Talk:Tom Kratman

reference formatting

Apparently I am too stupid to figure out how to edit the text displayed after a reference for references 2 and 3. Can somebody help me out here and tell me how to insert custom text in a reference so it shows the text I want instead of just the reference number?Scout1067 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

If we are going to refer to his nomination for a Hugo why do we not also include allegation of vote rigging? This was a major accusation surrounding the sad puppies affair.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

At least two of the three "awards" listed are actualy just nominations. This is a significant difference that should be clear noted. Since two of those nominations were the result of an effort to take control of the awards, this should probably be noted in a "Controversy" section. Avt tor (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

They are the only three, and none of them saw him win.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be a topic for the Hugo's page? There is a long unsullied history of Hugo Awards for many of the most esteemed authors in any genre, along with sci-fi's brightest lights. Or does every winning author's page now need a footnote to address that issue? Lyn (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I said merge (but with the sad puppies rather then the Hugos) over at the AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

background

We really need some sources for his biography.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I will start marking unsourced claims with Citation needed tags soon, please try and provide some sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

We need some secondary RS his own claims are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Primary

As they have been present for at least two years anything marked as CN, or that uses a primary source will removed. Articles need to be based upon verifiable secondary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing unsourced claims is reasonable but for mundane biographical details keep WP:ABOUTSELF in mind. Haukur (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Define Mundane, most of it is about his career, that is self serving.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, and more specifically, there is WP:BLPSELFPUB. Information like serving in the army in this or that division or graduating from this or that school with this or that degree is mundane. Maybe it can be self-serving in some sense but it is not unduly self-serving. Citing self-authored stuff for that kind of thing is allowed by policy and fairly routine. There's definitely a problem with too much of the present article consisting of this stuff but we would ideally solve that by adding information from secondary sources, some of which I suggested at the AfD. Haukur (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not, I think it is a major part of his publishing image, Ex-solder. Its part of how he is promoted (and thus is promotional in nature).Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I will also start to remove anything that is unsourced by doe not have a CN tag, enough is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but a number of third party RS cites seem to have been replaced with tom Kratmans own site, why?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No? I don't think we ever had third party cites that were removed. Haukur (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

And here is why we do not sue primary sources according to this [[1]] he retired in 1992.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

And (as you later realized yourself but I'm putting this here for the record) he was called up again in 2003 and retired again in 2006. So there is no discrepancy. Haukur (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This biography issue is legitimately challenging. Normally we wouldn't bother with more than a sentence or two of self-sourced biographic detail but here it's just so relevant that it's hard to really cut it down. There's so much pay-off for the biography section later on in the article. Specifically: a) Kratman's combat service in Iraq is highly relevant for his books, both for the authenticity of his battle descriptions and his depiction of muslims which has been the subject of critical commentary. b) Mentioning his deployments to Panama pays off when the article starts discussing Yellow Eyes. c) Mentioning his law degree and service on the War College faculty prepares the reader for praise of his philosophy of war and military science.

People's claims about their own biography are normally accepted on good faith unless there is something suspicious about them, which is not the case here. Normally, only the very most famous people get unauthorized biographies and third parties independently trying to verify this sort of thing. As it happens, we can have verification from military publications of Kratman's LTC rank and position at the War College. See e.g. this: [2] I guess we could work in a little footnote which would incidentally serve to confirm Kratman's highest rank and position. I may take a stab at this. Haukur (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Anything that can be seen as unduly self serving (and yes claims used in marketing are just that) should not be sourced to primary sources. It does not matter if there is a "pay off" latter in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You're leaning very heavily on this "self serving" clause. Everything anyone ever said was probably self serving in some sense. But there's nothing unduly self-serving about this summarized description of Kratman's career. It's not like we're sourcing awards or commendations or the like solely to the subject, which would be a problem. Haukur (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

But it is a major part of his writing persona, his military experience informing his writing (you even make that clear yourself) is very much a part of how he is marketed. Also this should not a hagiography that parrots Kratmans claims.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be a hagiography but a balanced article. To beef up the bio sourcing a bit we can cite Something about the Author, Volume 175, pages 122-123.[3] This is a reputable edited publication and it briefly recaps his career. The text is available at the Internet Archive if you register there and has also made its way here: [4] Haukur (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

So lets use that, rather then his own website.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

We can use both. Policy does not prohibit us from citing his autobiography as long as we are not overly reliant on it, and the article is ever less reliant on it. But key facts which I haven't found documented elsewhere is that he was deployed to Panama and Iraq. This is something we can and should cite him on since it is relevant for his books. We know from reliable sources that he had a long and distinguished military career, it's fine to get a couple of key details on that from himself. Haukur (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Then it is self serving and thus fails wpsps.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not "self-serving" to say that you were in Panama! Lots of people are in Panama. Some people are in Panama all the time. It's not some special or outlandish or "self-serving" claim to be skeptical of. I don't think it's "unduly self-serving" either to accept the claim of an experienced officer that he served in the Gulf War. We know this guy ended his military career at the faculty of the War College. This is not some random guy making up war stories. And the readers will be able to see for themselves that we are sourcing parts of this to the man himself.

Note that Nicholson relays Kratman's biography on page 268 of his thesis.[5] He's presumably just taking K's claims on good faith, which I think is reasonable.

I will rewrite the section to add sources and address your concerns as much as I can. Haukur (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I reorganized this. Now we have the book source to beef up the autobiography dates. Then we have a sentence at the end which mentions Panama and Iraq and is specifically attributed within the text to Kratman's website. Do you like this version better? Haukur (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

sad puppies

We nor have two sources making claims about the vote hacking, one mentions (explicitly Kratnmans publisher). Also we now have this [[6]], which refers to his participation in the sad puppies campaign.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Mike Glyer's review of Big Boys Don't Cry

Glyer's review[7] counts as a self-published source so WP:SPS applies:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Mike Glyer is easily an "established expert on the subject matter" but I'm not aware of publications with traditional outfits that would meet the second part of the sentence. So, sadly, I don't think we can include his review, even though it would greatly enrich the article. I'd say policy is overly strict here and should be changed but for now it is what it is. Haukur (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible future work

I think I'm basically done here, for now at least. I think the present article is decent. If someone wanted to expand it I think the main avenues would be a) by adding more in the way of plot summaries of Kratman's works, b) maybe some relevant comments Kratman has made in interviews and such (with discernment, under WP:ABOUTSELF), c) it would be possible to add a more information on specific right-wing themes in Kratman's works. Nicholson discusses this at length. d) Maybe something more on Kratman's short fiction. He had a story in that Freehold anthology. Let's see, Tangent comments on it at some length. Actually, maybe I'll add that now after all.[8]

The known sources are mostly exploited already. There is a fanzine review in the list at User:Haukurth/sandbox5 which would be a dicey source under current policy. The Harriet Klausner review from allscifi.com would be easier to justify.[9] This wasn't the most prestigious site but it did have an editorial policy of sorts and some standards, especially for its "scholars" like Klausner. I noticed that the review is listed in Something about the Author which strengthens the case under WP:USEBYOTHERS.

If someone wanted to, some of Kratman's books could be spun out for separate articles – WP:NBOOK is rather forgiving and we have the sources already. Haukur (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)