Talk:John M. Ford

Page history

Please note that the original version of this article was set up by Deb using text from John Ford, and she turned John Ford into a disambiguation page. Please see the page history of John Ford for attributions of authorship. -- Oliver P. 20:47, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Update: The page referred to above is now John Ford (disambiguation). Please see that page's history for attributions of authorship. --Paul A 03:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A side-note for those unfamiliar with his works: John M. Ford's works included sly references to the other John Fords, e.g. one novel opens with a quote from the Jacobean play Perkin Warbeck and ends with a quote from the movie Stagecoach — in neither case mentioning the playwright or movie director by name. Characteristically, he left making the connection as an exercise for the reader. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 08:20, 17 Nov 2006 (UTC).

---

The juveniles were written under the name Milo Dennison; Ford only wrote the first two books, later books were by others using the Dennison name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.116.166.115 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Subject's death

It is with regret that I set the subject's "living" flag to "no". ACW 18:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Will Shetterly's Introduction to John M. Ford

Will Shetterly moved his web pages off of apocalypse.org to blogspot. Please see the parent directory of that page, http://www.apocalypse.org/pub/flash/ While the maintainers of apocalypse.org haven't removed the content, it would be courteous to not needlessly use their bandwidth. Will Shetterly is maintaining content at qwertyranch.blogspot.com, and in fact referred to that address recently: http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2006/09/bit-more-about-john-m-ford.html 70.181.146.182 22:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

More bio needed

The only really biographical information here is about Ford's illness and death. When I split the long lede into sections, I reluctantly called that section "Death". Somebody who knows more about Ford's life should change the section title to "Life" and add enough info to merit the name. ACW 17:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing refs

Citation removal is a good reason all by itself to revert; if an editor made a bunch of other edits along with it, he'd be welcome to make your other edits again, but making a bunch of edits while removing correct refs does not mean making other editors do the work of restoring those refs. Undisputed facts can (and should) be cited when citations exist. You can't tell by looking at him that he died on any particular date. But I'm at the limit of my reverts for the day, so I'll stop watching this page for a while. -- JHunterJ 17:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The death-date ref would be the Making Light thread (John M. Ford, 1957-2006) already in the external links list. The entry is dated September 25 and refers to JMF's partner Elise finding his body that morning. -- SAJordan 03:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added that death-date citation, new "References" section at bottom. -- SAJordan 08:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain in edit summaries, I don't see any need to include a particular citation for the death date: it's a general biographic datum, easily verifiable, and the footnote and Reference section just complicate the article's layout, because the Making Light post is already included in External links as being of general interest on Ford's person, not just one particular detail.

More later, if needed and when I have the time. --Malyctenar 16:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

JHunterJ and Malyctenar, would you two please settle this with each other? -- SAJordan 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that by letting the article go REF-less, JHunterJ tacitly accepted my arguments. --Malyctenar 10:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Work" description

Left intact from the earliest version of this page is the claim that "Ford's works are characterised by an aversion to doing things that have been done before." This is true in a sense, and false in a sense. Mike wrote several novels of the Bildungsroman (coming-of-age) type; although the entry attaches that label only to Growing Up Weightless, it could also be fairly applied to Web of Angels, The Final Reflection, Princes of the Air, and even somewhat to The Last Hot Time. Put another way, Mike repeatedly wrote on the theme of growing up, learning about one's world and one's place in it, and taking responsibility for it — which involves taking on the power and wisdom to influence events, to help make the world a better place. This is a significant commonality, and I think worth mentioning. I am adding a paragraph to that effect, but not altering the prior existing text. This will result in a slight contradiction between paragraphs, which probably should be resolved. I'm just reluctant to alter someone else's argument. -- SAJordan 03:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous unexplained deletion

At 09:06, 8 November 2006, User:68.40.161.247 deleted the following sentence from John M. Ford#Life: "He is survived by his partner since the mid-1990s, Elise Matthesen." No edit summary, no explanation here. That IP has no other contribs. I'm requesting an explanation, else I intend to revert that deletion.  – SAJordan^talk_contribs 06:29, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Whois lookup says that the IP belongs to the Michigan Comcast (I don't know how much one can trust the Ann Arbor location). I think that it is possible to revert with boldness without waiting for an explanation (and I doubt that the drive-by deleter would provide one, or even check Wikipedia again): their relationship is public knowledge and I can't see how anybody concerned might object. --Malyctenar 13:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My immediate temptation was to immediately revert. I am trying, not only for my health, to learn to resist immediate temptations.   :)   More, I had to at least consider the possibility of good faith, if not necessarily assume it: might the deletion have been at the request of a family member or Elise herself? I've paused to allow such an explanation, if it's forthcoming.  – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 19:54, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

My thoughts too. Revert - maybe add an obit. as a source. Maybe he's survived by others as well. But perhaps Elise or a family member did the deletion. I wouldn't want to put it there against their will. Appraiser 20:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The line about him being survived by his long-term partner Elise Matthesen should certainly be restored. I am a close friend of Elise's and I was a friend of John M. Ford's for decades, and I can tell you with utter confidence that Elise would want that line in and Mike would have wanted it too. I am restoring it immediately. Pnh 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Pnh! Note in the history that User:68.40.161.247 once again deleted that specific sentence (only), with again no edit summary or or comment; and Appraiser has restored it. (Thank you, Appraiser!) We may need to protect this page from anonymous edits. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:18, 10 Nov 2006 (UTC).

In its third edit, IP 68.40.161.247 has made its third identical deletion here, still with no explanation, even in response to a request on its talk page. I've reverted it. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 15:17, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC).

-unhappy- eek! I'm from Michigan Fandom myself, and I can't grasp why someone would keep ripping that out, over and over. I'm glad that all of you have been fixing it.

=Chica= 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Elise was Mike's partner, his friends and hers know this, and there is no good reason for deleting that fact, anonymously or otherwise. I agree with Appraiser that we may need to protect from anonymous edits. Vicki Rosenzweig 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made a request for semi-protection of John M Ford. Vicki Rosenzweig

The semi-protection was turned down for now, with instructions to put a warning template on the anonymous IP's talk page if it happened again. It happened again overnight. Someone else reverted, I have placed the warning template and updated Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. [Vicki Rosenzweig 18 Nov 2006]

Anonymous editor speaks, sort of

The anonymous editor from IP 68.40.161.247 has, for the first time, actually said something. The anon chose to communicate by making resultless edits to the main article (making an edit and undoing it before saving), and leaving opinions in the comment field. I would guess from this that our anon doesn't know how to use a talk page.

The first comment reads:

Who found a dead author is irrelevant. Is who found Mark Twain dead listed or of note? Perhaps Elise just needs to see her name in print. SELF SERVING SH

And the second one:

Per request of family, no further edits will be made. The family wants nothing to do either with rabid fans nor pathetic hanger-ons.

In case this editor happens to read the talk page, permit me a measured answer. I have read one novel and one poem by Mr. Ford, and am not a fan or a hanger-on, but merely a Wikipedia editor; I have no dog in this hunt.

The person who discovers the subject dead is an incident in the subject's biography. Names of wives, partners, parents, and children are also completely standard biographical material. Mentioning the name of a decade-long partner seems entirely appropriate to me. I had never heard of Ms. Mattheson before, but her mention seems to fit into a biographical precis with no strain whatever. I would like (as I mentioned above) to see more biographical incident in this article, which seems barely above stub-quality to me at the moment. Wikipedia does not risk running out of storage because there is too much detail in this article.

If Mr. Ford's family has an opinion in this matter, there are numerous channels by which they may express it. Their opinions would carry much more weight if they were signed. As the statement stands, it is impossible to tell whether it represents the true wishes of the family or not. But even if this description of the family's wishes were verified, it would have no legal force. Though we might sometimes wish it otherwise, people are free to write what they like about each other. The family of Alan Turing attempted for many years to suppress biographical claims that Turing was homosexual. These attempts were unsuccessful; biographers enjoy freedom of expression.

On second reading, the statement is ambiguous: perhaps it means that the anonymous editor intends to make no further edits. If that was what was meant, I have almost equal regret. What would be ideal would be for this anonymous editor to come out of the closet and be constructive. Sir or madam: it appears you know something about Mr. Ford. Will you not consider actually contributing to the article?

ACW 05:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

At some point, I'd like to add more biographical information, and clarify bits of what's there, but I want it to be specific. I could, now, write "worked for companies in the gaming industry," but I'd like to find company names, and ideally dates and what games he worked on in addition to what's already listed. Similarly, I have a query in to try to find out exactly what year Mike moved to Minneapolis.Vicki Rosenzweig 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The gaming companies include FASA and Steve Jackson Games, at least. In the external links "About Ford", Steve Jackson's website is listed, as is Eric Burns (who also wrote for FASA). They might be able to fill in whatever blanks were left by John M. Ford#Games. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 15:34, 21 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Deletion of biographical detail resumed

At 05:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC), Sjmac999 erased the sourced phrase "by his partner since the mid-1990s, Elise Matthesen" from John M. Ford#Life. (This is the same text repeatedly deleted by IP 68.40.161.247, who like Sjmac999-contribs has edited no other text than this one phrase.) That deletion has been reverted. A test1a warning has been placed on Sjmac999's talk page. A checkuser has been requested.

Note: Sjmac999 had earlier changed the word "partner" to "friend", which was also reverted. (I challenge anyone to interpret this as a declaration merely of friendship.)

Thank you, 216.243.177.140 and 70.181.146.182, for your restorations. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 09:32, 30 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Thanks. (Having not done a lot of Wikipedia stuff in the last year or two, I wasn't even aware of "checkuser".) Vicki Rosenzweig 15:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

24.253.70.106 04:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Now filed as a vandalism report, following the checkuser discussion. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 04:55, 2 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Blocks in place, 24 hours for IP, indef (with appeal option) for username. Let's see whether the deletions cease. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 06:08, 2 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Unfortunate that this was needed, but thanks for keeping on it, SAJordan. Vicki Rosenzweig 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to see the word "partner" changed, just because I've always hated that word for lover. But that's neither here nor there--the word "partner" is in general use, and I think that fight is lost. What is more important is that there is no question that the reference to Elise should be included here, out of respect for Mike's memory as well as out of common decency to Elise. Thanks for your work in restoring it. -- Steven Brust 5-Jan-07

The Pioneer Press article uses the word partner and I suspect that is the word Elise used when interviewed. It would be presumptive for anyone to change it, except Elise, herself. Whether you like it or not isn't really germane. Appraiser 15:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As you know, Steven, Elise said (and says) "partner," and Mike used "companion."

Appraiser, Elise hasn't been editing here, and I don't think she intends to.Vicki Rosenzweig 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard Elise use the label "partner" myself, and many of us in the Poly community use that term. I use it myself, even though it is not ideal. I oce preferred "spouse", but apparently that has a legal definition not consistent with what Elise would intend. Atom 15:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Request

I don't know how to do Meta-wiki. I began a section today for Mike's shorter works. I'd be obliged if some more wiki-savvy person created a meta-file for those. I plan to keep adding to the shorter works as I can.

Thanks!

=Chica= 01:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than recreate the work NESFA has done, maybe a better think to do would be to better emphasize the NESFA biblio. (currently mentioned as an external link) and supplement it here with the short works post 1997? 65.161.195.226 21:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems sensible. NESFA are pretty good about keeping information online. Vicki Rosenzweig 03:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks.  :) I'll also check and see whether we've got any of the post-1997 works around.

=Chica= 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Any comments on which shorter works should be singled out? The Alternities quartet? Erase/Record/Play? Fugue State? Winter Solstice? How to best mention the Speculative Engineering chapbooks of which I have only heard about? 70.181.146.182 06:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The first paragraph of this article is unduly fawning and adulatory, replete with positive adjectives. I added the NPOV flag. A lizard 06:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Critiques?

Could any critiques be added to this page? Rvo91 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's gonna be hard to make the article less elegaic, as it is (to the best of my knowledge) impossible to find anybody who's ever written anything bad about the guy. Please let us know what can be done to meet your concerns. --Orange Mike 13:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Several things need change in my view. The opening sentence needs to have real world context. It currently reads "Ford was regarded (and obituaries, tributes and memories describe him) as an extraordinarily intelligent, erudite and witty man. He was a popular contributor to several online discussions". It needs to be replaced with something like:

1. "Ford was the author of intelligent and critically acclaimed books/short stories/articles in which the major themes included....
2. He was a regular contributor to several blog/webzine/forums where he cultivated a following who apprecitated his wit and erudite comments about such topics as....

As the article stands, there is no context, and the opening comments read like a tomb stone.

Also, I also think the comments about his death too morbid; it should just read that "He died in 2007 after a life long struggle with Diabetes. The rest of the detail is not appropriate for WP, and reads like ambulance chasing.--Gavin Collins 17:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, there is something more than a little weird about people in an online encyclopedia dismissing other online activity as not being "real-world content." I'd not object to emphasizing the fiction and poetry first, but note that even there, some of the poetry appeared on a Weblog, and he won a World Fantasy Award for a poem that he published as a Christmas card. The categories are not hard-and-fast.

Second "after a life-long struggle with diabetes" is misleading: I don't think there was an autopsy, so the cause of death isn't known, but it may well have been a heart attack rather than the diabetes. I don't see what you consider "ambulance chasing" about describing the man's health problems--which he did not keep secret, and which nobody is suggesting any kind of lawsuit about. Vicki Rosenzweig 00:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Making Light is not an attack site

I don't know what an "attack site" is, but Making Light, a notable website edited by prominent professionals in the science fiction field, is most certainly the place on which Mr Ford's death was first reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorow (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on your user talk page. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See my essay for commentary on the whole contentious "attack sites" issue. *Dan T.* 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion, then, is on User talk:Doctorow#Making Light. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack site incident - comment by Will Beback (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), which led to the part of rules Will Beback tries to use as justification being disputed, with explanation at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Yet another round of "attack site" nonsense. --Malyctenar 10:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Some parallel discussions of this were led at Talk:Teresa Nielsen Hayden#Making Light is not an attack site and User talk:JulesH#Attack sites. --Malyctenar 12:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Publication rights

As I understand it: after Ford's death, rights to his work passed not to his partner (to whom he was not married; oops; c.f. Stieg Larsson for another example of this sort of clusterfuck) but to his parents, who very much disliked SF/F and with whom he was on extremely poor terms. Consequently they have refused any and all requests to reprint his work, and therefore all Ford material is out of print (exception: The Dragon Waiting, which has not gone out of print and therefore the rights to it will not revert to Ford's parents until-and-unless it does go out of print, which it apparently won't, specifically for this reason).

Any thoughts on whether there should be a section about this in the article? DS (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Dragon Waiting is now out of print, apparently. No reprints since 2009.

However, the collection Heat of Fusion And Other Stories and the novel The Last Hot Time are both still in print, from Tor Books. --Rpresser 17:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a widely-known tragic fact, and was indeed mentioned in a book review today by James Nicoll; but I fear it may not have been reported in reliable sources which would be recognized by Wikipedians ignorant of the SF field. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Tor is going to be republishing all of Ford's works, according to an article in Slate. I dropped a mention of this into the article, but am not sure where exactly it belongs. If anyone else is watching the page, please improve this. (I'm also rusty on Wikipedia reference formatting.) Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content

User:SteamboatPhilly has been edit warring to remove content from the stable version of this article that is sources to www.websnark.com, with edit summaries such as "sourced to an open web forum" and "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people." However, as the discerning reader will gather from the lede of this article, it is not a BLP, and the source in question is not a forum.

Per WP:SPS, the relevant policy, "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." This is precisely the case with websnark, as has been noted with respect to a related domain here. SteamboatPhilly needs to discuss their removal of sourced. material, rather than allowing IDONTLIKEIT to get the better of them. Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

www.websnark.com is a self-published source. According to WP:RSSELF, that disqualifies it as a reliable source. It doesn't matter if the subject is dead or alive, it's just not a reliable source, period. WP:Webcomic sources isn't relevant at all; the source is [1], which is clearly not a webcomic. This is black-and-white. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSSELF is a content guideline, which does not trump WP:SPS, which is a policy. WP:Webcomic sources is a selection discussing reliable sources (from the perspective of sourcing WP articles on wrbcomics), it is not primarily about articles that are, themselves, webcomics. It would be preferable for all editors to read the provided sources rathet than engaging in ICANTHEARYOU crusades. Newimpartial (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, WP:SPS is a policy, and it says basically the same thing: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, or user-generated sources, such as... personal websites,... are largely not acceptable as sources." It goes on to say "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." - well, Eric Burns does not appear to qualify for that. For all I know, you're Eric Burns; how would anyone be able to prove otherwise? He's not notable. His opinions shouldn't be printed as fact in a Wikipedia article, and this article shouldn't be used as a place to promote his blog. As for WP:Webcomic sources, it's still not relevant because you're not talking about a webcomic, and what is that page anyway? It's certainly not a policy or guideline. It's totally irrelevant. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It is a page that discusses the reliability of Eric Burns and websnark as a source. Before you venture an opinion on that issue, maybe you should, you know, read the actual evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It says Eric Burns can be considered an expert on web comics. Is John M. Ford a webcomic? SteamboatPhilly (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Since you have not answered this last question, I can only assume you agree with the assessment that the self-published source on Ford should be removed. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That is absurd. As Burns is a published authority in the domain of Science Fiction and Fantasy and Role-playing Games, as well as Webcomics, there is no reason Websnark should not be cited in all three areas. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You literally just made that up out of thin air. The source is 100% self-published. The author is not notable, and even the wikipedia page saying he is an authority on webcomics is written by one person, and is not even a policy or guideline. Given that you refuse to acknowledge all of that, I am left with no choice but to remove the material. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I read his publication record. Please don't stoop to personal attacks, per WP:NPA. And stop edit warring against the stable version until consensus is reached. Newimpartial (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Have been lurking/watching the article, but now I'm adding an un-requested third opinion here. I know I haven't been involved in editing this page before this (and I count at least 3 editors involved in removing/re-adding the material), so this will be my single revert until consensus is reached. Burns does not qualify as RS on areas besides webcomics. The material should be removed. Claiming he has expertise in sci-fi and fantasy generally is a stretch. His publications (besides his webcomic) are in magazines, tertiary sources, not the academic sphere (despite his education). More importantly, though, they are focused on boardgames and RPGs, not reviewing sci-fi and fantasy literature. Moreover, this entire discussion, including the kind of evidence I just cited, is about making an exception, a deviation from policy, with us, as editors, deciding what counts as reliable as far as we are concerned. If we just go by policy, which we should, he would be disqualified as self-published.
If you want to look for a different (fifth?) opinion from a relevant wikiproject or even an RfC, that might be a good thing to do if we are at an impasse.--MattMauler (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I was actually going to let Matt's revert stand pending discussion, since in my opinion there might be UNDUE reasons to leave these details out, as I have said before. However, I will not let the revert stand with an invalid rationale, and the stated rationale - that using SPS represents a deviation from policy - is simply not what WP:SPS, the relevant policy, actually says, as I have quoted above.

Also note that SteamboatPhilly has already asked about SPS in the Teahouse and has been pointed to the relevant policy by others as well as myself. If the question is, on what subjects should websnark be considered reliable, the correct forum for that question would be RSN. Newimpartial (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand, and I agree completely that the question directly in dispute is "on what subjects should websnark be considered reliable." I am not saying that all use of SPS means deviating from policy. WP:SPS clearly states that SPS can be used if the source is an expert in the relevant field. In my comment I was adding to the case that Websnark should be considered expert in the field of webcomics (per WP:webcomic sources) and (maybe/probably?) boardgames and RPGs, on which he has published work, but not in reviewing Ford's novels as he does here.--MattMauler (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

So the "exception" or "deviation" to which I referred would be using self-published work by an author writing outside of his expertise. I grant that I should have worded it better. The disagreement is as you describe it.--MattMauler (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It's nice to see another editor, who was not really involved in being a major contributor to the article (like myself), voice an opinion. I do think being a little too emotionally attached to the article's contents has clouded the judgement of the two editors in favor of including the material sourced to a personal web page. As MattMauler said, the author is considered an expert on webcomics (even that is dubious to me - the page cited was written by one editor, but it's irrelevant so I don't feel like going on a tangent), but John M. Ford is not a webcomic, nor did he write webcomics, so the source is quite unacceptable. There's an UNDUE argument as well, a concept I was not familiar with until it was brought up here. Either argument seems like it's enough to justify striking the material, but when you put both together, obviously it's open-and-shut. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That's still not how it works. I was the one who mentioned the UNDUE argument, but someone would actually have to make the argument to justify removal, which nobody has done. And Burma's professional publications in SciFi and gaming absolutely make him a relevant RS on Ford, who wrote in precisely these two areas. Unless consensus is achieved, I will continue to object to removal made on this (non-policy-compliant) basis. Scholarly publications are by no means required by WP:SPS - and you, SteamboatPhilly, nominated for deletion an article that does cite scholarly publications, so it seems, erm, hypocritical for you to hold that up as a relevant standard here. Which it is not. Newimpartial (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Everything you just typed is wrong: Burns is held up (BY ONE EDITOR) as an expert on webcomics. That is all. Not sci-fi, not gaming, and certainly not John Ford. Even the premise that he is a reliable source on webcomics is suspect, as it's not a Wikipedia policy, and written by ONE EDITOR on some obscure article on who is reliable on webcomics. This isn't even close and consensus is clearly against you here. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. Look at Burma's professional publications, please, which span all these fields. There is one editor agreeing with you, and one agreeing with me, so the policy-compliant course is to retain the stable version. Please don't Edit War, and don't be sore that your AfD failed, per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I have brought the matter to the RSN.--MattMauler (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Ford avoided repetition not only of the work of others, but also of his own work."

This text: "Ford avoided repetition not only of the work of others, but also of his own work. Where many writers make a name for themselves by developing a known style that repeats in many books, Ford always surprised with his ability to use a variety of styles that best suited the world, characters, and situations he had chosen to write about. (John Clute expressed this in 1993 The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction as "Two decades into his career, there remains some sense that JMF remains unwilling or unable to create a definitive style or mode; but his originality is evident, a shifting feisty energy informs almost everything he writes, and that career is still young.") This might have limited his readership, however he was much respected by his fellow writers, editors, critics and fans. "

Is unsourced. Therefore, it must be removed. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That text was added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_M._Ford&diff=5765280&oldid=5580007

Please stop re-adding it. It is clearly one editor's opinion that was added completely unsourced. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The source is literally in the text you deleted. If you don't like the paraphrase, fix it. Also you have violated 3RR with your latest reversion, which is kind of a big deal. I suggest that you revert. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That text I deleted is NOT in the source. You just made that up. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The quotation is in the text you deleted. Also, "you just made that up" is a personal attack, contrary to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Uh fine, I take back "you just made that up." How about this instead: You are incorrect when you say that the quotation is in the text I deleted. See above. That text was added in 2004, and was largely unchanged until I removed it for not having a source. If you have a source, you should add it. Because the source for the rest of that paragraph only included the quotes from Jordan, Gaiman, and Hayden, and that is still there, since it is sourced. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain how The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is not a source? Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say it's not a source and I'd appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth. I said that the text "Ford avoided repetition not only of the work of others, but also of his own work" and the fluff that follows that was added 2004 without a source, and was just the opinion of whoever typed that in off the top of their add. I provided the link above of when that was added, and who added it. Again, if you have a source for that specific text, you should add it in, but you don't, because that was original work by that editor that added it. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I have re-added the Encyclopedia source BUT kept out the "fluff" you mention. You're right; much of it sounds like puffery. The part that I put back in was about him using a variety of styles, which the quote from the Encyclopedia establishes pretty clearly.--MattMauler (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, MattMauler. SteamboatPhilly, you might want to follow their example and avoid removing sourced content, edit warring, and misleading edit summaries. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That's rich. Matt literally agreed with me that there was a bunch of unsourced fluff that YOU kept re-adding, and you're thanking him for saying I was right while simultaneously attempting to save face with your condescending tone towards me. I'm satisfied with the knowledge that you've finally accepted you were wrong all along. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no reliable source for "Ford participated in several online discussions"

This may be true, who knows. But without a reliable source, it cannot be included in the encyclopedia. Therefore, I am removing it. I would appreciate it if anyone who feels like re-inserting it would come up with a real reason for doing so, BEFORE they do so. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the source for this was already in the article, so I have added a cite. I also added three entirely new RS for other passages. I did not restore the "avoided repetition" bit, however, because it seemed to be both inelegant and UNDUE. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If you're relying on self-published web pages as sources again, I suggest you re-read WP:RS. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no ban on the use of self-published sources, per SPS, as you were repeatedly told in Teahouse discussions. In this case, the source provides access to links documenting Ford's presentation, so that neither Primary research not SYNTH is required in the WP article. No reliance on the judgment of the source is required.

Please note that this content is not only sourced: it has controversially been part of the stable part of the article for years. It must therefore remain per BRD unless there is policy-compliant consensus for removal. Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Will Shetterly as a source on Ford

Please note that, per WP:SPS, "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". There had been some dispute about whether websnark met this criterion, but there should be home about Shetterly: in addition to all of his other qualifications, he published on John M. Ford in the reliable, print publication Locus (#550; November 2006), when it was under the editorship of Charles N. Brown. I do not have access to the piece published in Locus, which is why I used the self-published one, but this is literally exactly the case that the SPS policy is meant to include as RS. Removal of the source or of claims in the articledocumenteded in this source are therefore contrary to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Shetterly aside for the moment, would you care to state why you included all of the other material that is sourced to self-published sources in your mass reverts? Also, I'd like to see a community opinion on this assertion you make about Shetterly - there are 14 citation in the reference section and not one mention of Shetterly in it. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There was no Shetterly in the Reference list only because you removed it, SteamboatPhilly. I have restored the stable version content and the Shetterly source, which you should not per policy have removed. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We'll get back to that. Why did you re-add the other self-published sources without any discussion, knowing full well they don't belong in an encyclopedia? SteamboatPhilly (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I added back exactly one self-published source, namely Shetterly. I also restored content that is in the stable version, which is now sourced to Shetterly and to Sleight (not a self-published source). Newimpartial (talk)

Also please note that, in spite of your previous comment, Shetterly is actually cited in the other references as well. Newimpartial (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The Shetterly source appears to be valid for the information it is citing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about using a web forum [2] as a source for justification of stating that Ford was "a contributor to several online discussions". If a reliable secondary reported this, then fine, I would have no problem with it. But this is literally something the creator of the material wrote up on their own, with no source, because someone going by the handle of "John M. Ford" posted somewhere on a web forum. That's not a reliable source. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Will Shetterly and John M. Ford knew each other for years, both active in Minneapolis SF, so Will had every opportunity to confirm that "handle" if there had been any doubt. (Note that Shetterly and his wife edited the books featuring most of the Ford short-stories and poems listed in this very article.) As the forum owners are also SF book publishers and knew Ford personally as did other forum participants (SF writers and fans; his own partner Elise Matthesen posted his death notice there), the suggestion of that "handle" being a long-term impersonation has minimal, roughly zero, plausibility. – _•Raven  ^.talk 18:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)