Talk:Humberto Fontova/Archive 1

Historian or Polemicist?
The article fails to convey the right-wing tone that is inherent to Fontova's speech and writings; he is far too partisan to be described as an historian, and his degrees are in political science and Latin American studies, not history. His work is consistently polemic in its nature, not "history" at all.

The titles of his recent essays for newsmax.com illustrate this:

Moore 'Sicko' Spin July 30, 2007

Sicko Propaganda July 23, 2007

Hillary Befriended Cuba's First Lady June 22, 2007

Matt Lauer, Andrea Mitchell Shill for Castro June 13, 2007

I'm putting this up for discussion before replacing "historian" with "polemicist." Perhaps someone more neutral than I can think of something more neutral, somewhere between the two terms, or perhaps this issue merits more discussion. Bustter 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree. Wikipedia's own article on Historians notes, "although 'historian' can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is reserved more recently for those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline".
 * I've noted a tendency in wikipedia to denote authors on various historical subjects as historians, which is inaccurate and dangerous. This can lend credence to a POV author, who's work primarily tends to be bias and POV. A trained professional historian understands the importance of NPOV in their work.
 * Perhaps 'polemicist' may be argued (I can personally see it being accurate), but at the very least I would suggest "author of biographies, memoirs, and political subjects " 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the main reason why I haven't been more bold; "polemecist" would very likely be argued. "author of biographies, memoirs, and political subjects" seems appropriate and neutral, with some show of consensus, I'll make the change and close the discussion.Bustter 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The concept that a "historian" is someone who has acquired a degree in the discipline is funded on purely corporatist concepts. Someone who devotes himself to the reasearch and study of History is a historian, regardless of whether he has a degree in History or not. Also, "Latin American studies" includes Latin American History, doesn't it? The fact that his writings are strongly opinionated doesn't disqualify him as a historian. A historian must always choose the facts he finds relevant among many facts. Therefore, the historian's opinion always influences his work. Also, take, for example, Paul Johnson: he states his opinion in his works, but no one would dare say he is not a historian. In fact, he is one of the most prestigious historians in the world. The point is not whether a historian gives his opinion or not, but rather, if he is intelectually honest. If someone wrote a History book and lied in order to makes his views more attractive to readers, he could safely be dismissed as not being a historian. But just giving an opinion is not reason enough to be denied the "historian" status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPPH (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He is clearly a polemicist. His frequent use of profanity and childish insults also points him more towards sophistry than scholarship. His work is not taken seriously in the academic community because he purposely omits all information that fails to conform to his desired narrative. He works backwards by starting with his conclusion = "Che is evil" and then inserts any cherry picked information that will help support this view. Readers should not be left with the impression from this article that he is a serious researcher, it would be an insult to all those that truly investigate for the truth. 137.52.150.162 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Conservative"
In my opinion Fontova is so far to the right that "conservative" is not the correct word to describe him. For example he has openly stated his support for the involvement of Nazi-Germany in the spanish civil war. ("Ustedes los españoles tuvieron la suerte de contar con la ayuda de Hitler y de Mussolini para combatir al comunismo" ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.88.171.35 (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't trust a source like "aporrea", a known platform for chavist propaganda, but either way that statement, assuming it is true, only shows his attitude towards socialist tyranny. Agrofelipe (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fontova has written in support of the dictator Augusto Pinochet and terrorist Luis Posada Carriles. go to the Babalu link in the article and read for yourself. he proudly refers to himself as "right-wing" and dislikes all moderates. 137.52.150.212 (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Should reflect his lack of scholarly credibility
Ive read Fontovas books and find his writing style creatively entertaining. However I feel that the article should accurately convey that he is not a serious scholar but more of a bomb thrower who makes outlandish comparisons for dramatic effect. His favorites are to compare everything he doesn't like to Stalin or Hitler. His works are usually always devoid of any historical context as they would only ruin the dramatic effect he strives for. The article needs to make sure it informs readers that he is more like Bill Maher except on the very far right than any actual historian or credible source for real research. There is nothing wrong with that by the way it just needs to be seen for what it is. 170.170.59.138 (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In your POV. You have made strong statements/charges that may violate WP:BLP.  You have said he is not credible, not a serious scholar, he's a bomb thrower, he's outlandish, dramatic, attacks opponents as Hitler or Stalin, his writings are purposefully devoid of historical context, etc.  Are there any other personal attacks you can fit into such a small space?  Also, you've added in the main article that he is insulting.
 * I suggest you back up what you have said with reliable sources or remove your statements in respect of BLP. If you have a POV to push, push it elsewhere, not Wikipedia. As it stands now, it appears from what you have said and done that you have a serious grudge against the man, and Wikipedia is not the forum for such behavior. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Cuba-related negationist polemics" is not NPOV. How about "books opposing the Cuban government"? Also, why is Fontova linked in the "pseudohistory" category? Seems to me that his criticisms do not fall into the same category as Holocaust denial or that Da Vinci code stuff. Controversial, perhaps, but pseudo, no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fontovas writings are revisionist as even he admits. his argument is that the revisionism is necessary to reveal the truth through what he contends is the leftist mass media and academia. however, since he is not a historian and many times he does not provide sourcing for some extraordinary claims, he could be seen as writing pseudohistory, done in an entertaining style like Hunter Thompson was known for but from the right. as the article points out and as Fontova himself proudly says on his own website. Fontova always proudly refers to himself on Babalu blog as an "intransigent" and "right-winger" and even calls himself "incorrigbly incorrect". go to his website and see. 137.52.150.212 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * IP 80, "pseudohistory" might be a little harsh, but merely "controversial" is probably a little soft. Fontova often reports on unverifiable events whose only source is himself. As someone who has tried to track down sourcing for some of his more "exceptional claims" per WP:Verify, it is frustrating as he'll often send you in a circle by citing his own book, which will then cite his own web essay, which will not have any citations at all. There are also dozens of unsavory quotes that Fontova exclusively attributes to Guevara, which do not appear in any other publication before 2005 when he began writing on the topic (38 years after Che's death). Predictably these quotes are now parroted by an array of writers who dislike Guevara, but their original sourcing always leads back to Fontova, with no original primary source given. Furthermore, most of the mainstream biographies on Che Guevara have been peer reviewed in academic journals by scholars in the field, while Fontova's work has not. This is important because many of Fontova's claims do not appear in any of the other 120 + books on Guevara = (his argument of why this is would be that there has been a conspiracy of silence amongst 90 % of the World's press and publishers) - but Wikipedia per WP:Fringe does not grant Historically revisionist conspiracies the same presumed validity as other sources.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Work as a blogger
Re:IP 137 above, as for the "lack of scholarly" reputation, that would need specific references and have to be listed as an opinion. However, out of curiousity, I went through his archive as a blogger and found that Fontova has done all of the following: posted pictures of a dead Guevara coupled with the offer that we ---> "celebrate the picture above!",  made fun of Che's daughter Aleida Guevara for being overweight by saying that she ---> "oinks" instead of speaks,   uploaded a t-shirt with President Barack Obama's face morphed as Guevara with the title ---> "I’ve Chenged" ,   posted an execution photo of Guevara with the description ---> "Murdering, Cowardly, Bumbling Swine" ,   referred to himself as a ---> "raving crackpot" in relation to his work with the "No Che Day" campaign - held on what he describes as "the glorious anniversary of Che's whacking",   referred to the day Guevara was killed as ---> "a GLORIOUS Anniversary!!" ,   and lamented that it was --->  "Too bad Cuba had a Batista instead of a Pinochet in 1958" - who in his words (with relation to Pinochet's suppression of opposition) "managed the messy business with (only) 3,000 dead" - which is ironically about 2,800 more deaths than the anti-Che Free Society Project even attributes to Guevara. Now whether this is the typical behavior of a "scholar" - I guess is in the eye of the beholder, but it could possibly be worth mentioning (if sourced) how his "over the top presentation" doesn't conform to the usual expectation of a historical writer – (which I think the article already does in a way). Red thoreau -- (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

IP 80 edits & edit warring
80.175.206.225 & NoMoreMemoryHoles (same person) – I wanted to utilize the article’s talk page to hopefully try and explain to you why your barrage of recent revisions, edit warring and decorum are problematic. Now I realize that since you are a 2 day old “Wikipedian” and WP:SPA with regards to this article that you may not be interested in wider Wiki policy, but the project still demands that we follow certain guidelines. (1) To begin your WP:SOAPBOXing on your edit summaries, where you go against the WP:AGF policy and decree that the article is full of "flagrant Left-wing bias", "policed by those who hate Fontova" and "pwned by Socialist ideologues"; while also denouncing the talk page as a "Left-wing echo chamber" – is not helpful. Moreover, when you factor in that you have also violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by telling me to "Get a life!" – it becomes hard for me to presume that are interested in any sort of collaborative effort per WP:Consensus. (2) Nevertheless, I want to take this opportunity to explain the rationale behind my reverts of you in the hopes that we might end the gridlock and edit warring. In your recent barrage of edits you have several violations of wiki policy. (a) Your embedding of "useful idiot" as the link to "pro-communist" violates interlinking policy. (b) Your description of Fontova’s book as "a damning critique" is WP:OR and inadmissible. It is also important to remember that we are not interested in WP:TRUTH, but WP:VERIFY. (c) Your entire passage that "Perhaps predictably, Fontova's work has been disdained by Left-leaning writers and endorsed by conservative writers. However, Fontova's critics tend to take issue with the rhetorical effectiveness of his gung-ho style, rather than disputing the claims he makes or rejecting the evidence he adduces." is all WP:OR and inadmissible. Per WP:VERIFY you would need to cite a WP:RELIABLE source that makes this claim. (d) Your remark that Fontova "provides grounds for his low view of Guevara by extensively citing Guevara's own words" where you then pick out two Che quotes as the rationale for why Fontova finds him "shallow", "boorish", "epically stupid"… etc" is also WP:OR. (e) Your deletion of Casey’s reference and remark in the lead (leading the entire passage an unreferenced description by yourself) is against policy because that was one of the sources used to make some of the leads assertions. (f) You simply including ref’s for his entire books without page numbers is also not very helpful and could go against WP:SPS & WP:SELFPUB. The article is supposed to primarily catalogue what others say about Fontova, not how he self-describes himself or his work. - Now I hope that you will address these concerns and not simply continue to WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR over these issues. Thanks. Red thoreau -- (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for condescending to enlighten me. The fact that you've been using Wikipedia for (no doubt) many years and that I am new to it seems to lead you to believe that you own the page. ....And the appallingly patronising tone you take speaks clearly of your personal contempt for me. Not helpful to you, no doubt, but clearly true --- no input which dissents from your own view has been allowed on this page. How can one assume good faith in such circumstances, particularly when any attempt at redress is simply undone by you? And as for WP:SOAPBOXing, that's a case of pot & kettle! Until my edits, there was absolutely no counterbalancing conservative critique in this entry. You have kept this page as your own personal attack on Fontova, in clear violation of WP:NPOV. Moreover, there was scant detail on the substance of Fontova's writing, and absolutely no mention of Fontova's charges against Guevara (just the carefully-crafted impression that Fontova is a mindless "bomb thrower"): the book on Castro has its own entry, but not the one on Guevara --- and yet this is the one dealt with in the reviews! And so to those reviews.... The reviews section (I'm sure I should say your reviews section) contained no criticism of the actual burden of his books. You merely found a Left-leaning (Guardian, NYT, Slate, Salon, etc.) travel writer who had slated Fontova's book largely on stylistic grounds and stuck that up there in pride of place. The precis of the other guy's review was just another comment on Fontova's style, and reads as though it's been cherry-picked (since I don't have a copy myself, I have no way of knowing what else he said). :...And to illustrate clearly where you're coming from, my first attempt to include a conservative review was simply eradicated by you. And is your reading of Wikipedia's policy such that it is good and proper to dedicate half a sentence to the subject matter of someone's book, then follow it with two large paragraphs slating it?! ...Without even summarising the charges laid out in the book?! The article was just how you liked it: no discussion of the main matter or claims of Fontova's book about Guevara, but instead only hostile criticism of his style of prose. In short, THE PAGE IS A HATCHET-JOB, cobbled together largely by you, masquerading as a serious academic critique. You've striven to destroy Fontova's standing, whilst speaking loftily about Wikipedia's ethics. That is plain abuse of Wikipedia --- and when I tried to redress this, why, you declared war... Oh good grief! Draw it mild! I did not eradicate all of your efforts, as you did mine when I first posted my contributions --- until I persisted with them and you began to relent. That's why I told you to "Get a life". I'm all ears. (a) No. Go and read the entry: "Useful Idiot" is a term which is and has for years been used to describe Westerners sympathetic to Communist regimes. And again, it's hypocrisy to complain about violating Wikipedia policy when you have been using the page as a vehicle for your views for so long. (b) Of course it's damning! Whether one agrees with it or not, Fontova's book is (as you are at pains to point out) damningly critical of Guevara. He condemns him in the strongest possible terms: whether you agree with his condemnation or not doesn't alter the fact that it is still condemnation. (c) But it's merely a prefatory remark about the reviews that you yourself had chosen to put up! Your own choices of review merely bear out what I've written! If you disagree with my synopsis, then the onus probandi is upon you to produce a list of critical reviews wherein Fontova's allegations are materially contested --- the two reviews you put up take issue overridingly with Fontova's style, and not with the substance of his book (which, curiously enough, you appear very keen to keep out of the article). There is a clear ideological divide in opinions on Fontova's work: just read the notices they receive --- the Left hate him, and conservatives love him. (d) Those were merely a couple of examples relating to one epithet (namely the most serious: "murdering swine") --- as I'm sure you must have known. ...Now, there are similar quotes in Fontova's output to show why he might call Guevara "shallow" "boorish", etc. --- perhaps you'd like me to support these by detailing the latter's views on say, blacks or homosexuals here --- but somehow, having witnessed your modus operandi, I doubt you'd want Che's dirty laundry featuring anywhere in your article. (e) Entire passage? You really stand by that? Go and read it: the "entire passage" is partly your work and partly mine. You seem to think that nobody has a right to alter your sacred text; that if they do, then somehow the "entire passage" is theirs! It's tainted; they might as well have written it all! And what "assertions" exactly are we talking about here? Put Casey's quote with Casey's review, where it obviously belongs --- and if you refuse to do that, then put a counterbalancing quote from a favourable review in the lead. “Not very helpful"?! "Could"?! Perhaps you could explain why refusing to include the relevant publication information about his work would be more helpful?! If you're worried about WP:SPS & WP:SELFPUB, then put the links to his books in a separate bibliography section. As for the article being supposed to "catalogue what others say about Fontova", why have you worked so assiduously to suppress the conservative view? Your activity is in clear violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and yet you presume to lecture anyone who edits what you clearly regard as being your page. You declared war, when you simply erased everything I'd written: you drew the battle-lines. If anybody has elected to do this the hard way, it is surely you. 80.175.206.225 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * IP 80, I do not believe that I WP:OWN the page, and I am not "eradicating" your additions wholesale. In fact, if you analyze the current edition of the article I have preserved many of your additions, including - your designation that his profanity was "mild" that Potts was a "travel" author, removal of the "pseudohistory" category, moved Casey’s lead comment down to the review section per your wish, and retained all of your "counterbalancing conservative critique" by Singleton. The only reason why an overtly "conservative" voice was not already present in the review section is that I had not previously found one (and apparently no other editor had either). We can only include information in proportion to its existence – the essence of WP:UNDUE policy. Thus, it is important to remember that per Wiki policy everything is not proportionally split down the middle with "two sides" - especially if a point of view is WP:Fringe or only held by a small minority. However, if equal number of praise and criticism exists in WP:RELIABLE sources then it should be included. As for the Fidel book having its own subsection, that was because someone merged it as a stand alone stub into this article. As for the reviews, it seems like only the Che book is ever really commonly reviewed. However, of course if you can locate sources which review Fontova’s other books then please include them. As for Potts being "left-leaning" if you can locate a reliable source and not violate WP:UNDUE for that allegation then please include it. But simply using your own view based on what publications he wrote for is WP:OR. As for "useful idiot" I am aware of the term, but that’ still doesn’t mean that you can have someone click on "pro-communist" and have it go to that page. Hypothetically, lets say that someone thought that "pro-capitalists" were all "reactionary morons", that still doesn’t mean you could have "pro-capitalism" link to that insult. This is policy and not even up for debate. Moreover, it is WP:OR for you to denote the book "damning", which carries with it a non-neutral connotation. Now a word like "critical" would be appropriate, but we as editors are not supposed to make judgments on the merits – we are only hear to echo those sources that we find. As for reviews that deal with the accuracy of Fontova’s allegations, they should obviously be included if or when they exist. --- Now I hope you will review the article before just reverting everything again.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You did eradicate my initial edit wholesale --- no comment, nothing. Just gone.  Remember, you declared war here.


 * Fontova's profanity is no more noticeable than many similar commentators on both left and right --- your mention of it in so prominent a position merely speaks of your desire to blacken the man as a vulgar lunatic. It's hardly relevant.  If you're talking about his novels, then I would point out that in these post-Lady Chatterley days, profanity in literature is normal and unremarkable.  You are singling him out when he is in this respect unexceptional.


 * Rolf Potts calls himself a "travel" writer --- go and read his website. His bio says he's "A veteran travel columnist for the likes of Salon.com".  It's hardly controversial, yet you deleted it several times.  ...But then a control-freak will typically refuse to countenance even trivial edits.


 * As for your removal of the "pseudohistory" category, it took endless edits for you to finally admit that Fontova's writing is not pseudohistory --- he has taken pains to back up his claims about the likes of Guevara (using, for example, Guevara's own remarks, such as those you removed from the article).


 * You say, "The only reason why an overtly "conservative" voice was not already present in the review section is that I had not previously found one (and apparently no other editor had either)."


 * You doubtless didn't bother looking for one (And why would you? You'd already decided editorial policy for this article.) --- I found the online review I included in a few moments' Googling.  You (or any "other editor") could've easily done the same, had you wished.


 * The term "useful idiot" is a well-established term, and has long described pro-communist Westerners --- it is a term commonly found in dictionaries and even has its own Wikipedia entry, for Heaven's sake! The BBC (hardly a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy) even acknowledges this. "Reactionary moron" is your own phrase.  When there's a Wikipedia entry which links it to, say, free-market advocates in Socialist countries, then yes, by all means include it.


 * You clearly do believe you own the page --- your minor concessions are merely lip-service to the idea of neutrality. Your kangaroo court of Leftists has decided what is "conservative" and what is "fringe" --- you ignore the fact that Fontova has been a regular contributor to many mainstream conservative programmes --- and since you clearly don't like what Fontova is saying, you ensure that the page paints him as a moron.  Not only have you removed the vast majority of my edits, but you even have messed around with what I've written on this page, disconnecting it from the specific comments to which I was replying.  It was perfectly clear, and now it is one ugly monolithic lump.  You call yourself an editor --- haven't you heard of paragraphs?


 * You own this. You won't let anyone alter it substantively, lest it depart from the picture you wish to paint.  Perhaps most telling is your assiduous avoidance of any synopsis of the evidence Fontova adduces --- particularly your removal of Guevara's own self-damning remarks --- in order to make Fontova's accusations appear groundless.  And as for your "other editors", who knows whether they are anyone other than your chums?  (Such, alas, is the nature of Wikipedia.)  The way the article reads, it could have been put together by the Cuban government --- indeed, for all one knows, you could be in the pay of the Dirección de Inteligencia... 80.175.206.225 (talk) 13:16, 06 July 2011 (UTC)


 * IP 80, I certainly never "declared war" here, nor have I said anything disparaging about you or impugned your motives or identity – despite the fact that you continue to attack me personally and make unfounded accusations against me in violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Even now you have called me a "control freak", accused me of belonging to an imaginary "kangaroo court of Leftists" and even implied that perhaps I work for the Cuban government intelligence services or edit the page with my "chums". It is thus becoming appallingly clear that it will be nearly impossible to collaborate with you in any kind of meaningful way. As to a few of your accusations or arguments: (1) Fontova’s use of profanity is not unusual for writers in general – but is somewhat for historical-esque writers. I have not found many academic historians that go around describing their figures of study as “sniveling jackasses” etc. His barrage of polemical insults (whether justified or not) is not typical of a historical writer and is closer to someone like Ann Coulter on the right or Bill Maher on the left – both entertaining and irreverent – but not exactly neutral sources for your high school history textbook.  (2) I never added that Fontova was a “pseudo historian”; in fact if you look up the talk page you will see that I first mentioned to an ip editor that it might be unwarranted.  (3) As for your "googling" of Alex Singleton to a somewhat obscure blog – he did not come up in any sort of basic google search before with regards to Fontova. Now obviously he writes in London, the same place where you are editing from, and so perhaps you were more familiar with his work. If I wanted to display the same sort of paranoia and bad faith that you have cast against me - I would accuse you of being him personally and thus adding material about yourself against policy, but I am not going to do that.  (4) "Useful idiot" is a notable term, but per wiki interlinking policy it can only be hyperlinked to the term “useful idiot”(s). Not used in a despairingly way and linked to “pro-communists”, which does not redirect to that page.  (5) To your accusation that I "ignore the fact that Fontova has been a regular contributor to many mainstream conservative programmes", it is simply untrue. Nearly every one of the links at the bottom of the current page to his many archives was added by me personally. I have no problem with leading readers to his work and letting them judge the merits of it on their own.  (6) As for your “lump” reply to me, per talk page policy they are to be in their own indented paragraph, not interspersed throughout my writing.  (7) Lastly, as to your accusation that I avoid any synopsis of Guevara’s remarks, this is also baseless. What you have attempted to do is make WP:OR additions by placing your own opinion and rationale as for why Fontova calls Guevara certain epithets. I personally own both of Fontova’s political works and have read them both. However, it would not be my place either to try and dissect his writings as you have. --- All of this above is the policy of Wikipedia and yes the “nature” of how we function. If you find this politically stifling – then perhaps you should take a stab at Conservapedia (ironically ---> their Che entry relies almost exclusively on Fontova) or get your own blog where you can enlighten the world as to the wisdom of Fontova’s claims through your own interpretations of them. As for me, despite your unfounded belief, I have edited over 3,000 different wiki articles - so this particular entry is not my sole concern/obsession (i.e. WP:SPA) as it is for you.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

possibly temporary removal
I just removed a line that has been the subject of some contention here, hoping that we can get to consensus before putting it back in. Because at least some of the claims are arguably negative, we need to evaluate them carefully.

In my view, it would be better to quote Casey directly, and also to give the reader some context about who Casey is. Wikipedia has several people by the name Michael Casey, and none of them seem to be the author of this book. If the book is a non-notable book by a non-notable author who spends a single page or two discussing Fontova, my feeling about including his perspective in the lede is much different from the situation of a notable author writing a notable book exclusively about Fontova's ideas. We need to be careful per WP:UNDUE about cherry picking criticisms from obscure sources. (I'm not saying Casey is an obscure source, I'm just saying we should discuss it here.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Publish works section
In correspondence with the subject of this biography, he pointed out a problem, as follows:

"Published works" shows:

2.1 Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant 2.2 Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him

But those are only two of his four books. Oddly, we then go on to mention his books "The Helldivers Rodeo" and "The Hellpig Hunt,"-- but not among published works?

Seems like an easy fix, no?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * An easy fix yes, but not by including two more sections. Published works, or just Works, is normally a straightforward list with the usual details of the publications, including the clickable ISBN. Summaries, reviews and so forth about some or all of the books is provided in a separate section. The article now has 'Writing career' and 'Works'. The point is to provide a full list in one place, so as not to overwhelm the author's less well-known or less notable works. 76.192.43.111 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)