Talk:John Fare

message: This is still pretty bad, but I have taken a crack at making it more encyclopedic. It's clear this is a work of fiction that has taken on a life of its own as an urban legend among those who want to believe it's true. Jokestress (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Major rewrite

message: This appears to be Jokestress' first review of the John Fare story.  He makes the assumption that it is an urban myth, which it may well be, but offers no proof. To me, that's a a bad going in position without researching the facts, considering it was a major edit.  In cleaning up my previous edits, which was an attempt to add information around the embellished Craig version vs. the original Shein version that I bothered to find, some of the comparisons have been conveniently left out. Deliberate or accidental (i.e. did not research to pick the correct option) is hardly 'encyclopedic' as Jokestress wants this article to be.  If you're trying to prove the story is an urban myth, deleting facts is not the way to do it, you are, in fact, contributing to the myth. Sadly most of the efforts around trying to prove or dis-prove the Fare story have been around the Craig version. One key point left in by Jokestress is his link to Danny Devos site as one that has the Shein original. It is my blog, http://cyberneticzoo.com/?p=6348 that had the pdf of the original, not Devos. Further, the Devos Link shows the early attempt to contact Isaac Gallery to confirm the performance date of 17 Sep 1968. All performances were on Fridays. My removed notes mention this. The Insect Trust Gazette only had 3 issues published. The published date of the article was in the 1968 issue. The 17 Sep 1968 is not a Friday, but a Tuesday. This is a bad mis-calculation by Craig by attributing the article publish date as being the year of the performance. An understandable mistake, but one which some tried to verify but without success, because the date should have been 1965 for Sep 17 to fall on a Friday. So most likely the editor's of ITG have had Shein's article since 1965 before publishing it in 1968. Issue 2 of ITG was published in the Summer of 65, so the article was not available for Issue 2.  I'll leave it at that. As I live in Australia its a little difficult for me to research further.  Any further research should be on the original article, not Craigs', as Criags' is the source for the whole mess and confusion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karakuri (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My changes are not an attempt to prove anything. I am merely summarizing the reliable sources and removing the original research, some of which was added by you. Articles need to be sourced to books, news articles, and academic papers, not blogs. We can't use your blog as a source, and you shouldn't be adding your own blog anyway, as it is a conflict of interest. It is the consensus of published works that this person is a fictional character. Our article needs to make that clear. I left the external link to your site in place because I agree it seems useful. Jokestress (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Jokestress' clean-up 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Fare. 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/20110721021153/http://www.artlies.org/article.php?id=1586&issue=57&s=0 to http://www.artlies.org/article.php?id=1586&issue=57&s=0
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) 17:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified