Talk:Watch on the Rhine (novel)

Call for Wiki-Vandalism by author
Be advised that the author of the novel has called for "editing" of the Wikipedia-entry by his fans: http://bar.baen.com/index.php?t=tree&th=91922&start=0& (you have to have an account to log in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbroerm (talk • contribs) 13:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that's certainly interesting, if not unusual (see WP:COI). The forum message reads:
 * "For anyone who does wiki and needs a hobby. I've been having fun there changing this: [article text] to this: [article text]. Some Teutonic fascist who goes by "Sandstein" had, of course, changed it back again and will change my rechange back again.  I will keep screwing with him until I am eventually banned, as I am sure I will be.  Once that happens, I would like others to pick up the banner and continue fucking with him over my prostrate electronic corpse."
 * The message is signed "Tom Kratman". Somehow I'd have expected a novelist with his credentials to express himself more ... circumspectly, but I guess one lives and learns.  Sandstein   20:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding you to my watchlist, just in case things get ugly ;) — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 20:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Sandstein   20:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, "Teutonic fascist". I'm sure you've heard that one before, Herr Sandstein. How do they come up with their insults. I've protected the article for a couple of months: the threat needs to be taken seriously, and this isn't such a high-traffic article that we're depriving the world of an opportunity to edit. That would make me an NSBer, I suppose--and the Francophone, well, should be easy to come up with an insult. Happy editing to all, Drmies (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I resent that, Doctor. I am only one-eighth surrender monkey!  (For the record, I seem to be the only American citizen who's actually aware of France's military strength... "qu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons" - no idle threat.) — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie  (Je vous invite à me parler ) 23:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think your user/talk page gives plenty of opportunity to idiots to call you names. One day I'll tell you a story about a five-pointed bacon star made out of bacon and the state of Israel Also: Frappe frappe...qui est la? Alencon! Alencon qui? (sorry, no accents on my netbook.) Drmies (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Would the accents help Google translate with applying some idiomatic insight?  Tide  rolls  00:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Took me a second to get too, I'm ashamed to admit. "Frappe frappe... qui est là ?" means "Knock knock... who's there?" Alençon is a town in Normandy, but the joke is that "La Marseillaise" (which I was referencing) starts with "Alons enfants de la patrie," which sounds a lot like Alençon... Sigh. To quote Groucho Marx, "You can dissect a joke, but, like a frog, it tends to die on the table." (Now that's a type of Marxism this article could benefit from!) — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 00:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Schnikes, this is too quick a crowd for a middle aged guy from Alabama...  Tide  rolls  00:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Roll Tide, Tide rolls. That's how we roll in Tuscaloosa: with a sharp edge. In Morgan Hall anyway. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the semiprotection, this seems like the best course of action under the circumstances.  Sandstein   08:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer's politics
I have removed several "references" supporting the political orientation of a reviwer. The editor's edit summary noted "identified Dietmar Dath's political stance, which affected his review ". The sources may support the fact of the reviewer's politics, but I don't see then making the point of the reviewer's bias. The politics/bias connection appears to be original research. If someone could point out the connection support, I'd be grateful.  Tide  rolls  16:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and that has also been the reason of reverts of similar material by me. We should only mention the reviewer's politics in the article if we have reliable sources that say that these politics inform his reviews of science fiction; otherwise that connection would be WP:OR.  Sandstein   16:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Tiderolls, the material Sandstein quoted calls the book "Cool retrofascism", and concentrates entirely on what the reviewer, Dath, sees as the political content of the book. When a novel is described as bad because of it's politics, then it seems to me that the reviewer's politics automatically becomes relevant. Let me put it this way: if someone an attack on 'Barack Obama's nonsensical policies', and the author was Karl Rove, wouldn't you consider it relevant to add that "Republican political activist and George W. Bush administration official" in front of Rove's name?Saintonge235 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * has seen fit to reinstate their "sources" with a disingenuous edit summary. I have warned them to self revert or I will be reporting them at WP:ANEW.  Tide  rolls  16:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How do we know in either case lacking sources? You have yet to revert your last edit so you are still editing against consensus.  If you will self-revert and continue discussion here I will withdraw my report for edit warring.  Tide  rolls  19:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I must say, I simply do not understand your reply. "How do we know in either case lacking sources?" I don't know what you're referring to as 'not known' or lacking sources. I find that completely unclear.

Do you really need for me, in this hypothetical example, to provide sources that Karl Rove is a Republican, and that he served in the Bush 43 administration? Or am I supposed to provide sources on what was going on in his head, when he wrote the hypothetical denunciation? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia as an institution believes that political opinions have no influence on political judgment?

As I say, I don't grasp your point. Please try again, in different words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintonge235 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Revert your edit and I will continue this discussion.  Tide  rolls  20:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Saintonge235, I agree that you should revert yourself or risk sanctions for edit-warring. Your example involves a political activist commenting about a political leader. In that case it is self-evident that the activist's political views influence the opinions he voices about the politician. Here, we have a journalist reviewing a science fiction novel. There is no evident link between a journalist's politics and his opinion about SF literature. Even though most reviewers have political opinions, and most SF novels somehow involve politics, we do not routinely label reviewers with their political opinion. To do so would signal to the reader that we, Wikipedia, think that it is important to know the reviewer's politics in order to be able to assess their opinion about a work of literature, and further, by implication, that the review is influenced by the reviewer's political views. That assertion is original research and would need to be backed up by a reliable source in order to be included. No source attesting a link between Dath's politics and his opinion about novels has been cited. If however readers think that it is relevant to know Dath's politics, thay have but to click on the link to his article.  Sandstein   20:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)