Talk:John C. Wright (author)

Got the information straight from the horse's mouth this time. - LukeyBoy

Looks as though a lot of stuff has gotten lost in the edit war, both bio details and other stuff. Most obviously, while a wiki-search on the name still points here, his wife isn't mentioned. Though it looks like she's worth an entry of her own, as a published author. Otherwise, it looks as though Wright's career has been almost edited out of existence. The category-list is suggestive. But I wouldn't restore references to his children. 88.109.143.248 (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Thx for writing, and it's fun, but it's not encyclopedia NPOV. "alyosha" 06:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It's probably better now than it was in December 2005, but it could still use some revision for more encyclopedic style. And probably the biography should come before the bibliography, as seems to be more standard. --Jim Henry 14:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Biography section has been moved. Almitydave (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Youngest child's name?

The about the author bio on Orphans of Chaos gives the youngest child's name as "Juss" (which made me suppose he was named for the main hero of The Worm Ouroboros). Can someone verify whether this is a typo and the correct name is "Just"? And the phrasing,

whom he calls Orville, Wilbur, and Just Wright.

seems a little odd -- does it mean these are nicknames rather than real or legal names? --Jim Henry 14:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The author bio on the author's homepage, and his wife's homepage, and their Livejournals, all concur that the child is called Juss.

The Linked article on JCW being libertarian specifies the third child is named Justinian. --148.87.1.170 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

St John's

"(going from the third oldest to the second oldest school in continuous use in the United States)" You mean St John's right? since it wasn't mentioned. This article needs a rewrite. --Geedubber 03:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Section on views against homosexuality

I am not conversant enough with the specifics on BLP rules to make the call on this one, but writing a summary of his controversial views based on primary sources comes up close against Wikipedia policies against original research, on primary vs. secondary sources, and BLP sources in general. A reliable, secondary source for what is said here would clearly be preferable, whether or not the current paragraph is appropriate. --Joe Decker (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The best sources to use when describing a living person's views must be primary sources - those of the person or people in question directly - there is no such thing as a more reliable secondary source than a primary source for someone's own views. If anything, the use of secondary sources in preference over the statements of the individual themselves is be discouraged for BLP. I am, however, concerned over the fact that the original post has now been deleted. LinaMishima (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The recent vandalism here followed some trolling/flaming comments posted to one of his LiveJournal posts, which itself was regarding the Sci-Fi channel's perceived caving to pressure from a "homosexual lobby." Mr. Wright frequently posts on many topics, however, especially sci-fi, writing, economics, politics, and culture in general, and adding a section to this article dealing only with comments regarding homosexuality sounds to me like a POV-motivated edit. Perhaps a section could be added detailing his numerous outspoken views on many topics, but John C. Wright is primarily notable for being a science fiction/fantasy author, and not every unpopular or controversial thing anyone says deserves an encyclopedic mention, IMHO. Is there an applicable Wikipedia policy? Almitydave (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an entire section would be inappropriate, as it would give too much weight to the topic. However, a mention somewhere would be entirely appropriate, given how this topic has spread. Perhaps trim and merge in the content, whilst expanding the rest of his bio appropriately (so as to ensure proper weight - there are far more interesting things about the man, I'm sure), then wait and see if this story develops any further. LinaMishima (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, reading his later blog posts, it appears that he has, if not regret, an understanding that different wording might have prevented problems, and bares no ill will to those he may have offended. Perhaps if a longer version is kept, this should be also included. Unfortunately this isn't clarified as much as I would have liked, especially not within a manner concordant to the way that wikipedia operates (i.e. we can't go interpreting metaphore or reading between the lines). LinaMishima (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

He has specifically apologized for the tone of the offending post, and in subsequent posts responded to many of the objections and comments. In addition, much of the offending post seems to have been highly sarcastic in tone, as are many of his posts and comments on Live Journal. They often result in heated debates, and this particular occurrence would not have been more notable than the others, except that one reader posted an invitation in another forum for its members to come and flame/troll JCW's site. I think my original point above is still valid, and creating a controversy by trolling/flaming is not worthy of treatment in WP. The current paragraph about the controversy as it stands is not even an accurate account of the post and subsequent events. Almitydave (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I read through his posts, and whilst I feel he was trying to appologise, I do not believe that it was explicitly stated as such. The sole explicit appology was to a single commenter. Unfortunately, we cannot simply state that he has appologised, as he hasn't said as much. There might be other possible wordings, however. Whilst I'm sure the tone was exagerated in the original post, the upset did not appear to be due to mis-interpreted sarcasm, and the commenters did not come from a single forum at all. Aside from the hyperbole, the wording seems a reasonable account, albeit missing his later elaboration. For now, I think the entry should stay, although the weighting of all sections needs to be made more appropriate. LinaMishima (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing and personal bio - need to convert interview list into references

I've added back in the old personal history section. On a hunch, I checked the interviews linked in the article - these seem to potentially provide sources for all that material, and there are a lot more anecdotes within them which we could use to further flesh out the article. LinaMishima (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring that section; it was removed by a vandal. Considering the ongoing recent vandalism, should this article be semi-protected? Almitydave (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For now it looks to have quietened down, let's see how things go. If we see more anon vandals again, then we get get protection applied. LinaMishima (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)