Talk:George R. R. Martin

Is the line "and Sansa's final scene in A Storm of Swords." really necessary? It spoiled the plot for me, as it strongly implies she's going to die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J1812 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article say "(ostensibly inspired by the success of Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time cycle)", but AFAIK George Martin declared that was ispired by the Wars of the Roses)

-.- why can't it be inspired from both? 83.130.227.185 20:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC).Reply

It -can- be, but it doesn't mean it -was-. If someone can source either it should be included, but thats all. Arkon 17:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I would frankly need a citation to prove that Martin wasn't inspired by the Wars of the Roses, but a google search turns up first a book review: Martin's Seven Kingdoms resemble England during the Wars of the Roses, with the Stark and Lannister families standing in for the Yorks and Lancasters [1]. It could definitely be inspired by both (it's not mutually exclusive) but the Wars of the Roses inspiration is far far far more apparent. — Laura Scudder | Talk 00:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

a source about the War of the Roses: Amazon interview George Martin, another inspiration (cited in this article is a series by Tad Williams)--Moroboshi 21:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The War of the Roses was the story inspiration. Jordan's work may have inspired Martin to think the series could be commercially succesful. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Martin has cited Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy as being a more important 'inspiration' that an epic fantasy series aimed at adults could be worthwhile and entertaining. He started writing A Game of Thrones after the second book in that trilogy came out, long before he read any of Wheel of Time. However, he does give Jordan credit for helping boost sales of the series, first by putting a cover quote on Game of Thrones and later for the anthology Legends, which a lot of Jordan fans picked up to read New Spring, then they read The Hedge Knight and got into Martin's series that way.--Werthead (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why would someone remove a nasty comment, only to quote the text removed?

I removed the eventful.com link, since the appearences stated there (and more) are present on his own webpage.

This article could probably use a little more description of the Song of Ice and Fire series, though of course that has it's own entry. It is, however what Martin is mostly known for at this point, so it seems rather relevant. Certanly some discussion of the series publishing success would be good.

The uncollected short stories section should probably also be removed unless someone actually comes up with something to go there. Ocicat 00:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Every story that was listed there was part of a collection or a novel excerpt, so I deleted the section. If anyone can find a story demonstrably not found elsewhere (I'd be surprised if none existed), restore it. Brendan 22:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The themes section needs specific and reliable support; as it stands it's all original research. If no one has provided references within a week or so, I'll remove the section. Brendan Moody 14:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

All I can say is that if it is Original Research it is very well done, this section describes "exactly" the nature of GRRM's prose. If no one has had the sense to write this about his writing where is the harm, it would be a real shame to loose this section. (not the author of the text - or anyone connected - BTW) :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 14:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it's a rather good description, and I'm sure a little research would turn up similar citations in published reviews (I'll do a little work on that myself this week). But it's hardly an irreplaceable set of information- the web is full of similar comments. The harm is that it's a clear violation of policy, by the way. Brendan Moody 14:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've found a few magazine articles that should make most of the content here sourceable (I love my university's online database). I'll try to finish fixing it up in the next couple days. Brendan Moody 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed a paragraph of horrible first-year analysis of Martin's themes "A recurring theme in much of his work is winter, especially with regard to its coming..." It was painful to read. If you really wish to restore it, carry on.206.248.165.77 (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mystar's latest edits were good, but they confused the order of Martin's biography and made it a little hard to follow, so I reverted and then readded the substantive edits while keeping the biography chronological. Brendan Moody 19:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I hate to say it, but you removed the citation needed. I'm sorry but what is there is simply not acceptable. It is conjecture and spectulative. I would like to see proof. I would like to see a soruce please. If non can be provided, then it stands to reason it then violates policy Mystar 22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, the whole section is now labelled with an "unreferenced" box. (It's right under the "themes" header.) That's the equivalent of a "citation needed" tag, and just like with a "citation needed" tag, if sources aren't added within a couple weeks you, me, or anyone else should remove the section. Brendan Moody 22:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, as you should note, being rather new, some of this I'm only just learning. I regret however that some people have not followed that policy on "another" page causeing a great deal of agnst, so I was simply following "example". I shall re-read this page seeing that it conforms, and bone up on some pertnate Wiki policy.

Mystar 23:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

":Um, the whole section is now labelled with an "unreferenced" box. (It's right under the "themes" header.) That's the equivalent of a "citation needed" tag, and just like with a "citation needed" tag,...."

uhm, why was that not done with Goodkind then, rather than ravage his whole page? I guessing that only "other authors" are allowed this courtesy... Kind of a double standard would you agree? Mystar 13:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

This was not done with Goodkind's page because the dispute there was not about reliable sources (except in the case of the Inchoatus essay and the text citing it, which you yourself wanted to remove) but about maintaining a neutral point of view. "Unreferenced" tags are not useful when no one questions that the material is referenced. Brendan Moody 19:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I must confess to having had some issues with the Themes section's lack of sources. I'll see what I can turn up in the way of references for it.--Werthead 11:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I seem to recall that the issue of Dragon with Melisandre on the cover (#305, I think) featured an interview in which GRRM talked a little bit about his style and his goals as a writer. There's probably a lot of stuff floating around in old issues of Locus/The New York Review of Science Fiction/etc as well. Stilgar135 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mystar, can you explain how calling a book the best of the year cannot be considered "high praise"? Stilgar135 23:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The wording is justified and obvious in the cited context. The precedent is there for its inclusion and I've put it back in. NeoFreak 04:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll give the fact that it has been praised, but lets be honest here. high is over the top you you know it. yes you are a rabid fan and think it should have more than high praise, but simply stating that someone "thinks" the book is the best that year is not "high" praise. It is an over the top fanatic view point plain and simple. it is just a bit much.

Mystar 06:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think arguing over "praise" and "high praise" is a bit juvinille and tedious so that's fine as is. Then again maybe "a firestorm of praise"? ;) NeoFreak 07:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think praise is quite adequate, I agree with Mystar that just praise is fine. I read through the reviews that aFfC has on Amazon, and they are a bit lukewarm or at least 50/50. Some say fantastic, some say a little bit wanting, I think praise is adequate. The fact that it's received it from so many sources too, fans, critics, readers and publishers quite nicely gives the impression that it is well-received. Firestorm. Zing! WLU 14:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think the 'high praise' tag is okay, since Time Magazine (not exactly a disreputable or fan-based source) which described Martin as the USA's answer to Tolkien, but agreed it is not worth getting into a major debate over, although in this instance Amazon reviews are not eligible sources, whilst print reviews are, and every print review I have seen of AFFC has lauded it. I am inclined to remove the 'George's Cult' tag applied to the BwB on the grounds that I have never actually heard it described as such by anyone. I'll leave it a couple of days to see if anyone has any objections?--Werthead 02:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just praise means no more arguing, the links are there so people can read them on their own and decide. Why aren't the amazon reviews eligible sources? If there's a wikipedia-based reason, could you show me where so I can read the policy (as a personal favour 'cause I don't know where to find it)? I originally put them in for the publshed reviews, not the reader reviews, amazon seems to be the most convenient source of reviews for authors (Jordan and McCaffrey in this case), since we can't link to print sources directly. I got no opinion on the cult thing, but a quick search of BwB and "Brotherhood without Banners" linked with "George's cult" turned up 4 hits, 1 of which was wikipedia, the other was a mirror site. Doesn't seem verifiable. You could pull it and if anyone turns up a reference, they can put it back in. WLU 14:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Simply read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Simply put, the "Editorial Reviews" on Amazon could be considered reliable sources (such as those from Publisher's Weekly), but the various epinions are not reliable. - Runch 04:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I originally included it because noteworthy persons (two bestselling authors, Robert Jordan and Anne McCaffrey) had praised the book. I don't actually mind taking it out as long as the rest of it stays, but it would be nice if someone could find where those comments came from so we could have a source where it's not two lines in the midst of a big chunk of text. They are there though, and the link does say 'authors'. I'll try to find a more direct link to Jordan/McCaffrey's opinion.WLU 11:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I haven't looked up the precise rule (since I don't have the time at the moment), but I believe it's something to do with the fact that any site which allows anyone to post comments is somewhat unreliable by Wikipedia standards since it allows potential manipulation of Wikipedia. For example, someone gets half a dozen of their mates to post glowing reviews of a book and can then proclaim that book as 'highly praised'. This is why forums are not permitted as Wikipedia sources. OTOH, an article in, for example, a reputable body like Time Magazine would be considered more legitimate as it is written by a professional and verifiably read by hundreds of thousands or millions of people. You can certainly link to the comments by Jordan and McCaffrey as quoted on Amazon, though. That's not a problem. You also can reference any print reviews as long as you provide a source for them (that is, saying which issue of a magazine and which month it was published so anyone who wants to double-check can go and do so). But agreed that 'praise' is fine. 'High praise' is rather NPOV the more I think of it, although not as NPOV as 'phenomenon'. --Werthead 23:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. If you look at the actual page, the link that leads to amazon for aFfC discusses 'authors', which is why I originally included it (for the authors who commented on the book). The link that discusses readers goes somewhere else, a SF website that presents a reader's choice award for 1999. Unmodifiable at this point by any except the webmaster, which is a concern for any website out there. WLU 01:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've got issues with the now extensive use of quotations in the article. I like the incorporation of GRRM's own words when discussing killing off characters, but I'd be happier if the other quotations were summarized rather than including them wholesale. I think they are great justification for what was there previously, and thanks for tracking them down Crawdad. Would anyone object to

"This story, and many of Martin's others, have a strong sense of melancholy. His characters are often unhappy, or at least unsatisfied, and many have elements of tragic heroes, while A Song of Ice and Fire stands out for its Hamlet-like tragedy (reference to Wagner and Inchoatus)"

rather than the acutal quotation? Hamlet-like is a bit weak, any suggestions? I also think the PW quote could be reduced to a simple reference as it's pretty much validating what is said by the sentence about character complexity.

I also think the "Best of Worldcon" is unjustified given the reference used. It's basically GRRM's opinion, which is valid to say only that he thinks they are good parties. I spent a while searching for a reference to some sort of vote to BwB as winners of 'best parties', but came up empty. In short, I think BwB throwing great parties should be taken out, perhaps replaced with a line saying GRRM likes 'em. Really, I think the second half of the Fandom section, from "For both Boston..." onwards could/should be removed and perhaps moved into a BwB stub or entry - BwB is not about GRRM, but definitely linked. I'm sure I'll get crapped on by dedicated members though. Other's thoughts? WLU 23:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I know the article doesn't read as well with the quotes in there. The only reason I put them in there was to stop an argument over whether or not the articles confirmed the assertions. I don't have any problem doing away with all the quotes and just letting the references speak for themselves. If there's any arguments, we can always just put them back in to be more concrete.

The BwB isn't a big issue for me, but I think it is relevant and noteworthy to describe an author's relationship with his fans and official fan club. We can get rid of the "best party" thing if it's not actually a reference to a formal award and replace it with a note that Martin has complimented the parties, keeping the same reference. That would actually be more relevant to Martin than if a separate body recognized the parties anyway. -Captain Crawdad 03:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Someone removed the GRRM explanation, I think it's worth having, others? WLU 16:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It probably shouldn't have been where it was. It's just a shorthand abbreviation of his name sometimes used on the internet, not a well-known alias or nickname. If it were to be in the article, it should probably be in the fandom section, but I don't think it's very noteworthy. -Captain Crawdad 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's just a shorthand abbreviation of his name sometimes used on the internet, not a well-known alias or nickname. Notwithstanding, of course, GRRM: A RRetrospective. Stilgar135 19:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, well if it's referenced in the title of one of his own books, I suppose it is "official" enough to consider a nickname. -Captain Crawdad 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I took the liberty of removing then replacing the fluff and fancruft section. After discussing it with an admin it seriously crosses the line. I see that even Werthead agrees with his comment on the Project page. Lets see if a better method can be uses and with out weasel words. Personally I don't see a "fan" section as being nessary. BwoB has its own page and that should be sufficient. Adding fancruft and fluff pieces just goes against Wiki policy.

Anyone have any ideas? Mystar 21:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I looked on your contribution history and couldn't find a conversation concerning this issue. What were the points the admin raised? I admit I'm not an expert on Wiki rules, but it seems to me that an artist's relationship with his fans is noteworthy. I see this on musicians' pages all the time. "Rocker X frequently stays after shows to sign autographs" and so forth. For example, the Phish article, which is a good article according to the talk page, has a section on Fan activities.

Also, you might be confusing the fictional Brotherhood Without Banners from the book series with the Martin fan club that is named after it. The section on Martin's page is about the fan club. The wiki article and Werthead's comment on the Project page are about the fictional organization. Oops. Never mind. Actually looking closely at what I'm talking about will save me some trouble.-Captain Crawdad 22:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mystar - if you can provide me with absolutely any proof that you actually talked to an admin, and you aren't just making stuff up, I'll totally leave you alone for a week, you can post whatever you want. In fact, I'll even vote that the T'lan Imass page should be deleted. I really look forward to this. Did you find the term 'fancruft' on the wikipedia projects page too? Incidentally, I think you should have discussed your edits before making them, since many people are active on the page. Also incidentally, I think the BwB section should be included, but re-written. How about:

Martin's official fan club, the Brotherhood without Banners, throws parties at conventions Martin attends, most notably at Worldcon and Boskone. Martin has attended some of these parties and praised them highly. The BwB also engages in assorted philanthropic efforts, including charity fundraising‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}. As of September 2006, the organization has over 800 official members listed on its website.

I took out the 'best parties of worldcon' completely 'cause I couldn't find any legitimate source, but the paragraph does include mention that GRRM enjoys the parties. The citation needed gives time for someone knowledgeable to track down a reference for the fundraising - I don't think the bwbfanclub website really counts (sorry!). I think the fancruft tag should be removed - the entry is brief, referenced, and does discuss the importance the fanclub seems to have to GRRM. Also, it's not really fancruft since it's not fictional. The fancruft (apologies for the link, you'll have to follow disambiguation I think) page says:

As with most of the issues of importance and notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion. Such articles may also fall foul of Wikipedia's policy against creating "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research. Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.

So, it's well written, referenced, and I guess it's wikified. It's neutral, verifiable, and not original research. Unlike High D'Haran, which is just a listing of terms and nothing new, and could easily be replaced by a link to the geocities page in the original D'Haran wikipage. To my mind, not fancruft, should not be tagged, and illustrates an important fact - GRRM's excellent relationship with his fans. Just my opinions, any thoughts? How about replacing the paragraph with what I wrote, or something similar. WLU 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please guys, let's all keep this civil and not bring in other disputes from other articles. I don't have any significant problems with WLU's replacement paragraph. Does that seem acceptible to everyone? Maybe I'll look for a reference on the charity claim and we can plug that up as well. -Captain Crawdad 00:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to echo Captain Crawdad on civility. The implications regarding Mystar's honesty aren't particularly productive, though a neutral request for information about his previous discussions would be appropriate; I'm curious as well.

Otherwise, I think WLU is spot-on. The essay on fancruft is just that: an essay, not a policy or guideline. It's a good way to summarize attitudes to a topic, but it's not binding or generally-followed in any real sense. (Besides, I've never seen a definition of fancruft that includes this kind of material.) I'm generally loath to remove well-written, properly referenced, at-least-moderately relevant content from any article, since I don't see how an encyclopedia like this one is improved by taking material out of it, though others of course have other standards. I'm fine with WLU's paragraph. Brendan Moody 02:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The "Best of Worldcon" thing is sort of complicated. Every day, the organizing committe of Worldcon prints a few thousand newsletters- the Worldcon Gazette or something like that. They put them under the doors of attendes and have a big stack for anyone to pick up. On Saturday and Sunday, the Gazette names a best party of the previous night, naming one of them the best of Worldcon. There's not a trophy or anything like that, but it's an actual award with some fairly heady competition. Anyone who has been to Worldcon can attest to this, and I'd bet there are people on Wikipedia who have one of these lying around their home. However, it's unlikely that you'll find this on the Internet (if you want to poke around the Noreason site, be my guest for a bunch of different reasons, primarily that Worldcon leadership tends to be somewhat old-fashioned and doesn't have the mania for archiving everything online that we Young Turks seem to subscribe to. I'm for including the specific "best of" reference, but that's only because I saw the write-up with my own eyes and know that it's 100% true.

Also, I added a link to the Child's Play site. The BWB logo is in the "gold sponsors" section- it's the first entry on the third line. Stilgar135 02:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you find more charity links? Just one is OK, several is way better. At this point, given the proof that you have for the 'best of' argument, I'm still uncomfortable saying it, I don't know what the status of personal endorsement is, but it'd be hypocritical of me to agree to it here. It's an unfortunate fact that stuff we know to be true can't really be included unless it can be linked or referenced. WLU 11:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Awesome I'm thrilled that you can cut and paste WLU! Good on you eh! Were I to have logged my conversation I would gladly have shared it I did however discuss it on the Wikipedia IRC channel where we are allowed to ask for admin help I did discuss it with bastique. While bastique did not make any suggestions for any actions of any judgment (as I asked for none) the term fits and is applicable. Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgment of notability is lacking.

The use of the term implies that an editor does not regard the material in question as encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan......the subject of the article in question is not notable except to hardcore fans; for example

In short the material is non-encyclopedic. Seriously I'm thrilled at the charity giving of such a group! I would offer up a hearty kudos! But the page is not about touting the actions of a few fanatics. It is not encyclopedic. Place it on the BwoB page by all means, but also keep in mind Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

You have a strong personal involvement in this page; however, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. If you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views you could also use Wikinfo.

The point being is that unless the material is changed it falls into that category... and using the term "fandom" is neither encyclopedic nor is it neutral. Mystar 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mystar, I'm not sure what your justification is for removing this info beyond your assertion that it is "non-encyclopedic". I've provided an example showing that the activities of a fan organization, including mention of charitable actions, is considered acceptable enough for a "good" rating on the artist's article. Doesn't that show precedent that the information is encyclopedic by Wikipedia's standards?

I do agree that the term "Fandom" should be changed. The Phish article uses "Fan activities" and I see nothing wrong with that. I'll also suggest moving the section down to below the "Awards" section. -Captain Crawdad 05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fan activities, move it around both sound good. I still think this is a good page for it, unless someone wants to set up a BwB wiki page, but I don't know how comfortable I'd feel about that, I can't say I think it falls into 'noteworthy'. I like ths short, what, two paragraph summary but if more people feel strongly about removing it, I'm not going to die if it's pulled.WLU 11:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Alrighty, first off I like the changes WLU made to the Fandom section, especially how it focuses on Martin's activities. Second, I renamed the section "Fan relationship" since "Fandom" isn't much of a word and "Fan activities no longer applies to the section's focus. I'm not thrilled with the title, so if someone has a better idea, go for it. Third, I stuck his stance on fan fiction into this section, since it seemed to go along with his fan interactions. Fourth, I stuck a heading on his biography. -Captain Crawdad 20:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Fan Groups" or "Following"? NeoFreak 23:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Relationship to Fanbase"?WLU 11:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well here is the problem. It now reads like an advert for BwoB's parties! No offence but it sounds and looks wrong. It is poorly worded. Actually it reads like a propaganda piece. Lets not extend into an area that simply will not fit the confines of Wiki policy just because someone wants to see a reference about parties.... A Bio page is not a soap Box to wax about who has a better party. I'm sorry it simply will not work.

Why don't you suggest some edits and we'll all have a look at them, that seems fair.WLU 11:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The questions we must ask are these,

1. 1 Why is the "and gives great parties there?
2. 2 Is this website really an authoritative source for an encyclopedia: http://www.bwbfanclub.com/fr_grrm.php, ?
3. 3 Can we really cite fan club for a NPOV account of itself?
4. 4 Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? (Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, and it wholly appears that this is not only biased and POV driven (Self-serving), but again non encyclopedic)

We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias.

The whole "and gives great parties" isn't speaking to the content of the page, it is speaking to something someone else is doing and is not a part of an encyclopedic page. It reads poorly and it has no real place on the page.

NOW acting in good faith, rather that my placing a tag or deleting it all together and not fixing the offending section, I'll give people a few days to work on it and edit it appropriately. Mystar 03:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. The topic of the section is Martin's interactions with fans. He attends the parties of his fan club and has written about his enjoyment of them. That's interaction with fans.

2. It's a statement made by Martin about the BwB. Martin is fully aware of the organization, so if the website were printing lies about statements he had made, its very likely that he would find out about it and have it taken down. Therefore, the likelihood that this statement was in fact made by Martin is extremely high.

3. The reference for the charity activities links to the actual charity website, not the BwB. The reference about the parties comes from Martin himself. He either made the statement or he did it, and as I showed above, this is a reliable source proving that he made the statement. The third reference shows the current number of people registered as members of the organization. Where else would you get that information but from the organization's official website?

4. There's no room for bias on any of these three references, as I showed above. The two references we use from the BwB are about the number of its members and proof that Martin made a statement. Either they have that many registered members or they don't. Either Martin made the statement or he didn't. lying about either of these two facts, but if you can hunt down some information that plays counter to the facts that the website presents, they should certainly be listed here. Otherwise, everything is factual and unbiased.

"The whole "and gives great parties" isn't speaking to the content of the page, it is speaking to something someone else is doing and is not a part of an encyclopedic page. It reads poorly and it has no real place on the page."

I assume you're saying that the assertion that Martin has complimented the BwB's great parties is not backed up by the text on the reference because Martin says "At Torcon and again at Noreascon, they were recognized for throwing the best party at worldcon" which would mean that commendations came from the people at Torcon and Noreascon and not him personally. Well, Martin spend the previous paragraph complimenting the parties: "At the Philadelphia worldcon in 2001 a few of them got together, and we had a dinner and a party. It was a pleasant little party, but nothing compared to the ones the Bros have thrown since. I have vague memories of flashing lights, beautiful bartenders, lamprey pies, strip trivia games, Mardi Gras beads, haiku, ice sculptures, three-fisted roisterers and red-faced Irishmen, hot babes in leather cat suits, midnight quests, and strange drinks with stranger names being thrust into my hands. (p) The Bros know how to party. At Torcon and again at Noreascon, they were recognized for throwing the best party at worldcon." I think that it is well within editorial license to distill that long paragraph of descriptive text into a single adjective of "great". If you disagree, we can always nip a direct quote to be perfectly accurate on exactly what Martin has said about the parties. I'm fine with that. -Captain Crawdad 04:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You also keep missing the main point A fan page is not acceptable reference. But more to the point, what is not in question is that these people party. So what? What is in question is the validity and merit of it being on an author’s bio page. It is not a part of his bio; it is not a part of his work. It is not a part of anything other than a few fans want to get together and get plastered. It has no business being on a bio page. Put it where it belongs...on the BwoB page. Put GRRM's quote there.... where it is applicable.

Mystar 18:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are many topics that it would be unacceptible to use a fan club as a reference, however, as I've described above, the way we use the site as a reference is acceptable. Martin made a statement, and they have 800 registered members. There's no POV or interpretation there.

What is in question is the validity and merit of it being on an author’s bio page.

If you'll look to my posts above, you'll see that I cite precedent for putting fan activities on an artist's page. However, the focus of the article as it currently stands is actually about Martin's interaction with fans, including his convention attendance, partying with his fan club, and restriction on fan fiction. Thus, the section is about actions and statements Martin has made. That is pertinent to a bio page. -Captain Crawdad 18:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think we should leave it pretty much as is - unless there is a significant amount of text that can be added, I think we've bottomed out on what could be included on BwB and it definitely isn't worth its own page at this point. GRRM gets along well with his fans, they have a presence at conventions, have 800+ members and he doesn't like fanfic. Sounds fine to me, any objections?WLU 18:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nope. It looks good to me. NeoFreak 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I spoke to mystar, but it was someone else who told him the above referenced information. Not I. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 19:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

SO! WLU you stated and I quote.... Mystar - if you can provide me with absolutely any proof that you actually talked to an admin, and you aren't just making stuff up, I'll totally leave you alone for a week, you can post whatever you want. In fact, I'll even vote that the T'lan Imass page should be deleted. I really look forward to this. Did you find the term 'fancruft' on the Wikipedia projects page too? Incidentally, I think you should have discussed your edits before making them, since many people are active on the page.

Now, first off, you have proof. I was fine letting it alone and moving on. But you felt the need to nose around and ta da! You have proof! So I'll start the clock ticking. BTW not only did I speak with Bastique, I spoke to several admins, as Bastique indicated (he was on at the time as well). That is what the Wiki chat room is for.

Secondly, even though you indicated removing the T'lan page I would ask that you please not delete it. You've done a fine job of adding content. Some I'd even forgotten about. Kudos, it is turning out to be a good page. Nicely done, so I think that we can forgo keeping your word (and I'm taking it on good faith that you are a person to actually keep her word...), on this point and leave the page. I quite like it ;p

Thirdly, the term fancruft is a well-known and well-used term here at Wikipedia. Doing research, talking to admins and others gives one some knowledge on such areas. And lastly... In case you hadn't noticed, I did discuss it first on the talk page. Yes I did edit it then immediately thought better of it and reverted it. Contrary to your opinion, I'm not here to ruffle feathers, but to improve the Wikipedia pages. So rather than cause undue friction I posted on the talk page and let the thing take its course. I, like anyone else have every right to edit; I could have added a template or two, even a dispute template. Again not wanting to cause friction I only added my points and allowed people to take it from there. So I'll expect a WLU free week! :) Cheers!--Mystar 21:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

This issue between Mystar and WLU seems pretty off-topic, so if anyone has anything further to say about it, could you please take it to personal talk pages? -Captain Crawdad 22:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have to say that I find it really amusing that there the fan section is utterly biased in favor of GRRM. The man is notorious for removing negative comments from his website comment boards. You'll respond with the usual "get a source!"...so tell me, how exactly, am I going to find a source that Wikipedia will accept for this? Can we have an admin post something negative and watch it get removed? Do I need to create my own fansite and list a hundred people who wish he'd stop blogging about football? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.228.44 (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi
I had added a link to what Wikipedia considers a reliable source in the edit summary: WP:Reliable source. The most typical one would be a newspaper article. If he is really notorious for it, then I assume that it should be easy.
Basically, it boils down to this: If everybody adds their opinion to the article, the article quickly becomes useless. Information added needs to be verifiable (see WP:VERIFIABILITY), that is reliable, independent secondary sources must confirm it. They may still be wrong, or omit certain things, but that's the only way to keep the information in the article useful in the long run.
So no, don't start your own fan site, that wouldn't be a reliable source. Find a publication with a reputation for accuracy make those claims, and you are free to add it.
I now also note that there is one bit in that section that is apparently unsourced: "known for his regular attendance at science fiction conventions and his accessibility to fans". If that is challenged, then that too will have to be sourced or removed. In this case, I don't challenge it because I happen to think that it's true, from all I've read – actually, him removing comments from his blog (I assume) seems to me a consequence of his keeping a rather direct dialog with his fans.
I hope that helps, and if you have questions, feel very free to ask. Regards, Amalthea 15:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Have you looked at his blog? It's 100% "GRRM is the greatest"....ever seen another blog in the history of the planet that had no dissension? He doesn't respond to email and/or his critics (ever)...very accessible.

I am not anti-GRRM, but I am getting really tired of the "rainbows shoot out his ass" nature of this wikipedia page. Finding a newspaper article that say's he deletes blog posts is impossible and we both know it...so once again, Wikipedia will maintain the fiction that he's a saint... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.228.44 (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

What about this one:

http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0765316315/ref=s9_asin_title_2/104-2375336-1919139

I'll add it to the page with a 'forthcoming' tag. Do we need a reference?WLU 15:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

"The Ice Dragon" was originally in the 1980 Orson Scott Card anthology Dragons of Light and is also in Martin's collection Portraits of His Children. I'm not sure how to do it, but it seems like there should be some indication that the story has been in multiple printings since 1980. Here's a reference: http://www.greenmanreview.com/book/book_martin_icedragon.html -Captain Crawdad 16:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, added reference, please let me know what people think and adjust if you've got a better way of referencing it. WLU 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Avt tor changed the infobox from writer to Sci Fi writer. I've only know him from ASoIaF, making him more of a fantasy author in my opinion. And he is best known for the series I think. Is there a SF/F infobox that combines both categories? I'm not going in guns-a-blazing to change it back, I'd just like it better if it acknowledged both genres. WLU 12:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

He's got more Hugos than World Fantasy awards. At any rate, no, there isn't a "Template:Infobox Fantasy Writer". I'm trying to knit together articles related to WikiProject Science Fiction. As I have said on many occasions, in organizational and marketing contexts, science fiction includes fantasy (for example, "SFWA" is the "Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America").

If people (more than one) think it would be a useful enhancement, I could figure out how to futz with the template to generalize it. Do please note that I am not a wiki template maven and so it would be time-consuming for me to figure this out. Avt tor 23:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't care enough to push for it, and your point about awards is good, tho' it does miss out on his most recent success w/ASoIaF. Please don't spend time on the template on my account. WLU 00:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It does occur to me that the significant popularity of Wild Cards - technically an SF series - back in the 1980s is often forgotten in GRRM discussions. Sure, ASoIaF is his biggest-selling work and it's his project alone, whilst Wild Cards was a collaboration with twenty-odd other writers, but Wild Cards was more responsible than anything else pre-ASoIaF for putting GRRM's name out there and was the main reason why there was such a buzz about Game of Thrones before it was first released.--Werthead (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I reverted the recent edit of making the trivia section invisible. Looking at the wikipedia guidelines on trivia, it looks like trivia sections are only considered a real problem when they get too big and sloppy. The current trivia section has only two points with references, so I don't see it doing any harm. If someone has an idea as to how to work points into the rest of the article and get rid of the section, that's fine, but making the section invisible seems counterproductive, since fewer potential editors will see the section. -Captain Crawdad 17:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think both examples here can easily be integrated in the article- the "Fan relationship" section can and should discuss his origins in fandom (including the FF letter as an example), and the bit on computer setup can be in the bio until/unless there's a separate discussion of writing methods (I know there's some SSM material on this at Westeros). I think the current trivia section is problematic for the reason stated in the guideline- people see these, they and random stuff to them, and you get an ugly list. It's one of those slow Wiki processes you don't often notice happening. Brendan Moody 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm with Mr. Moody on this one. I was going to do something about it earlier, but I couldn't think of a good way to integrate the trivia into the article. You could put that letter into his published works you know :) The computer bit could probably go into the "In 1996 Martin returned to writing novel-length stories..." section. Perhaps "Writing on a DOS-based machine to avoid viruses, worms and other problems, Martin returned to..." WLU 21:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alrighty, I gave it a shot myself. I ended up added both points into the bio section. I added a new opening paragraph featuring the FF letter, since, according to the reference, it actually lead to him becoming interested in writing. The computer bit I added to the end, and gave the paragraph more of an "other activities" topic. I'm not so sure it really fits. -Captain Crawdad 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I give it a thumbs-up, good job Crawdad. I think the letter goes really well in the first paragraph. The only thing that I object to is the fairly long quote, though not strenuously enough to do anything about it. WLU 22:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is some interesting info about his "R. R." middle initials in this National Review interview:

http://radio.nationalreview.com/betweenthecovers/post/?q=YTdlOWVlNGYxMmFkZjE1ZTc2ODY2NDZmNzcwYmQyYTg=

I think it's worth including because it's a conspicuous coincidence that he shares these middle initials with Tolkien, to whom he is often compared. 71.3.85.58 (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

GRRM has explained his use of the initials being down to being constantly confused with the Beatles manager. Of course, as a fan of Tolkien he was aware of the coincidence, but given that he didn't even being publishing fantasy novels until thirty years into his writing career, it probably wasn't a deliberate attempt to be grasping for similarities to Tolkien.--Werthead (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

George Martin passed away on the 29th of January. Someone keeps reverting the edits to ignore this fact.

Then you're going to need a source.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Martin updated his website on the 31st. -Captain Crawdad (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I received an email from him back in February, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this information is incorrect.--Werthead (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I like the layout of the article but think some areas need some work, specifically the theme section. There are too many quotes, especially ones from the subject himself. It would read better if Martin's themes were addressed in a more direct and simple manner. The last quote especially is not really an example of a theme but more of a plot device. That entire section maybe could be rewritten and titled to cover more than just theme. I think the top two-thirds of the article read great. Thanks for reading.Beach drifter (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since it was threating to become a linkfarm, I have moved the majority of links from the article to here for discussion to decide consensus about which meet the external link guidelinesTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• George R. R. Martin on Fantasy Fan
• Westeros: The 'A Song of Ice and Fire' Domain (a major fansite)
• George R. R. Martin at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database
• The Brotherhood without Banners official site
• George R.R. Martin at the Internet Book List
• George R. R. Martin at IMdB
• Reviews at FantasyLiterature.net

Please provide your input:

The Brotherhood without Banners is his official fanclub, so that deserves to be in the article. Martin's work in television seems to make his IMDB page notable. Westeros.org is notable for the ASOIAF article, but maybe not Martin's own article. The rest seem dubious. -Captain Crawdad (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hate fantasyliterature.net, it sells things and the reviewers are just people who the webmaster thinks writes good reviews. Terrible choice for an external link. IMBD is questionable because his TV and movie work is much less notable than ASOIAF - I'd use it as a ref for his TV work instead. That fantasy fan page just looks like a fan page, and GRRM doesn't seem to have any actual content on the page. I suspect spam actually, whoever added it probably splashed it across a lot of pages. Westeros I don't think is appropriate here either, unless he frequents it. ISFDB and Internet Book List seem redundant, and might be better as references also. Of the lot, I'd probably stick with BWB, perhaps westeros and delete or reference the rest. WLU (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article currently contains this statement: ”Martin wrote short fiction in the early 1970s, and won several Hugo Awards and Nebula Awards before he began writing novels late in the decade.” Is this correct? From what I remember in one of the introductory sections of the anthology, GRRM put his first novel aside for a few years after having started it. So I don’t think there can be many Hugos and Nebulas before he began writing novels. “Publishing”, maybe. I could be wrong, and it should be easy enough to check. 130.226.132.37 (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see no reason someone should keep changing the release date from 'forthcoming' to 'coming soon'. What is 'soon'? Next week, next month, next year? The release has been delayed enough and until an official date is announced by the author, then it should remain as 'forthcoming'.Caidh (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone think it should be mentioned in the section on Fan Fiction that while he does not endorse fan fiction he has given his permission for the Blood of Dragons MUSH (as stated at http://www.westeros.org/BoD/FAQ/Entry/2417/ and corrobarate by the fact that http://www.georgerrmartin.com/links.html on his website links to it)? I feel it gives a more balanced impression, as it shows that GRRM supports fan interpretation of his works in some form if not in straight fiction. RS Ren (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know if there is anything in Martin's personal history that makes him have such horrid things happen at every wedding in his work? Has anyone read anything by Martin where there is a wedding where no one is killed? I can imagine thinking that Joffrey's death was funny, rather than tragic, but it was still rather tough on the wedding guests. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The photo (Georgerr.PNG) used on this article has been given a PD tag... but the transcript of the permission request looks like a request to use it as GFDL, not as PD. 81.158.1.233 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I removed the "publishers" from people who have praised the series. A publisher praises their author, shock horror! Also removed "critics" ref as it is a website where anybody can be allowed to write a review, so it is not a RR. Alan16 ^talk 10:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the sentence "Martin is allegedly engaged in writing A Dance With Dragons, the fifth book in the series, though scant evidence has been offered in past five years of this.", which sounded quite unprofessional to me (both the "allegedly" and the "scant evidence" part). I guess this comes from a fan who is unhappy that the production of the book takes so long. Clearly, he is not just "allegedly" engaged in writing the book, and the "scant evidence" that he's indeed working on it include the fact that there are sample chapters available on his website, he frequently writes about his work on the book on his blog, and the book is listed on Amazon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.166.41 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The new fan section does not have independent, reliable sources, and does not in my opinion need to be included in the article. I will remove it in a few days if no one argues otherwise. Beach drifter (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have added a sentence about religious themes in Martin, which have always striken me as being quite recurrent, especially when you compare with other science-fiction authors. Unfortunately, I read most of his books in French, and I don't have the English titles for reference, especially for the short-stories. If anyone could help with one example of these : - short-story about catholicism ; - short-story about an imaginary religion. Thanks ! Spipou (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Are there any horror novels he's written or is this just based on the YA story, The Skin Trade? Nitpyck (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fevre Dream appears to be horror although I haven't read it. Beach drifter (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

A fantasy/horror combo, I'd say, and some sources agree. Amalthea 12:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks- I'd completely forgotten Fervre Dream - vampires on an antebellum Mississippi riverboat certainly qualifies. Nitpyck (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused why the paragraph I added was deleted. I believe it meets notability criteria since it has significant coverage in the two news articles I took the information from. The quote from his blog is quoted in both those articles, leading me to believe it is significant. I also believe its inclusion is justified because it expresses the tension with his fans and at the same time also explains Martin's own viewpoint on the subject.

If the quote is too long, or should just be summarized, maybe someone can just help me edit it to be more concise instead of just deleting the entire paragraph. -Aronoel (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it is too long, and just one sentence summarizing that many fans are discontent is all that needs to be added to the article. While my self and many many fans are very upset, wp:weight should be considered. We shouldn't let our personal feeling extend into article content. Beach drifter (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

While I agree that this isn't the most important thing in Martin's life and needs to be explained concisely, I think you are misunderstanding the points I was trying to get across. I wasn't explaining the view of discontent fans, I was summarizing a notable situation and event that is a fact, so wp:weight really shouldn't even apply, and I believe I used neutral language to describe the event. The fact is that there is open tension, enough so that it has significant coverage in news articles. Obviously there doesn't need to be a discussion of who is right and who is wrong, just that it happened.

Regardless, wp:weight says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." It doesn't say there should be an arbitrary limit of once sentence on certain subjects. I think a better way to approach it is to ask which facts need to be included in order to neutrally summarize the situation and which are unecessary. I think I provided the bare minimum necessary to give an accurate picture, but maybe you can explain or edit it yourself if you think otherwise. -Aronoel (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think there is a clear difference in "facts" which are easy to define, and the feelings of readers and the author. How some readers feel is not that important to the article. That he made a few comments about fan mail on his personal blog is not much of a point in his career. That is why I think one sentence is plenty. Beach drifter (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

WP:weight always applies; applying weight is the essence of editorial judgment, which is the heart of crafting an article that is encyclopedic. Not everything that gets into print on a subject needs to be in the article, and not everything that gets in the article should be treated to the same depth. IMHO, biased though it is (I've been a fan of the series and want the next book), the fan griping is significant enough to deserve a line or two in the article; it's reached the point that there are references and in my (anecdotal) experience, it's a casual minor topic in SF fandom. The books are popular and people are itching. However, unless GRRM dies on us, it's also a transient issue, and fundamentally fanish. I think it's only worth a sentence or two.

Towards that end, I've restored, rewritten, and moved the info. I think it's a better article than both omitting it and the original version, but that's just my opinion. Have at it. Studerby (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your working on the section, but I still think I'm being misunderstood. I don't think that the views of griping fans are really all that important in the category "fan relationship." I think that his own comments and the tension between him and his fans is notable under that category. If you read the articles, that's really the subject that they're talking about, not how fans feel. The fan views are really just context to describe some events around the book that are notable. I said that WP:weight doesn't apply because I wasn't trying to include viewpoints around a controversy, although I see now that it also discusses non-viewpoint material. If you guys let me I'm going to try and add another sentence describing the information I was originally trying to include. -Aronoel (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

This muddled paragraph seems to have been (partially) translated from French (?) and pasted in. It could use reworking (or better, removal)

His novels and short-stories often have a religious background and question the reader about religion, either overtly, dealing about one existing or imaginary religion, or instilled with religious questionnement; this last feature appears for example in Tuf Voyaging,[16] in which the ability of human being to assume a godly role is underlying. Similarly, A Song of Ice and Fire contains many instances where the characters try to communicate with gods, yet receiving no answers in return. 74.65.208.91 (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I removed the entire paragraph beacuse it is original research. Beach drifter (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have been continually trying to tone down some of the language and over coverage that has been being added in over the last week pertaining to fan discontent. While I feel it is obvious that this discontent exists, multiple unsourced sentences and references to Martin's blog are not the way to go. I'm all for one or two short sentences in the appropriate place with appropriate wikipedia worthy sources. Attempts to express this to the other seemingly combative editors has gotten me no where. Beach drifter (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Additionally if you look just above you can see that we already had this exact discussion (in the appropriate manner!) last May. Beach drifter (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Beach drifter. He's done his edits in a very balanced way - removing unsourced information while leaving criticism that is sourced in the article as is. If you believe the information he has removed should be replaced, then do so when you have a citation from a source that meets WP:RS.Caidh (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Moved from User talk:Amalthea

In your comments, you said "rv: Have a grudge, do we? Fan forum link is not relevant enough (especially in comparison), your other points aren't sourced (although I read the "shit out of luck" comment somewhere)/not relevant. Whole thing needs reorganizing, TTTT.) (undo)"

I'm not sure why mentioning Martin's policy of censoring those who disagree with him demonstrates a grudge. If anything, it appears that Martin is the one holding the grudge. Readers should know about this censorship if for no other reason than to save them from wasting time trying to post any comment that could possibly be considered negative to one of his sites. Shouldn't an open source like WikiPedia be embarassed to include only external sites favorable to Martin? Like it or not, "Is Winter Coming?" is a widely known website which presents comments both pro/con on Martin and his works. For the sake of balance, that external link should have been kept.

I'm not sure why you said that my comments were not sourced. Is an article in the New Yorker magazine which can be read online insufficient to qualify as a source? As far as I am aware no one has accused the author of fabricating or distoring the views held by Martin and his supporters/detractors.

I'm not sure why you think it's irrelevant that Martin has finally said that he will not allow any other writer to complete the series in the event of his death. In the past, this was supposition but now is a confirmed fact. Readers, especially those new to this series, need to know that and then they can make their own decision on how much of their time/money to invest in this series. Isn't that keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia - giving people information that they can use to make their own choices? Given how Martin went after "Lost" for what he said in less than polite terms was a lousy ending (and I agree with him), I wonder what he would have said if the creators of "Lost" had announced earlier on that there would be no ending to the show in the event of their demise. My revisions were not intended to settle some kind of "grudge" but to provide information which would be of value to readers/fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidG3276 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Regarding removal of comments on the authors blog type thing: I don't see how this is noteworthy at all. This is an encyclopedic article, our focus is not to save people time when authoring comments there. Regarding external links to forums about the topic, see WP:FANSITE. This also applies to anti-sites, and I believe we do not link to any explicitly favorable forums either. Regarding sourcing, I notice now that I only looked at the first page of the article you linked hat, I may have been mistaken there. Nonetheless, I don't see how /that/ is relevant either, and if anything it should be added at the A Song of Ice and Fire article.
Other opinions? Amalthea 07:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

We don't link to forums, full stop (unless the article is about the forum of course). And I've now read the Atlantic article, and it does not actually say "said that he will not allow any other writer to complete the series in the event of his death." It says "Martin, however, has indicated that he will not permit another writer to finish “A Song of Ice and Fire.” The story begins and ends with him." That may look like the same thing, but it isn't as we don't know what 'indicated' means. As for 'censorship', it's my experience that most forums delete posts for various reasons. This is being blown up for obvious reasons and we need to be careful about how we handle it if we include it. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

My apolgies on having written that Amalthea had simply deleted my comments on the revision. I was wrong and am sorry for this. I am contacting Laura Miller via email to find out what she meant when she used the word 'indicated' and will share the results. If Martin has not definitely confirmed that the series is kaput in the event of his death, then that revision should not be included. Regarding censorship, I agree that other forums will delete posts. That's not the point. The difference with Martin's sites is the deletion of ANY posts which might be considered critical. If you want to drop the comments about censorship, I would go along with that if you are not comfortable with them. However, I think the article becomes unbalanced if we do not include the "Is Winter Coming?" site in the external links section. I will also update the resolution board to indicate that we are addressing the issue here. I will add that I was wrong in my earlier comments on my response simply being deleted. DavidG3276 (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have just received a reply back from Laura Miller. I am not comfortable with directly pasting her comments in here from the email as I did not earlier ask her permission to do that. I did mention in the earlier email to her that her reply would help resolve a dispute on Wikipedia. Laura said in her reply that Martin could well change his mind about letting someone else finish the series. Dougweller was right to be cautious about how "indicated" was the word used in the article. Consequently, Amalthea was right to remove this comment from the article. Given that this comment was the most important point (in my opinion) of the revisions and it was incorrect, I think that none of my revisions should be included in the article. My apologies to all for taking up your time. DavidG3276 (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your civil/polite response is appreciated, as is your checking with Laura Miller. These nuances can be very important, and we always need to be alert to the possibility of articles not reflecting them accurately. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

If the question is "should it be removed because it's negative or critical" the answer is no. If we feel the quote misrepresents what was written in the article, it shouldn't be removed, but corrected. An easy way to do this is to quote the article directly. Denaar (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

GRRM stated at a convention several months ago that he would actually consider taking the Robert Jordan route (preparing detailed notes for another writer to follow) if he was to get into a similar situation: approaching the end of the series and having several months or years of warning. His statements about another writer not being able to finish the series were a reflection of the situation if he got hit by a bus tomorrow, since he has no outlines right now that another writer could follow. He has since given an outline to the producers of the TV series to follow if they overtake his writing of the books, but the detail of that outline or if it could be used in the event of his passing is unknown. This information came out in discussions of one of his convention appearances on a fan forum, so I'm guessing would be uncitable by Wikipedia rules.--Werthead (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

I have this photo from the Time 100 of Martin and his wife Parris McBride. Since the lead image is from the same event, I didn't place it but I just wanted to let the article's regular editors to know that it's there if you all have a use for it. Cheers - David Shankbone 21:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand GRRM has a lot of fans who may have personal knowledge of certain things about him. But this is an encyclopedia page, not a fan site, and every claim in here has to verified with a reliable-source citation. Someone, no doubt well-meaning, wrote a long infobox list of writer GRMM has supposedly influence — yet the article says nothing in support of this, and not one of the claims is cited. We cannot just add stuff that we think we might have heard, or where we think, "Oh, it's obvious he influenced so-and-so." Wikipedia requires verification for claims — and in the case of biographies of living people, the bar is particularly high, for good reason.

I sincerely hope GRMM's fans, who by the nature of his work would have to be intelligent, well-read people, will understand the good reasons for these Wikipedia policies, and will read them and follow them. With bios of living people, Wikipedia is necessarily strict, particularly about uncited personal details, and hopefully, no edit wars over bright-line policy will ensue. All anyone wants is to make each article the best it can be. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was confused by the adjective "freshman" apparently used to describe HBO itself. I understand "freshman" to mean new, first year, first album, etc. Is the sentence intended to mean that HBO is a new network? Oh, I just got it. It's the series that is in its first year. nuff said. <{: )}>BaalShemRa (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Twenty years ago I was writing a Jack the Ripper novel (never finished, though a chunk of it can be found in my collection QUARTET) called BLACK AND WHITE AND RED ALL OVER, and doing a lot of reading about serial killers. One of the most fascinating was a fellow named Mudgett who went by the nom de guerre H.H. Holmes, and built a ghastly "murder hotel" in Chicago. I even played with idea of writing a novel about Mudgett, but gave up the notion when I learned that Robert Bloch had already done just that. " What I'm reading as of 03/07/06 georgerrmartin.com.

Are there any other sources or more background info on this? Nemissimo (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply