at the cafeteria or brought he own lunch). Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy" about 9/11 remarks[edit]

I've removed the section on the "controversial" remarks Moon made on her blog on 9/11 as it was not based of reliable sources, and thus violates WP:BLP. - BilCat (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Good. That was a major violation of our BLP rules. Thank you. CWC 14:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed an attempt to add an "SF3 resolution citation as first step to properly sourcing and rebuilding Controversy section." Partial additions are without context, and may violate the strict policy of WP:BLP, especially as it was added nearly four hours ago. It would be better for the IP user to work on this offline, and add it when complete, so it can be reviewed for compliance wth WP's policies, including BLP, at one time. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Your points are well-taken. I suspect this section could be made to conform to WP:BLP, as it referenced a primary source. But I'm not the one to do it -- I don't care about the subject enough. Anyway, thanks for the guidance. (BTW, I'm not the anonymous editor; we just edited in quick succession.) tgeller (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(small break) I came here specifically trying to find information about this incident and was surprised not to find any mention. If one searches google for 'elizabeth moon wiscon', one finds a LOT of discussion on this subject. As such I have re-added the section (under the title 'Controversy', as I felt that 'Anti-Islamic statements and repercussions' was certainly a violation of WP:BLP. I have clarified the timeline to show the clearer connection between her statements, WisCon concom's response, and the subsequent motion from SF3.

I would very much like to find a better link illustrating the community issues with the post (much of it was in Moon's journal, and the comments she deleted; other cites are blog comments and such which would violate WP:BLP). There is a 'Moonfail Roundup' on Dreamwidth that has over 225 links to pro authors, bloggers and WisCon attendees commenting on this issue (on both sides). However going through and counting the calls for Moon to be disinvited would border on original research. It would also bore me to tears. There are a lot of them, though.

However, I would also like to note that WP:BLP is not Thumper's father (to wit: "Thumper! What did your father say to you this morning?" "If you can't say somethin' nice...don't say nothin' at all."). Just because something is unpleasant, if it's corroborated enough, it is still valid for Wikipedia. (admin hat). While there was a lot that could be used in this addition, I stuck with the original post by Moon, the statements from SF3 and WisCon, and comments from authors who are also in Wikipedia (there's been a lot of fan commentia, some of it more incisive, but on this topic I felt that sticking to pro sources was less controversial).--Thespian (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't remove the original material because of "Thumper's father" reasoning, but made great pains to stick to BLP and WP:V. I do think this is much ado about nothing, and that the Muslims who objected to her comments are actually proving her right. Note that one of the IPs that added this material was from Morocco (I think), where I doubt Christians have the same freedonms there as Muslims do in this country, though I may be wrong on that. That said, I found plenty else in her comments to object to, but I've not issued a fatwah against her, or protested in some way, even though some of the coments offend my religious own beliefs. But none of that is why I removed the section. - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha, and glad to hear it. It was hard to tell from the stupidly short space we get for comments when editing that it wasn't being removed because the lack of reliable sources wasn't akin to removing it for those reasons (and my apologies for my perception; your edit history shows I jumped the gun on that). While it may indeed be much ado about nothing, as I said, I came here trying to find a simple distillation of the issue, and not finding it, spent 2 hours creating it :-) Within the WisCon community, this is going to be held onto for years, and I do think (as a con-going fan, though not part of the WisCon community) having a section on it will be important when someone tosses off a reference to 'Moonfail' and someone new to the community needs to figure out what's up.--Thespian (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Understand, and apology accepted. I'm glad I didn't react badly to your comments, but they were ambiguous enough to for me to assume good faith. I think the original section was added before the WisCon fallout, as I saw only fansite/forums in a Google search at that time. ANyway, alot of contemporary controversies are really "much ado about nothing", but they still end up being notably controversial. Finally, it might be good if we can find and add a response from her on the issue, published in a reliable source, or something from someone who supports her in this issue, for "balance". - BilCat (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Tom Kratman's book Caliphate goes much further than Moon did in her comments, which were really rather tame compared to what Kratman wrote in the book's Afterword. He seems to be fairly outspoken, so it might be possible he's spoke up on the issue. Btw, his bio needs alot of work, as it currently reads like a press release/book cover bio! - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just drastically shortened the "controversy" section and deleted its heading (merging it back into the "Biography" section). Why? I think the longer coverage violated our Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View rules, especially the part about undue weight. On a more general note, this looks like a fan-feud to me, and I hate to see fan-feuds spilling over into Wikipedia unnecessarily — it's bad for Fandom and for Wikipedia. (I guess "unnecessarily" here amounts to "unless they get coverage by fact-checked journalists".) Also, per WP:BLP, I prefer to say as little as possible about recent controversies until things settle down. In this case, that would mean seeing what public response, if any, Moon has to losing the GoH slot at WisCon 35.
On Kratman: Pretty much every book he's written makes Moon's 9/11 post look like a love letter. (Even he says his first book went too far, being written to an outline from Jim Baen.) I wonder how the "Fail-Fans" would cope with Kratman ... it's probably better for them to remain in ignorance, I think.
As it happens, I was also offended by Moon's 9-11 post, but for different reasons. Cheers, CWC 08:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Whlie I understand the the desire of a few readers to find information on this incident, I still elive this information fails WP:BLP:
"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
Specifically, "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." We don't have that; what we have here is synthesis, the putting together of several sources to "report" an incdent and it's consequences. I think the recent Juan Williams incident illustrates that this one has received no coverage from a "attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." From the above quote, I believe I have full authority to remove this information immediately until a we have a high quality reliable source that covers the complete incident and its fallout. The consesnus on this page is that this incident should be covered, and as such, removing it now would be disruptive on my part. Therefore, I will be taking this to the BLP noticeboard within the next 24 hours (I have limited time at the moment). I think it would be good if the information were removed before I file the complaint, as a measure of good faith towards not violating BLP. - BilCat (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Just my 2 cents... by synthesis, I gather that BC was referring to WP:SYNTHESIS, which states that: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." That is all. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I've also tagged the article with the {{BLP dispute}} header, and asked for advce from an admin. - BilCat (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This kerfuffle just got mentioned by Instapundit, a very popular blog amongst conservatives and libertarians. (BTW, that is a very long post by Prof Reynold's standards.) We may get some edits to the article as a result. Cheers, CWC 11:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
More news: Ms Moon has responded to losing the GoH spot. Not much there.
I must say, I'd be a lot happier about mentioning this in the article if we had some media coverage (at least SF/publishing trade media) to cite. CWC 13:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added a Locus article that says...well, exactly the same thing as all the other sources. But it might put some of your concerns to rest. There simply isn't much coverage of this sort of thing, as fanzines and SF trade media has almost entirely been surrendered to blog-based formats. There really *isn't* any SF trade media these days (I've worked in SF bookstores, and it's frustrating).

I believe, as an admin, that the {{BLP dispute}} is inappropriate for this article, as the sources that were linked to before my Locus addition were Moon's initial post and two official statements from WisCon. These are absolutely reliable sources for this subject. I am not removing it as I am obviously involved, but I think it's too threatening to people who are genuinely trying to document events that no one argues *happened*. --Thespian (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Locus cite should satisfy the BLP requiremtents for reliables sources, so I consider the matter settled. - BilCat (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I have remove the {{BLP dispute}} template, essentially per Thespian. The Locus cite directly supports the content and is undisputedly a reliable, secondary source. That should take care of the argument that this is an inappropriate synthesis. It could be argued that even a couple of sentences is undue weight, but the withdrawal of a GOH invitation is a pretty big reaction, and it's probably better to beef up the coverage in the rest of the article rather than cut out this well-sourced incident. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, there does not seem to be much dispute here. I agree about the Locus cite as well. Thanks, everyone. CWC 14:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)