Talk:Nancy A. Collins

It's ridiculous there's no article for Sonja Blue.

Many far less important and influential literary characters have their own Wikipedia articles. There was an article, and it was removed, and that's a disgrace. Google any obscure cartoon character--say Milton the Monster--and you find a Wikipedia article. Sonja Blue, one of the most original figures in contemporary vampire fiction, clearly a direct (and uncredited) influence on Buffy the Vampire Slayer--gets a brief mention in her creator's extremely brief Wikipedia entry. While untold thousands of far less important characters have lengthy write-ups.

There's no excuse for this, no possible justification. Somebody either screwed up, or else had an an axe to grind. Either way, disgraceful.Xfpisher (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. So, what are you doing to fix this? -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Short Stories

The "Selected short stories & novelettes" section should be edited so that short stories are in quotes and novelettes are in italics. I can't do it myself since I don't know which is which. Thanks. N,N-dimethylpeptokryptamide (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Church of the SubGenius Membership?

Recently. User:Pburka removed the following pages from Category:American SubGenii.

Nancy A. Collins [1] (Mentioned here, here and here)

Penn Jillette [2] (Mentioned here and here and here)

Rudy Rucker [3] (Mentioned here, here, here and here)

John Shirley [4] (Mentioned here and here)

Bruce Campbell [5] (Mentioned here and here)

Del Close [6] (Mentioned here)

Paul Reubens AKA Pee Wee Herman [7] (Mentioned here and here)

Lon Milo DuQuette [8](Mentioned here)

These removals were perfectly reasonable, because the articles do not mention membership in the COSG, nor are most of the links I list above reliable sources. Because of this, I am putting out a call for citations to reliable sources that establish Church of the SubGenius membership for these and other celebrities. I suspect that a fair count will put the number considerably higher than the number of celebrity Scientologists. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the Collins links, together with the info already there (following links already in the article will show "Nanzi Regalia" or "Nanzi X. Regalia" is her SubGenius pseudonym and that "Love's Throbbing Bob" is a SubGenius story) establish the connection abundantly. Is there now some policy in Wikipedia prohibiting noting of people's religious or organizational affiliations unless it is discussed in detail in the body of the article? -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

From WP:BLPCAT: Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. I interpret this as requiring that justification for inclusion be present in both the text and in supporting references, not one or the other. Pburka (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, I think that Pburka removing the category was entirely correct -- which is why I want to improve the article in such a way that the category can be re-added. The two parts of WP:BLPCAT that seem most relevant are "the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources" -- meaning we need to add something about Church of the SubGenius Membership in the text and we need a citation supporting it, and "Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief" -- meaning that We need a citation where Nancy A. Collins says she is a member. Is the "Nanzi Regalia" enough? Is it notable enough? (I would argue yes.) If so, all we need to do is add the text and the citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sonja and Buffy

A writer of prose fiction publishes a novel in 1989 about a young woman with supernatural powers who kills vampires, after being instructed how to do so by an older mentor (her Giles). The vampires are parasitic demonic entities that infect the host, take him/her over, and take on his/her identity/memories. A few years later, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie) comes out. Shortly afterwards, there's a TV series, that resembles the books in a number of additional ways (that I didn't mention in my edits). (If you ever want to know where Spike came from.....)

Is it truly 'original research' to draw a comparison, suggest a potential influence? Is it original research to say Sonja came first? It's actually a documented fact.

Here's the Wiki article on the film Starcrash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starcrash

"It is widely regarded as a "cash-in" on the unprecedented success of Star Wars."

No link. Nobody querying "by whom?" You know why? It's self-evident.

Not original research.

It's original research to draw a connection that hasn't been made in reliable sources, and it's borderline libelous. To suggest or imply that Joss Whedon copied Collins's character without crediting her could be considered a serious accusation. Even if we don't say it directly, we're leading the reader down a garden path. Unless reliable sources have connected the two characters, we shouldn't either. The Starcrash comparison is invalid because (a) WP:OTHERCONTENT and (b) the Starcrash page cites the American Film Institute in its comparison. pburka (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's libellous to say the book came out in 1989? (That's one of the silliest edits I've ever seen). As to 'reliable sources'--well, the article sourced regarding the Blade film references Buffy as well. It isn't available online. I'll see if I can get a look at it. (Could I ask--why isn't it libellous for 'reliable' sources' to say--as they do all the time--that one storyteller probably borrowed from an earlier one? You really think Whedon is calling his lawyers over this?) "Copied" is a silly term to use with regards to TV/Film, which are constantly drawing on earlier stories, and never directly crediting them, for tedious legal reasons. That's a fact. It's an undeniable fact Sonja came first, and there are numerous parallels (and differences). If you choose to regard that as 'original research', I hate to tell you, there are probably tens of thousands of Wiki articles that violate your interpretation of it (and nary a lawsuit provoked by them). I don't think Buffy is direct plagiarism, but it clearly was influenced by the Sonja books--it's been something Whedon fans have tried to hush up because they want to believe he's a genius who thinks up all his stories himself (as no television writer/producer ever has). Collins has been unjustly ignored for her splendid contribution to this sub-genre. There were ways Whedon could have indirectly thanked her. But given what's coming out about him now, no surprise he didn't. I'll keep coming at this. You will eventually have to concede the point.

If you wish to seek additional opinions I recommend posting on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. pburka (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd wish for you to explain how mentioning that one story predates another is libelous. Even 'borderline' (what does that even mean?) And could I ask--have you read any Nancy Collins novels? While we're about it, explain why it can't be mentioned that Sonja Blue first appeared in 1989. If the mere mention of the date of a novel 'implies' it might have influenced a later story, then clearly just stating simple facts is 'original research' and all of Wikipedia is in perpetual violation of that guideline.

I haven't read Collins's books, and I wouldn't put it past Whedon to "borrow" from another person's work. But we can't use Wikipedia's voice to say or imply that he did, and the only reason to mention Buffy at all is to hint at a connection that isn't supported by reliable sources. Imagine if I wrote something like this:

Princess Alice of Battenberg was diagnosed with schizophrenia and, as a member of the British royal family, had diplomatic immunity in the United States. California police have never publicly identified her as a suspect in the Zodiac Killer murders. The final communication from the Zodiac Killer occurred shortly before Alice's death in 1969.

Everything here can be supported by excellent references, but it's not Wikipedia's place to suggest a connection that isn't supported by reliable sources, even if we believe it's true (I don't believe that the queen's mother-in-law was Ted Cruz). pburka (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Apples and Kumquats. This isn't a murder case--it's not even suggesting plagiarism, just influence. It's not a crime to be influenced by someone. Sloppy argument. You'd know just how sloppy if you had any familiarity with the general subject matter, but alas...... It's common practice for Wiki articles to make precisely the kind of suggestion you say they don't. It doesn't violate Original Research, and nobody with the slightest understanding of Libel Laws would suggest it was libelous. Produce one example of Wikipedia being sued for libel for saying "This looks a lot like that."

Clearly you and I disagree on this, but please do try to be civil. Once again, I urge you to seek additional opinions on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. pburka (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been perfectly civil--or at least no less so than yourself. I was criticizing your argument, not you--and you've conceded this is not one of your areas of expertise (so what are you doing here?) I am well familiar with the Original Research guideline. Ain't my first rodeo. It simply does not apply to the matter of which character came first. If people choose to draw an implication from Sonja's precedence, they are free to do so. If I say "This influenced that"--well, no number of scholarly articles could prove it, if Whedon didn't come out and say he read the Collins novels, which he's never going to do. I am not saying that. I'm saying one came before the other. Explain to me how OR applies to stating a well-documented fact. And I guess you've given up on the libel thing? Btw--accusing me of a crime is not terribly polite.

Let's try this. I won't mention Buffy. I won't mention Whedon. Not unless I can locate an article from a suitable source that does so. If you're merely objecting to putting Sonja into context in the larger genre--that's not justifiable by any guideline. And of course, libel is not remotely an issue here, never was, never could be (it's a truism that writers borrow from other writers). Truthfully, many blog articles are better written and researched than many journal articles--and easier to access. But let me see if I can find something acceptable. If not, I'm still going to make more edits. And this could get very time-consuming for both of us. Relating to an article I suspect you were just randomly assigned, on a subject you know nothing about.

If you don't think the reference for the Blade comparison is reliable, then we should probably remove that, too. pburka (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)