Talk:Richard K. Morgan/Archive 1

Studying Economics?
The article had this quote (apparently dispute if Morgan was studying economics):


 * Spoke to Richard on Saturday at Eastercon (15/04/06) in Glasgow. His wife and not Richard is doing the Economics Course.  According to him. 

I've removed the disputed line and this comment. Nloth 03:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

ISBN and other stuff...
I changed the "Thirteen" ISBN was for isbn europe (American title..hah) and didn't search right for most searches including isbndb.com. Fixed.

2nd I added a 'see also' wiki heading. And mentioned the philip k. dick awards. I am probably not the first to point out that ANCHORS suck rocks - in wikipedia/media-wiki. It says you can either use the auto-heading ( == MyCustomHeading == ), or create:  <- Something like that. At any rate I tried to get it to point to the year 2003 (year he won for Altered.) And this is tough as it is a "Table" and can't use headings.. Urggg. Oh well, the anchor is there, still doesn't work (I edited Philip_k_Dick) to no avail.....They ,ave have "div id's" off on here?????

Brady M. Shea 06:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it. I used a span tag rather than a div, since we didn't need a new block-level thing and enclosed the title rather than place it after, so that the title wasn't off the screen when you go to the anchor. I've also adjusted the link on this article accordingly. -- Jon Dowland 13:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:mchanoff 6 August 2008

I wanted to change a sentence a bit and add a citation: Morgan's third, and he has stated "probably the last{http://www.richardkmorgan.com/woken_furies.htm}, Kovacs novel Woken Furies was released in the UK in March 2005 and in the U.S. in September 2005.

however, this is the first time I've tried to alter anything on wikipedia and I'm not sure how to add the citation so that it reads correctly. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchanoff (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Untitled
Do you have a source for that quote? Ninebelow 17:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was in an interview, which I read on http://www.saxonbullock.com/richardmorganinterview.htm. --Shimbo 09:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Market Forces could be a prequel to the other three novels (there are many references to Mars in MF, for example, and Shorn Investments is mentioned in Woken Furies). This is completly hypothetical on my part as far as I know, but the possibility's there. Ewan 14:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought everyone believed Market Forces was a prequel? It really is quite obvious in my opinion. --86.2.153.77 15:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that at one point the protagonist describes reading 'Altered Carbon' it seems far from obvious to me. Shimbo 20:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Way, WAY too many co-incidences. --86.2.153.77 01:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * here's richard morgan on the subject http://www.nightshadebooks.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=1308&post=60910#POST60910 --Death to poets 14:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems quite clear to me that there is a general continuity in the books, which sets the Kovacs novels in the same 'universe' as both 'Market Forces' and 'Black Man/Thirteen'. The reference to the protagonist in arket forces reading Altered Carbon is there, true, but I think almost as a knowing aside, a sort of in-joke. 82.211.95.178 (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it can be seen that way. Unfortunately the author himself disagrees.  IMO the author may have started writing Black Man with the idea that it was a prequel to the Kovacs novels (there are hints e.g. the Bancroft family is mentioned, one character talks about how 'soon' it will be possible to upload your memories to avoid death) but then decided that it constrained him too much.  That is pure speculation on my part though.  Also, apparently the date that the Martian relics were discovered in the Kovacs novels is before the date Black Man/Thirteen is set.  Market Forces was first written long before the Kovacs novels (although published after) and IMO there's no deliberate connection. --Shimbo (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Publication dates
Is the month of publication really important? Do we have to say "Black Man ... was released in May 2007 in the UK and June 2007 in the USA" - wouldn't it be perfectly adequate to simply say "Black Man ... was released in 2007"?? Likewise, "The Steel Remains ... was first in August 2008". I don't think the specific month of publication adds anything to he article, and it just makes it longer to read each sentence. Stroller (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

New Dark Defiles Date
The link giving the release date for The Dark Defiles now has the release date in April 2014, so I've updated the year accordingly. 96.253.117.130 (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

page not found
the fst reference link http://www.saxonbullock.com/richardmorganinterview.htm gives a "page not found" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.204.114.64 (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard K. Morgan. 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/20090804051247/http://www.yourmomsbasement.com/archives/2005/08/interview_with_2.html to http://www.yourmomsbasement.com/archives/2005/08/interview_with_2.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Title
I know this isn't covered by the letter of Article titles, but would it not be in accordance with the spirit of that policy to have *Richard K. Morgan* redirect to *Richard Morgan (author)* and not the other way round (as is at the moment the case), given that he's a British writer and according to the leader he's only "known as Richard K. Morgan in the U.S." (and indeed in my experience his books published in the UK don't use the middle initial)? --Droigheann (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Puff Pieces Only?
I love Morgan and his writing, as you can tell from my username, but are we supposed to only ever write good things about a person we like, and completely ignore anything negative even when the evidence is staring at us in the face? That's not the impression I got when I read the policy. The edit didn't even say Morgan is being transphobic. The edit pointed to a tweet by Morgan, which supports Rowling's earlier tweet, which is considered transphobic by the transgender community, and stated that it's considered transphobic by the transgender community. If that's not neutrality, I truly don't know what is. Is a person making a public statement not considered a credible source? Is pointing out that a person behaved badly considered libelous? Is just pointed out that some people considered a person behaved badly considered libelous?
 * What you have posted is Original Research. If you want to discuss this "scandal," you need a source calling Morgan's actions scandalous.    Joel Why? (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And everyone except me just dismissed it as vandalism without any investigation, because you boys don't have a trans daughter like I do and thus can't care less?
 * No, it should never have been deleted as vandalism - it wasn't vandalism. It was original research. Nothing personal, this is the same rule that applies to all Wiki pages, especially BLPs.    Joel Why? (talk)
 * Judging by the history, it had been dismissed as vandalism multiple times. I can see that there's a legit troll somewhere in there, but even then that should not be a reason to dismiss it as part of the trolling, especially since they seem to came from different sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarnval Kovacs (talk • contribs) 14:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the scandal section a few times, including the initial deletion, under vandalism because the initial creation of it was part of the massive vandalism of the article and subsequently it was never correctly addressed. I would certainly characterize the continuous addition of original research, something which is not permitted, as vandalism. If this is scandalous and merits inclusion in this article I am certain their are sources to demonstrate as such. Theinternetman2 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The key policy here is Biographies of living persons. Any info in an article about a living person has to be in accord with that policy or Wikipedia could face legal trouble. Have a read of that policy and consider if/how you can include the info you want to include whilst being in compliance with it. BTW, I'm not questioning your good faith and similarly you should not question other editor's good faith. --Shimbo (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

He's booted off Mastodon for the exact reason of being a transphobe. Mastodon is the biggest "microblog" apart from Twitter. If this isn't authoritative enough for you, then nothing will ever be.

https://www.richardkmorgan.com/2020/03/the-elephant-in-the-room-2-i-show-you-how-deep-the-rabbit-hole-goes/

Right, you care so much that whenever someone even mention that he might b a TERF it's immediately removed as vandalism,but when someone offers proof it sits for months without any response. Such caring, much good faith, very impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarnval Kovacs (talk • contribs) 12:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I provided a source that directly called Richard a TERF, and yet it was removed for not being "neutral". What is neutral, then? Only the people you like? And again, all you're gonna do is censor and silence, never your own research? And you expect me to believe you're doing it in good faith?

Richard: *says TERF things*

Trans people: *say he is a TERF*

Other people: *say he is a TERF*

Mast: *ban him for being TERF*

You, the Free Transphobia: "We're neutral and thus consider all of the above evidence to be invalid." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarnval Kovacs (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You, the Free Encyclopedia: "I read this quote from an interview, it is usable."

Also You, the Free Transphobia: "He said he hates trans people, he was banned from a social network for it, but I'm not gonna call him out because I'm also transphobic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarnval Kovacs (talk • contribs) 14:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Altered Carbon: Resleeved and Altered Carbon: Download Blues
These two titles are included at the bottom of the Literary career section, but sources need to be added to show that he was personally involved in these. It seems to me that they are Netflix productions? Did he write them or did Netflix just use the Takeshi Kovach character he wrote?

Xavdeman (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * He wrote Download Blues. That's a graphic novel, and he's credited as the writer. For Resleeved, that is a Netflix anime film. He is credited as one of the writers on IMDB, but then it says "(based on the novel by)". I'm guessing that means he didn't write the screenplay, but I can't say that for certain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)