Talk:Robert J. Sawyer

Premise

Who's premise was flashforward? I'll give you a clue with the initials JT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.78.148 (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Gareth McCaughan (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Relevant for inclusion?

I'm just reading Flashforward, and found it amusing/spooky that he mentions Pope Benedict XVI in the 2009 setting.

Benedict is the most common Pope name, so if you're going to name future pope that's the obvious bet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.144.16.56 (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's simply false; at the time he wrote that, John was the most common, followed by Gregory: see List of Popes. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

I really don't like this sentence. While I think all of the ideas presented have value, the particular combination seems highly POV and political to me: Although he is a dual US/Canadian citizen, he is sometimes seen as being critical of the United States (however a close reading of his work often reveals similar criticisms of Canada; see in particular the denouncing of former Ontario Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris in Calculating God). In particular, it suggests to me that either his American citizenship should preclude him being critical of the United States, or that being critical of the United States needs the defense that he's a citizen of it, and he's a citizen of Canada and critical of them, too. Or perhaps I'm reading too much into it. But at any rate, can someone change it to an alternative? --Steven Fisher 15:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Edited. I tried to make it as general and NPOV as possible. --SimonCrowley 3 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)

Why was "Webmind" removed from the bibliography? --IP 209...

Webmind was the working title of the project that Sawyer was originally contracted to do. With the permission of his editor, he went to work on Mindscan to fulfil that agreement. --Drakkenfyre

It would be helpful to expand the article with info about Weiss v. Sawyer, the libel case that started several years ago and apparently (?) ended in 2002. Even a cursory mention is not here. It involved Weiss -- a bibliographer and reviewer -- suing Sawyer for libel. Weiss had published a negative review of one of Sawyer's novels, and Sawyer contacted the newspaper in question, Realms, regarding a previous difference of opinion between the two writers. His letter may have appeared on the Realms website, as well as in the paper, and formed the basis for the libel claim. All I've been able to find so far on the web is discussion of the Canadian legal precedent that was set; the judge in the case found that publishing online is considered to be the same as publishing a newspaper, in terms of expectations for filing a libel suit. http://puggy.symonds.net/pipermail/goajourno/2002-September/000202.html has a summary of that court action. I met the editors of Realms magazine at one time and was startled to see a Toronto Star article regarding the case and their need for a legal defense fund. I have not been in Canada for some years and am not sure if anything happened after 2002. Still, it bears mentioning, for the precedent it set at the very least. Noirdame 18:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree there should be a mention of the lawsuit. It did set some precedent in Canada. Mindme (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Added a mention of the lawsuit.Dgcuff (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The above editor also gutted the article. I reverted his change. If Weiss v. Sawyer is significant, it should be covered in an article on Canadian internet law. And to make the change, he/she should not have sliced and diced all of the information on this author's books from this Biography of a Living Person. --Drakkenfyre (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you are flinging around bad faith accusations. Obviously you didn't agree with Dgcuff's efforts, but there simply is no need for this extended and unnecessary campaign of yours. You have been a Wikipedian for a long time, so you should know better. Comment on the article, not the editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Again you have chosen to use defamatory language when describing my comments and my edits. I ask that you desist. Now. I will remind you a second time that Wikipedia has Etiquette Guidelines. Please review before continuing to treat me in what I feel is a hostile manner.

Would you please tell me what you mean by "extended and unnecessary campaign"? I do not understand what you mean by it, because I am not engaging in one.

And returning to the original comment that you took such severe offense to, I said the edit could be construed that way. Yet you say that I attacked the editor and not the article. Please explain why your characterization of my words flies in direct contradiction to what my words actually were. For reference (since I am not confident that you will return to the source material, since you have ignored it in your last comment), I said "Wholesale stripping of an article of most of its useful information, while inserting information that is factually incorrect . . . gives the appearance of bias and a personal attack."

So be a good Wikipedian and please tone down your rhetoric. We can have an honest discussion here, but not if you continue to be hostile and accusatory, making unfounded accusations. It is counterproductive and just plain rude. Please keep your discussion to what is in the article, the discussion page, and otherwise in text, and please do not include your unfounded extrapolation of the text. Drakkenfyre (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You accused the other editor, who edited in good faith (including discussion here), of "guttting", "slicing" and "dicing" the article. Don't lecture me, an 11,000+ editor, on etiquette when clearly you have failed to assume good faith in this instance. You reverted a considerable amount of work on this article without talk page discussion, until prompted by me to do so. That's poor form, quite frankly. Now you have added to your transgression by claiming the good faith editing "gives the appearance of bias and a personal attack", which is even worse. Please reassess your actions concerning this matter, and consider posting an apology on Dgcuff's talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have asked you to cease and desist until you can speak to me in a civilized manner. You have not done so. Stop. I would be happy to restart this discussion when you are prepared to speak only in a respectful manner. Stop your hostile tone. Drakkenfyre (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How bizarre. You are describing your own behavior. And you apparently intend to defend your failure to assume good faith by attacking others. If this is how you intend to contribute, I think it is safe for editors of this article to ignore your input until you can conduct yourself appropriately. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this is supposed to be a thinly veiled threat. That your status as an "11,000+ editor" is supposed to mean that you can get away with being hostile to other editors. But, sir, it does not. And I am not feeling threatened by your bullying. Again, I would be happy to discuss this article. But I ask that you stop with hostility, threats, unfounded characterizations, and the general bickering that you continue to engage in. I will no longer respond to your personal attacks. From this point forward I will only respond to well-thought-out comments on the article and past and potential changes.

My question, on the only topic we should be discussing here:

1) What is the justification for removing much information about this author's books (as books are what makes this person notable)?

2) What is the justification for inserting information on a lawsuit that is so unimportant that it does not even bear mentioning in an article on Canadian internet law (as this is not an article on legal president, but on a RLP who is article-worthy as an author)? Drakkenfyre (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

←I am not bullying you. I am simply reminding you that on Wikipedia, we expect editors to assume that other editors are contributing in good faith, as Dgcuff has done. Your reversion and comments clearly showed an assumption of bad faith, which is wholly inappropriate. Now let me address your two questions:

1. The article was overlong, and spent way too much time discussing specifics about the author's works, rather than the author. This is a WP:BLP, so it should be predominantly about the author. Specifics about the author's works can be covered in the individual articles that relate to these works. In the case of extremely notable and representative works, their significance and nature can be summarized here. Other things, such as awards, received too much attention. The idea of Dgcuff's approach was to reduce the article to the essentials, and then port some of the leftover material to other articles. A discussion was underway on this talk page about these changes, but you came in and reverted without contributing to that discussion. Note that most important material was saved by adding it to this talk page, so that is a clear indication that Dgcuff had not intended it to be simply lost - another clear indication that the editor was not editing in bad faith, as you suggested.
2. I am not familiar with any of the details concerning the lawsuit, but I understand that it was significant to both the author and to Canadian legal precedent. This is borne out by the provided sourcing. Needless to say, the inclusion of this information can be the subject of reasonable discourse here without resorting to heavy-handed reversions.

So let us move forward productively, with assumptions of good faith all around, and try to improve the standard of this article. Let's take our time to get it right and rely on reasonable discourse and solid consensus building. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This latest change contains factual inaccuracies and is completely unsourced. See http://www.sfwriter.com/dagf.htm for information on his mother's profession, for example. When making changes, please cite your sources.

Also, given that your change contains factual inaccuracies and mine did not, I ask that I be allowed to restore my change.

Finally, you have made drastic changes to the article without discussing them on the talk page. I made changes, too, discussing them only after, as my changes reverted changes that had not been come to by concensus on the talk page. In the interests of your stated goal, I ask that you allow me to revert all changes to before the DGCuff changes. We can discuss them and then come to a consensus, but a quick-and-dirty two-person agreement does not make consensus to make major changes to a RLP. Drakkenfyre (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And back to my stated goal of having a discussion on this, first I would like to state that the state you reverted the article made substantial changes to a Biography of a Living Person. As stated on that page:

"Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:

* Neutral point of view (NPOV)

* Verifiability

* No original research

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]"

My actions did just that, adhering to Wikipedia policy. You reverted my change to that effect, and contravened Wikipedia policy. I ask that you either reverse your change or agree to allow me to reverse the change, pending the results of our discussion. Drakkenfyre (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Second, I think it would be useful for us to establish an exemplar of what a Biography of a Living Person should look like. I propose we use Isaac Asimov as our exemplar, given that he is the most famous writer in the field and his article is well-written, well-discussed, and well-sourced. Do you agree? Drakkenfyre (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, are you coming back? It seems that you've left a BLP dangling with, unverified, unverifiable, and incorrect information. Wikipedia is very clear on this. They say at the top of every BLP page: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be added and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

You have effectively blocked me from following Wikipedia policy. Can you at least tell me if you're coming back to the conversation? Drakkenfyre (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear about this. I did not make any changes. I simply restored the edits that you reverted because you failed to discuss them here first. Also, you cannot use the author's own website as "proof" of whether something is or isn't the case. I am intimately familiar with all aspects of WP:BLP, so please don't use this talk page to lecture me about the policy ever again. Finally, I am in the process of moving home, so I cannot devote any significant time to this matter for approximately 10 days. Please engage Dgcuff, who is responsible for these edits, on his/her talk page if you wish to talk about the specifics of what concerns you. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You did make a change. You reverted a legitimate and by-the-book reversion. Wikipedia is very clear that this must be done with BLPs. The link was a quick-and-dirty (but still within Wikipedia guidelines, as it is published, static and we can trace its source), but it goes to show that the person who made the change has no basis for his change. Please do not characterize my citation of Wikipedia policy as "lecturing." Again, it is hostile and rude. As is the use of emphasis in what I can only interpret as a way of ramming a point home that may not have the weight the words themselves really have. Given that you do not have time to discuss this, do you consent to my reversion of your reversion of my reversion, pending consensus? Drakkenfyre (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If a legal issue is significant related to the decade-old Weiss lawsuit, it should be linked to where that legal significance is discussed in an article on law. As to it being "significant to the author," surely the significance (if any) in the context of a biographical discussion of Sawyer is that the suit against him was dismissed on summary judgment with costs awarded to Sawyer. Why was that left out? In any event, the inserted text on this topic, if any is warranted, needs to be absolutely accurate (not just per BLP but because it discusses a legal matter) and the current versions isn't: despite what the text claims, the citation does not establish that Weiss was a journalist, or that the material in question was published online, nor is it NPOV (the court found Weiss "failed" to serve a libel notice, not that he "neglected" to), etc. If someone wants to do a careful reading of the judgment and prepare an accurate (but suitably short) summary, that would perhaps be useful; the current insertion isn't. Sybok (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Given the one-sided nature of how that section was written, it gives the appearance of non-NPOV. This is not a criticism of the author, just a statement on the text. But frankly, if we went through each RLP's article and added every lawsuit and traffic ticket fight he or she had ever been involved in, Wikipedia would be a mess. If this is a significant judgment in Canadian law, it needs to be covered on a page about Canadian law or Canadian Internet law. If it is not important enough for that, why is it here? It adds nothing to the understanding of the author or his work. And if we are to add that, would we have to go back and add in those passages that were rightly edited out about who he went to school with and about his parents and such? They also add nothing to our understanding of the author and his work. Drakkenfyre (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot devote time to this matter at the moment. Please continue to use good judgment and assume good faith. Comments like "given the one-sided nature" do not AGF, quite honestly. While I completely agree that BLP violations should be removed, I most certainly do not agree that justifies a wholesale reversion of Dgcuff's work. Individual issues can be addressed without wholesale reversions. I recommend that for the time being, all changes are discussed on this talk page (as if the article were protected) and a consensus sought before implementation. There is no doubt that this article has been drifting into the realm of a "puff piece" for a long time, and it definitely needs to be more tightly focused. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, earlier drakkenfyre suggested you were gaming the system, and you took umbrage --- but this seems to prove that he was right. To suggest an article should be treated as protected simply because you and you alone are arguing against a reversion seems to me to be just that. You also speak as thbough substantial work was done by Dgcuff, and so that work must be protected. Wholesale cuts are not substantial work, but the material cut was and is, and should be restored. Sybok (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that would be a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Dgcuff rewrote much of the article in an attempt to improve it, saving removed information on a section of this talk page. This would be consistent with best practices. If you look at the talk page history, you will see that my initial response was one of alarm, because significant changes had been made; however, I assumed good faith and I could see that the changes were part of an ongoing process of necessary improvement. This was not the case with Drakkenfyre, who chose to revert without discussion and then make accusations of bad faith. When that wasn't received well, Drakkenfyre started attack me and my motives. That's just not appropriate on Wikipedia. As I said before, the article was beginning to look like a "puff piece" (rather than a serious biography), so naturally some "wholesale cuts" were going to be necessary in any case. Nothing should be "restored" unless it is appropriate and has attracted a broad consensus for inclusion. My suggestion to treat the article as if protected is also sound advice, but it was only a suggestion (which I have no means of enforcing). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, in accordance with Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons, I reverted and then initiated discussion. And I made no such accusations. You were the one who accused me of acting in bad faith. And you attacked me over and over and over again, straying farther and farther from reasonable discussion. I asked you and provided a starting point for us to have a constructive, consensus-building discussion on this, but instead of participating in that, you choose here to simply mischaracterize my words, fling accusations, and generally say nasty things about me. I would like to point out that this article is not about me, and so the talk page should not be a venue for your continued inappropriate behaviour (and given how long you've been an editor, you should know that there are no angry mastodons on Wikipedia).

If you are going to characterize the article as a "puff piece," would you please cite some specifics? Also, it does not "naturally" follow that some "wholesale cuts are going to be necessary." It does not follow at all. Consensus, real consensus, is what Wikipedia is all about. Building up instead of breaking down. Edit where necessary, but do not assume that yours is the final word. That's what this place is all about.

Are you ready to come back to the table, or are you going to keep saying nasty and untrue things about me? You can't have it both ways. Build consensus or create divisions; now is your time to choose. Drakkenfyre (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. That is pure fantasy. Your first comments in this discussion clearly accused Dgcuff of "bias", "personal attacks" and "biased attacks on a living person." That's a clear assumption of bad faith. Please get off the pedestal on which you have elevated yourself and start being an honest Wikipedian. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, it is a little hard to see exactly what is going on when you use different IP addresses as well as a username. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad I have to defend myself on this point, given that I clearly took ownership of what I had done. Again, Wikipedia is very clear that user accounts be protected against being compromised. Given how many usernames and passwords I have, I have a keychain system at home. When I am not at home, I cannot always remember all my passwords. Any further questions? Drakkenfyre (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And again, Scjessey chooses to fight, rather than discuss. Are you planning to discuss the article anytime soon? Drakkenfyre (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The tone of the article has become more neutral and more informative about this living person as a result of the recent re-addition of material on the author's style and themes. Any artist's awards and contributions to his or her craft tend to sound hollow without supporting discussion of the works themselves. These sections need to be included. Can we have consensus on this?msklystron (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to respond to Drakkenfyre's question, "If you are going to characterize the article as a 'puff piece,' would you please cite some specifics?" I believe that the article as it currently stands does read as a "puff piece" and here's why: Sawyer's awards are mentioned in the current article over and over and over again. This is appropriate writing style for a publicist -- not for a neutral POV encyclopedic article. I propose solving this problem by doing the following:

• eliminating the "Awards and honors" section
• moving the information on foreign translations into the opening paragraph
• removing references to awards when citing books/stories in the "Style and themes" section
• removing references to awards when citing books/stories in the "SF/Mystery crossovers" section
• removing references to awards and nominations in the "Bibliography" section
• renaming "Awards details" to "Awards" and expanding this section to include all award wins (not nominations) listed in the Locus Index

I would also question the appropriateness of including the plug about "starred reviews" and the list of other publications which have profiled Sawyer, which are both currently in the "Critical studies and scholarly works" section. Bowrain13 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad someone actually wants to discuss this. Thank you. I think the best thing to do is to actually list the duplicate mentions of awards. I'd be happy to do that, if you agree that it would be useful. Also, I'd like to continuing mentioning a significant award in the parts that mention the books that won those awards, as the utility of talking about those books is reduced if we don't know that it's an award-winner. What are your thoughts on that? Drakkenfyre (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement "the utility of talking about those books is reduced if we don't know that it's an award-winner." Having a separate section listing Sawyer's significant awards speaks to the fact that the subject of this article is noteworthy, the nature of the awards themselves speaks to the realm in which the subject is noteworthy, and the content of this section provides the factual data regarding which works won which awards that could reasonably be expected to be included in a neutral POV encyclopedic article about the subject. (Or, it would if we updated it to include all of the wins listed in the Locus index.) Discussion of the style and themes of Sawyer's work does not need a re-iteration of this information because whether or not a work wins or fails to win an award has no bearing on the work's style/theme.

I think a large part of the problem (of the article reading as publicity and not neutral POV) stems from the fact that much of the material is sourced from the subject's own web site. Mr. Sawyer's web site is crammed full of self-promotion at every opportunity. This is acceptable for his web site because its purpose is to promote Mr. Sawyer's product. As Wikipedia contributors attempting to compile a neutral POV article, however, we need to remain aware of the promotional angle of the source material and be diligent in stripping out all unnecessary back-patting.

In the interest of promoting a consistent style across like-themed WP articles, I followed your suggestion of consulting the article on Isaac Asimov as a possible template for the reworking of this article. In reading that article I noted that Mr. Asimov's major awards are listed once, in a separate section titled "Awards" and that this information is not reiterated elsewhere in the article -- such as when award-winning stories are discussed in the article's "Literary themes" section. The changes I have suggested to this article would bring it more in line with the style and neutral POV of the Asimov article. Bowrain13 (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How would the article change if you only included the wins listed in the Locus index? How would the article change?

Also, how would the article look if you removed all "unnecessary back-patting"? Drakkenfyre (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question. One of the most striking things about this author is the number of awards he has won. I believe this author has won more than most Canadian authors and more than many past and present SF writers. These facts and quotes and references supporting these facts should be in the article. A list of the awards and a discussion of their significance within the genre as well as their impact on the writer's work is important. For instance winning the Nebula for Terminal Experiement led to the author's decision to write full time. At present the article seems to be focussing only on listing and mentioning the awards without tying them into a larger context. Adding in that larger context would fix the problem of the article sounding like a marketing piece. Also a statement summing up the key points about the significance of the subject's awards should appear in the introduction in my opinion.msklystron (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Q (from Drakkenfyre): "how would the article look if you removed all 'unnecessary back-patting'?"

A: A whole lot less like a publicity puff piece and a whole lot more like the neutral POV encyclopedia article we are striving towards.

Stripping out the back-patting is but one step in a long list of suggestions Wikipedians have come up with for improving this article -- as discussed in the NPOV Dispute section below -- but it's a necessary step. The article will not achieve neutral POV until this is done.

Further input from me on this matter will be added to the NPOV Dispute section below where everyone contributing to the discussion (including myself) can find it. Bowrain13 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Further cleanup

While some excellent work has been done here, we've lost the lede in a gigantic swamp of undifferentiated material. The new version needs some subject headings, and a bit of standard formatting (personal vs. professional life, etc.) to become useful. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Got to agree. This article reads like a laundry list of accomplishments, and is (sorry to say) a bit of a tough slog to get through. And while his list of accomplishments is impressive, a lot of what's here seems like puffery. Is someone familiar with Sawyer willing to do some pruning? 172.134.44.120 (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

While there may be a "laundry list" of accomplishments, I worry that removing note of these will cause the article to be less factually complete and therefore less informative. Frankly, if I were a student writing a book report, for instance, there isn't a piece of information on that page that I would feel comfortable being without. Drakkenfyre (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Still requires cleanup

This article still just resembles a puff piece written by Sawyer himself, or his agent. For instance the whole 'Critical Studies' section does not say anything about what the studies said about Sawyer's works, and seem to only be included to prove that Sawyer is a serious author who is taken seriously. Since he has an article in Wikipedia, we can assume he is notable, it doesn't need to be proven further.

Compare this article to any WP article on a more influential author which focus more on the man, his works and style rather than just being an online trophy rack, listing the author's awards, honours, etc.Ashmoo (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ashmoo about the Critical Studies section. Big task, though. It would take 1- or 2-sentence synopses of every "critical study" listed (which might lead to removing the items in that section that aren't critical studies, e.g. Cdn Encyclopedia, or renaming the section). Any takers?  Kkken (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this article is that it focuses on Sawyer's work, rather than Sawyer himself. The bulk of this BLP should be biographical in nature. There is nothing wrong with listing awards, etc., but it must be in an appropriate weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made a rough start at precis and reorganization, but have left large sections completely intact, including the Critical Studies section. There's still not enough biographical material -- does my attempt help anyone see their way clear to a better cleanup? Dgcuff (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional biographical material might be useful, but needs to be accurate and include source citations. Just randomly adding things you suppose might be true, such as that Sawyer's parents were both university professors (which, anyway, is info about them but not about Sawyer) but not citing it isn't helpful and it isn't accurate from the sources I have seen. Frex, his mother apparently was a lecturer only.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.169.121 (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashmoo wrote, "Since he has an article in Wikipedia, we can assume he is notable." Hardly true. Notability of article subjects is much debated throughout Wikipedia and should be established within each article. Ashmoo also wrote: "article should focus more on ... works and style." Agree. Such material was in the article and should be put back in. Kkken says, "Big task, though. It would take 1- or 2-sentence synopses of every "critical study" listed." I will begin that task although don't have access to all the sources cited. Sybok (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Style and themes

It's claimed that "Sawyer's work frequently explores the intersection between science and religion, with rationalism always winning out over mysticism", with "Calculating God" mentioned as an example. However, that's not quite right. In that book, mysticism very much has the last say, the religious aliens aren't shown to be wrong and the main character goes from being an atheist to actually praying. Not a good example! I haven't read any of the other books mentioned, so I can't say if this is a general trend. Niels E (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's interesting. That's very much contrary to how the many other books of his that I've read go. So you are right about Calculating God, but I will confirm that the books of his that I've read all go the other way. Drakkenfyre (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hybrids is the best example here. It is unequivocal. But simply changing the word "always" to "usually" would solve the problem. Sybok (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased with the current version of this article, including the recent changes to information about the writing style and themes of this author. It better reflects the work of this writer for students and potential readers without sounding listy or like a puff piece.msklystron (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

After a very,very cursory glance at the references section, here is a quote from an essay written by the author for the SWFA bullentin following Terminal Experiment having won the Nebula. It describes the author's goals with this book: "I believe science fiction is at its best not when it's making predictions, and not even when it's sounding warning bells, but rather when it is giving us unique insights into what it means to be human, examining the human condition in ways that mainstream fiction simply can't."<http://sfwriter.com/nebwin.htm> It's quite possibly available from the original SWFA bulletin. This sort of quote could set the tone for this section.msklystron (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The current version still says "[...]with rationalism always winning out over mysticism (see especially [...] Calculating God [...]". I think Calculating God should simply be removed from that list. Maybe even listed as a counter example. Niels E (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup/repository

I propose that we be bold, and remove from the article the valuable material that isn't relevant to this article (so that it can be used to create another article, once someone figures out what the new article is).

In accordance with that, I've moved the major section about the author's writing to this page so that I can be easily retrieved when needed. Dgcuff (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That was pretty bold; nevertheless, I agree with this approach. It is not clear how this material, most of which appears to be properly cited and relatively well written, can be easily incorporated into another article. The usual approach is to use a category to organize works by the author, with those works subdivided into subcats (fiction, non-fiction, short stories, essays, etc.), and then briefly summarize "representative" works in the BLP itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Clean-up or add subheads, yes, if need be. Remove? No. It seems well-researched, well cited, and useful for students studying Sawyer's works.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.169.121 (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is little doubt that quite a lot of the information in this article is not biographical in nature. This article should, for the most part, be a strict BLP. Information about specific works should not really be in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

See entries on William Gibson, Arthur C. Clarke, and countless others for similar approaches in Wikipedia to entries on sci-fi writers or indeed writers in general

I did exactly that when formulating my first response to Dgcuff (above). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Wholesale stripping of an article of most of its useful information, while inserting information that is factually incorrect (see the very source dgcuff cited to see how his summary was inaccurate), gives the appearance of bias and a personal attack. Us Wikipedians need to be very careful these days that we not endanger Wikipedia's existence or open it up to either legal issues or the appearance of being simply a place to sling mud. Dgcuff's changes to the article reduce its utility and simply seem make it appear like someone has chosen to misuse Wikipedia as a place to make biased attacks on a living person.Drakkenfyre (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the argument that ripping this information out makes it more similar to the pages on, for example, William Gibson is simply false. Are we reading the same William Gibson page? I request that you explain, in depth and with passages cited, how these are not similar.Drakkenfyre (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And I request that you back off with the belligerent tone and bear in mind that the attempt to clean up this article was done in good faith. I don't have the time or the inclination to do your "homework assignment", but I will certainly begin ruminating on what needs to be done about improving this article and then posting some suggestions, instead of simply reverting and making accusations of non-neutral editing, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your characterization of my comment as "belligerent" is utterly without basis and highly offensive. And your request that I "back off" is belligerent in and of itself. I request that you stop using a belligerent tone with me. And you may ruminate all you like, but my reversion was done in good faith, which you have not accorded me. I have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. All changes of that magnitude and which could be construed in a negative way must be backed up in some way, which this change was not. I would kindly suggest that you review the Wikipedia Etiquette Guidelines before replying to this post, if you choose to do so. Additionally, I worry that your citation of good faith might be edging into the territory of "Gaming the System", and so I would ask that you be careful not to stray into using WP rules in a way in which they were not intended. Drakkenfyre (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The cuts to Sawyer's entry are gigantic and unjustified , in my view. The sections cut had been subject to approximatgely 306 edits made by 142 editors over a period of four and a half years, from 13 February 2005, when the first detailed discussions of Sawyer's works were added to the entry on him, until 17 August 2009, when Dgcuff took it upon himself to cut the entry from 45 kilobytes to 25. That work (hundreds of edits by over a hundred editors, all well-cited) IS consensus, and should not be removed.

In restoring Dgcuff's latest version, Scjessey ignores this comment elsewhere on this talk page: "Additional biographical material might be useful, but needs to be accurate and include source citations. Just randomly adding things you suppose might be true, such as that Sawyer's parents were both university professors (which, anyway, is info about them but not about Sawyer) but not citing it isn't helpful and it isn't accurate from the sources I have seen. Frex, his mother apparently was a lecturer only." Dgcuff added that information without citation, and try as I might with Google I can indeed find no credible support for Dgcuff's statement about Sawyer's mother --- so why restore it? Doing so seems to violate the standards imposed by BLP.

On whether an entry on a writer should be filled with biographical tidbits, note that when previous versions of this entry did contain those (such as what Sawyer's father taught and who he was by name or that Sawyer went to school with fantasist Tanya Huff) they were deleted by other editors. There is no consensus that an article on a writer should concentrate on his personal life and eschew discussion of the writer's works so deleting that discussion is not appropriate. Sybok (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As one of the other 100+ editors who worked on the deleted portions, I agree with Sybok. There's no consensus that this material should be removed. There's the guy who removed it then absented himself/herself from all discussion, and there's the guy who is insisting what he initially characterized as a "very bold" deletion is now the product of consensus because he alone has piped up to agree with it. I say revert to earlier 45Kb version of the page. 174.117.133.43 (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Genuine consensus was not achieved and did not pass what one would need to remove half an article and replace parts of it with factually incorrect information. This article was extremely similar to what I think should be the exemplar for SF Author pages, the page on Isaac Asimov. These changes take it very far from what the Isaac Asimov page is, by removing information on the author's writing (see Isaac Asimov: Writing). Drakkenfyre (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Style and themes

Sawyer's work frequently explores the intersection between science and religion, with rationalism always winning out over mysticism (see especially Far-Seer, The Terminal Experiment, Calculating God, and the three volumes of the Neanderthal Parallax [Hominids, Humans, and Hybrids], plus the short story "The Abdication of Pope Mary III," originally published in Nature, July 6, 2000).

He has a great fondness for paleontology, as evidenced in his Quintaglio Ascension trilogy (Far-Seer, Fossil Hunter, and Foreigner), about an alien world to which dinosaurs from Earth were transplanted, and his time-travel novel End of an Era. In addition, the main character of Calculating God is a paleontologist, Wake features a chase scene at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, and the Neanderthal Parallax novels deal with an alternate version of Earth where Neanderthals did not become extinct.

Sawyer often explores the notion of copied or uploaded human consciousness, most fully in his novel Mindscan, but also in Flashforward, Golden Fleece and The Terminal Experiment, plus the Hugo-, Nebula-, and Aurora-award-nominated novella "Identity Theft," its sequel the Aurora-winning short story "Biding Time," and the Hugo- and Aurora-award-nominated short story "Shed Skin."

His interest in consciousness studies is also apparent in his WWW trilogy, beginning with Wake, which deals with the spontaneous emergence of consciousness in the infrastructure of the World Wide Web. His interest in quantum physics, and especially quantum computing, inform the short stories "You See But You Do Not Observe" (a Sherlock Holmes pastiche) and "Iterations," and the novels Factoring Humanity and Hominids.

SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, plays a role in the plots of Golden Fleece, Factoring Humanity, Mindscan, Rollback, the novelette "Ineluctable," and the short stories "You See But You Do Not Observe" and "Flashes." Sawyer gives cosmology a thorough workout in his far-future Starplex.

Real-life science institutions are often used as settings by Sawyer, including TRIUMF in End of an Era, CERN in Flashforward, the Royal Ontario Museum in Calculating God, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Hominids and its sequels, and the Arecibo Observatory in Rollback.

Another Sawyer hallmark is the mortally ill main character. Pierre Tardivel in Frameshift suffers from Huntington's disease, Thomas Jericho in Calculating God has lung cancer, and Jacob Sullivan in Mindscan has an arteriovenous malformation in his brain; one of the main characters in Rollback vividly suffers from that most fatal illness of all, old age. Sawyer nonetheless is known for tales that end on an upbeat, and even transcendent, note.

Sawyer is unusual even among Canadian SF writers for the blatantly Canadian settings and concerns addressed in his novels, all of which are issued by New York houses. His politics are often described as liberal by Canadian standards (although he contributed a Hugo Award-nominated story called "The Hand You're Dealt" to the Libertarian SF anthology Free Space, and another called "The Right's Tough" to the Prometheus Award-winning Libertarian SF anthology Visions of Liberty). He holds citizenship in both Canada and the United States, and has been known to criticize the politics of both countries. He often has American characters visiting Canada (such as Karen Bessarian in Mindscan and Caitlin Decter in Wake) or Canadian characters visiting the U.S. (such as Pierre Tardivel in Frameshift and Mary Vaughan in Humans and Hybrids) as a way of comparing and contrasting the perceived values of the two countries.

Sawyer's style is simple, with clear prose, that Orson Scott Card compared to that of Isaac Asimov. He has a tendency to include pop-culture references in his novels (his fondness for the original Star Trek, The Six Million Dollar Man, and Planet of the Apes is impossible to miss).

SF/Mystery crossovers

Sawyer's work often crosses over from science fiction to mystery; he won both Canada's top SF award (the Aurora Award) and its top mystery-fiction award (the Arthur Ellis Award) for his 1993 short story "Just Like Old Times." Illegal Alien is a courtroom drama with an extraterrestrial defendant; Hominids puts one Neanderthal on trial by his peers for the apparent murder of another Neanderthal; Mindscan has the rights of uploaded consciousnesses explored in a Michigan probate court; and Golden Fleece, Fossil Hunter, The Terminal Experiment, Frameshift, and Flashforward are all, in part, murder mysteries. Of Sawyer's shorter SF works, the novella "Identity Theft" and the short stories "Biding Time," "Flashes," "Iterations," "Shed Skin," "The Stanley Cup Caper," "You See But You Do Not Observe," and the aforementioned "Just Like Old Times" are all also crime or mystery fiction.

Critical studies

Conference papers about Sawyer's work include "The Science and Religion Dialogue in the Science Fiction of Robert J. Sawyer," by Valerie Broege, presented at The Uses of the Science Fiction Genre: An Interdisciplinary Symposium, Brock University, October 2005; "The Intimately Human and the Grandly Cosmic: Humor and the Sublime in the Works of Robert J. Sawyer," by Fiona Kelleghan, presented at the 29th annual International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts in Orlando, Florida, March 2008; and "Time and the Fiction of Robert J. Sawyer: Flash Forward to the End of an Era," also by Fiona Kelleghan, presented at the 30th annual International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts, March 2009.

Critical studies and scholarly reviews of Sawyer's work have appeared in The Gospel According to Science Fiction by Gabriel McKee; in Worlds of Wonder: Readings in Canadian Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature edited by Jean-Francois Leroux and Camille R. La Bossiere; in The Everyday Fantastic: Essays on Science Fiction and Human Being edited by Michael Berman; in Science Fiction and Philosophy: From Time Travel to Superintelligence edited by Susan Schneider; in Dinosaurs in Fantastic Fiction: A Thematic Survey by Allen A. Debus; in The New York Review of Science Fiction (including 5,000 words by Richard Parent on the "Neanderthal Parallax" trilogy in the June 2004 issue, the essay "Robert J. Sawyer in Summer 2005: Mad Play" by Donald M. Hassler in the December 2005 issue, and commentary by Fiona Kelleghan in the cover story of the November 2008 issue); in the SFRA Review; in a scholarly afterword by Valerie Broege in Sawyer's own essay collection Relativity; and even in such publications as Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice.

His fiction has received starred reviews (denoting "books of exceptional merit") in Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Booklist, Quill & Quire, Kliatt, and Anatomy of Wonder: A Critical Guide to Science Fiction, Fifth Edition, by Neil Barron.

Sawyer is profiled in The Canadian Encyclopedia, Canadian Who's Who, Encyclopedia of Literature in Canada, The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature, Contemporary Authors volume 212, Something About the Author volume 81, St. James Guide to Science Fiction Writers, and The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. The hour-long documentary In the Mind of Robert J. Sawyer premiered on Canadian television on January 8, 2003, and has been shown numerous times since on various channels, including Space: The Imagination Station, for which Sawyer is a frequent commentator.

NPOV Dispute

As the dispute regarding POV and appropriate content for this page has become long and messy, I will attempt to reframe the specific points under dispute here, under sub-headings, so that it will be easier for WP editors to follow and contribute to the discussion. Hopefully, by discussing the various points of contention separately we will be able to put to rest the wholesale reversion war and achieve consensus and move forward with improving the article. (Drakkenfyre, if you agree, I will move our discussion re: citing of awards to the appropriate sub-section below, so the information will not be duplicated.) Bowrain13 (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of WP:BLP articles to use as exemplars

Comparing this article to the Isaac Asimov article as an exemplar for biographies of authors in the SF genre, I feel that a brief summary of only this subject's most notable awards is acceptable and useful. It provides context for the subsequent sections, rather than appearing to puff up the subject. It could be included under a separate heading as it is now or better yet included as a sentence in the introduction to the article.msklystron (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think using Isaac Asimov as an example of best practices is not a good idea. While the article is in good condition, it is not a featured article and it does not fall under the strict auspices of WP:BLP. Featured articles of living science fiction authors do exist (examples include William Gibson, J. K. Rowling) from where we can draw inspiration. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting other examples. These being also biographies of living persons may make them more useful as exemplars. I'll read over these articles and comment further accordingly.msklystron (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that William Gibson has published half the number of novels that Robert J. Sawyer has and that there is only one, difficult-to-find mention of awards on that page. I do not know how many awards, or therefore how significant a writer William Gibson is, because there is no mention of which awards he has won. How would you both deal with the differences in their careers and with how incomplete the William Gibson article is in terms of naming which awards he has won? (Unless Gibson has only won three awards; the article is not clear in that regard.)

I am also very concerned that J.K. Rowling has had such a drastically different career from our subject. How is that article a good exemplar for this one, other than its status as a featured article? Drakkenfyre (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The significance of Gibson's awards isn't as important to SF and his body of work as other things, such as the author having coined terms and set new trends in the genre. For Rowling, the most significant aspect of her writing and contribution to the fantasy genre is her popularity and sales. One of the ideas that I came away with after reading Gibson's and Rowling's articles was that biographies of living authors do not need to have a common structure (the same headings, types of material and so on), but rather should be tailored to express the most significant ideas about the subject. They are stories. Headings and the structure of each article should reflect the subject's contribution to their genre and field as well as aspects of their career and background, which had an impact on their body of work, contribution or accomplishments. I think what's important is to find concensus on the most significant aspect of Robert Sawyer's contribution to SF as well as the most significant factors in his life and career as a writer. Somewhere in a number of quotable sources, for example, the author has gone into what drove him to write the sort of science fiction he writes, things like his being more intellectual than athletic as a youth, his membership to the Royal Ontario Museum and so on. Also in quotable sources about the author are his thoughts on cutting edge science and the themes he explores in his books and why. This is the sort of (supporting, meaty)material this article is missing, which is generally better in the Gibson and Rowling articles.

(By the way, regarding Gibson's awards, there is a separate page listing all of his awards, nominations and honours, but... this page does not appear to be linked to the main article at present. This must be an oversight. The Gibson award page is linked to the page listing all of his works, however. The award page can be found by searching list of 'William Gibson's awards'. Aside from the oversight, the page is a tidy, presenting the awards in orderly charts.)msklystron (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Gibson article clearly presents its subject's significance as a writer, as does the Rowling article. Sawyer's career is no more different from Gibson's or Rowling's than it is from Asimov's, but none of these differences matter. As Msklystron suggests, we do not need to strive to copy the same subject headings as other author BLP's, but the exemplars suggested by Scjessey do clearly show where the Sawyer article is lacking and where we need to go with it to improve it. Bowrain13 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In case there aren't enough Featured Articles to get ideas from, you could always look at some of the Good Articles. Here's a couple:

1. Susanna Clarke
2. Terry Pratchett

I am disappointed that so few BLPs are "Featured" or "Good" articles. 70.91.155.242 (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Both Clarke's and Pratchett's articles have introductions that sum up the major points about their careers and life very nicely. (Gosh, I was sad to learn that Pratchett has Alzheimer's.) A strong introduction would greatly improve the Robert Sawyer article. I also noticed that Prachett has a separate section on his interests and approach to writing. Either of these sections might be applicable to Robert Sawyer, for instance his interest in paleotology and Star Trek and his sort of 'command module' set up for writing comfortably (ergonomically) for long periods on his computer. Clarke's biography gives details of how her first book came to be published. It's interesting that Sawyer's Terminal Experiment, for example, (not his first book) was first published as a serial under another title (Hobson's Choice) in Asimov's (could have been Analog...). The book included a controversial theme (abortion) and I believe it may have been rejected elsewhere (I could be wrong about this.) Anyway, sections that allow for further insight into the writer's process and background are much needed in this article.msklystron (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on how shitty it is that so few BLPs are "Featured" - especially SF writers. Dunno about using "Good articles" as exemplars, but I suppose we can draw inspiration from those too. I would like to see a strong introduction too, but it is more important to get the body of the article right. Introductions should really be summaries of what follow (which is why they generally need minimal citations). Again, I would like to reiterate that the subject matter of specific works (such as abortion) should be largely confined to articles on the specific works. We must be careful not to assume that themes explored by Sawyer in his works are reflections of his personal opinions/beliefs, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's plenty of inspiration in all five SF authors' articles. I believe I mentioned elsewhere on this talk page that a strong introduction would flow out of the material in the body of the article (once it has been expanded with proper citations and edited). Any assumptions about the author's personal beliefs vs those expressed in his books can be avoided by finding and including supporting quotes from acceptable sources, including quotes of the author's own words, on themes found in the work. As I've said before, overlapping too much with individual articles on particular books can be avoided by using supporting facts, quotes, biographical details and so on, which relate to Sawyer's body of work and career (arc) as a whole. Books or background events or influences that represent turning points in the subject's career or style/themes should be the focus.msklystron (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Early years

My apologies for the above. I generally lurk... I agree that the William Gibson and J.K. Rowling articles suggested would be good exemplars for this ariticle. The most glaring difference I noticed between the two articles suggested and this article was the insufficient amount of material on the subject's personal and professional background. Expansion in this regard would make clear what led this living science fiction author to achieve awards and other accomplishments. Cleanup should include further sourced details about this living author's early years. I cannot provide acceptable sources for the following at this time, but, for instance, his parents' having worked at a university and his membership as a child to the Royal Ontario Mueseum had an impact on this author's outlook, interest in science fiction and future work. Also significant to this author's career: after winning the Nebula award for Terminal Experiment the author quit his former employment as a freelance (finacial/business) writer and devoted himself to writing fiction full time. In addition, worth mentioning: there is a complete lack of quotations about this author by experts and academics in his field and related fields. Such quotes, which I am certain are available from acceptable sources, would add credibility to this article and would make the long list of awards, etc. appear less like puff. These issues should be addressed in the cleanup of this article.msklystron (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a properly sourced section on the formative influences of the subject's youth and early career would be a valuable addition to this article. Some of the references listed for the current article may provide appropriate secondary source material for such a section. Bowrain13 (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If I can find time, (I'll just say here that I'm a beleaguered single mom of four struggling with an arts career)I'll dig around in some of those sources. There's a wonderful story about young Sawyer submitting a motive for a light show contest. He didn't win, but the motive was used. Experiences like this, which encouraged the author as a youth, should be in the article. He also belonged to an SF club in high school, where he happened to meet his wife. I'm also curious as to why nothing about his wife is mentioned. She has her own career, but has actively supported her husband in his. Sawyer's experience at Ryerson no doubt led to his becoming called upon frequently on TV and Radio to discuss futurism and science fiction. I guess what I'm saying is more connecting of facts and background details to the work are career are needed.msklystron (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Citing of awards

It has been suggested that the current article fails to meet Wikipedia's standard of Neutral Point of View because too much weight is given to Sawyer's awards and recognitions. Bowrain13 (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. The article currently reads as publicity for the subject, not a neutral POV encyclopedia article. The name-dropping of award wins and nominations every time a book or story is mentioned needs to be removed, as does the laundry list of everyone who's ever cited the subject or reviewed his work or profiled him.

Removing the current "Awards and honors" section would also improve this article. As has been suggested elsewhere in the "NPOV Dispute" discussion, the notable information currently listed in this section would fit better elsewhere in the article with relevent background material to give it context. (For example: a one sentence summary of most notable awards in the intro paragraph, mention of the Arthur Ellis and ten Auroras in a discussion of Canadian cultural significance, mention of foreign language awards and translations and international awards in a discussion of the subject's international influence, and a discussion of the impact of the subject's first significant international award win on the formation of his career in a section profiling his early years.) Bowrain13 (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

After noticing that an editor had taken the time and care to correct the bibliography section, it occurred to me that for neutrality, either awards noted in the bibliography section should be removed, or the information in the Awards and honours section should be spread out as you suggest. My inclination would be to do both, remove awards mentions from the bibliography and remove and spread out the Awards and honours section. A section called something like Writing or Career might sum up awards, honours, contributions and career arc/background, with a summary of the key information in the introduction.msklystron (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The list of countries for publications and translations in this section doesn't seem very important to me. Surely this could be summarized to "published in x countries" or something like that? 70.91.155.242 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned elsewhere a summary of this information would be better used to show that this Canadian author has reached international audiences. More supported commentary about his non-Canadian readership would be helpful too. As it is now, it just appears to be plunked here like another laundry list.msklystron (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Critical studies and scholarly works" section

There is dispute as to whether this section provides noteworthy NPOV information to the article or whether it is simply a "laundry list" of praise for the subject. Bowrain13 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This material may be useful for a student researching the author, but I don't see that it has to be included in the body of the article. Could this information be included as part of external links or further reading instead? Looking at the Isaac Asimov article as an exemplar, what seems to be missing in this article is a true 'criticism' heading, which would include a short (and non-duplicative) sampling of quotes and/or paraphrasings of academic critical reviews which reflect the reception of this author's body of work or contribution to the genre of SF.msklystron (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that, while this material may be useful to someone researching the subject, it does not need to be included in the body of the article. I would propose removing this section from the main article, but storing the information on the Talk page for now. That way, contributors wishing to improve the styles and themes section as I have suggested below or create a true criticism section as you have suggested here would have easy access to a list of what I expect would be excellent secondary sources for accomplishing either task. Bowrain13 (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't have a section entitled "criticism", of course. Per WP:CRIT, that would not be appropriate. One could have a section called "reviews" or something similar, but best practices would be for professional critique of works to be on their individual articles, with only a summary in this BLP at the most. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. A summary of professional reviews would be useful.msklystron (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Style and themes

There is dispute as to whether the "style and themes" section should be included in the article. Arguments for inclusion include the opinion that it adds value and improves the NPOV of the article. Arguments against inclusion include the opinion that this BLP article contains too much information about the subject's work and not enough biographical information about the subject himself. Bowrain13 (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this living person is a published author a discussion of the styles and themes in his books is essential. It should be the meat of the article (along with the subject's biographical information and SF related activities.) Just listing and linking the books to a plot summary on another page does not offer insight into the books as a body of work or offer insight into their context within the genre and mainstream literature. Hence, a brief summing up of the core ideas and approaches in this author's body of work provides useful information for students or potential readers. It also balances the subject's long list of awards and accomplishments. Awards do not need to be mentioned in this section, since a list of awards appears elsewhere in the article. I would also suggest that the section on mystery crossovers doesn't need a separate heading. This topic could be included in the styles and themes section in a separate paragraph.msklystron (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a discussion of styles and themes in Sawyer's work should be included for the reason you mention. The existing section however, needs a lot of work. It contains unsourced and improperly sourced material and is more or less a list of "here's a bunch of stuff this author writes about" with no differentiation between coverage of major themes which recur time and again in the author's work (the nature of consciousness, science vs. religion, mortality/immortality) and trivial tidbits (mentions of pop culture references and real life science institutions). However, since the current content in this section could hardly be construed to be contentious I think it is safe to leave it in the article for now as a starting point and flag the section with a tag indicating that it needs cleanup/expansion/citations.

I agree that awards do not need to be mentioned in this section. I would say that they should not be mentioned here -- only in the section on awards.

I agree that the mystery crossovers section could fall under styles and themes. I would include it as a sub-section of styles and themes, and create further sub-sections for major recurring themes as well as a discussion of the prevalence of CanCon in the subject's work. (I would not characterize inclusion of Canadian content as a "theme" but it is important to a meaningful discussion of this author and his work.) Bowrain13 (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this section isn't contentious as is, but requires citations and better organization. Yes, awards bog down this section and are stronger and more useful elsewhere in the article. Sub-sections would be an improvement. Major recurring themes have been represented pretty well in this section. As for pop culture references, this is something the author does in most of his books and stories and could be considered to be a style element. Regarding using 'real life' science institutions, this is true, but perhaps the contributor who wrote this section was trying to say that many of Sawyer's works are set in the near-future, which allows for the inclusion of present-day, existing locations (as opposed to the author having concocted fictional locations). As a Canadian, I understand why the person who contributed this section placed importance on the author's use of Canadian settings. But without the context that until relatively recently Canadian authors tended to write American settings to appeal to American publishers and markets, the significance of this would be lost on wiki readers. So, this does reflect something important about the subject of this article, and his style, but it requires sourcing and further explanation. Yes, a cleanup flag is fair and in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msklystron (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Styles and themes of only the most celebrated works should really be featured, and only in summary with proper sourcing. Some generic stuff could also be included. A more thorough treatment can be given in the individual articles of the works themselves. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This would be a valid approach. Since the content of the celebrated works may not reflect overall style and themes in the body of this subject's work, the 'generic' stuff would probably be required to avoid a skewed representation of the works. Oh, my apologies for forgetting to sign my comment above.msklystron (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I would include Sawyer's obvious penchant for dinosaurs, Planet of the Apes, Star Trek, and Canada-centric stuff in amongst the "generic" material, because they really are quite pervasive in the author's work - assuming reliable sources can be found, of course. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion of "generic" over-arching themes would be necessary to give a balanced representation. Sawyer isn't like Gibson who had one novel so influential it overshadowed everything else he wrote, or Asimov who was so prolific most of us couldn't hope to even remember all of his titles, let alone discuss each one meaningfully. Sawyer's notability lies more in his overall body of work. Bowrain13 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Canadian cultural significance

I had a new thought re: the inclusion of the CanCon material. What about removing it from styles and themes and starting a new section for "Canadian cultural significance" (or some such)? This section could include information on not only the CanCon in Sawyer's writing but also his advocacy for a Canadian region within SFWA, his work on Tesseracts 6 and with Red Deer Press? Sawyer's contributions to "Canadian culture" (as a specific entity) are currently scattered throughout the article with some currently dumped in the generic "Other activities" section. I think this aspect of the subject and his work is significant enough that it perhaps warrants it's own section. Bowrain13 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That is an excellent suggestion, although we must be careful not to synthesize additional significance or meaning beyond what is found in the reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed to both Scjessey and Bowrain's suggestions for this section. This author's most notable strength at present (as mentioned) is the themes found in body of his work. The CanCon thread is particularly strong in the authors' works and other activities as well. I'm thinking that once the styles and themes section is cleaned up, the introduction and background (with some cited explansion) will tie the entire article together better as in the Gibson and Rowling examples.msklystron (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Bowrain's suggestion. One question: Do any of you think that being pigeonholed into "Canadian Culture" might reduce the significance of his influence in North American or SF or literary culture? I don't feel I can properly comment to this, as I am Canadian, and so I can only see it from that point of view. Drakkenfyre (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm....Robert Sawyer lives in Canada and uses Canadian settings, characters and so on in many of his books. He also brought Canada into the SFWA. So, avoiding discussing this would give skewed picture of the author, his work and contribution. However, he has dual citizenship and has expressed his ideas on the differences and similarities between Canada and the United States in his books as well as in lectures and articles. He also has status as a North American and American SF writer. In both the Gibson and Rowling articles the author's nationality was briefly mentioned in terms of it's bearing on their works or contribution to the genre nationally. (Gibson's dual citizenship was stated.) It's also worth noting the reception of Robert Sawyer's work internationally. I'm not sure how he compares to others in his field, but he has won international praise and awards for translated versions of his books. This would offset the CanCon angle.msklystron (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding a properly sourced discussion of Sawyer's contributions to Canadian culture does not in any way "pigeonhole" the author or reduce the significance of his influence on the international SF scene. Sawyer has made significant contributions specifically to Canadian culture throughout his career. In a field which is overwhelmingly dominated by the United States, Sawyer has time and again worked to put Canada on the map.

• The most prominent professional association for SF writers is an American association. Sawyer was instrumental in bringing Canada, as a distinct region, into that association.
• Most Canadian SF authors sell their work to American markets because there is little in the way of publishing opportunities for them domestically. Sawyer edits a Canadian publisher's SF imprint.
• Many Canadian authors shy away from Canadian references in their work because they fear that CanCon will alienate international readers. This is a specifically Canadian quirk which authors from other English speaking countries (who also sell and publish internationally) do not share, it is a practice which Sawyer blatantly does not follow, and an issue which he has spoken about publicly.

These distinctly Canadian cultural contributions are factual, notable (and a significant aspect of the subject's overall notability) and verifiable through appropriate secondary sources. Therefore, inclusion of such a section would be appropriate and improve the quality of this article.

As Msklystron suggests, a separate section (perhaps "International influence"?) which could cover such topics as Sawyer's contributions to the SFWA which are not specifically Canadian advocacy, foreign translations of his novels, and reception of his work within the international English-language community would also be appropriate and would demonstrate that, while the subject's specifically Canadian contributions are significant, he has also made a notable impact internationally.

BTW: I too am a Canadian citizen (and a British citizen) -- but I believe that a reasonable non-Canadian, if presented with the verifiable facts, would conclude that Sawyer has made notable contributions to specifically Canadian culture. Bowrain13 (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm American - a professor who teaches about popular culture at Fordham University in NYC, and an author - and, for what it's worth, I agree completely that Sawyer has made notable contributions to specifically Canadian culture. PaulLev (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not suggesting that we not mention his contributions to Canadian culture (see above where I say "I agree"). My concern is that he's also made other contributions to, for example, the other country he's got citizenship in, that being the US. Really, it might be too soon to say what his impact will be on that. But he does have a major TV show on a major US TV broadcast network, starting tomorrow. I'm just worried that we'll only mention the Canadian stuff and forget that he's an American, too. But I will reiterate that I do think the section on contributions to Canadian culture is an excellent idea. Drakkenfyre (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I see what you mean. For now, hopefully those interested learning more about the book upon which the series is based will click on the link to it in the bibliography section of this article, or find it via the author's name link in the FlashForward TV series article. I have a 1966 set of Funk&Wagnells in my crawlspace... I keep them around for humour/ sentimental reasons. The beauty of wiki is its ability to quickly update articles as living subjects create new work or achieve new success.msklystron (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Weiss v. Sawyer

There is dispute as to whether or not the section regarding this legal dispute should be included in the article. See this revision for the text under review. Bowrain13 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I know I don't particularly want to be responsible for attempting to re-word the description of this dispute. This would hold too great a chance for bias or even libel. Looking at the revision, even referring to the Realms review as 'negative' without proper qualification and context provided could appear biased. There are other examples of potentially contentious wording in the revision. I would suggest leaving this out entirely as it doesn't appear to be groundbreaking legally and it appears to have had little impact on the reputation/ career of the subject. In my opinion, if it must be included the description could be limited to the bare bones information: date, name of the defendent and plaintiff, the charge, the finding with no description whatsoever of the details and arguements offered in court or the reasons for the finding.msklystron (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

External links

This section requires cleanup (and possibly a complete removal). It is in violation of Wikipedia's external links standards.

As per Wikipedia:External_links, the following should all be avoided:

• "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."
• multiple links to the subject's official web site
• links to sites which require registration
• links to social networking sites (such as Yahoo! groups)

A quick glance of the current External links section suggests to me that everything in it falls under the category of Links normally to be avoided and that the whole section should be removed. Sawyer's fans have gotten into the habit of popping every new interview with him and promotional piece written about him into this section. This practice does not add value to the article and it exacerbates the problem of the article reading like a puff piece. Bowrain13 (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been around for a few days (I've been moving). Agreed that EL section is a disaster; however, one or two important links should definitely be there. I would have something like this:

• Official site
  • Author's blog
• Red Deer Press
• Robert J. Sawyer at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database
• Robert J. Sawyer at IMDb

Most of the other stuff in this section seems to be more suitable for a "further reading" section, if it is suitable at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It would add to the readability if the rest of the links were moved to a "Further Reading" section. Drakkenfyre (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the material in the 'Interviews' section below is probably available through Robert Sawyer's website and blog. The interviews may contain supporting quotes for biographical and styles/themes sections. This could be looked into. Otherwise the interviews list should be edited down and moved to a 'Further Reading' section for readability and neutrality as well.msklystron (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would avoid listing the interviews completely. Some of them may well contain useful quotes (in which case, they would appear in the references) but otherwise they should be avoided because they are basically promotional in nature. In general terms, anything on Sawyer's website is covered by the "Official site" link I suggested above, although I believe his blog is notable enough to get its own link. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey that the interviews are largely promotional in nature and should be removed from the links. If the interviews are used as source material, they will be linked to from the references section. If they're not used as sources, they shouldn't be in the article. (Doesn't matter if they're called "External links" or "Further reading" -- they just shouldn't be there.) Also, links to internal pages within the subject's web site should not be included (except in the References section where they are used as sources). I think paring the External links section down to what Scjessey suggested would be appropriate, with one exception: I would not include a separate link to Sawyer's blog. His blog is linked to prominently from the top of the main page of his web site. Therefore, as per WP style guidelines, we do not need a separate link here. Bowrain13 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a longtime reader of Sawyer's blog, and it used to be predominately about SF and subject-related interesting stuff. Lately, it has evolved into something of a single-minded promotional tool. The only reason I can think of for giving Sawyer's blog particular prominence is that BLPs should be written from a "historical perspective", and historically Sawyer's blog differs significantly from the rest of the website. One other thing to consider is that the blog is actually hosted separately from the sfwriter.com site, with URLs rewritten to hide this fact. I'm easy either way, but I think including the blog as a separate "sublink" in the way I suggested is not inconsistent with other articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lately, perhaps, with the various developments in Robert Sawyer's career, the blog has been more author-focussed, but there's no reason to assume it might not focus more on SF in general in future. However, I agree with Bowrain13, the blog (although distinct) was linked to the website fairly recently and is now easily accessible and no longer requires a separate link.

Regarding sfwriter.com: While the blog is easily found and the website is more searchable than it used to be, there's a lot of interesting and valuable resources for students, readers and aspiring authors buried in there. For instance, Robert Sawyer's 'How to write' section is among the best on the net in my humble opinion, and yet it might be hard for the average surfer to locate. This resource might be worth mentioning (as a reference) in the 'other activities' section in the brief account of the author's efforts to give back to the writing community.msklystron (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup Needed

This article is obviously either a product of its subject or of intensely devoted fans. There are two sections about awards, an absurd amount of detail that is neither useful nor encyclopedic, and the "Other activities" section might as well list Sawyer's resume. How much of this can be removed? Ipsenaut (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ipsenaut, many cuts and other changes needed to improve this article have been identified in the NPOV Dispute discussion above. There's been a lot of talk about and not much action on this article lately because the article was recently the object of an edit war. Several editors felt that a cooling off period and reasonable discussion of the issues was a good idea, so that's what we've been doing. If you read through the NPOV Dispute discussion, I'll think you'll find that there is now consensus on how to proceed in many areas, including areas in which consensus has been reached on what would best be removed. (I haven't started to work on any of these changes yet myself, because this discussion was my first experience with contentious editing at WP and I'm not familiar with community standards on how long a period we should allow other editors to weigh in with their reasoning before claiming we have consensus and proceeding to make changes.) Bowrain13 (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the appropriate waiting period is either, but this is a living person whose career and life are in progress. (Not to nag you in the least) my guess would be that sooner is better than later. Let me know if you need a hand with research or writing. IMO, there might be fewer objections to cuts if expansion of thin areas (biographical information) occurred in tandem.msklystron (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ipsenaut, would you mind making some suggestions as to which parts are not encyclopedic? And I will point out that 143 editors have contributed to this article, so no, the subject didn't write it--143 Wikipedia editors did. I'd like to get us started on the right track, and only asking "What can I cut? What can I remove?" without having a plan is going to leave us with a less than satisfactory result. As for length, I have this article at 2573 readable words, which is well within Wikipedia's guidelines of "6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose" from Wikipedia: Article Size. I look forward to discussing your plans for article clean-up. :) Drakkenfyre (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The file size extension that I am using produces these numbers:

• File size: 174 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 24 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 88 kB
• Wiki text: 43 kB
• Prose size (text only): 13 kB (2039 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 13 kB

Just as an FYI. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that this article's content is not encyclopedic. Sure, it's not perfect - what Wikipage is? - but it's hardly a mess. RadicalTwo (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think the article in its current form is indeed a "mess". It seems to need so much work, in fact, that everyone is a bit leery of taking it on. Right now, there is too much focus on non-biographical stuff that can be (at least partially) shunted into some of the articles relating to specific works. To my mind (and I'm a big fan of Sawyer's work, just so you know where I'm coming from) it is all rather hagiographic. Anyway, this has all been covered extensively in previous discussion, and the previous attempt to remedy the situation became the subject of a minor revert war - hence the current impasse. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll bite. The current article is a mess, and I think people have had plenty of time to weigh in on the discussion of what needs to be done to improve it. So I'm going to go ahead and start working on the needed changes which were identified in the NPOV Dispute discussion above. And we'll see what happens. Bowrain13 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start on cleaning up this article. It still needs a lot of work, but hopefully my start has made further progress more manageable. I've removed the parts we identified most obviously as "puff". (Some of that is included on this talk page below, as editors felt it might contain references to suitable sources for future expansion of the main article.) I've also attempted to reorganize the sections along the lines of what we discussed in the NPOV Dispute discussion. Some of these new sections are very short at present, and still read like a laundry list, because I don't have time today to properly expand and source each section. I decided to go ahead and create them wherever we had at least some material to put in them, however, in the hope that doing so would help other editors to see specific areas where they could dive in and help. Bowrain13 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we have come to a consensus on what changes were needed. Shouldn't you propose which changes you are going to make, given that the change is disputed? You really did quite a lot, but you only gave three hours' notice. Drakkenfyre (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There's been so much hanging around, hand-wringing and general nothingness going on here for so long, I think one could quite happily invoke WP:SILENCE. Let's see what Bowrain13 can come up with, and if there are any problems we can put it all through the WP:BRD spin cycle. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Every significant change which I made to the article today was proposed and discussed in the NPOV Dispute discussion. I waited a full month past the date at which the last contribution to that discussion was made before proceeding with any changes. I searched Wikipedia but could find no guideline anywhere which suggests I should have waited longer. If any editor has a specific disagreement with one or more of the changes I have made, I would be happy to discuss that/those concern(s) here. Bowrain13 (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I really like the categories you've set up. Nice work! With the addition of biographical details and some quotes about and from the author, this article could be quite good. I'm still in the sandbox when it comes to wiki formatting, so I'm not comfortable with editing articles. However, if there's a fact you want chased down or a small section you need worded, just let me know.msklystron (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Msklystron. If you have material to add to the main article, please feel free to jump in. (There's no need to fear making a mistake because you can always revert your own change if it comes to that.) If you've had a chance to source the "Early years" material, you can add that to the article by clicking on the "[edit]" link on the same line as the "Fiction" section header. Then move the Fiction header down a couple of lines, and start your new section above it. Enclosing "Early years" in double equals signs just like "Fiction" is will make it a separate section (which will be added to the TOC automatically). Expanded information for the existing sections, just add in where appropriate (and reword what's already there as necessary). Information on how to format references correctly is available on the Wikipedia:Citation_templates page, and you can see one in use right near the top of the "Style and themes" section. Again, you include the reference in the format shown, and it will be added to the References section automatically. Alternately, if you post what you have here on the talk page, I'd be happy to move it over to the main page for you (if someone else doesn't beat me to it!) But I do encourage you to give editing the main page yourself a try. And feel free to ask questions on how to do it if you get stumped. Bowrain13 (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote of confidence. I don't mind looking like a newbie. I can start by condensing the Styles and Themes section -- with fewer examples and tighter wording and perhaps a quote or two from a journal. I will keep in mind that it should summarize the author's body of work. I probably won't get to this until tomorrow. From there I can get a start on the Early Years section (unless someone beats me to it). I am a former student of Robert Sawyer. I'll use the background information he has shared in the time I've known him as a starting point to find reliable references.msklystron (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point I'm not disputing the edits. I'm simply wondering why everyone is willing to say "I want to make changes," but no one is willing to say, "I want to make change X, Y, and Z, and here's why. Does anyone dispute my going ahead with this?" Instead people are saying, "Okay, I wanted to make changes and I did it." Why the resistance? I know it's work, but how hard would it have been? Drakkenfyre (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that so much needs revamping, it does not lend itself to incremental changes with lots of discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If an editor wants to spend that much time editing, why can he or she not take a few minutes to let us know what he or she plans to do? It's not that hard, and in the interest of respect and consensus-building, it should be done. Drakkenfyre (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Drakkenfyre, your insinuations that the efforts I have contributed to improving this article somehow demonstrate laziness, disrespect for other editors and an unwillingness to engage in consensus-building discussions are inappropriate. I initiated the NPOV Dispute discussion. I sifted through pages of unorganized old arguments which had degenerated into mud-slinging. The old arguments were both difficult and unpleasant to read, but I made the effort to do it. I set up a new discussion which was well-organized and addressed specific concerns with the article. As part of that discussion, I made specific proposals for how the article could be improved. Other editors commented on my proposals, sometimes agreeing with them, at other times suggesting modifications. Additionally, other editors made their own proposals for how the article could be improved, and I participated in the discussion of those proposals. Proposals for specific changes were made. Reasons for those proposals were given. Input from other editors was sought and respected. And a full month's notice was given before any of the proposed changes were made. I spent not "a few minutes" but many hours seeking consensus on how best to move forward with the improvement of this article. Bowrain13 (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bowrain13, I made no insinuations. It is unfortunate that you interpreted it that way, but I have a genuine desire for those of you who want to make changes to actually have a constructive discussion on what you want to change, specifically, and to have that discussion ahead of time. Before your major edits, you left a very short message saying that you were going to go ahead. But you did not list what you were going ahead with. Drakkenfyre (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I toned down the opening paragraph. I don't want to get too deeply involved in this in that I am Sawyer's Tor editor's wife (i.e. I am married to David Hartwell who edits Sawyer for Tor). But toning down the opening was easily done.

I think from a Wikipedia perspective, the main problem with the article is the Style and Themes section. Wikipedia really isn't set up to be a venue for literary criticism and critical analysis because such things are inherently a matter of point of view. I think if the Style & Themes section could be condensed to one paragraph, the article would be much more in line with other Wikipedia articles about authors and the difficulties with the article would seem much less insurmountable.--Pleasantville (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer

Welcome! And agreed. Do not be concerned about what you perceive to be a conflict of interest. You have appropriately announced your association, consistent with Wikipedia best practices, and this should not be any sort of impediment. It is your editing actions, not your associations, that matter here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edit looks good Pleasantville. I agree that condensing the Style and themes section would improve the article. Thank you for your contributions to the article and to the discussion, and thank you for declaring your possible COI. Bowrain13 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that Pleasantville's edit was a good one. It made the opening paragraph much less precise. It was concise, tightly written, and informative in its former state. Now it uses less precise language to convey less information in pretty much the same number of words. I believe it should be reverted. Drakkenfyre (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text and Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Lead_section, the goal of lead sections should not be precision. It should be concision. The lead section should provide a brief summary of who the subject is and why he is notable, without the inclusion of overly specific details. Pleasantville's lead paragraph is better than the previous version because she has made it more concise by removing specific details which should not be included here but more properly belong (and are included) later in the article. She has also made a couple of changes to the language which help to move the tone of the article towards the neutral point of view we are trying to achieve. The lead is now more accessible and does a better job of creating interest in reading the whole article. Bowrain13 (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit does not increase the opening's concision in any appreciable way. And the tone was neutral. What about the tone did you think was not neutral? It was utterly factually accurate and presented without inappropriate language. Please explain what language you thought was inappropriate in that instance. And you and many others keep referring to problems in tone without referring to specific problems in a specific way. I understand that you have an idea as to what you want to do, but I feel you are not adequately communicating what you want to change, why you want to change it, and what your plans are. Drakkenfyre (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph should really just be a brief summary of the body of the article. There's no need to be specific about which book won which award, for example. Such details are better left to the article body. Words previously used, such as "numerous" and "most prominently" weren't really appropriate. The changes have substantially improved the lead, in my opinion. No reversion is necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree. The level of detail was not rendered too high by the use of still rather general terms like "numerous" and "most prominently". The changes reduced the utility without increasing clarity or improving this introductory paragraph in any way. Drakkenfyre (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but how can the phrase "most prominently" be justified, for example? "Most prominent" according to whom? No. Clearly the changes made by Pleasantville have improved the introduction, and an apparent consensus has formed that is in agreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources for further article improvement

A repository for extraneous links and citations which should not be included in the main article (unless they are in the References section because they've been used to source encyclopedic content in the article). I'm porting any such content I remove from the main article here so that editors working on researching new material and sourcing material for the main article will have easy access to possible sources.

• Profile in Quill & Quire
• Entry on Robert J. Sawyer in The Canadian Encyclopedia
• Listing for Sawyer in the Locus Index to Science Fiction Awards
• Listing for Sawyer in the Locus Index to Science Fiction (1984-1998)
• Hollywood Reporter article on ABC TV adaptation of Sawyer's Flashforward
• Video of Sawyer's talk "Webmind: When the World Wide Web Gains Consciousness," related to his WWW trilogy, Authors@Google, Waterloo, June 17, 2009

Interviews

• Robert J. Sawyer interview on BookBanter (audio)
• Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by Tor.com (text)
• Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by CBC's Words at Large (text)
• Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by Something About the Author (text)
• Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by Wotmania.com (text)
• Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by MarsDust.com (text)
• Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by Roger Deforest (text)
• Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by CBC Radio's Sounds Like Canada (audio)
• Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by CJAD Montreal on Wake (audio)
• Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by CJAD Montreal on Rollback (audio)
• Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by SpaceChannel.tv (video)
• Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by Worlds Without End (audio)
• Robert J. Sawyer interviewed by Paul Levinson (audio)

Conference papers

• "The Science and Religion Dialogue in the Science Fiction of Robert J. Sawyer," by Valerie Broege, presented at The Uses of the Science Fiction Genre: An Interdisciplinary Symposium, Brock University, October 2005;
• "The Intimately Human and the Grandly Cosmic: Humor and the Sublime in the Works of Robert J. Sawyer," by Fiona Kelleghan, presented at the 29th annual International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts in Orlando, Florida, March 2008;
• "Time and the Fiction of Robert J. Sawyer: Flash Forward to the End of an Era," by Fiona Kelleghan, presented at the 30th annual International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts, March 2009.

Critical studies and reviews

• The Gospel According to Science Fiction by Gabriel McKee ["Though the novels [The Terminal Experiment and Hybrids] differ in their theories on the actual nature of the soul, both offer the hypothesis that the origin of human consciousness is an empirically detectable force" (p. 48)].
• Worlds of Wonder: Readings in Canadian Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature edited by Jean-Francois Leroux and Camille R. La Bossiere [the papers "Coding of Race in Science Fiction: What's Wrong With the Obvious?" by Sherryl Vint (which discusses Illegal Alien at length) and "Robots and Artificial Intelligence in Asimov's The Caves of Steel and Sawyer's Golden Fleece" by Ruby S. Ramraj).
• The Everyday Fantastic: Essays on Science Fiction and Human Being edited by Michael Berman [Valerie Broege's paper "The Science and Religion Dialogue in the Science Fiction of Robert J. Sawyer:" "I will focus on the following topics in relation to Sawyer's writings: his cosmological speculations that involve both science and religion and the question of the existence of God and His or Her nature, whether we live in a designed universe, how our religious thinking may have contaminated our scientific theories, and whether or not religious experiences or the human soul can reduced just to our physiology" (p. 141)].
• Science Fiction and Philosophy: From Time Travel to Superintelligence edited by Susan Schneider [Schneider's own paper "Minsdcan: Transcending and Enhancing the Human Brain:" "Sawyer's novel is a reductio ad absurdum of the patternist conception of the person" (p. 248)].
• Dinosaurs in Fantastic Fiction: A Thematic Survey by Allen A. Debus ["Collectively, Sawyer's Far-Seer, Fossil Hunter, and Foreigner are the greatest trilogy of tales ever written about intelligent, space-faring dinosaurs" (p. 118]).
• The New York Review of Science Fiction (including 5,000 words by Richard Parent on the "Neanderthal Parallax" trilogy in the June 2004 issue ["Robert J. Sawyer's ambitious new trilogy, The Neanderthal Parallax, presents a provocative challenge to literary analysis -- its hybridized nature brings together utopian, dystopian, and traditional sf tropes" (p. 19)], the essay "Robert J. Sawyer in Summer 2005: Mad Play" by Donald M. Hassler in the December 2005 issue, and commentary by Fiona Kelleghan in the cover story of the November 2008 issue).
• the SFRA Review; [citations are full text; see them for details].
• a scholarly afterword by Valerie Broege in Sawyer's own essay collection Relativity ["Sawyer places himself squarely in the American pulp-science fiction magazine tradition of the 1920s-1950s in his attempts to evoke a sense of wonder in his readers" (p. 289)].
• Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice ["Sawyer's fictional situations present readers with opportunities to apply their criminological imaginations, more implicitly, allowing one to relate to and distinguish criminological theory present in modern day society"].

Bowrain13 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

Ralph Vicinanza, presumably Robert's agent, appears in Humans, taking out a neandertal to a book deal lunch. ps Ralph deserves an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested edit - COI

Sawyer is about to receive an Honorary Doctorate of Laws from the University of Winnipeg, as stated by them here. I think that belongs under the "Major awards" section of this article, as should his Honorary D. Litt from Laurentian University (I can rustle up a source for that upon request). I don't want to add this myself, as I know him personally, so editing this article for anything other than error correction would violate WP:COS. So. Anyone agree with me about adding the honorary doctorates to the article? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I've added it, but it didn't quite seem to fit under the awards section, so I've included it in an earlier part. No hassles if someone wants to move it around. - Bilby (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Robert J. Sawyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090514024120/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/news/e3i4b5caa365ad73b3a562218379433fee4 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i4b5caa365ad73b3a562218379433fee4
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100525125223/http://www.sfwa.org:80/pressbook/09/0112-Sawyer-Supernatural.html to http://sfwa.org/pressbook/09/0112-Sawyer-Supernatural.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708055304/http://obocwaterlooregion.blogspot.com/2006/04/one-book-one-community-2005-title.html to http://obocwaterlooregion.blogspot.com/2006/04/one-book-one-community-2005-title.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Robert J. Sawyer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Assessment== Start-class - almost no sources (I found his bio), little discussion of his work, too much biographical detail. Lots of room for improvement. Avt tor 08:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Robert J. Sawyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927191016/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit116.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit116.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014122618/http://www.speakers.ca/sawyer_robert.aspx to http://speakers.ca/sawyer_robert.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927013234/http://writersunion.ca/ww_alphalist.asp?L=S to http://writersunion.ca/ww_alphalist.asp?L=S

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert J. Sawyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715092052/http://www.planetsmag.com/content.php?vn=7&is=17&an=1139&sc=1 to http://www.planetsmag.com/content.php?vn=7&is=17&an=1139&sc=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121111075624/http://upcoming4.me/news/book-news/robert-j-sawyer-red-planet-blues-cover-art-reveal-and-release-date to http://upcoming4.me/news/book-news/robert-j-sawyer-red-planet-blues-cover-art-reveal-and-release-date

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

First publication of End of an Era

Currently the Bibliography section gives this as "(Ace, 1994)". However the (not reliable, because user edited) ISFDB lists the New English Library edition as published October 1994, citing the SF world's 'Journal of Record' Locus for this date, and the Ace edition as November 1994, and the (usually reliable) Encyclopedia of Science Fiction also credits NEL's edition as the first.

I have copies of both editions: the Ace (c) page is dated November 1994 and claims "never previously published", and the NEL's merely "First published in Great Britain in 1994" as is each's habitual style. I can believe that the Ace edition was intended to appear first (Sawyer's 'Acknowledgements', identical in both, mention only Ace editorial assistance), but Locus is highly reliable and the EoSF does not rely on ISFDB without good corroboration. I could well believe that some schedule rearrangement led to NEL's edition inadvertently appearing first.

Does anybody have another source to cross-check and determine whether the article should be amended to "(New English Library 1994)"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.174.88 (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)