Talk:Writers and Illustrators of the Future

Problem with the letter from Joni Labaqui

There's no such thing as the "Hubbard estate". Hubbard's estate as Authors Family Trust B was folded into the Church of Spiritual Technology, which wholly owns Author Services Inc., which does business as Galaxy Press and receives funds from and distributes to various Scientology organizations. At best, it's deceptive misdirection. AndroidCat 16:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who put in the references to the Labaqui letter, but I'd love to see the article updated with more correct information with a more credible reference source. RedSpruce 22:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I can cite the IRS closing agreement and other sources to show that this is a false claim, but it seems like such a large dump of information that I'd prefer not to clutter the article with. I'll try to think of a simple, polite way of saying the Ms. Labaqui's letter is not quite accurate... :) AndroidCat 22:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you summarized the info nicely above. It just needs a source and something like: "However, [some source] shows that Hubbard's estate was folded into..." RedSpruce 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research tag

1. Contest Rules and Procedures -- Entire section is unsourced WP:OR violation. Cirt (talk) 10:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Prominent Judges and winners -- Entire section is unsourced WP:OR violation. Cirt (talk) 10:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Connections to Scientology -- 1st three paragraphs = unsourced WP:OR violation. Cirt (talk) 10:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This article either needs a lot more citations/sources - or just to cut out all unsourced content, and move it to the talk page until sources are found. Cirt (talk) 10:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tagged specific areas that need work (a large majority of the article). Cirt (talk) 10:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Original research is, generally speaking, a separate thing from "citation needed". Most of the parts of the article you've tagged are appropriate only for the latter and not the former. RedSpruce (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll use specific tags instead. Cirt (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

The introduction of this article is too short. Per WP:LEAD, the intro section should be an adequate summary of the article. However, as a large portion of the article is still unsourced, that must be dealt with first. Cirt (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD guidelines state that for articles of less than 15K length, as this one is, "one or two paragraphs" is an appropriate length for a lead. You may feel that the intro should be longer for stylistic reasons, but that's a judgement call, and not a matter of meeting a clear-cut guideline. Therefor the tag is inappropriate. RedSpruce (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD: The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. -- In its present state, the article's intro section does not do this. It is currently not a "short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic". I'll add the tag back until that is the case. Cirt (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be specific about what you think is missing from the intro. To my eye, it is a "short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic" (that's what I meant by "judgement call" above). OTOH, I don't think any harm would be done by lengthening it, but before I do so I'd like to have your input on what you think it needs. RedSpruce (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The subsection, "Connections to Scientology", one of the only relatively adequately sourced sections of the article to WP:RS/WP:V sources, is not covered in the WP:LEAD at all. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

...And I'm not sure that it should be. I'm not aware of any requirement that the topic of every subsection of an article has to be mentioned in the lead. RedSpruce (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be, at least briefly. Per WP:LEAD: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Cirt (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your discussion/debating style leaves something to be desired. When someone expresses doubt about the validity of an opinion of yours, simply repeating that opinion, and expressing it as fiat, doesn't give the other person much reason to reconsider -- or to respect the depth of thought you've given to the issue.

However, I've given this some more thought without your help. My concern was that it would be a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight for the intro to stress something negative or controversial about this contest, when it enjoys a very favorable reputation in the SF community. But I think a fair way of covering that would be to add the following sentence: The contest enjoys a favorable reputation in the science fiction community, although its connection with the Church of Scientology has caused some controversy.

Does that work for you? RedSpruce (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To RedSpruce (talk · contribs) - Let me be clear: I apologize if I came off as brusque at all, that was not intended. You really didn't explain specifically how I could improve my manner of commenting or precisely what you interpreted that you felt could have been addressed better - but I acknowledge that I may have been a bit brash, and for that, I am sorry. The wording you gave as an example above sounds perfect, actually, a good summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. Again, RedSpruce (talk · contribs), I apologize if I came across as brash, that was not my intention. My intention was to cite the section from WP:LEAD where I drew my assertion about the nature of the Intro/Lead section and what is needed there. I'm sorry, Cirt (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No sweat. I was a bit brusque myself. RedSpruce (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Glad we could come to a compromise on this, apologies again, Cirt (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Writers of the Future. 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/20070909041914/http://www.writersofthefuture.com/judges.htm to http://www.writersofthefuture.com/judges.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070909041919/http://www.writersofthefuture.com/awards.htm to http://www.writersofthefuture.com/awards.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)