![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 July 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Apparently I am too stupid to figure out how to edit the text displayed after a reference for references 2 and 3. Can somebody help me out here and tell me how to insert custom text in a reference so it shows the text I want instead of just the reference number?Scout1067 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
If we are going to refer to his nomination for a Hugo why do we not also include allegation of vote rigging? This was a major accusation surrounding the sad puppies affair.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
At least two of the three "awards" listed are actualy just nominations. This is a significant difference that should be clear noted. Since two of those nominations were the result of an effort to take control of the awards, this should probably be noted in a "Controversy" section. Avt tor (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be a topic for the Hugo's page? There is a long unsullied history of Hugo Awards for many of the most esteemed authors in any genre, along with sci-fi's brightest lights. Or does every winning author's page now need a footnote to address that issue? Lyn (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
We really need some sources for his biography.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I will start marking unsourced claims with Citation needed tags soon, please try and provide some sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
We need some secondary RS his own claims are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
As they have been present for at least two years anything marked as CN, or that uses a primary source will removed. Articles need to be based upon verifiable secondary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but a number of third party RS cites seem to have been replaced with tom Kratmans own site, why?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
And here is why we do not sue primary sources according to this [[1]] he retired in 1992.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
This biography issue is legitimately challenging. Normally we wouldn't bother with more than a sentence or two of self-sourced biographic detail but here it's just so relevant that it's hard to really cut it down. There's so much pay-off for the biography section later on in the article. Specifically: a) Kratman's combat service in Iraq is highly relevant for his books, both for the authenticity of his battle descriptions and his depiction of muslims which has been the subject of critical commentary. b) Mentioning his deployments to Panama pays off when the article starts discussing Yellow Eyes. c) Mentioning his law degree and service on the War College faculty prepares the reader for praise of his philosophy of war and military science.
People's claims about their own biography are normally accepted on good faith unless there is something suspicious about them, which is not the case here. Normally, only the very most famous people get unauthorized biographies and third parties independently trying to verify this sort of thing. As it happens, we can have verification from military publications of Kratman's LTC rank and position at the War College. See e.g. this: [2] I guess we could work in a little footnote which would incidentally serve to confirm Kratman's highest rank and position. I may take a stab at this. Haukur (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
We nor have two sources making claims about the vote hacking, one mentions (explicitly Kratnmans publisher). Also we now have this [[6]], which refers to his participation in the sad puppies campaign.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Glyer's review[7] counts as a self-published source so WP:SPS applies:
"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
Mike Glyer is easily an "established expert on the subject matter" but I'm not aware of publications with traditional outfits that would meet the second part of the sentence. So, sadly, I don't think we can include his review, even though it would greatly enrich the article. I'd say policy is overly strict here and should be changed but for now it is what it is. Haukur (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I'm basically done here, for now at least. I think the present article is decent. If someone wanted to expand it I think the main avenues would be a) by adding more in the way of plot summaries of Kratman's works, b) maybe some relevant comments Kratman has made in interviews and such (with discernment, under WP:ABOUTSELF), c) it would be possible to add a more information on specific right-wing themes in Kratman's works. Nicholson discusses this at length. d) Maybe something more on Kratman's short fiction. He had a story in that Freehold anthology. Let's see, Tangent comments on it at some length. Actually, maybe I'll add that now after all.[8]
The known sources are mostly exploited already. There is a fanzine review in the list at User:Haukurth/sandbox5 which would be a dicey source under current policy. The Harriet Klausner review from allscifi.com would be easier to justify.[9] This wasn't the most prestigious site but it did have an editorial policy of sorts and some standards, especially for its "scholars" like Klausner. I noticed that the review is listed in Something about the Author which strengthens the case under WP:USEBYOTHERS.
If someone wanted to, some of Kratman's books could be spun out for separate articles – WP:NBOOK is rather forgiving and we have the sources already. Haukur (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)