Re: [WikiEN-l] The Curious Incident of the Fans in the Night
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, David Gerard wrote: If they want to filibuster the reliability of this source, it speaks of some child being Robert Heinlein's great-grandson ... Heinlein didn't have any children. I wonder where they got that from. Wikipedia's article on Heinlein nowhere says he didn't have any children. It's generally accepted that he and Virginia didn't have any children, but Virginia was his third wife, and he was married to his second for 15 years. True, but the New York Times obituary says he was survived only by his third wife. If he had children by either 1 or 2, wouldn't they have mentioned it? And try googling around a bit; you'll find nothing, and even the occasional hit specifically claiming there were no children (http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/rahfaq.html#0106) -- gwern ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Curious Incident of the Fans in the Night
Gwern Branwen wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, David Gerard wrote: If they want to filibuster the reliability of this source, it speaks of some child being Robert Heinlein's great-grandson ... Heinlein didn't have any children. I wonder where they got that from. Wikipedia's article on Heinlein nowhere says he didn't have any children. It's generally accepted that he and Virginia didn't have any children, but Virginia was his third wife, and he was married to his second for 15 years. True, but the New York Times obituary says he was survived only by his third wife. If he had children by either 1 or 2, wouldn't they have mentioned it? And try googling around a bit; you'll find nothing, and even the occasional hit specifically claiming there were no children (http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/rahfaq.html#0106) As someone who has researched this particular topic pretty thoroughly (even to the point of discovering Heinlein's involvement in EPIC well before it was published in reliable sources)... ...I would posit you have to allow that wife number 1. is still a complete mystery. Literally. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen P. S. Never mind William Proxmire, a shot of T.B. vaccine on a navy ship, Heinlein could have been a congress-critter if just Konrad Henlein hadn't been making headlines in the Sudetenlands as a tiny fuhrer the particular election year Robert A. Heinlein decided to stand up for election. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Curious Incident of the Fans in the Night
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: Ken Arromdee wrote: On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, David Gerard wrote: If they want to filibuster the reliability of this source, it speaks of some child being Robert Heinlein's great-grandson ... Heinlein didn't have any children. I wonder where they got that from. Wikipedia's article on Heinlein nowhere says he didn't have any children. It's generally accepted that he and Virginia didn't have any children, but Virginia was his third wife, and he was married to his second for 15 years. And serious historians still don't know even the name of his first wife, much less their connubial history. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen Our article seems to know her name - sourced to the LA Times even. -- gwern ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] The Curious Incident of the Fans in the Night
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/25/100125fa_fact_goodyear?currentPage=all The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood is one that appears nowhere in his fiction and is periodically removed from his Wikipedia page by the site’s editors. When he was five, his family moved to East Grinstead, the center of English Scientology, where his parents began taking Dianetics classes. His father, a real-estate developer, and his mother, a pharmacist, founded a vitamin shop, G G Foods, which is still operational. (According to its Web site, it supplies the Human Detoxification Programme, a course of vitamins, supplements, and other alleged purification techniques, which Scientology offers at disaster sites like Chernobyl and Ground Zero.) In the seventies, his father, who died last year, began working in Scientology’s public-relations wing and over time rose high in the organization. Gaiman has two younger sisters, both still active in Scientology; one of them works for the church in Los Angeles, and the other helps run the family businesses. At times, Scientology proved awkward for the Gaiman children. According to Lizzy Calcioli, the sister who stayed in England, “Most of our social activities were involved with Scientology or our Jewish family. It would get very confusing when people would ask my religion as a kid. I’d say, ‘I’m a Jewish Scientologist.’ ” Gaiman says that he was blocked from entering a boys’ school because of his father’s position and had to remain at the school he’d been attending, the only boy left in a classroom full of girls. These days, Gaiman tends to avoid questions about his faith, but says he is not a Scientologist. Like Judaism, Scientology is the religion of his family, and he feels some solidarity with them. “I will stand with groups when I feel like they’re being properly persecuted,” he told me. It is entertaining to read the relevant talk page sections: * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Neil_Gaiman#Neil_Gaiman_is_not_a_Scientologist * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Neil_Gaiman/Archive1#Scientology * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Neil_Gaiman/Archive1#Possible_reference_found -- gwern ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Curious Incident of the Fans in the Night
The problem is that Wikipedia policies pretty much encourage editors to filibuster changes they don't like by demanding sources and questioning the sources. This is useful when there's a serious question about whether the information is accurate, but it's also abused when there's no serious question about the information's accuracy and the request for sources is used to block something they want to exclude for other reasons. If someone then provides a valid source anyway, the source just gets repeatedly questioned regardles of whether it follows Wikipedia's sourcing rules. It looks like that's what happened here. I find particularly absurd the argument that the source shouldn't count because the information isn't found elsewhere. Our rules generally don't say we can't use information unless it has *two* sources; and in this case it's obvious that the reason the information is hard to find is that Neil Gaiman is trying to keep it quiet, not that it isn't true. (I wonder if the New Yorker article now counts as a second source.) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Curious Incident of the Fans in the Night
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: ... elsewhere. Our rules generally don't say we can't use information unless it has *two* sources; and in this case it's obvious that the reason the information is hard to find is that Neil Gaiman is trying to keep it quiet, not that it isn't true. Unless there's a [[Template:Notable_Wikipedian]] tag missing from the article's talkpage, I suspect you probably mean Neil Gaiman's /fans are/ trying to keep it quiet. Not neilhimself...! quiddity. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Curious Incident of the Fans in the Night
2010/1/18 quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: ... elsewhere. Our rules generally don't say we can't use information unless it has *two* sources; and in this case it's obvious that the reason the information is hard to find is that Neil Gaiman is trying to keep it quiet, not that it isn't true. Unless there's a [[Template:Notable_Wikipedian]] tag missing from the article's talkpage, I suspect you probably mean Neil Gaiman's /fans are/ trying to keep it quiet. Not neilhimself...! The information is difficult to find in reliable sources - most of those are not edited by fans. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Curious Incident of the Fans in the Night
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:29 PM, quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: ... elsewhere. Our rules generally don't say we can't use information unless it has *two* sources; and in this case it's obvious that the reason the information is hard to find is that Neil Gaiman is trying to keep it quiet, not that it isn't true. Unless there's a [[Template:Notable_Wikipedian]] tag missing from the article's talkpage, I suspect you probably mean Neil Gaiman's /fans are/ trying to keep it quiet. Not neilhimself...! quiddity. No, I think he meant Neil. Did you know there's not one single use of the term 'Scientology' on neilgaiman.com or any subdomains? Given his family is Scientologist, he was raised a Scientologist in a major bastion of Scientology, married a Scientologist, and so on, and given that people have been interested in all the foregoing for a long time, and also given that he used to have comments on the website, and *also* given that he is historically very responsive to random questions about just about anything* - the utter silence must be deliberate. Which is as one would expect. * I know this from personal experience: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2004/09/from-mailbag-er-i-won-huck.asp -- gwern ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Curious Incident of the Fans in the Night
2010/1/18 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com: Did you know there's not one single use of the term 'Scientology' on neilgaiman.com or any subdomains? Given his family is Scientologist, he was raised a Scientologist in a major bastion of Scientology, married a Scientologist, and so on, and given that people have been interested in all the foregoing for a long time, and also given that he used to have comments on the website, and *also* given that he is historically very responsive to random questions about just about anything* - the utter silence must be deliberate. Which is as one would expect. This is not uncommon amongst second-generation Scientologists who aren't into it. I am *amazed* he talked about it for the New Yorker. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Curious Incident of the Fans in the Night
2010/1/18 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net: The problem is that Wikipedia policies pretty much encourage editors to filibuster changes they don't like by demanding sources and questioning the sources. This is useful when there's a serious question about whether the information is accurate, but it's also abused when there's no serious question about the information's accuracy and the request for sources is used to block something they want to exclude for other reasons. If someone then provides a valid source anyway, the source just gets repeatedly questioned regardles of whether it follows Wikipedia's sourcing rules. If they want to filibuster the reliability of this source, it speaks of some child being Robert Heinlein's great-grandson ... Heinlein didn't have any children. I wonder where they got that from. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Curious Incident of the Fans in the Night
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:21 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/18 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net: The problem is that Wikipedia policies pretty much encourage editors to filibuster changes they don't like by demanding sources and questioning the sources. This is useful when there's a serious question about whether the information is accurate, but it's also abused when there's no serious question about the information's accuracy and the request for sources is used to block something they want to exclude for other reasons. If someone then provides a valid source anyway, the source just gets repeatedly questioned regardles of whether it follows Wikipedia's sourcing rules. If they want to filibuster the reliability of this source, it speaks of some child being Robert Heinlein's great-grandson ... Heinlein didn't have any children. I wonder where they got that from. - d. After some checking, it seems he really didn't have any offspring. But he had quite a few siblings, so I am going to tentatively assume that http://www.cheryl-morgan.com/?p=7536 is right and what was meant was great-grandnephew. They might've simply asked the kid and gotten that response; I remember when I was that age younger I was none too clear on the whole genealogical tree and who was nephew to whom. But hopefully someone will contact the article writer and get it straightened out. -- gwern ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Curious Incident of the Fans in the Night
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/18 quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: ... elsewhere. Our rules generally don't say we can't use information unless it has *two* sources; and in this case it's obvious that the reason the information is hard to find is that Neil Gaiman is trying to keep it quiet, not that it isn't true. Unless there's a [[Template:Notable_Wikipedian]] tag missing from the article's talkpage, I suspect you probably mean Neil Gaiman's /fans are/ trying to keep it quiet. Not neilhimself...! The information is difficult to find in reliable sources - most of those are not edited by fans. Ahh, Ken was talking about the sources themselves. I was concentrating on the removed from his Wikipedia page by the site’s editors quotation from the article, and completely misunderstood what Ken meant. Apologies. quiddity ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The Curious Incident of the Fans in the Night
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, David Gerard wrote: If they want to filibuster the reliability of this source, it speaks of some child being Robert Heinlein's great-grandson ... Heinlein didn't have any children. I wonder where they got that from. Wikipedia's article on Heinlein nowhere says he didn't have any children. It's generally accepted that he and Virginia didn't have any children, but Virginia was his third wife, and he was married to his second for 15 years. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
