Talk:Theodore Sturgeon

Vulcan Hand Sign

The page reads "The latter is known for his invention of the pon farr, the Vulcan mating ritual, the first use of the phrase "Live long and prosper" and the first use of the Vulcan hand symbol. "

WRONG. Leonard Nimoy has repeatedly claimed credit for this invention, which comes from Jewish ritual. I know of no-one who disputes this claim. -- don't have a login, 5-18-09 18:45 EDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.7.205 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cite it and fix it!--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually both POVs are correct. Sturgeon and Nimoy worked this ritual out together. My source is Sturgeon, as I am one of his daughters. Tandyjen (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have you join in. Is there a published written source we can cite? The standard for inclusion is verifiability, rather than truth, so we do need a source that can be checked by someone else. Mike Christie (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi: There is a quote from Leonard Nimoy used as a blurb for The Complete Stories, that you can see on the new Theodore Sturgeon Literary Trust page that credits Ted with "live long and prosper." I don't know how to cite this so if someone can help that would be great. Sturgeon spent much time on the Star Trek set learning how to write the scripts, and was friends with most of the actors and crew. Nimoy would not dispute that these things were collaborations with Ted, though Nimoy was particularly attached to the symbolism of the Vulcan hand sign as part of his Jewish heritage. Nevertheless, Ted had his children practicing that hand maneuver years before Star Trek came along. I think it is fair to say, that as the writer of the episode, Ted was responsible for these things, which came out of his collaboration with Nimoy. Perhaps that's how this section should be worded. Here, and in some of my comments below, citation policy can be difficult to work out. As an academic, I respect citation above all; yet, when materials are not in the public domain as published items, but can prove one POV or another, I do think it is important to still have an accurate historical record. (Mike, I am amused by your distinction between verifiability and truth!)Swimslikeafish (talk)Noel Sturgeon, Trustee, Theodore Sturgeon Literary Trust —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC).

Noel, hi -- nice to meet you. Can you point me at the right place in the website? I had a look around but couldn't spot it. Could you also point me to a page there that gives the details of who is the publisher of the website? It looks like it's hosted by the University of Kansas, but for Wikipedia we need to know who is exerting editorial control -- i.e. is this site "self-published" in some way, or can we treat it as a reliable source. Wikipedia has it's own definition of a reliable source which we're obliged to follow here. I agree that the distinction between verifiability and truth is amusing -- it can lead to odd conclusions, sometimes. In reality we are all trying to put the truth in articles, but without the constraint of verifiability we would be open to anyone arguing for the truth. Verifiability is a more objectively determinable standard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike: On the Theodore Sturgeon Literary Trust page, there are quotes from various people that run every 10 seconds under the header. You can forward them manually by clicking on the words of the quotes. You will see the quote from Leonard Nimoy there. It came from the back cover of Volume 7: A Saucer of Loneliness, The Complete Stories of Theodore Sturgeon (North Atlantic Books 2000). The blurb was most likely located by Paul Williams, who was editing the volumes at that time. Unfortunately, since he now has Alzheimer's, I can't ask him where he found it and I have been unable to locate the source. Maybe you Wikipedia experts can find it. It reads "The words 'live long and prosper' were written by Theodore Sturgeon, a wonderful dramatist with the heart of a poet." I suppose I could just ask Nimoy himself, but I hate to bother him and your standards of verifiability won't be satisfied by a personal, unpublished comment anyway. It does seem to me that Sturgeon's authorship of "Amok Time" is unchallenged, and so saying he came up with these ideas, in collaboration with all of the people involved with Star Trek, is fair. As far as the Trust website, that is published by me as the Trustee. Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it. Best, Noel Swimslikeafish (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I found it, with the aid of Google Books; it's in Nimoy's I Am Spock. I'll add a citation to that in the next couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike Swimslikeafish (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. I just cited the phrase; I can't see most of the text in Google Books, so we'll have to wait till someone gets a physical copy to see if we can cite the other things such as the hand sign from there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Apologies for forgetting to reclick the "minor edit" box after a sloppy edit! Ted's ghosting of EQ's The Player on the Other Side is mentioned here: http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/kirkland/266/eq/eqoff.htm#ten k4f 15:59 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

To the sampling of short stories, I would add "The Man Who Lost the Sea", "And My Fear Is Great", and "If All Men Were Brothers Would You Let One Marry Your Sister?"

corallary?

Isn't it supposed to be 'corollary?'

Date

Date of death differs from Find-A-Grave. Lincher 03:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The date (May 8, 1985) is mentioned in my copies of The Complete Stories of ... and Venus Plus X. It is most likely correct. JöG 07:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

It rather seems to me that the "Trivia" section ought to be removed. It deals entirely with a story that wasn't even written by Sturgeon; the only link is that his father happened to share his name with that of the story, but that's not very interesting given that Waldo wasn't that unusual a name in the early 20th century. 32.97.110.142 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just learned from reading this article that Sturgeon's birth surname was "Waldo", and the first thought that came to mind was whether Heinlein chose that name for his character as a shout-out to a colleague, not an unusual thing for authors to do. In one of his short story collections, Sturgeon related how Heinlein had helped him through some rough times, so the connection isn't implausible, but I agree it shouldn't be in here unless there's a reference. If anyone happens to have one...--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems

This article is sloppy. There's POV stuff about how great or how trusted thisi guy is. --69.255.17.40 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If he was universily regarded as great and trustworthy, then it is not POV.Yobmod (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

Can anyone make an image of the "ask the next question" thing? Would be a great addition i think, as it is one of those rare times that an image really does give more than the words. I would do it, but i've never seen it, and the description is too vague.Yobmod (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is some info at Iliad Books. and The Theodore Sturgeon Page, including images. JöG (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can poach simple line drawings, which cant be copyrighted, so here's a couple of locations: [1], [2], both pretty decent. previously mentioned sites may be good references, but dont have an image to poach.(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo of author

I have removed the needs-photo parameter from the Biography template above and made an explicit photoreq so that the page will not be tagged as possibly no longer needing the image. If you provide a picture, please delete the photoreq above. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

image is now in article, so i removed it. however, As stated above, an image of his symbol may be helpful.

Rhythmic prose

as an example of the lack of sourcing here, where exactly is this discussed? the google hits all seem to be mirrors of the phrasing here. I always wonder why fans of various authors cant show their respect better. on a fansite, write anything you want, praise him to high heaven. on WP, it shows MORE love for the subject to stick to notable, sourcable facts, not less love. Im afraid Mr. Sturgeon would list his article here as part of the 90%.(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed that part just now. It's a fact that he did enjoy playing with rythm and that he was unusually good with language for a 1940s SF writer, but:

1. it was unsourced
2. its place in the intro made it sound as if it was his most important trait
3. little (or nothing) else about the actual character of his work can be found in the article

JöG (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Template

I created a template to encourage creation of articles on other works. I have included it in all the articles listed. The complete short story volumes would be nice here, but only when they have articles. "ask the next question" should have an article as well.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible source for this article

I found this recently:

Blackman, Mark L. (May 4, 2011). "More Than Sturgeon: At NYRSF Readings, a Tribute to Theodore Sturgeon". SFScope.com. Archived from the original on May 5, 2011. Retrieved May 5, 2011.

Hope it helps! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wina Sturgeon

The editor who has been removing the information about Wina Sturgeon contacted me on my talk page, saying that she is Wina Sturgeon, and that the removed info was inaccurate and was hurting her position in search engine results for certain queries. I've explained that the latter reason is not one we can use to justify removing material. If the information is inaccurate, we need to correct it, and I have asked for sources that would give the information correctly. She has already gone over the three revert limit, despite having been warned; since she is a new user I am inclined to give her a couple more chances, particularly since she may have access to sources that might prove she is correct on this point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I will cease to revert the edits, and leave this between the two of you.Sir Rhosis (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

  No, please continue to revert if you think it's appropriate. See her talk page for more background. I don't want to see sourced material removed from the article without a debate, and I'd be glad of your support if you agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Although a Google search of "Wina Sturgeon New York Times" does list this article first, her published works and stories are immediately next. Anyone searching for her work only has to look at the other entries on the Google results page. Doesn't seem that difficult.Sir Rhosis (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

WINA STURGEON RESPONSE

There are problems with Mr. Christie's version of events, as well as with his page on Theodore Sturgeon (the latter I will discuss with Wikipedia dispute resolution). To begin, numerous sources stated by Mike Christie are suspect. He originally stated on his Sturgeon page "Wina Sturgeon claims to have been married to him." In my first ever Wikipedia edit, I changed "claims to" to "was." Shortly after, to my surprise, the search terms "Wina Sturgeon" and "New York Times" suddenly began resulting in a top ranking for Mike Christie's Theodore Stugeon page, using internal code for my copyrighted work. However, Theodore Sturgeon has NO connection whatsoever to my NYT work written more than a quarter century after his death. Why does he use me, instead of Theodore Sturgeon, to link his page to the New York Times?

It is a known fact that searchers usually click on the first link, regardless of what is second. I believe Mike Christie's personal agenda to hijack my visible web presence to improve his own rankings is demonstrated by the fact that he doesn't use similar coding for others mentioned in Ted Sturgeon's personal life, despite the fact that at least two, including his daughter Noel, are published writers.

Mr. Christie asked me why I was deleting my name, with the code, from his page on Theodore Sturgeon. I include below my very respectful responses to Mr. Christie, requesting that he remove the coding that gives him a top ranking when readers searching for my work are instead directed first to a totally unconnected Wikipedia page:

Mike, you asked why I edited the page you wrote on Theodore Sturgeon

I deleted all references to my marriage to Ted and the birth of our son Andros because in your writing of the page, hidden code was used containing titles of my copyrighted articles which cause the Wikipedia Theodore Sturgeon page to come up first when "Wina Sturgeon New York Times" or "New York Times Wina Sturgeon" is searched.

Please know that I am a writer who works very hard on my career. For you to code my articles, my work, in order to put a Wikipedia page above my name and the name of one of my major clients when those terms are coupled and searched for by those obviously looking for my work, is not ethical, and in fact, is a theft of my services.

Thus, rather than have one of Ted's eager fans hijack my name and work to get rankings for him, I feel I must very reluctantly edit out all mention of me from your page on Ted (your 'relationship' facts about Ted and I were also wrong, by the way).

Sincerely,

Wina Sturgeon

Please work it out, but not by edit warring. You are way over the limit for reversions, and it is becoming very difficult to avoid reporting you for violation of the 3 reversion rule. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

SECOND RESPONSE TO MIKE CHRISTIE AFTER HE THREATENED ME WITH BEING 'BANNED' FROM WIKIPEDIA:

MIKE:

As I asked you previously, please remove coding of my copyrighted work that is causing your Wikipedia page on Theodore Sturgeon to take precedence over my work, like my front page New York Times story in the June 11, 2011 edition. Obviously, anyone searching the terms 'New York Times Wina Sturgeon' or 'Wina Sturgeon New York Times' is looking for MY work, not for Theodore Sturgeon.

In internet copyright law (which of course is still being established), using coding that misdirects searchers to an unconnected source can be considered theft of services and/or restraint of trade. Theodore Sturgeon is absolutely unconnected to any of my New York Times work. Just because you are able to "source" MY work as a writer does not give you the right to use it to advance rankings for your page on Theodore Sturgeon. In addition, some other information on that page is provably inaccurate, regardless of how it is "sourced." Since you are the editor of the page, I believe you will defend what you have written, legitimately sourced or not, thus you may defend your use of my name and the term "New York Times" to hijack my rankings and transfer them to yourself. But such actions are not defensible.

You say, "If we can find another source to correct the data...you may get what you want..." What kind of data do you suggest 'we' find that will resolve this issue? I ask that because I would prefer to resolve this problem without a fight and without taking it to Wikipedia dispute resolution.

Please know that I will vigorously defend my work, my career and my brand. If you wish to use Ted's name with the term 'New York Times,' here are two links that connect the term with Theodore Sturgeon: http://sfscope.com/2011/05/more-than-sturgeon-at-nyrsf-re.html; and: http://www.nndb.com/people/207/000048063/. Perhaps you should do more research to find if there are other, more legitimate sources that link Theodore Sturgeon's name with the term "New York Times," but I will not accept the unconnected use of my work, and my greater visibility in the New York Times, to give your page an undeserved higher ranking in search engines.

Wina Sturgeon 172.190.30.236 (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Note on the Wina marriage source...

While the efforts of the account above to get this removed (up to and including edit warring) are the wrong way to approach things, I would like to point out that the cited article supporting the fact that Sturgeon was married to someone named Wina is very weak, verging on WP:OR. The abc4 article listed as the source for that information mentions that the author of the piece had a husband named Ted and that he was a science fiction author. The obvious inferrance is that it's Theodore Sturgeon, but surely there are better sources available for this information? While Theodore's dead, it appears that at the very least one wife is still alive and thus we should source this information much better than using something that verges on OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's not the best source, but I didn't think it was controversial enough to delete. It took me just a few seconds to find a reference in one of his collectiosn to a wife named Wina, so I'll add that as a reference instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, added. I actually think it's not entirely clear from the given source that they married; the Slow Sculpture intro says they lived together and she took his name; Ted does say she came to marry him in the intro to Sturgeon is Alive and Well ... but doesn't say they did marry. However the ABC4 cite does say she was his wife, so I could reintroduce that if you think the combination is good enough; or I could remove the statement that they married. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

== RESPONSE TO MIKE CHRISTIE'S MOST RECENT MESSAGE TO WINA STURGEON == (originally posted on his talk page)

Mike,

Please see the comments I have posted on Sir Rhosis' page. In my copyrighted work "Wina On The Web," which you code my name for, there is NO mention of 'Theodore Sturgeon.' There are merely two mentions of 'Ted,' as follows:

"My husband was a science fiction writer. The moon landing was as important to him as the child inside was to me; but then, in some mysterious way, the two became connected in my mind; the child that would come out of me and the astronauts that would come out of the ship and walk on the moon. I remember Ted and I sat on the edge of the bed, watching our small black and white television set, our shoulders pressed together, both of us feeling a tinge of worry."

The story is about the 1969 moon landing, not about Theodore Sturgeon, who, while referred to as "a science fiction writer" is only mentioned as "Ted," with no last name included. Worse, what I didn't know until just now is that the links to my actual ABC4 story are hard to find; because every link directs readers to your Theodore Sturgeon page on various sites besides Wikipedia. This is a form of plagarism that is totally unethical.

I have not at any point threatened to sue Wikipedia, and it is BOGUS of you to imply that I have(ON TALK PAGE). I will again remove the (again) BOGUS coding that is allowing you to wrongfully hijack my more visible name and writing to unethically obtain hits from visitors searching for my work. I have already used my valuable time to provide you with more correct sources you can use, sources that you yourself should have researched as a responsible editor. To paraphrase one of a number of criticisms on the Theodore Sturgeon talk page, source your work and do it accurately. If Theodore Sturgeon deserves a link to the New York Times, don't be lazy, find it yourself and source it, don't use my published work to do the job for you.

Wina Sturgeon 172.190.30.236 (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Note on the question of Sturgeon's marriages: I am not personally invested in whether someone was legally married or not and respect all of Ted's long-term relationships as historically important. And I am certainly not interested in a public tiff over this. But, for the record, Theodore Sturgeon remained legally married to Marion McGahan Sturgeon until his death. His last two long term committed relationships, with Wina Golden and Jayne Tannehill Englehart, were not legal marriages, though both parties took the name Sturgeon professionally (Jayne no longer does, as she has remarried). The citations for the most recent statement on the page before I edited it ("He married Wina Golden, a journalist...") are from Sturgeon's introduction to Sturgeon is Alive and Well, which as the poster above points out, indicates that Wina arrived "to marry" Ted, but doesn't prove they did (they did not). The second citation is from my Story Notes to Volume 12, Slow Sculpture, in which I explicitly say that Wina and Ted never married. The convention of calling Ted her "husband" publicly is understandable, given the mores of the time, but does not prove marriage. The proof of Marion's continued marriage to Ted can be found in Sturgeon's papers, just donated to the Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas, in which there is extensive correspondence between Ted, Jayne, Marion, and Marion's lawyer discussing the possibility of divorce, which never came to fruition. If Ted was married to Wina, why was he trying to negotiate a divorce with Marion in order to marry Jayne years after he broke up with Wina? He was either a bigamist, or Wina's claim is incorrect. If Wina wants to dispute this, I respectfully ask her to stop reverting these edits and take it up with me out of the public Wikipedia format. If she wants to show me proof of marriage (which appears nowhere in his papers), let her send me the marriage certificate and I will publicly apologize and change the record to indicate Ted's bigamy. It's embarrassing to air this in public. Again, this issue has nothing to do with disrespecting or downplaying Wina's relationship with Ted, which I certainly feel was very important. But for her to cite me as the source of her marriage to Ted is highly misleading and the last straw. It needs to be corrected, as I have done in my edit, and stay corrected. Continuing to revert the edits is against WIkipedia policy, as I understand it. This is really a minor point, but I do believe in historical accuracy. As Wikipedia is the go-to source for a lot of people, an inaccuracy in his bio tends to pop up in other places, and it is frustrating to have to deal with it as people try to reconcile the contradictions in the public record. I do hope this settles the matter, and I am sorry Wina has chosen to make this a public issue. Swimslikeafish (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Noel Sturgeon, Trustee, Theodore Sturgeon Literary Trust

I've no problem with letting the article stand as it is, and I suspect any other editors of this article would agree. As you noted, I was already suspicious that the sources didn't quite demonstrate that they were married, so I'm not too surprised -- after Wina's comments the claim that they were married was made on the basis of the ABC4 article, which presumably just assumed the marriage rather than verified it. Your story notes say they lived together -- if I'm not mistaken you don't actually say "they never married" in those notes, but I think that's good enough to leave things as they are. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The [Widget], the [Wadget], and Boff

I just reverted the removal of the brackets in this title -- the story was originally published with the brackets and is usually indexed that way -- see the ISFDB, for example, or Erwin Strauss's 1951-1965 magazine index. The brand new SFE v.3 also does it that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. The book I have is a German translation and gives the title for the orginal with-out the brackets. The three-volume "complete" stories of TS doesn't seem to have the story at all -- listing it only (with brackets) as a recent book. Can some-one find the original (not re-prints) and check? Kdammers (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have the original magazine publication in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction; I just checked and it does have the square brackets in that version. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk page issue

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Please help remove my name, Wina Sturgeon, from possible black hat SEO by page author which relates to this talkpage. Basically someone claiming to be Wina Sturgeon (the same Wina Sturgeon who's created lots of arguments in this talkpage above), is complaining that this talkpage shows up too highly in Google searches of their name. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

While I don't care too much about this, and some of the comments by Ms. Sturgeon an IP claiming to be Ms. Sturgeon do indeed seem unreasonable, I note that Monty845 added a {{NOINDEX}} tag to this talk page, and you removed it. I can't figure out a reason for removing it except for spite; your comment at the help desk page emphasizes this. It seems a harmless, easy compromise. Especially since this is BLP-related, please replace it, and if you really think it is harmful, wait until you get consensus to remove it again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it, it's Google's problem and not ours. Also, doesn't adding a NOINDEX tag directly affect the searchability of the article, as well as the talkpage? Because the article should definitely be searchable- this was my main reason for removing it, if the logic is wrong then it should definitely be restored. I genuinely have no "spite" towards them, and many other editors at the helpdesk don't agree with their assertions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It would have no effect on the article even if it was on the article page, and certainly not when on the talk page. See WP:NOINDEX. I understand better now why you objected, I agree you shouldn't NOINDEX an article. Based on this misunderstanding, I'll restore the tag. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, thank you for restoring it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theodore Sturgeon. 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/20030913021248/http://www.physics.emory.edu/~weeks/sturgeon/williams.html to http://www.physics.emory.edu/~weeks/sturgeon/williams.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theodore Sturgeon. 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/20121016200141/http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit133.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit133.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Improvement

I'm surprised that this article is so poor given Sturgeon's stature in the field. The biggest problem is the extreme lack of sources for claims. A lot of the text sounds a bit like opinions and since there are no sources, it is hard to decide either way. Also the text is very meandering and hard to read, especially the persona life section. I'm going to go in and clean up. Please comment if you feel I am overreaching. Ashmoo (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Unneeded mentions

Sturgeon's relationship with Scientology is an appropriate topic for this article, but there is no reason to include an off-topic and possible false comparison with another author who is not the topic of the article. The point about Sturgeon's relationship with Scientology stands on its own without a gratuitous comparison to van Vogt. The latter's relationship with Scientology, on which there are differing opinions from different sources, doesn't add any knowledge about Sturgeon to the article and should not be included. I can't imagine a valid argument for inclusion of such an off-topic detail. Skyerise (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

"Unneeded mentions"? Odd way of putting it. Let me return to that.

I think I may be able to clear up a misunderstanding. The edit in question references Dianetics, not Scientology. The former was the precursor of the latter from 1950 to about 1953... Yes, my edit parenthetically mentions Scientology as emerging from Dianetics, for the benefit of those who may not know. But here's the thing: It is beyond dispute that van Vogt took a deep dive into Dianetics in the early '50s. He moved to Los Angeles to set up its headquarters there. He stopped writing science fiction altogether for several years because he was too busy with Dianetics. He went bankrupt over its financial turmoil. According to the Nevala-Lee book (which has an extraordinarily high reputation, BTW), this all had the effect of "forever diminishing his status in the genre" (pg 288). None of this is news. (Also see the account in Sam Moskwitz's book from long ago Seekers of Tomorrow, pg 225, etc). So, (1) Dianetics, not Scientology; (2) it is not controversial that van Vogt went bonkers over Dianetics, to his detriment; and (3) nothing in the edit says anything about van Vogt and Scientology. (I leave it to others to say whether they think that van Vogt can be "cleaned up" as having nothing to do with the Church of Scientology, since the change from Dianetics to the CoS is little more than a change from a "philosophy"/"therapy" to a registered "church". Nm.) Should all this stuff about van Vogt be in the Sturgeon article? Of course not! And it's not! But Skyerise maintains that Nevala-Lee made an "off-topic and possible false comparison" between van Vogt and Sturgeon in his book. He did not. His statement is on-topic, accurate, relevant and well-sourced. (His footnote for that statement references a recording/transcript of a public talk given by Sturgeon himself in 1978.)

So, this supposedly "gratuitous comparison to van Vogt" is hardly that. It puts Sturgeon's status relative to Dianetics, and other SF writers, in the early '50s into its proper context. It further states that he defended the Church for decades thereafter (without any reference to van Vogt), which is equally well documented.

The assertion that this edit is "unneeded mentions" (when it's manifestly not) makes me wonder if Skyerise doesn't have a fixation, or bias, in favor of suppressing unflattering information regarding van Vogt. Why pick a fight on such a weak point? I haven't looked into it. I don't know. I will assume good faith. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)