Talk:Tom Kratman

message: Apparently I am too stupid to figure out how to edit the text displayed after a reference for references 2 and 3.  Can somebody help me out here and tell me how to insert custom text in a reference so it shows the text I want instead of just the reference number?Scout1067 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference formatting 

message: If we are going to refer to his nomination for a Hugo why do we not also include allegation of vote rigging? This was a major accusation surrounding the sad puppies affair.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They are the only three, and none of them saw him win.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Which is why I said merge (but with the sad puppies rather then the Hugos) over at the AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination

message: We really need some sources for his biography.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: background

message: We nor have two sources making claims about the vote hacking, one mentions (explicitly Kratnmans publisher). Also we now have this [], which refers to his participation in the sad puppies campaign.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  sad puppies 

message: Glyer's review counts as a self-published source so WP:SPS applies:
"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." 
Mike Glyer is easily an "established expert on the subject matter" but I'm not aware of publications with traditional outfits that would meet the second part of the sentence. So, sadly, I don't think we can include his review, even though it would greatly enrich the article. I'd say policy is overly strict here and should be changed but for now it is what it is. Haukur (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Glyer's review of Big Boys Don't Cry 

message: I think I'm basically done here, for now at least. I think the present article is decent. If someone wanted to expand it I think the main avenues would be a) by adding more in the way of plot summaries of Kratman's works, b) maybe some relevant comments Kratman has made in interviews and such (with discernment, under WP:ABOUTSELF), c) it would be possible to add a more information on specific right-wing themes in Kratman's works. Nicholson discusses this at length. d) Maybe something more on Kratman's short fiction. He had a story in that Freehold anthology. Let's see, Tangent comments on it at some length. Actually, maybe I'll add that now after all.
The known sources are mostly exploited already. There is a fanzine review in the list at User:Haukurth/sandbox5 which would be a dicey source under current policy. The Harriet Klausner review from allscifi.com would be easier to justify. This wasn't the most prestigious site but it did have an editorial policy of sorts and some standards, especially for its "scholars" like Klausner. I noticed that the review is listed in Something about the Author which strengthens the case under WP:USEBYOTHERS.
If someone wanted to, some of Kratman's books could be spun out for separate articles – WP:NBOOK is rather forgiving and we have the sources already. Haukur (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible future work